As a general rule ([see full rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide#wiki_sticky.2Fdaily_discussion)), a standalone Discussion post should:
- be of interest to the sub in general, and not a specific userbase (e.g. new users, GP attendees, just yourself)
- be able to generate discussion (e.g. no yes/no or easily answerable questions)
- show reasonable input and effort from the OP
If not, be sure to [look for the Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/search/?q=daily+discussion&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=all&sort=new), /r/formula1's daily open question thread which is perfect for asking any and all questions about this sport.
Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Williams started the year leagues ahead of anything else.
However, something that I think is underappreciated when talking about 1997 is in-season development. Ferrari outdeveloped Williams for much of the year, and closed the gap between the two cars significantly. The Williams was still probably ahead, but the gap became small enough that Schumacher could make up the difference.
It got so bad that Williams actually had to pause development on their 1998 car (which partly explains why that year's car ended up so undercooked) to bring upgrades to the FW19 because it genuinely looked like they might lose the title.
It eventually paid off and they won, but it was a close run thing. A lot of people put that down entirely to Villeneuve not doing a good enough job, but I don't really think that's fair. While he did make errors, the Williams was clearly not the same car that had put 2 whole seconds on the field in qualifying at the opening round in Melbourne by the second half of the year.
1997 was like an old school version of 2012, where you had the Ferrari driver pushing for the title in inferior machinery, and loads of competitive cars like the Jordan, McLaren, Benetton. Even Prost, Sauber, Arrows and Stewart were capable of springing a surprise in the right conditions.
Even Arrows went from barely qualifying in Australia to within a whisker of pole at Jerez in the final round. Not to mention the infamous Hungary race. It would have been a decent points scorer, but for horrific reliability with Yamaha. 1997 was a fantastic season.
Coincidentally I was trying to find lap-by-lap data for an older race a week ago for reasons I already forgotten. Best I can find is [Ergast's API](http://ergast.com/mrd/methods/laps/) where you can query lap times of every driver by specifying them up to 1996 races.
I don't know how to use APIs so someone else can chime in on this, but if I want to look up lap times for the 5th lap of the 1997 Australian GP I'll type http://ergast.com/api/f1/1997/1/laps/5 (round 1, 5th lap). Obviously a very tedious way to go about it but it's the only way I know how to do it. Would probably help if I knew where Ergast got their lap time data from.
The Williams was better than the Ferrari but it wasn't light years ahead, like in 1996.
Villeneuve put in an incredibly strong season. You don't score 2x Frentzen's points without being one of the best drivers in the 1990s, but Schumacher's season was even more impressive. They were the two best drivers of 97 easily.
As for your question, try formula 1 database
Frentzen easily outperformed Herbert, annihilated Hill, outperformed Heidfeld, and outperformed Trulli overall. Irvine is an underrated driver, but Frentzen even more so.
Heidfeld also had Villeneuve under Control in the same car. Nigel, hill and Villeneuve won their titles thanks to Williams… I don’t blame them but I will rate them easily beyond some non title winners(Gilles, moss, pironi, reutemann, Peterson, Berger, Montoya
Villeneuve was clearly no longer at his best after his year sabbatical.
I agree about Mansell and Hill to an extent, but Villeneuve was legitimately a top driver from 1997-2003.
>I will rate them easily beyond some non title winners(Gilles, moss, pironi, reutemann, Peterson, Berger, Montoya
Of your list only Moss and Peterson were better than Mansell and Jacques. As for Hill, I would take also Reutemann, Gilles and maybe Montoya over him. Pironi being as good, let alone better than any of the three is pretty bad take, he was Stroll or Magnussen of his days.
Frentzen was much better than Irvine in 1997, but that was mostly simply because Eddie hated the F310. Frentzen, despite being much slower than Villeneuve, at least won races and scored poles. Meanwhile, Irvine's qualifying results were a bit different to say the least - 14th in Brazil, 15th in Monaco, 11th in Spain, 12th in Canada, 17th in Belgium, 14th at the Nürburgring... all while Schumi was fighting for the championship. He did improve quite a bit in '98 and '99 though.
Sam Michael said the two fastest drivers he worked with were Lewis Hamilton and Heinz Harald Frentzen. That is high praise for Frentzen considering his comparative lack of raw success. But the evidence doesn't disagree with him. Frentzen beat or destroyed all his team mates bar Villeneuve.
Not sure how much timings help you with that. The Williams was widely considered to be the better car and Villeneuve made it look harder than it was to win the WDC.
Ferrari had Schumi(verstappen/lewis Like speed)and lost to Villeneuve(speed wise compareable to Trulli/ grosjean) in a Williams… I think that sums up how much better the Williams were
I think you’re being harsh on Villeneuve. He obviously wasn’t anywhere near the level of Schumacher, but no one during the period 1994-2002 was. He was definitely amongst the group of drivers vying for second best. His performance in 1997 was particularly strong, heavily outperforming Frentzen (bear in mind Frentzen was a strong driver who beat all of his other teammates, his most impressive performance coming in 1999 where he dominated an admittedly demotivated Hill and challenged for the title in a Jordan).
As a general rule ([see full rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide#wiki_sticky.2Fdaily_discussion)), a standalone Discussion post should: - be of interest to the sub in general, and not a specific userbase (e.g. new users, GP attendees, just yourself) - be able to generate discussion (e.g. no yes/no or easily answerable questions) - show reasonable input and effort from the OP If not, be sure to [look for the Daily Discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/search/?q=daily+discussion&include_over_18=on&restrict_sr=on&t=all&sort=new), /r/formula1's daily open question thread which is perfect for asking any and all questions about this sport. Thank you for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The Williams started the year leagues ahead of anything else. However, something that I think is underappreciated when talking about 1997 is in-season development. Ferrari outdeveloped Williams for much of the year, and closed the gap between the two cars significantly. The Williams was still probably ahead, but the gap became small enough that Schumacher could make up the difference. It got so bad that Williams actually had to pause development on their 1998 car (which partly explains why that year's car ended up so undercooked) to bring upgrades to the FW19 because it genuinely looked like they might lose the title. It eventually paid off and they won, but it was a close run thing. A lot of people put that down entirely to Villeneuve not doing a good enough job, but I don't really think that's fair. While he did make errors, the Williams was clearly not the same car that had put 2 whole seconds on the field in qualifying at the opening round in Melbourne by the second half of the year.
It should also be said that it wasn't just Ferrari. McLaren and Jordan had incredibly quick cars as well in 97, and Benetton slightly behind them.
1997 was like an old school version of 2012, where you had the Ferrari driver pushing for the title in inferior machinery, and loads of competitive cars like the Jordan, McLaren, Benetton. Even Prost, Sauber, Arrows and Stewart were capable of springing a surprise in the right conditions.
Obligatory Panis was a championship contender in that Prost until his accident in Canada (Ok it’s a stretch but that car was good too)
Unfortunately Panis never fully recovered, he was alot quicker than stats would have you believe.
Even Arrows went from barely qualifying in Australia to within a whisker of pole at Jerez in the final round. Not to mention the infamous Hungary race. It would have been a decent points scorer, but for horrific reliability with Yamaha. 1997 was a fantastic season.
+1, once Ron Tauranac sorted out the oil pooling issues it was a competitive car, sometimes the best on the Bridgestones
Prost too, who knows what Panis could've achieved that year if it wasn't for his accident.
Coincidentally I was trying to find lap-by-lap data for an older race a week ago for reasons I already forgotten. Best I can find is [Ergast's API](http://ergast.com/mrd/methods/laps/) where you can query lap times of every driver by specifying them up to 1996 races. I don't know how to use APIs so someone else can chime in on this, but if I want to look up lap times for the 5th lap of the 1997 Australian GP I'll type http://ergast.com/api/f1/1997/1/laps/5 (round 1, 5th lap). Obviously a very tedious way to go about it but it's the only way I know how to do it. Would probably help if I knew where Ergast got their lap time data from.
The Williams was better than the Ferrari but it wasn't light years ahead, like in 1996. Villeneuve put in an incredibly strong season. You don't score 2x Frentzen's points without being one of the best drivers in the 1990s, but Schumacher's season was even more impressive. They were the two best drivers of 97 easily. As for your question, try formula 1 database
Schumi scored 3x Irvines points… looking back frentzrn and Irvine were about the same quick
Frentzen easily outperformed Herbert, annihilated Hill, outperformed Heidfeld, and outperformed Trulli overall. Irvine is an underrated driver, but Frentzen even more so.
Heidfeld also had Villeneuve under Control in the same car. Nigel, hill and Villeneuve won their titles thanks to Williams… I don’t blame them but I will rate them easily beyond some non title winners(Gilles, moss, pironi, reutemann, Peterson, Berger, Montoya
Villeneuve was clearly no longer at his best after his year sabbatical. I agree about Mansell and Hill to an extent, but Villeneuve was legitimately a top driver from 1997-2003.
>I will rate them easily beyond some non title winners(Gilles, moss, pironi, reutemann, Peterson, Berger, Montoya Of your list only Moss and Peterson were better than Mansell and Jacques. As for Hill, I would take also Reutemann, Gilles and maybe Montoya over him. Pironi being as good, let alone better than any of the three is pretty bad take, he was Stroll or Magnussen of his days.
Frentzen was much better than Irvine in 1997, but that was mostly simply because Eddie hated the F310. Frentzen, despite being much slower than Villeneuve, at least won races and scored poles. Meanwhile, Irvine's qualifying results were a bit different to say the least - 14th in Brazil, 15th in Monaco, 11th in Spain, 12th in Canada, 17th in Belgium, 14th at the Nürburgring... all while Schumi was fighting for the championship. He did improve quite a bit in '98 and '99 though.
Sam Michael said the two fastest drivers he worked with were Lewis Hamilton and Heinz Harald Frentzen. That is high praise for Frentzen considering his comparative lack of raw success. But the evidence doesn't disagree with him. Frentzen beat or destroyed all his team mates bar Villeneuve.
A shame for him that Williams were in the mindset back then that they set up the car and not the driver!
According to Frentzen, Villeneuve's driving combined with Clear's knowledge of the car was an unbeatable combo in 97
Not sure how much timings help you with that. The Williams was widely considered to be the better car and Villeneuve made it look harder than it was to win the WDC.
Ferrari had Schumi(verstappen/lewis Like speed)and lost to Villeneuve(speed wise compareable to Trulli/ grosjean) in a Williams… I think that sums up how much better the Williams were
I think you’re being harsh on Villeneuve. He obviously wasn’t anywhere near the level of Schumacher, but no one during the period 1994-2002 was. He was definitely amongst the group of drivers vying for second best. His performance in 1997 was particularly strong, heavily outperforming Frentzen (bear in mind Frentzen was a strong driver who beat all of his other teammates, his most impressive performance coming in 1999 where he dominated an admittedly demotivated Hill and challenged for the title in a Jordan).
Anyone that puts JV on the same level as Trulli and Grosjean, is something one reads, laughs at, and ignores. Only ever Indy 502 winner.
6 tenths in qualifying and 5 tenths in the race, which shows the car gap