Williams: Hill vs Frentzen

[Mark]

Looking back many years now. Many said in 1996 that Frank Williams was totally crazy to sack the world championship leader (who of course went on to become world champion) in favour of Frentzen, who then went on to flounder in the Williams.

But at the time Frentzen was touted as being 'faster than Schumacher'.

[PolePosition_1]

Looking back many years now. Many said in 1996 that Frank Williams was totally crazy to sack the world championship leader (who of course went on to become world champion) in favour of Frentzen, who then went on to flounder in the Williams.

But at the time Frentzen was touted as being 'faster than Schumacher'.

The way Williams treated Damon Hill back then was very poor. I like and have so much respect for Williams, but it took me a while before I re-found my respect for them.

[Mark]

The way Williams treated Damon Hill back then was very poor. I like and have so much respect for Williams, but it took me a while before I re-found my respect for them.

I found it quite interesting that during the Hungarian Grand Prix Damon said that he wanted the Williams team to do well. He obviously still holds affection for the team despite them treating him the way they did.

I have to say, personally, I still don't like Williams, and that goes all the way back to 1996!

[ArrowsFA1]

Sir Frank has since admitted Williams got that one wrong, but the decision to replace him with Frentzen was made long before Damon won his title.

[V12]

I admit that now Williams would probably be my "favourite team" (if I had one), because of the no-nonsense way they go about their business etc.

But like the post above, it took me a long time to get over the way they dumped Hill for Frentzen, which was a lot for an unashamedly patrotic 13 year old boy to handle at the time. It probably wasn't until the hiring of Button and the subsequent years with Montoya (who I was also a fan of despite not being British) that I re-found any affection for them.

Looking back, on the face of it ditching Hill for Frentzen was a mistake given their relative performances in '96 and '97. But then even I (albeit as a slightly more mature 16 year old) couldn't deny that Frentzen destroyed Damon when they were teammates at Jordan in '99, although in all truth Damon was probably well past his peak by then, while Frentzen was probably AT his peak.

Looking back 12 years ahead and TRYING to be as impartial as possible, I still however think it was a mistake. Given that Ferrari were still a few of years of gelling and technical evolution away from the "superteam", and that Villeneuve and Frentzen spent most of the summer of '97 trying in every way possible to gift Schumacher the title, I think Damon's experience (both with the team and in general) would have been enough to bring the '97 title home comfortably.

It is also widely believed that Williams' treatment of Hill was a big factor in Adrian Newey's decision to leave. To be honest I don't know if that was 100% true but let's assume it was for a second. That equals a more competitive 1998 Williams, and a less competitive 1998 McLaren, with Ferrari about the same. Assuming Renault were going anyway, it would still have left Williams a much more competitive propsition in '98 and '99 than they were.

And who knows, maybe if Williams had dominated 1997, rather than scraping the title at the death, maybe Renault could have been persuaded to stay, I personally doubt it (I vaguely remember something about having nothing left to prove with Williams, which to be fair was true) but you never know...

[Rollo]

Sir Frank had to sack Hill for the simple reason that successful drivers demand a higher paycheque, and that is something which he simple can not abide with.

Between 1987 and 1997 Williams let go of Piquet, Mansell, Prost, Hill and Villeneuve and had Senna won the title in 1994, they probably would have let him go as well. Or to put that in perspective, Williams let go of drivers who had between them won 10 World Drivers Championships, the very season after they drove for them.

Something strange forbids Sir Frank from letting drivers defend their title with his cars... (ignoring Jones and Rosberg).

[V12]

Sir Frank had to sack Hill for the simple reason that successful drivers demand a higher paycheque, and that is something which he simple can not abide with.

Between 1987 and 1997 Williams let go of Piquet, Mansell, Prost, Hill and Villeneuve and had Senna won the title in 1994, they probably would have let him go as well. Or to put that in perspective, Williams let go of drivers who had between them won 10 World Drivers Championships, the very season after they drove for them.

Something strange forbids Sir Frank from letting drivers defend their title with his cars... (ignoring Jones and Rosberg).

Good point....I guess a telling fact is that Villeneuve in 1998 was the first Williams driver with #1 on the car since Rosberg in '83. Although to be fair Prost retired rather than being dumped (or did Senna's imminent arrival push him out?)

[ioan]

I never liked Williams, nor McLaren for that matter, to much arrogance to my liking.
Williams and Head always treated their drivers badly, for no apparent reason.

[PolePosition_1]

I never liked Williams, nor McLaren for that matter, to much arrogance to my liking.
Williams and Head always treated their drivers badly, for no apparent reason.


Dunno, I've got impression your a Ferrari fan, presumably you dislike them because they've been to 2 main teams to beat Ferrari consistantly or challenge them over past 15 years (making exception of Renault/Bennetton).

What you think of Renault?

In what ways do Williams treat their drivers badly? I'm not disagreeing, but just want you to explain yourself a bit more :)

[ChrisS]

Sir Frank had to sack Hill for the simple reason that successful drivers demand a higher paycheque, and that is something which he simple can not abide with.

Between 1987 and 1997 Williams let go of Piquet, Mansell, Prost, Hill and Villeneuve and had Senna won the title in 1994, they probably would have let him go as well. Or to put that in perspective, Williams let go of drivers who had between them won 10 World Drivers Championships, the very season after they drove for them.

Something strange forbids Sir Frank from letting drivers defend their title with his cars... (ignoring Jones and Rosberg).

Well things aren't exactly like that. Most of them jumped ship, they weren't pushed.

In 1988 Piquet left Williams after they lost their Honda engines supply to join Lotus, who had Honda engines.
In 1994 Prost choose to retire with 1 year left in his Williams contract than have Senna as his team mate again.
In 1996 I agree with you that Hill was let go because he wanted more than what Williams was willing to give.
In 1998 Villeneuve remained with the team and left in 1999 to join BAR that was co-owned by his friend and manager, Craig Pollock.

1993 was more complicated. Prost had signed with Williams for 1993 since the beginning of the 1992 season, Williams had made an offer to Mansell but he was not happy Williams signed Prost without him knowing and feared a repeat of their stay together at Ferrari. Senna offered to race for free so Williams withdrew their offer to Mansell (who wanted a lot of money) and tried to find a way to put Senna in their car (something that was not allowed by a clause in Prost's contract). Unable to get Senna they made a late offer to Mansell but by then he decided to retire by F1 and move to CART

[ioan]

Dunno, I've got impression your a Ferrari fan, presumably you dislike them because they've been to 2 main teams to beat Ferrari consistantly or challenge them over past 15 years (making exception of Renault/Bennetton).

What you think of Renault?

In what ways do Williams treat their drivers badly? I'm not disagreeing, but just want you to explain yourself a bit more :)

I've found Renault to be a genuinely humble team, Alonso being the notable exception, but he's also maturing now.

Williams have reached the point when they can't afford any arrogance anymore. Nor changing drivers like if they were underwear.
Let's remember that Williams always believed that it's all about engineering and drivers were way less important as long as they have the best car, to the point of having Head decide what set-up the drivers should run, even if the drivers didn't agree!
Sacking their drivers while in the hunt for the title, was something that I could hardly believe, and I was no Damon Hill fan.

As for McLaren, their arrogance has always been there, with "we could and should have won, if it wasn't for....", or with their claims of equality between drivers after what happened in Oz 1998!
And all this reached the highest level with their cheating and lying last season, and incredible show of arrogance.

[ArrowsFA1]

I've found Renault to be a genuinely humble team...
Briatore could hardly be described as humble :laugh: but generally I agree, particularly where Pat Symonds is concerned. He's been with this team since the Toleman F2 days in 1980 and is one of the 'good guys'.

What you think of Renault?

Fellow 'Grandees', and therefore much respected.

Now, those pesky 'Garagistas' on the other hand, with their inability to build an engine.....

[Valve Bounce]

It is ironical that one of the highest, if not the highest paid driver Frank ever put in his tanks was Ralfie.

In 1996 I agree with you that Hill was let go because he wanted more than what Williams was willing to give.

I think there was more to it than that.

Hill, as a World champion, could understandably ask for a high retainer, and indeed got one at Arrows.

But when it was announced that he was been dropped, it was in late August 1996 and he wasn't a World Champion at that point.

Moreover, his 'rookie' team-mate was pretty much equal with him and over at Ferrari Schumacher was performing minor miracles with a dog of a car and so highlighting to the world that, in terms of value for money, Williams were maybe not going to get the bang-for-their-buck if they retained Hill on a big salary.

Besides which, the 1995 season had, to all intents and purposes, seen Hill throw away a very good opportunity to win a title.

1995 should have been Williams year, given that Benetton had to come up with a chassis to work with the Renault engine at short notice whereas Williams had 6 years collaboration with the Regie to help them. Williams produced a car that was strong enough to win races from the start of the year to the end, so there was nothing inherently wrong with the chassis they produced....which leaves the driver as the weakest link.

Frentzen had been a stable-mate of Schumacher in the early days of the Mercedes junior programme, and was rated by Jochen Mass (I think it was Mass) as actually quicker. It turns out, of course, that he wasn't....and that Mass has since said that he had been saying that Frentzen was better at working to find the quickest set-up, not neccesarily the same as being the quickest driver.

Frentzen also had a difficult time with inter-team relationships.......he quit the Mercedes programme to do F3000....at the time it maybe didn't look like he was a mercurial type, but hindsight can reveal that this was the first showings of a characteristic which continued in fits and starts all the way to his Audi DTM experience.......or at least it transpired that he needed a more cosseted team atmosphere than Williams, notoriously poor in that department, in which to shine. Sauber & Jordan were better equipped than Williams to extract the best from a shrinking violet/emotionally charged (delete according to taste) driver.

With hindsight, it's probably fair to say that Williams didn't do their homework that well, as they perhaps should have seen that Frentzen only blossomed in a certain type of non-Williams environment.

Williams have long been of the attitude that the drivers job is to perform since he is been paid to perform, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that approach. After all, the very best (Prost, Senna) and the very strong-willed (Jones, Rosberg, Mansell) will do exactly that.

But that approach doesn't always work, and sometimes there has to be more accommodation given to extract the best out of a particular character.

However, hindsight wasn't available in 1996, so while it's correct to say that Williams made the wrong call, there were very legitimate reasons for making the call in that glorious summer.

It's also perhaps worth adding that Prost & Senna were both on very big retainers for their Williams contracts. I don't have a link, but memory says they were the highest paid drivers on the grid.

Williams would pay top bucks if they thought it represented best value.

[wedge]

I remember HHF saying he didn't like the atmosphere at Williams, found it too cold for his liking.

Ironic how Frank Williams has said he regrets not treating Carlos Reutimann more differently they could've won the 1981 WDC.

[futuretiger9]

I remember HHF saying he didn't like the atmosphere at Williams, found it too cold for his liking.

Ironic how Frank Williams has said he regrets not treating Carlos Reutimann more differently they could've won the 1981 WDC.

I have always had mixed feeling about the Williams policy on drivers. A little pragmatism could certainly have helped Reutemann in '81.

As for the Hill v Frentzen debate, I think Frank just felt that Damon was reaching his own personal summit, and would never be as good again. Frentzen, who was flavour of the month, seemed like a logical choice, and in any event the team already had Villeneuve as insurance.

[F1boat]

I think that it was horrible. Hill was a very good driver and IMO the results showed that this was a dreadful mistake.

[PolePosition_1]

As for McLaren, their arrogance has always been there, with "we could and should have won, if it wasn't for....", or with their claims of equality between drivers after what happened in Oz 1998!


Thats slightly harsh considering it was a drivers agreement. The team didn't enforce that, and provided both drivers with an equal chance of winning the race.

[Garry Walker]

Hill made a mess of 1995 season and DC often outperformed him.
So the decision by Frank Williams was expected. The only problem was that HHF was mentally weak and couldn`t handle the type of treatment Frank and Patrick Head dished out and did not perform as he was really able to perform.

Something that Senna also commented on before his death (the cold attitude by frank), although, of course, he and some other drivers were able to deal with it.

[Roamy]

Well whether the decision was right or wrong depends on the pay Hill demanded and what was paid to HHF. Hill was very lucky to win his title in 1996. I think Hill was quite good at car development and it would have been nice to see Hill with Williams in 1998. However subsequent history shows that JV was also able to develop cars quite well. While being a JV fan I did expect a better showing from HHF. The real truth of the matter is that the 1997 Ferrari was not the dog everyone wants to claim it was. Williams had problems due to the JV patrick head fight where ultimately JV was correct. Head was too old school and technology passed him by like a peugot diesel passing a bus at a nuremburg old track test. But since Renault bailed out at the end of 97 Williams has been doomed. Too bad Supertech was not able to become the next cosworth.

[jens]

I agree with tamburello's elaborate post. Hindsight is everything, but I think back then, especially in 1995, Frentzen seemed to be performing better than Hill considering their machineries.

I would also add one more thought. If Hill had stayed at Williams, then ironically this could have cost Williams 1997 WDC with drivers having a close battle in the WDC by "taking points away" and diminishing each other's chances for the crown.

[futuretiger9]

Hill made a mess of 1995 season and DC often outperformed him.
So the decision by Frank Williams was expected. The only problem was that HHF was mentally weak and couldn`t handle the type of treatment Frank and Patrick Head dished out and did not perform as he was really able to perform.

Something that Senna also commented on before his death (the cold attitude by frank), although, of course, he and some other drivers were able to deal with it.

You make a good point about Damon's level of performance relative to DC. The Scotsman had a run of poles and good results. Given that Frank and Patrick were thought to be unconvinced of DC's ultimate potential, this may have sown the seeds of doubt in their minds concerning Damon.

Bump! thx !

[El Sween]

And who knows, maybe if Williams had dominated 1997, rather than scraping the title at the death, maybe Renault could have been persuaded to stay, I personally doubt it (I vaguely remember something about having nothing left to prove with Williams, which to be fair was true) but you never know...

The decision by Renault to leave F1 at the end of 1997 was made back in April 1996.

[wedge]

Having watched the 1994 Australian GP highlights I find it perculiar Murray Walker alluded to contractual disagreements at that stage of the year between Hill and Williams. Hopefully someone with a better memory can go a bit more into detail.

I remember watching a BBC documentary in 1981 about Williams.

There was a scene in the motorhome when Alan Jones, the current World Champion, said to Patrick Head that the car was too stiff and was shaking him about.

Now, in 1981 all cars were like that due to the Ground-Effect set-ups, but Frank Williams butted in with the terse remark -

"You can always sit on your wallet"

Jones, being an archetypal no-nonsense Aussie, didn't rise to the bait and ignored the remark, but I was struck at the time by how cold, unhelpful and unsupportive Williams was to the matter-of-fact statement of a World Champion.

With an attitude like that, no wonder somebody of Frentzen's personality never shone.

Now, it's up for debate that a driver should be tough enough to handle a less than warm relationshp with a team boss, but in my view a failure by a team boss to recognise the type of characters who will not react positively to such situations is a real weakness too.

[N. Jones]

Looking back many years now. Many said in 1996 that Frank Williams was totally crazy to sack the world championship leader (who of course went on to become world champion) in favour of Frentzen, who then went on to flounder in the Williams.

But at the time Frentzen was touted as being 'faster than Schumacher'.

I believe Frank has stated that he wished he would have kept Hill, but we all know the saying about hind-sight!

[jens]

It has been mentioned here a lot of times that the personalities of Frank Williams and Frentzen really didn't fit together. Considering Frank's experience by then, he should have known, which driver personalities do perform in his team and which wouldn't, yet for some reason it's interesting that Frank had been quite interested in Heinz-Harald already from the early phase of the German's F1 career. On the other hand - man, who qualified 5th already on his Grand Prix debut, and continued performing well from there on, must have been on everyone's radar right from the beginning.

Wasn't HHF a candidate to become Williams' second driver already after Senna's death with the main obstacle being that HHF had an existing contract with Sauber? After that, Frentzen was rumoured to become Williams driver already for 1996, but finally it was decided to give Hill one more chance... So in hindsight I'd say that at worst case scenario Hill may not have got that chance to become a 1996 World Champion at all, so getting sacked after the win wasn't such a bad ending.

Although that Williams stint didn't turn out well for Frentzen, I think he was worth giving a chance in a top team. Nowadays people debate, how unthinkable it was for Williams to give a drive to an underperforming driver, but if it didn't happen, we would debate the other way around: Why a driver, who constantly shone in midfield, was never given a proper shot? So you see, it can be argued both ways...

[woody2goody]

It has been mentioned here a lot of times that the personalities of Frank Williams and Frentzen really didn't fit together. Considering Frank's experience by then, he should have known, which driver personalities do perform in his team and which wouldn't, yet for some reason it's interesting that Frank had been quite interested in Heinz-Harald already from the early phase of the German's F1 career. On the other hand - man, who qualified 5th already on his Grand Prix debut, and continued performing well from there on, must have been on everyone's radar right from the beginning.

Wasn't HHF a candidate to become Williams' second driver already after Senna's death with the main obstacle being that HHF had an existing contract with Sauber? After that, Frentzen was rumoured to become Williams driver already for 1996, but finally it was decided to give Hill one more chance... So in hindsight I'd say that at worst case scenario Hill may not have got that chance to become a 1996 World Champion at all, so getting sacked after the win wasn't such a bad ending.

Although that Williams stint didn't turn out well for Frentzen, I think he was worth giving a chance in a top team. Nowadays people debate, how unthinkable it was for Williams to give a drive to an underperforming driver, but if it didn't happen, we would debate the other way around: Why a driver, who constantly shone in midfield, was never given a proper shot? So you see, it can be argued both ways...

Sadly that happened with Fisichella. I still for the life of me don't know why. I know the Renault didn't suit his style, but it was a missed opportunity for him. I still think he will shine with slick tyres this year. It's how he came to prominence in the first place - same with Trulli and Rubinho.

[Valve Bounce]

The way Williams treated Damon Hill back then was very poor. I like and have so much respect for Williams, but it took me a while before I re-found my respect for them.

Same here. :(

[V12]

I do think it's interesting how the likes of Frentzen, Fisi etc. always seemed to outperform their machinery when in midfield cars, but never quite had "it" when given the opportunity in a title-winning car.

Like it or not (and I didn't!), Frentzen did easily outperform Hill in the 1999 Jordan, albeit a 39 year old, past-his-peak and arguably lost-his-motivation Hill. Just a year earlier, Hill scored more points (topped off with a sweet last-corner-of-the-season overtaking move) than Frentzen, in a Jordan that probably on balance of the year was at best equal a proposition to the 98 Williams (the Jordan was probably a better car towards the end of the year but the Williams was easily quicker in the first half of '98)

I wonder how Fisi would have stacked up against Alonso in a 2002-03 Jordan or 2004 Sauber, as opposed to their stint as Renault teammates?

[ArrowsFA1]

Having watched the 1994 Australian GP highlights I find it perculiar Murray Walker alluded to contractual disagreements at that stage of the year between Hill and Williams. Hopefully someone with a better memory can go a bit more into detail.
IIRC correctly a certain N. Mansell was a factor.

As we know, following Senna's death, Hill assumed leadership of the Williams team and Coulthard was brought into the second seat. Having had the biggest names in the sport at the time, Prost and Senna, race for them the combination of Hill & Coulthard was met with disappointment in some quarters, particularly Renault.

At the same time it was clear that Mansell, who had of course left Williams having won the title with them, had become disillusioned with not winning in Indycar.

Mansell was keen to be back in F1. Renault wanted a 'name'. Bernie wanted the 'coup' of getting F1's champion back from a "rival" series.

Damon Hill hadn't got off to the best of starts in 1994, but he won in Spain and perhaps felt he deserved the backing of the team during trying times. Instead there seemed to be a lack of confidence in his ability, particularly from Renault, and talk of Mansell joining the team couldn't have helped.

Mansell did return at the French GP but Hill's pole position and second place ahead of his much heralded team-mate went some way to pacifying the doubters. He went on to win 50% of the remaining races, with his performance in Japan being a highlight.

Still, there had been questions about Hill within Williams-Renault which, I assume, is what Murray was talking about.

[wedge]

IIRC correctly a certain N. Mansell was a factor.

As we know, following Senna's death, Hill assumed leadership of the Williams team and Coulthard was brought into the second seat. Having had the biggest names in the sport at the time, Prost and Senna, race for them the combination of Hill & Coulthard was met with disappointment in some quarters, particularly Renault.

At the same time it was clear that Mansell, who had of course left Williams having won the title with them, had become disillusioned with not winning in Indycar.

Mansell was keen to be back in F1. Renault wanted a 'name'. Bernie wanted the 'coup' of getting F1's champion back from a "rival" series.

Damon Hill hadn't got off to the best of starts in 1994, but he won in Spain and perhaps felt he deserved the backing of the team during trying times. Instead there seemed to be a lack of confidence in his ability, particularly from Renault, and talk of Mansell joining the team couldn't have helped.

Mansell did return at the French GP but Hill's pole position and second place ahead of his much heralded team-mate went some way to pacifying the doubters. He went on to win 50% of the remaining races, with his performance in Japan being a highlight.

Still, there had been questions about Hill within Williams-Renault which, I assume, is what Murray was talking about.

Certainly Mansell entered the bargaining table but Murray alluded to Hill wanting more team backing behind him and contractual disagreements. I'm wondering why a rumoured Mansell-Hill combination for 1995 would've upset Hill - if that was the case. What other factors were there in this contractual disagreement?

[THE_LIBERATOR]

I seem to remember Hill describing the recruitment of Mansell for the French GP of 94 as like "a kick in the balls", that may be in his book, I can't remember.

I also think it's unfair to suggest the results of 1995 were all down to Hill, the Williams did suffer it's share of mechanical faults. Obviously the clashes with Schumacher (Brit GP & Italian GP) don't help the cause. However by the Australian GP of 95 he was a different driver, I think it took him that year to get over 94. Of course by that time the HHF deal was done. Hill also turned down an offer to drive for McLaren in 97 because they didn't offer enough. Although I believe that choice lay more with his manager than Damon, but it's so long ago, I could be wrong on that.

Watching the Aus GP 94 on the Beeb really made me remember how good Hill could be.

[BDunnell]

IIRC correctly a certain N. Mansell was a factor.

As we know, following Senna's death, Hill assumed leadership of the Williams team and Coulthard was brought into the second seat. Having had the biggest names in the sport at the time, Prost and Senna, race for them the combination of Hill & Coulthard was met with disappointment in some quarters, particularly Renault.

At the same time it was clear that Mansell, who had of course left Williams having won the title with them, had become disillusioned with not winning in Indycar.

Mansell was keen to be back in F1. Renault wanted a 'name'. Bernie wanted the 'coup' of getting F1's champion back from a "rival" series.

Damon Hill hadn't got off to the best of starts in 1994, but he won in Spain and perhaps felt he deserved the backing of the team during trying times. Instead there seemed to be a lack of confidence in his ability, particularly from Renault, and talk of Mansell joining the team couldn't have helped.

Mansell did return at the French GP but Hill's pole position and second place ahead of his much heralded team-mate went some way to pacifying the doubters. He went on to win 50% of the remaining races, with his performance in Japan being a highlight.

Still, there had been questions about Hill within Williams-Renault which, I assume, is what Murray was talking about.

At which point did Williams decide to choose Coulthard over Mansell for '95? I seem to recall it was in the close season, but I could be wrong. This would certainly explain Murray Walker's comments in Adelaide.

[V12]

It was in the close season. I was only 11 at the time mind you but I'm pretty sure that as of Adelaide '94, Mansell was favourite for the seat and DC was being linked to McLaren one year ahead of when he actually went, and the two of them basically did a swap (and we all know how badly that went for Our Nige...)

[gshevlin]

The background to the signing of Frentzen is that apparently, after losing the 1995 title to Michael Schumacher, Williams decided that Damon Hill was not the long-term answer to their #1 driver position. They signed Frentzen to a contract in the late Summer of 1995. They also signed Jacques Villeneuve at around the same time.
However, another piece of the puzzle was that, according to Hill himself, 1995 was the first time that he (in his words) had been "paid properly" for driving in F1. His previous 2 seasons, he had been paid a pittance by Williams. He therefore was anxious to maximize his earnings potential, since he started in F1 relatively late, and realistically did not have many more years left in the sport.
So, with Frank Williams sitting on 2 drivers already for 1997 (Villeneuve and Frentzen) and Hill wanting a lot more money to drive for Williams in 1997 and beyond, we can see why the divorce happened. Incidentally, the decision to drop Damon Hill was probably a factor in the decision of Adrian Newey to leave Williams and move to McLaren - he and Damon Hill had a great working relationship, and Damon was a lot like Alain Prost in that he worked hard to make the car do all of the work, which designers like (contrast Alain Prost, who worked on car set-up all the time, with Keke Rosberg, who just got in and drove the hell out of whatever car he was given - John Barnard loved Prost but regarded Rosberg as a pain-in-the-ass car crasher).
The stranger thing is why Williams has persisted in this sort of behaviour, even though he has publicly admitted that he made similar mistakes in the past, most notably with Carlos Reutemann in 1981. That year, Reutemann was often way quicker than Alan Jones (who was already complaining about the difficulty of driving the cars - he described them on more than one occasion as "500 hp go-carts"), yet Williams failed to support him properly, and Reutemann went from being a championship contender to losing the title to Nelson Piquet. Williams also failed to provide support for Thierry Boutsen in 1989/1990, even though Boutsen won the only 2 races that Williams won in that time period.
The bottom line is that Williams does not see it as the team's job to provide any form of emotional support for its drivers. That has not served it well on several occasions in the past, and it will continue to lead to issues. All drivers need to be at their emotional peak to perform at their best, and a team that does not manage the emotional environment for a driver is not going to get the best out of him.

[wedge]

However, another piece of the puzzle was that, according to Hill himself, 1995 was the first time that he (in his words) had been "paid properly" for driving in F1. His previous 2 seasons, he had been paid a pittance by Williams. He therefore was anxious to maximize his earnings potential, since he started in F1 relatively late, and realistically did not have many more years left in the sport.

:up:

Thanks for that! All those years and I never fully understood the financial squabble between Hill and Williams except for the usual Williams adage saying F1 drivers were pre-madonnas.

[Ranger]

However, another piece of the puzzle was that, according to Hill himself, 1995 was the first time that he (in his words) had been "paid properly" for driving in F1. His previous 2 seasons, he had been paid a pittance by Williams. He therefore was anxious to maximize his earnings potential, since he started in F1 relatively late, and realistically did not have many more years left in the sport.

Hill was paid $300,000 for the 1994 season.
Mansell was paid $900,000 per race that year.

Which I find hilarious, as Mansell was no where near Hill that season.

[V12]

The bottom line is that Williams does not see it as the team's job to provide any form of emotional support for its drivers. That has not served it well on several occasions in the past, and it will continue to lead to issues. All drivers need to be at their emotional peak to perform at their best, and a team that does not manage the emotional environment for a driver is not going to get the best out of him.

While I admire Williams greatly for their "no nonense" attitude, for example if *I* was a driver I'd probably fit in great there unlike HHF did, but basically what you say is true. It's all about maximising your resources, which to this day they do brilliantly on the technical front, but didn't on the driver front on a few occasions.

Or if they were really unwilling to change their philosophy, they should have done their homework on him (similar to "scouting" a player in football, say) and never hired him in the first place and kept Hill. To this day I believe Hill would have absolutely walked the 1997 season had he still been there.

[wedge]

Hill was paid $300,000 for the 1994 season.
Mansell was paid $900,000 per race that year.

Which I find hilarious, as Mansell was no where near Hill that season.

That was his market value at the time considering he was an ex F1 and Indycar champ.

Senna insisted on being paid $1million by McLaren even though the team didn't have the necessary budget in 1993.

And then you have Button who was one of the highest paid drivers on the grid and he achieved sod all compared to Kimi and his $1million retainer.

Mansell still did good a job IMHO, average by his standards but a good result if it was an average driver. As Alesi said at the time, "not bad for an old man"


It's all about maximising your resources, which to this day they do brilliantly on the technical front, but didn't on the driver front on a few occasions.

Reminds me of Mansell and Patrick Head clashing often in the mid-80s. Mansell insisted in not running active suspension during GPs because it failed so often whereas Head insisted in continuing testing the system.

[gshevlin]

Hill was paid $300,000 for the 1994 season.
Mansell was paid $900,000 per race that year.

Which I find hilarious, as Mansell was no where near Hill that season.
Apparently when Nigel Mansell returned to Williams for several races that season, he validated what Hill and Couthard had been saying about the difficulty of driving the car. Williams were anxious for Mansell's feedback, since they apparently did not trust Hill or Coulthard. Mansell however was nowhere near as quick as Damon, especially in Australia, where he was way back in 3rd place when Hill and Schumacher collided, handing him the race.