Zolder, 8th of May 1982...
Discussion
Believe me, they looked silly and wasteful at the time. The fact that his career was cut short made those wasted opportunities seem even more profligate.
Don't get me wrong, watching Villenueve drive was great fun. At least he allowed you to get passionate about what we were watching - whether you thought he was making the most of his F1 career or squandering it.
I'd love to have the same level of passion for the current crop of clones.
But maybe that's an age thing too
Don't get me wrong, watching Villenueve drive was great fun. At least he allowed you to get passionate about what we were watching - whether you thought he was making the most of his F1 career or squandering it.
I'd love to have the same level of passion for the current crop of clones.
But maybe that's an age thing too
Jacques Laffite said:
"No human being can do miracles, you know, but Gilles made you wonder..."
Says it all for me.
I was very young but was around when he was racing. He may never have been a top Grand Prix driver but he has to have been in the top 3 the greatest racers ever to grace the sport.
Jungles said:
He was foolishly reckless, but there can be no doubt in my mind that he strove to inject that impossible 1% extra into what was already 100%. I really can't think of any driver who has truly done that - not even Senna...
Hmm, don't know. I think Senna also made a career of finding that extra 1% - remember the famous "fly very high" quote? Remember Monaco where he crashed out trying to lap ever faster, despite being a minute ahead of Prost in 2nd place (and that wasn't simply out of his obsession with beating Prost)? Remember the wet Monaco 1984 in his first season having started 13th?
Although I'll now admit I was one year old when GV met his end, I think in many ways they are comparable, Senna was just more 'refined' than Villeneuve. Senna wanted to win every race just as much as Villeneve, but Senna wanted everything else as well - he's on record somewhere as saying he hungered for every race win, every fastest lap, every championship. The difference between the two is that Senna saw beyond the end of each race.
GV may have been the most entertaining driver to have graced F1, but I'm not sure you could say the fastest; I think there are too many contenders for that 'crown' for it to go to anyone actually.
Gilles was great to watch, and obviously quick, certainly great to watch, but the best ever? Not even close
Senna was a league apart, from Gilles and anyone before or since.
My original hero was Ronnie Peterson (who to my mind was better than GV)and subsequently Senna
29 years this year since Ronnie died needlessly in some two bo hospital
13 years ago last week since Ayrton
Senna was a league apart, from Gilles and anyone before or since.
My original hero was Ronnie Peterson (who to my mind was better than GV)and subsequently Senna
29 years this year since Ronnie died needlessly in some two bo hospital
13 years ago last week since Ayrton
Eric Mc said:
Adoration of Villeneuve does, to me, smack of the James Dean syndrome. Would people lionise him so much if he hadn't died?
I was a keen F1 follower during his heyday (1979 to 1982) and there is no doubt he was truly exciting to watch - but also extremely frustrating. Time after time he seemed to blow opportunities to win races which just used to annoy me. However, one must place him in the context of his times. By todays standards he would have been classified a lunatic driver. At that time, he was just slightly more extreme than some of his contemporaries.
When he crashed and died, I wasn't altogether surprised as he never knew when to back off and play the percentages. With time he may have learned to drive within himself a bit more - but time was something he wasn't to have.
I was a keen F1 follower during his heyday (1979 to 1982) and there is no doubt he was truly exciting to watch - but also extremely frustrating. Time after time he seemed to blow opportunities to win races which just used to annoy me. However, one must place him in the context of his times. By todays standards he would have been classified a lunatic driver. At that time, he was just slightly more extreme than some of his contemporaries.
When he crashed and died, I wasn't altogether surprised as he never knew when to back off and play the percentages. With time he may have learned to drive within himself a bit more - but time was something he wasn't to have.
OK, Eric, I'll rise to the bait.
GV first appeared on my radar in '76, Trois Rivieres. I was at Silverstone for his Grand Prix debut. I was at Imola in 1983 when Patrick Tambay was under unbelievable pressure to win the race that had been stolen from his friend - the atmosphere around the track amongst the tifosi was something I never expect to experience again. For them it was, uniquely, about "Por Gilles" rather than their beloved red cars.
Whilst the legend has grown, he was lionised at the time, and by people who really knew him - Roebuck, Alan jones, even Il Commendatore (Prost was sacked for describing his Ferrari as a tractor; Gilles described his as a sh*tbox and Ferrari just smiled wryly).
He was frustrating, but only if you didn't understand his philosophy. He had no interest in championships and points - in boxing you don't become champion by consistently finishing second, and GV had the same view of motor racing. He was a pure-bred racer, and the only thing that matters to a true racer is winning. And if you can't win, at least finish ahead of every car you can. As such, he never backed off, and if the car couldn't keep up, so be it. He was only ever going to be World Champion if the car held together long enough for him to win most of the races.
That he had the ability, and did it without ever resorting to dirty tricks, made him a sportsman of passion and honour - to some of us those are the only qualities that define what it means to be a sportsman, or even a hero. GV filled the gap being vacated by Ronnie (and before him Clark and Rindt), and only JPM has come anywhere near filling the void. For a certain group, slightly older than me, those are the names that define the last forty years of the sport.
If you go back to the period Autosports, you'll find the same argument was running. Those interested in championships and money considered him an irrelevance. But the true racers already worshipped him. It's your attitude that defines what you think of Gilles. Me? I'm just happy that I actually saw the last great racer in action.
Can't disagree with that summation to be honest.
But I would still advise youngsters of today who missed out on seeing him in action at the time to delve into those older race reports to get a feel for what was being actually said about him back then.
By the way, I am a big fan of Nigel Roebuck and have learnt a lot about Villeneuve as a person from reading his articles.
But I would still advise youngsters of today who missed out on seeing him in action at the time to delve into those older race reports to get a feel for what was being actually said about him back then.
By the way, I am a big fan of Nigel Roebuck and have learnt a lot about Villeneuve as a person from reading his articles.
HiRich said:
Eric Mc said:
Adoration of Villeneuve does, to me, smack of the James Dean syndrome. Would people lionise him so much if he hadn't died?
I was a keen F1 follower during his heyday (1979 to 1982) and there is no doubt he was truly exciting to watch - but also extremely frustrating. Time after time he seemed to blow opportunities to win races which just used to annoy me. However, one must place him in the context of his times. By todays standards he would have been classified a lunatic driver. At that time, he was just slightly more extreme than some of his contemporaries.
When he crashed and died, I wasn't altogether surprised as he never knew when to back off and play the percentages. With time he may have learned to drive within himself a bit more - but time was something he wasn't to have.
I was a keen F1 follower during his heyday (1979 to 1982) and there is no doubt he was truly exciting to watch - but also extremely frustrating. Time after time he seemed to blow opportunities to win races which just used to annoy me. However, one must place him in the context of his times. By todays standards he would have been classified a lunatic driver. At that time, he was just slightly more extreme than some of his contemporaries.
When he crashed and died, I wasn't altogether surprised as he never knew when to back off and play the percentages. With time he may have learned to drive within himself a bit more - but time was something he wasn't to have.
OK, Eric, I'll rise to the bait.
GV first appeared on my radar in '76, Trois Rivieres. I was at Silverstone for his Grand Prix debut. I was at Imola in 1983 when Patrick Tambay was under unbelievable pressure to win the race that had been stolen from his friend - the atmosphere around the track amongst the tifosi was something I never expect to experience again. For them it was, uniquely, about "Por Gilles" rather than their beloved red cars.
Whilst the legend has grown, he was lionised at the time, and by people who really knew him - Roebuck, Alan jones, even Il Commendatore (Prost was sacked for describing his Ferrari as a tractor; Gilles described his as a sh*tbox and Ferrari just smiled wryly).
He was frustrating, but only if you didn't understand his philosophy. He had no interest in championships and points - in boxing you don't become champion by consistently finishing second, and GV had the same view of motor racing. He was a pure-bred racer, and the only thing that matters to a true racer is winning. And if you can't win, at least finish ahead of every car you can. As such, he never backed off, and if the car couldn't keep up, so be it. He was only ever going to be World Champion if the car held together long enough for him to win most of the races.
That he had the ability, and did it without ever resorting to dirty tricks, made him a sportsman of passion and honour - to some of us those are the only qualities that define what it means to be a sportsman, or even a hero. GV filled the gap being vacated by Ronnie (and before him Clark and Rindt), and only JPM has come anywhere near filling the void. For a certain group, slightly older than me, those are the names that define the last forty years of the sport.
If you go back to the period Autosports, you'll find the same argument was running. Those interested in championships and money considered him an irrelevance. But the true racers already worshipped him. It's your attitude that defines what you think of Gilles. Me? I'm just happy that I actually saw the last great racer in action.
But there is still an element of passion in what you have said, which blinds the facts- for example, you mention that:
"...even Il Commendatore (Prost was sacked for describing his Ferrari as a tractor; Gilles described his as a sh*tbox and Ferrari just smiled wryly)....."
which implies that GV have a secial relationship with Ferrari that Prosts didnt. Well, Prost only drove for Ferrari AFTER Ferraris death, so he could'nt have been fired by him..
But that's not a good story, and does'nt show GV in the best light. Would GV be allowed to race ion F1 today? Wouyld we think of him as a Sato- making crazy overtaking opportunities and generally getting in everyones way? Would GV be better in Touring cars?
Maybe today's F1 cars are less tolerant of cack handed driving?
In Villeneuve's day, the cars could be flung around with a lot more abandon than today's machines. That lovely photo at the top of this thread shows what you could get away with in 1981. If a modern F1 car was that out of shape, it would be in the car park before you knew it.
In Villeneuve's day, the cars could be flung around with a lot more abandon than today's machines. That lovely photo at the top of this thread shows what you could get away with in 1981. If a modern F1 car was that out of shape, it would be in the car park before you knew it.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff