The former Formula One world champion Jacques Villeneuve proved he has lost none of his willingness to speak his mind ahead of the Canadian Grand Prix, offering a withering criticism of modern drivers. Referring to them as "babies" he argued that they displayed a dangerous lack of respect for one another on the track – damningly suggesting they were treating F1 like a video game. This year's grand prix marks the 30th anniversary of the death of Gilles Villeneuve, Jacques's father, who was killed in a crash with Jochen Mass in qualifying for the 1982 Belgian Grand Prix at Zolder. The circuit here in Montreal was named in his honour that year only for it to immediately host a further tragedy when the Italian Riccardo Paletti was killed running into Didier Pironi's stalled Ferrari on the grid. For Villeneuve, who grew up in this period, the drivers of the time acknowledged these very real dangers on track, something he believes is missing now. "There's something in the new product that's a little bit strange with what they think is respectful driving and what isn't and there seems to be very little common sense going on there on the race track," he said. "I think in the years when F1 was dangerous, 20 or 30 years ago, the risk of dying was very high so the drivers just didn't do that to each other, there was that extra respect. There was common sense and also there was a bunch of drivers who worked hard to get into racing. "They weren't racers at 12 years old, [with] the financing there in place for them to race, they had to sweat for it, they weren't little daddy's boys like you have now basically. So they are driving F1 and they are still children, they are still babies and they are kept like that." Villeneuve noted the moves by Nico Rosberg in Bahrain as an example and specifically referenced Heikki Kovalainen moving over on Jenson Button in Monaco and both Sauber drivers in China. All incidents that were adjudged according to the rules to be legal – but it is the interpretation of these rules that concerns the former world champion, who will be an analyst for Sky this weekend. "Everybody just uses the one-move rule without realising when it is too late to actually move and cross over and when it is actually being dangerous," he said. The regulations he insists are not the problem, and he has a point. F1 is regulated to a minute degree but again, interpretation of this vast architecture of rules seems also to be failing, argues Villeneuve, in reference to weaving and blocking: "It is also down to the marshals who don't seem to punish that or when they do they punish it the wrong way round." He is clearly thinking of a quick Michael Schumacher hitting the back of a defensive Bruno Senna in Spain: "He [Senna] is not in the same race, he is going appallingly slow and he is blocking guys who are fighting for the points, that is just not intelligent driving for starters," he said, surprised that it was Schumacher that took the penalty for the incident. Three more F1 drivers would go on to be killed after Paletti: Ayrton Senna the last in 1994, after which the sport made huge strides in safety. Something now reflected in the moves on track, the lack of bad accidents breeding complacency, believes Villeneuve. "They seem to forget and then one day it will happen and there will be a bunch of new rules and that will be an overreaction," he said. "Everybody has fallen asleep on the fact that F1 is dangerous. They all think it's a video game and it's not. It is very, very dangerous and it's tough." Courtesy of The Guardian please log in to view this image Sour grapes or sound advice? I think the latter. F1 recently is tad over the top, gimmicky (as someone mentioned in another thread). The tyres and other variables have too much of an influence on the race itself as well as Qualifying, we have touched on this before (in another thread) anyway. A driver track such as Monaco allowed us to see what the drivers can do with a little more work to do in the car. The drivers do not really help to keep order on the track. It seems that the rule of defence is clouded a little in my opinion. (One rule to defend, and one to move back for the corner), was thrashed last year, when it was "illegal" by Michael last year in Monza when duelling with Hamilton. But in Bahrain and Monaco, drivers such as Rosberg, Raikkonen and Kovalainen are permitted to defend in this way? Maldonado, could have been disqualified from the championship for his actions in the principality, but instead he was given the same punishment as Hamilton to start at the back of the grid (when he only ran out of fuel), what!!! I think the FIA need to revise how they go about putting their regulations into force, there is an element of "it should be allowed here and not there", when in fact is should be the same for any situation and driver on track. Just some food for thought really.
Yeah drivers should just wave drivers who are going faster at that period of the race through at the expense of their own race.
I didn't agree with that myself as it is the drivers problem, to get passed another car if it is not a backmarker. Then again, drivers should be aware when they are fighting for minor points which are valuable to a stuggling team, rather than the hot-shot gold double digits. Instead of putting their cars in positions they can't fight, they can improve order and safety in this way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFqEP4QN-Mg I dont like him, no matter what he has to say..... He sucks big time and talks with bitterness about F1.
Completely agree with this, and I've been saying it for a while. The way they try to police driving standards is an embarrassment, especially all the crap with two moves and leaving a space etc., the sooner the FIA grow some backbone and use their own judgement when people break the rules, and stop trying to back themselves up with flimsy regulations the better. What?!
I just think that some order is needed in Formula 1 of the present day, I tend to get fed up watching the same guys crash out, over and over, the wacky races if you wish. I would like to see drivers performing at their best, nothing holding them back, in Monaco they had a chance to show this as hard work and a strong mental and physical capacity was required throughout the weekend. Some drivers lacked this, from hitting others, or having no pace at all. The same could be said for last years event.
I seriously doubt you'd be saying this if Schumacher had qualified 12th or something. If anything the drivers held back more at Monaco than anywhere else because they knew they couldn't be overtaken.
So you automatically think that because I mentioned Monaco as a driver track, I have incorporated Schumacher into the thread? Yeah cheers for the smut. On your second point, I think that the drivers had to make decisions on how to tackle the race, and the track collectively. We had Maldonado using his car as a weapon and others trying to overtake where it wasn't possible to overtake. Drivers defending in a way that can be questioned due to the lack of FIA clarity on regulations. Just because the track was Monaco, doesn't mean that we cannot see which driver is performing or not because "there is no chance for overtaking". F1 is not just about overtaking but the way drivers understand where and where not to. Every track on the calendar has a chance to show us what the drivers are made of. If you do not take into account the race result (race day), but the actions in the race and the race weekend itself, you see that some drivers are lacking in general and there is a certain lack of awareness of safety, as Jacques has mentioned.
Ahhh Jacques, only you could get such a mix of irony, hypocrisy, and actual sense into such a small piece. The Drivers push the rules as much as the teams do. They could be gentlemanly but then they'd be way back in the field. They do need to tweak the rules to be actual rules, ones with punishments that match the crime.
It's funny you agree with him when your favourite driver is more guilty than anyone else of dangerous driving and trying to force people off the track.
Good article, EMSC. In principle, I agree with Villeneuve's thinking. I think anyone who follows F1 will agree that there often appears to be inconsistency with how the myriad rules are interpreted and applied, and how inconsistent the various punishments are, when they are deemed necessary. This is the problem with rules (or laws): they always need to be interpreted. Far better to have responsible people who do not need to be told how to behave on track but do so with a natural respect for their fellow drivers. However, when one driver decides he will not abide by such ethics, and is allowed to profit from such antics, clearly something needs to be done in order to redress the disadvantages experienced by those who play by an unwritten code borne of natural respect for one's fellow competitor. 'Queensbury rules' for a street-fight, rather than kicking someone half to death; 'pistols at dawn' rather than creeping up and slitting a throat while a victim sleeps. It comes under the broad heading of 'honour'. But when dishonourable conduct is seen to be allowed to profit, it should be no surprise that the old code is rendered redundant, thus requiring a writing of rules, with their subsequent interpretation and all the risk of inconsistency entailed therein. - - -o0o- - - Two minor points of order: It's a shame Villeneuve carelessly referred to stewards as "marshals". The latter volunteers perform a vital role in the safety of motor racing, waving flags and attending incidents; but it is the stewards who apply rules and interpret them. Wasn't Maldonado's penalty a 10 place drop on the grid?
Thanks Cosi, I think it was, but it would add to my point to the lack of consistency with the stewards, in comparison to Hamilton's penalty for just running out of fuel. And well Miggins, you are a dedicated little man, he is my favourite driver yes, and he has done some silly things, but we are talking about the present day and the many drivers that are playing up the "crashkid" name as opposed to one person. He has actually been punished, some drivers don't at present. As well as this Michael has the stats to prove that he has the attributes of a great driver to match the stupid behaviour that he can get up to at times, whereas other drivers haven't yet. There are never any clues to your favourite driver though, the innocent Miggins can attack others, but does not give an wiff on his own opinions, as seen in your other comment.
I agree, that drivers and teams push the boundaries, but it should never reach a point where drivers mindlessly enter the race weekend as an arcade mode event on F1 2011, where they would only realise the possible outcome of there actions when situation suddenly becomes fatal. Pit entrances such as the one in Monaco, (forgotten who it was), nearly took the front end of Raikkonen's car. Raikkonen's reaction was similar to mine at home after watching the race edit.
[1] I agree with the apparent inconsistency. However, it is the inevitable result of rules, when ideally none would be needed. [2] It should be no surprise that Schumacher's name crops up time and time again with any discussion on the need for rules, and their interpretation. [3] It could easily be argued that his "stats" as you call them, are grossly distorted, since he distorted the notion of honour in battle to such an extent that he himself demonstrated the need for a written code of conduct, after clearly profiting without it. [4] Perhaps, like myself and others, Miggins does not have a favourite driver? No doubt he will clarify this at some point; but even if he has, should everyone play by the rules you appear to be suggesting?
I am indeed, however it wasn't always the case, up until the final chicane on lap 46 of Suzuka 89 I was an avid Prost fan, I was so disgusted with his utter hypocrisy I switch allegiance there and then. Of the current crop my favourite is Kamui, which I have mentioned many many times, as Fred has shown. You can criticize him as much as you want Manny, I won't burst into tears and insult anyone who does.
I won't, I stick with one driver through thick and thin unlike you, I always have a balanced view on any driver unlike you. I am wasting my time debating with you, get back on topic. If there is any driver remembered for his contact with cars in a race it is kobayasi. Stop spewing the same bitterness in retaliation to whatever I post. Please.
The only race i ever remember Kobayashi hitting someone is Japan 2010. And it's not like he did damage..
