F1 Fanatic

106 comments on 30 years ago: Villeneuve’s last and best F1 win

1. 

   Bernard (@bernard) said on 21st June 2011, 14:17

   It was a remarkable win – and one that would have been utterly impossible had his rivals had DRS.

   This is an outcome I’m not so certain of. The cars 3 decades ago had much less downforce (and therefore a much smaller wake) than today plus as pointed out in the article there was significant straight line performance differences between cars thanks to the turbo engine. In all likelihood this would have rendered any rival DRS ineffective against him.

   Besides, to gain as much from DRS then as we do now, the cars of the early 80s would probably have to remove both front and rear wings almost entirely as their drag relative to today is much less to begin with.

   DRS is not a guaranteed pass, it is a levelling device to counter the enormous wake of the car ahead.

   There are also other variables to keep in mind during every pass: engines and mapping (not forgetting EBDs), gear ratios, fuel, balance, mechanical and aero setup, KERS, driver input and – most notably this year – the tyres.

   If all the above are equal between the cars in question then DRS will aid overtaking – as intended. If the above are not equal, overtaking will be increasing easier or increasing more difficult – DRS or no DRS.

   Reply
   • 

     Sasquatsch said on 27th June 2011, 11:59

     Cars in these days had more downforce because of the ground-effect, regardless of the wake. Some cars even didn’t have wings, because the whole car was behaving like a wing.

     Reply
2. 

   Don M. said on 21st June 2011, 14:48

   It is possible that DRS would have no affect if there was a race like Spain ’81 this season. If there had been cars queued behind Hamilton at Barcelona they would all be using DRS and unable to pass each other. DRS is ineffective in a train of cars if the first car that can deploy it is unable to complete an overtake.

   There was a situation in Turkey where Button was badly held-up by Massa because the Ferrari was able to use DRS but couldn’t pass the car (Rosberg?) in front. They sorted it out eventually but, in that case, overtaking took place despite DRS rather than with the aid of it.

   So DRS can be ineffective as well as being unsubtle and unfair. It also robs us of some genuine racing – Button was perfectly positioned to attack Schumacher into the hairpin in Montreal, but clearly waited for the easy pass with DRS on the following straight. That’s bad for racing and so is making sitting ducks out of drivers, like Kobayashi, who have gained good track position in inferior cars.

   Hopefully DRS can be consigned to history very soon. The FIA should remove the need for it by tackling the overtaking problem properly. The Pirelli tyres have already improved the situation. A few aerodynamic tweeks would complete the job.

   Reply
3. 

   Ads21 (@ads21) said on 21st June 2011, 15:36

   Regardless of the DRS argument (I happen to agree with Keith) we should never need an excuse to celebrate how brilliant Gilles Villeneuve was. This race was an absolutely remarkable demonstration of defensive driving and is a reminder that Villeneuve wasn’t only about power-slides and driving around on 3 wheels, he was the best driver of his generation.

   Reply
4. 

   Kershan said on 21st June 2011, 15:37

   It’s because of articles like this that we love you, Keith …

   Reply
5. 

   hohum said on 21st June 2011, 15:44

   Keith, do we have the statistics on the 1981 Ferrari ie. Max rpm, horse power, fuel capacity. I think it would be interesting to compare the engine of 1981 with the proposed engine of 2013 so we can see the technical advances in 32 years of F1.

   Reply
   • 

     Tim said on 21st June 2011, 16:27

     Wikipedia says (and this sounds about right) 600bhp in qualifying trim, 550bhp for races. By contrast, the best Cosworth DFV would have produced around 520bhp at the time.

     RPM would have been much lower than modern racing engines.

     Reply
     • 

       hohum said on 21st June 2011, 16:53

       Thanks Tim, as you may have noticed this is a hobbyhorse of mine. So in 2013 we expect to have a similar engine 100cc more capacity (1.6 l) and 50 more horses in race trim. What fantastic progress in only 32 years!
       Ferrari can start the 2013 season with this engine just by using modern materials, compressed air valve springs and direct injection, no need to design and build whole new engine.

       Reply
     • 

       JimN (@jimn) said on 21st June 2011, 19:33

       All engines at the time maxed out at about 12,000 rpm. The limitation was valve springs, and one firm made them for all F1 engines. There was a small variation between the makes of engines because of differing valve size but not much. From memory the Matra engine reved the most but only a few hundred rpm more than the DFV or Ferrari.

       Reply
       • 

         hohum said on 21st June 2011, 21:24

         Thanks JimN I figured valve springs to be one of the limiters to rpm and reliability and since the new rule includes a 12,000 rpm limit modern compressed air valve actuation that works over 20,000 rpm should provide great reliability at 12k. I say again, a new head casting to allow compressed air valve springing and direct fuel injection a small overbore to take cylinders from 375 to 400 cc. one of the latest off the shelf turbochargers and voila a max power 2013 spec. F1 engine. Sort of like the V8s in Nascar.

         Reply
         • 

           hohum said on 21st June 2011, 22:56

           Decided to do some research myself and came up with 2 important facts. 1. this was a V6 so unless Whitmarsh gets his way it wont be in spec. for 2013. and 2; by 1983 was developing 700hp. Will try to find specs. for Renault Turbo.
         • 

           hohum said on 21st June 2011, 23:17

           Renault was V6 also, allright that means we have to use the BMW M12 4 cylinder engine to power our 2013 F1 car but the good news is it was putting out 1,000 hp. in race trim in 1986 and max revs were only 11,200 so all it needs is a little de-tuning for 2013.
6. 

   pH said on 21st June 2011, 16:01

   Check out the grid. Five different cars in the first six places. When was the last time we had a variety like this?

   And I had four of these five cars built from paper as a kid :-).

   Reply
   • 

     hohum said on 21st June 2011, 16:55

     probably the last time we had engines with different power characteristics.

     Reply
   • 

     Tom said on 21st June 2011, 18:22

     Five different cars in the first six places?

     Canada 2011

     Reply
     • 

       pH said on 21st June 2011, 23:23

       Probably a misunderstanding, when I wrote “grid”, I meant the starting grid, not the GP standings. There were only four teams starting in top 6 in Canada.

       Curiously, there were always four teams in top 6 on the grid this year. Theoretically there can be between three and six. The six seems very unlikely to me, and five quite rare, since two of the holy triumvirate RB-McL-F would have to screw up. However, I would expect that in seven tries they would get it perfect at east once and we would have all top positions occupied by these three teams.

       If Vettel clinches the title before summer break, we may start worrying about making it four throughout the whole season to put some suspense into the rest of it :-).

       Reply
       • 

         Tim said on 22nd June 2011, 8:38

         It happens more often than you think. There were five different cars in the top six places on the grid in Malaysia and Monaco last year.

         In Japan, drivers from six different teams qualified in the top seven – Red Bull, Renault, Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes and Williams.

         Reply
7. 

   Tom said on 21st June 2011, 18:07

   Why should a victory of 30 years ago be possible today? F1 is not about the past. Nostalgia is a disease.

   Reply
   • 

     hohum said on 21st June 2011, 18:24

     Whats that quote about history and being doomed to repeat it. Good luck Tom, you are going to need it.

     Reply
     • 

       Tom said on 21st June 2011, 18:33

       But it seems like Keith just wants to repeat the 1981 season over and over.

       Reply
       • 

         hohum said on 21st June 2011, 18:59

         Don’t worry, they had fewer races then.Soon we will be onto 82

         Reply
8. 

   alelanza (@alelanza) said on 21st June 2011, 21:24

   Thanks for the article, loved the red caddy referrence. However the Villeneuve legend has always escaped me, as much as i think he was a very good driver and one who would do wacky things such as driving around in Canada in miserable rain with his front wing blocking most of his vision, or trying to get back to the pits with a destroyed rear suspension, i don’t think he would be held in such high esteem had he not died. And i think this article is proof of this.
   During the dfv to turbo overlap years, it was very common to see the Ferrari or Renault trains, these cars were usually heavier, also needed more fuel and usually didn’t have a chassis as good as the williamses, brabhams or even the ligiers. Yet they were significantly more powerful so the trains (usually boring IMO) were very common and more often than not robbed us from watching duels between the better cars just because of the buffer created by the slow going crude turbos.

   So what set this one apart from all the other boring trains? the turbo in front didn’t break down as they usualy did!
   And particularly important to the Jarama race, the NA engines would lose a significant amount of performance (600+ m over sea level) whereas the turbos could be tuned to compensate for the pressure deficit.

   Did i think it was a great race? absolutely, i liked it very much, as someone here said i think F1 is all about the anticipation, not so much about having passing maneuvers left and right. Do i think Gilles’ skills had to do with it? of course, he was driving the thing and he did quite well to hold it together. But looking at the race in the telly (and i rewatched the whole thing earlier this year) i don’t think it was that impressive a drive. I think the Villeneuve train came ages before the Trulli one did (just resurrect and then ask James Hunt!), Jarama was just one of many, except this time the engine didn’t give up the ghost :)

   Reply
   • 

     hohum said on 21st June 2011, 21:32

     Yes but don’t forget the times the NA cars passed the turbos exiting the corner because they had better low end torque and a more linear power curve, or the times the turbos spun out because of their on-off power delivery. Variety is the spice of life. Viva la difference.

     Reply
     • 

       alelanza (@alelanza) said on 21st June 2011, 22:09

       Hmmm… i don’t remember too many of those, actually i don’t. During race starts yeah, the Renaults especially suffered badly, not so much the Ferraris. Actually i remember what you describe in Long Beach, but i also remember the Ferrari repassing on the same straight once the turbo had kicked in. Which made for a very fun race :) so yeah i agree, variety is good :)

       Reply
9. 

   Steve said on 22nd June 2011, 1:48

   you know what the problem with the pro-drs argument is?

   they believe that a faster car has a ‘right’ to be ahead of the slower one.

   ‘button was 2 seconds faster than schumacher at montreal’, so what, schumacher had driven a better race, not made any mistakes & had driven himself into 2nd position. if button hadn’t driven into hamilton & alonso & had to make 6 stops he never would have ended up behind schumacher to start with.

   like someone said last week, just because a car is faster doesnt mean it has the right to be ahead.

   something i would point out is that it looks as if drs is becomming less popular as the season goes on, you only have to read the comments on james allens blog and many other f1 fan forums to see this.

   i started off without an opinion on drs as i wanted to see it in action before making a judgement on its effect. after 7 races im fairmly against it to the point where its starting to harm my enjoyment of races.

   im hoping fan opinion continues to turn against drs so we can drop it for 2012 & get back to proper racing!

   Reply
   • 

     Robbie said on 22nd June 2011, 14:20

     I’m not a fan of the gadget that is DRS and would prefer they go back to smaller wings and bigger tires such as they had in the 70′s and 80′s.

     That said, while as you claim a faster car doesn’t necessarily have the ‘right’ to be ahead of a slower one, it is also ridiculous for a faster car to be held up by dirty air of a slower car to the point where it can never get by due to that physics and nothing to do with driver skill or nerve or lack thereof.

     MS had a good day but he hasn’t been brilliant since his return to F1, and nor was he brilliant in Montreal…he benefitted from the luck of timing of tires and of cars falling out of his way in front of him as much as driver skill, and a race such a this with mega safety cars and stoppages and changeable conditions became as much a crap shoot as anything. ie. not one to be claiming MS is back…Same for JB really…like you point out, there’s a lot of ifs, ands, or buts about this race with JB too.

     MS only eventually got to 2nd position by at one point using DRS himself to get by NH. Fair enough, that was the circumstances of the day. He used it to his advantage just as MW and JB did. I think what has highlighted this particular day was the huge variables, the final 10 laps of finally having dry racing albeit on one racing line only, and the fact that many people’s hero MS (not mine though) might have podiumed after a dismal return to F1.

     Reality is MS and the Merc aren’t good enough to belong on the podium and to have done so would have been due to circumstances, not because suddenly the Merc belongs there or that MS has found his way. It made more sense to me to see two Red Bulls and a Mac on the podium even though I would rather no DRS, which would have seen circumstances differently and MS not likely looking at a potential podium.

     As I said I am no MS fan and it would be interesting to me if his fans would be happy with the only way for him to podium being due to the extreme circumstances of Montreal. I’m sure had it happened some headlines would read ‘MS is back’ but I’d be the one saying ‘you sure about that?’

     Bottom line for me, I’d prefer no DRS, and I acknowledge that at some tracks it has been less effective than at others, and one must be careful not to look in hindsight and see how it ‘ruined’ a race near the end, when it was one of the very things responsible for the order of the cars once the race came to it’s closing stages.

     Reply
10. 

    AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner) said on 22nd June 2011, 7:45

    A great read :) We wouldn’t have had JB’s victory in Canada had it not have been for DRS.

    Swings and roundabouts ;)

    Reply
    • 

      Steve said on 22nd June 2011, 10:11

      but we would have had a brilliant scrap for 2nd between schumacher, webber and button for the final laps (with perhaps a real & exciting pass happening) which would have been 10x more exciting to watch than the easy drs push of a button passes we got.

      also let us not forget that kobayashi was basically robbed of 6th place because massa was able to use drs down the finish straght. he was as defenceless as schumacher was to defend against massa once massa hit his drs button.

      Reply
      • 

        Robbie said on 22nd June 2011, 16:42

        Having never been an MS fan and for years having to watch the deck stacked in his favour at Ferrari and against the rest of the grid, I thoroughly enjoyed seeing MS defenceless for a change. Not that I am a fan of DRS, but I am an even lesser fan of MS, so to me the scrap for 2nd WAS brilliant…MS getting a taste of his own medicine if you’d like after years of us being robbed of true racing in the pinnacle of racing when the dominant MS/Ferrari’s did not race each other, by contract.

        Again, MS was only in 2nd not because the Merc belongs there, and not because MS has shown himself to belong there since his return, but because of a topsy turvy race and because he himself used DRS earlier in the race. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

        As I say, I would prefer no DRS too, and if that were the case MS would not have been in 2nd with 10 laps to go in Montreal.

        Reply
11. 

    StefMeister said on 22nd June 2011, 10:23

    One of the things I hate about DRS is how it often takes away the excitement and unpredictability of the racing.

    In Montreal for instance with the Schumi/Webber/Button fight for 2nd, As soon as Webber got into the DRS zone the 1st time & you saw just how big a speed gain DRS gave him, It was obvious Schumi wasn’t going to finish 2nd.

    It took away a lot of the excitement & unpredictability of that fight as it made the outcome predictable.

    I actually found the fights for the win at the Spanish/Monaco GP’s more exciting because DRS was ineffective on those circuits so we had a real fight for the win (And other places through the races) with no idea what the outcome would be.

    Reply
    • 

      Robbie said on 22nd June 2011, 14:29

      Not a fan of gadgets either, but faster cars stuck behind slower ones for lap ad infinitum takes away from the excitement and unpredictability too. How many races have we had where the outcome was predictable due to a faster car stuck behind a slower one due to physics?

      I understand why they introduced DRS…because they wanted to get away from the parade effect, and from the majority of passing being done through pit strategies ala the MS/Ferrari era.

      I would just prefer they get away from the parade effect without gadgets…give em back their big fat slicks and limit their wings I say…then we’ll see passing of the mechanical grip type and by the seat of the drivers’ pants, not by DRS.

      Reply

Add your comment Cancel this reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail