Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Forum rules
Please read the forum rules
BMWSauber84
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm

Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by BMWSauber84 »

I know the headline is geared around him calling Vettel 'overrated' and saying Hamilton is the current best but not in Schumi's league, and I fear much of the discussion about his comments could turn into more Hamilton vs Vettel stuff.

But aside from that he offers his insight into Senna vs Schumacher, how he finds Formula one boring compared to his day. It's pretty standard "old driver thinks it was better in his day" stuff but he certainly shoots from the hip.

I'll just post the link as it's a long article. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/46927041

pokerman
Posts: 34466
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by pokerman »

Just a couple of things I would question, first the level of drivers when he was driving was weaker than now, I'm talking post Senna, Prost, Piquet, Mansell, Rosberg.

Secondly if manufacturers are not allowed to have their own teams then you have no Ferrari.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

User avatar
Blake
Posts: 6819
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA
Contact:

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Blake »

I agree with much, even most, of what Eddie says, but I do think that Eddie is seemingly forgetting how critical the manufacturers were to the birth of F1, as well as its growth. Without the likes of Ferrari, Maserati, Alfa Romeo and Mercedes, F1 would have likely "died on the vine" so to speak. Without the competition between McLaren, Williams, Lotus & Ferrari, the great growth of F1 in the "middle years" F1 would likely have never reached the popularity it enjoys now. There have been non-manufacturers who have made significant impact, such as Williams, Red Bull, BRM, Burney and others, but it has indeed been the manufacturers that have made the difference. I think Eddie missed that aspect.

For what it is worth, while I think he was a tad harsh on Vettel, I cant, at this point argue with his Schumi, Lewis, Vettel ranking order.
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Zoue »

Blake wrote:I agree with much, even most, of what Eddie says, but I do think that Eddie is seemingly forgetting how critical the manufacturers were to the birth of F1, as well as its growth. Without the likes of Ferrari, Maserati, Alfa Romeo and Mercedes, F1 would have likely "died on the vine" so to speak. Without the competition between McLaren, Williams, Lotus & Ferrari, the great growth of F1 in the "middle years" F1 would likely have never reached the popularity it enjoys now. There have been non-manufacturers who have made significant impact, such as Williams, Red Bull, BRM, Burney and others, but it has indeed been the manufacturers that have made the difference. I think Eddie missed that aspect.

For what it is worth, while I think he was a tad harsh on Vettel, I cant, at this point argue with his Schumi, Lewis, Vettel ranking order.

:thumbup:

Harpo
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:26 am

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Harpo »

pokerman wrote:Just a couple of things I would question, first the level of drivers when he was driving was weaker than now, I'm talking post Senna, Prost, Piquet, Mansell, Rosberg.

Secondly if manufacturers are not allowed to have their own teams then you have no Ferrari.


Well Ferrari is a racing team, and was born a racing team, that builds cars (if you can call what Ferrari builds nowadays "road cars"), not a car manufacturer that decided to develop a racing team, for whatever reason.
In a certain way Ferrari did 70 years ago what McLaren started recently. Should we call McLaren of today a car manufacturer ?
As my brother said : "I've got the brain of a four year old. I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it".

cmax
Posts: 457
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 10:43 pm
Location: UK

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by cmax »

I think he was a bit harsh on Vettel and I am also wondering what does Lewis has to do to be in the same league as Schumi. Better yes, but not in the same league? Does this mean if Michael is F1, then Lewis would be GP2 category?

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Zoue »

cmax wrote:I think he was a bit harsh on Vettel and I am also wondering what does Lewis has to do to be in the same league as Schumi. Better yes, but not in the same league? Does this mean if Michael is F1, then Lewis would be GP2 category?

I think you might be taking it a little too literally. Many people might say that Bottas is not in the same league as Hamilton, but he's clearly still an F1 driver

ALESI
Posts: 2412
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by ALESI »

He talks a lot of sense, but of course it's Eddie Irvine so people will talk him down...
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

mikeyg123
Posts: 17201
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by mikeyg123 »

Harpo wrote:
pokerman wrote:Just a couple of things I would question, first the level of drivers when he was driving was weaker than now, I'm talking post Senna, Prost, Piquet, Mansell, Rosberg.

Secondly if manufacturers are not allowed to have their own teams then you have no Ferrari.


Well Ferrari is a racing team, and was born a racing team, that builds cars (if you can call what Ferrari builds nowadays "road cars"), not a car manufacturer that decided to develop a racing team, for whatever reason.
In a certain way Ferrari did 70 years ago what McLaren started recently. Should we call McLaren of today a car manufacturer ?


If Ferrari weren't now owned Fiat I would agree with you.

Sutton
Posts: 1035
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:35 am

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Sutton »

Not alot wrong with anything he says tbh

pokerman
Posts: 34466
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by pokerman »

Harpo wrote:
pokerman wrote:Just a couple of things I would question, first the level of drivers when he was driving was weaker than now, I'm talking post Senna, Prost, Piquet, Mansell, Rosberg.

Secondly if manufacturers are not allowed to have their own teams then you have no Ferrari.


Well Ferrari is a racing team, and was born a racing team, that builds cars (if you can call what Ferrari builds nowadays "road cars"), not a car manufacturer that decided to develop a racing team, for whatever reason.
In a certain way Ferrari did 70 years ago what McLaren started recently. Should we call McLaren of today a car manufacturer ?

I would think that once you get above a certain revenue then you can be considered a serious car manufacturer, are you only considered a car manufacturer if you build cars for the masses rather than only the rich?

Ferrari have been selling road cars for 60 years now unlike McLaren who you might see as still a fledgling car manufacturer, is their revenue anywhere close to that of Ferrari?
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

pokerman
Posts: 34466
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by pokerman »

Zoue wrote:
cmax wrote:I think he was a bit harsh on Vettel and I am also wondering what does Lewis has to do to be in the same league as Schumi. Better yes, but not in the same league? Does this mean if Michael is F1, then Lewis would be GP2 category?

I think you might be taking it a little too literally. Many people might say that Bottas is not in the same league as Hamilton, but he's clearly still an F1 driver

So Hamilton should take credit for being a F1 driver?

It's Irvine's opinion, I guess most people would say that Schumacher was better than Hamilton however I'm not sure how many would say that Hamilton is not even in the same league as Schumacher?
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

pokerman
Posts: 34466
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by pokerman »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Harpo wrote:
pokerman wrote:Just a couple of things I would question, first the level of drivers when he was driving was weaker than now, I'm talking post Senna, Prost, Piquet, Mansell, Rosberg.

Secondly if manufacturers are not allowed to have their own teams then you have no Ferrari.


Well Ferrari is a racing team, and was born a racing team, that builds cars (if you can call what Ferrari builds nowadays "road cars"), not a car manufacturer that decided to develop a racing team, for whatever reason.
In a certain way Ferrari did 70 years ago what McLaren started recently. Should we call McLaren of today a car manufacturer ?


If Ferrari weren't now owned Fiat I would agree with you.

I forgot about that, Ferrari alone wouldn't be able to finance a F1 team?
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

User avatar
Lojik
Posts: 1427
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 3:58 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Lojik »

Sutton wrote:Not alot wrong with anything he says tbh


Not so sure;

1) I think the quality of the field that Schumacher faced compared to now is debateable.
2) Rosberg might like a quiet word with him about nobody ever outscoring Michael over 2 season (he did it over 3)
3) And the points between Button/Hamilton is a very poor metric and needs to be put into context (much like my point 2).

pokerman
Posts: 34466
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by pokerman »

Lojik wrote:
Sutton wrote:Not alot wrong with anything he says tbh


Not so sure;

1) I think the quality of the field that Schumacher faced compared to now is debateable.
2) Rosberg might like a quiet word with him about nobody ever outscoring Michael over 2 season (he did it over 3)
3) And the points between Button/Hamilton is a very poor metric and needs to be put into context (much like my point 2).

Yes the 3 year world championship that Button introduced, the reality is that Hamilton had Button beat easily in 2010 and 2012, what happened in 2012 caused Hamilton to leave the team.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

Harpo
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:26 am

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Harpo »

pokerman wrote:
Harpo wrote:
pokerman wrote:Just a couple of things I would question, first the level of drivers when he was driving was weaker than now, I'm talking post Senna, Prost, Piquet, Mansell, Rosberg.

Secondly if manufacturers are not allowed to have their own teams then you have no Ferrari.


Well Ferrari is a racing team, and was born a racing team, that builds cars (if you can call what Ferrari builds nowadays "road cars"), not a car manufacturer that decided to develop a racing team, for whatever reason.
In a certain way Ferrari did 70 years ago what McLaren started recently. Should we call McLaren of today a car manufacturer ?

I would think that once you get above a certain revenue then you can be considered a serious car manufacturer, are you only considered a car manufacturer if you build cars for the masses rather than only the rich?

Ferrari have been selling road cars for 60 years now unlike McLaren who you might see as still a fledgling car manufacturer, is their revenue anywhere close to that of Ferrari?

For me it's not a matter of amount or ratio of revenue, or of being owned by Fiat. Ferrari started selling road cars to get the amount of money to develop the racing team. People (with enough money) bought Ferrari road cars because Ferrari was first and foremost a racing team. They still do it for the same reason.
McLaren is doing exactly the same thing. Except they didn't need the money from their road cars sells for their racing team when they started their "road cars" business.

On a side note, Ferrari is no more a part of the Fiat-Chrysler group (shares belonging to the FCA group now belong to the FCA shareholders).
As my brother said : "I've got the brain of a four year old. I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it".

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Zoue »

pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
cmax wrote:I think he was a bit harsh on Vettel and I am also wondering what does Lewis has to do to be in the same league as Schumi. Better yes, but not in the same league? Does this mean if Michael is F1, then Lewis would be GP2 category?

I think you might be taking it a little too literally. Many people might say that Bottas is not in the same league as Hamilton, but he's clearly still an F1 driver

So Hamilton should take credit for being a F1 driver?

It's Irvine's opinion, I guess most people would say that Schumacher was better than Hamilton however I'm not sure how many would say that Hamilton is not even in the same league as Schumacher?

BIB: I don't really understand what you mean? I'm in no way having a dig at Hamilton here anyway

As to the second part, "same league as" is just a hyperbolic expression used to illustrate that one is clearly better. Even if you disagree, I don't think you need to read too much into it beyond that

oz_karter
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:29 am

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by oz_karter »

I have to agree with Eddie on his comments.

This may be one of the least exciting periods in F1 history.

Quiet cars, overly dominant teams and not much proper action.

Vettel is overrated - he could drive a blown diffuser like no one else but he’s been mediocre since.

Hamilton is good, but Schumacher remains a level above.

Underviewer
Posts: 208
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:38 am

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Underviewer »

Michael Schumacher comprehensively beat Irvine when they were teammates at Ferrari. Since then, Irvine has claimed Schumacher was a 'god' who was unbeatable and in a different league to every other driver who ever and will ever compete in F1. And how dare Vettel win four championships when Irvine won zero. And F1 is child's play and boring now compared to when Irvine was in F1. A carbon copy of all interviews with Eddie Irvine.

BMWSauber84
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by BMWSauber84 »

Lojik wrote:
Sutton wrote:Not alot wrong with anything he says tbh


Not so sure;

1) I think the quality of the field that Schumacher faced compared to now is debateable.
2) Rosberg might like a quiet word with him about nobody ever outscoring Michael over 2 season (he did it over 3)
3) And the points between Button/Hamilton is a very poor metric and needs to be put into context (much like my point 2).



1) I largely agree with. Hakkinen was top class, but aside from him the amount of other great drivers on the grid was pretty negligable at times between 1995 until Alonso came thorough. Honorable mention for Kimi of course.

2) I think Irvine refers to Michael's peak years. Between 2010-2012 Schumacher had clearly lost a fair chunk of pace.

3) I agree, he made that remark without adding crucial context. I don't want to belittle Button as his 2011 performance was the best of his career IMO. But 2012 would have been a monstrous drubbing without the reliability factor.

BMWSauber84
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2017 1:19 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by BMWSauber84 »

And is F1 really much more boring and predictible now? Yes the engines are quieter, but we had 5 different race winners in 2018 and three different teams won.

Apart from the odd anomaly like 1982, 2003, 2008, 2012 etc those numbers are about standard for the majority of F1 seasons. People hark back to the early 2000's and 90's like it was endless summers, thrilling overtakes and close battles on the track all the time. It wasn't.

The 1999 Spanish grand prix was about as boring as it gets. Aside from the start there was one on-track overtake all race. Hill on Barrichello for a non point scoring 7th place. And Barrichello was later disqualified anyway. But those V10's made a nice noise at least.

User avatar
moby
Posts: 8072
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by moby »

I completely disagree with him. You see in many sports over the last 20 odd years when there is a point that it really becomes professional, and I do not mean pain, I mean in attitude. Shuie and Sena were that step above the other drivers at the time, mostly down to being more professional more ruthless and always looking for a 'professional edge'.

Today all divers are like that. I doubt Sena would look so good today as due to the attitude other drivers would not let him get away with many things he did. Had say verstappen started at the same time as Sena and had the same mindset he has today, they would both have been a step above the others due to different approaches to driving.

Also, the job is/was different. Back then, it was driving the wheels of the thing, now it is as much management and multitasking as driving. Not that a good driver from back when could not learn it, or vice versa, but there may have been a different group at the top.

User avatar
F1 MERCENARY
Posts: 2356
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2015 5:38 pm
Location: Miami, Florida

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by F1 MERCENARY »

The ONLY thing of value Irvine said was that Michael was even better than Senna.

The rest is a bit off IMPO. Vettel is not a one trick pony and he'd mop the floor with Irvine in diapers to begin with, and the only reason Vettel is having a difficult time is because Hamilton is in a pretty equal car overall and both drivers are closely matched. AND… it's not like Vettel is getting trounced. He's right there in the thick of things and those mistakes he's made are greatly exaggerated by the masses.

Are they costly mistakes? Absolutely!

Are said mistakes difficult to make? Not at all!

All these guys are driving on the limit and ANY of them can push just that tiny bit harder and end up losing it the way Vettel did.
HAMILTON :: VERSTAPPEN :: LECLERC :: BOTTAS :: VETTEL :: SAINZ :: NORRIS
KVYAT :: RAIKKONEN :: RUSSEL :: ALBON :: RICCIARDO :: HULKENBURG :: PEREZ
STROLL :: MAGNUSSEN :: GROSJEAN :: GASLY :: GIOVANAZZI :: KUBICA

j man
Posts: 3427
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Location: UK

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by j man »

BMWSauber84 wrote:And is F1 really much more boring and predictible now? Yes the engines are quieter, but we had 5 different race winners in 2018 and three different teams won.

Apart from the odd anomaly like 1982, 2003, 2008, 2012 etc those numbers are about standard for the majority of F1 seasons. People hark back to the early 2000's and 90's like it was endless summers, thrilling overtakes and close battles on the track all the time. It wasn't.

The 1999 Spanish grand prix was about as boring as it gets. Aside from the start there was one on-track overtake all race. Hill on Barrichello for a non point scoring 7th place. And Barrichello was later disqualified anyway. But those V10's made a nice noise at least.

Totally agree. The sport today is not perfect but I much prefer it to Irvine's era; there were a few good races but it was mostly just following each other round hoping for someone's car to break down.

Mostly I think Eddie is just shooting his mouth off to get some attention. I agree with him about the manufacturers though.

Caserole of Nonsense
Posts: 440
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:46 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Caserole of Nonsense »

id be very suprised if hamilton wasnt as naturally quick as schumacher. senna maybe a touch ahead. schumacher wins between the ears but hamilton has improved that recently, probably helped by generally having the faster car

Paolo_Lasardi
Posts: 2416
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Paolo_Lasardi »

pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
cmax wrote:I think he was a bit harsh on Vettel and I am also wondering what does Lewis has to do to be in the same league as Schumi. Better yes, but not in the same league? Does this mean if Michael is F1, then Lewis would be GP2 category?

I think you might be taking it a little too literally. Many people might say that Bottas is not in the same league as Hamilton, but he's clearly still an F1 driver

So Hamilton should take credit for being a F1 driver?

It's Irvine's opinion, I guess most people would say that Schumacher was better than Hamilton however I'm not sure how many would say that Hamilton is not even in the same league as Schumacher?


IMO, Hamilton is better than Schumacher.
As was Senna.
Of course, only marginally, not in different leagues.

Paolo_Lasardi
Posts: 2416
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Paolo_Lasardi »

mikeyg123 wrote:
Harpo wrote:
pokerman wrote:Just a couple of things I would question, first the level of drivers when he was driving was weaker than now, I'm talking post Senna, Prost, Piquet, Mansell, Rosberg.

Secondly if manufacturers are not allowed to have their own teams then you have no Ferrari.


Well Ferrari is a racing team, and was born a racing team, that builds cars (if you can call what Ferrari builds nowadays "road cars"), not a car manufacturer that decided to develop a racing team, for whatever reason.
In a certain way Ferrari did 70 years ago what McLaren started recently. Should we call McLaren of today a car manufacturer ?


If Ferrari weren't now owned Fiat I would agree with you.


Technically, they are not anymore.

User avatar
Mort Canard
Posts: 1414
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Location: Kansas

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Mort Canard »

Seems that Eddie is angling for Jacques Villeneuve's position as the loose cannon in the F1 pundit class.
Mission WinLater

User avatar
Alienturnedhuman
Posts: 3849
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2003 9:39 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Alienturnedhuman »

Let's not forget, Eddie Irvine claimed he was the second best driver in the F1 field - after Schumacher - when he moved to Jaguar as lead driver. Whether or not he actually believed that delusion is irrelevant, he's always had a tendency to put Schumacher on an omnipotent pedestal compared to any driver. Given his performance relative to Schumacher (which is surely one of the - if not the absolute - weakest of any Schumacher teammate) - he kind of has to claim Schumacher is beyond peerless in order to add any legitimacy to his own credibility.

pokerman
Posts: 34466
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by pokerman »

Alienturnedhuman wrote:Let's not forget, Eddie Irvine claimed he was the second best driver in the F1 field - after Schumacher - when he moved to Jaguar as lead driver. Whether or not he actually believed that delusion is irrelevant, he's always had a tendency to put Schumacher on an omnipotent pedestal compared to any driver. Given his performance relative to Schumacher (which is surely one of the - if not the absolute - weakest of any Schumacher teammate) - he kind of has to claim Schumacher is beyond peerless in order to add any legitimacy to his own credibility.

Well Jaguar believed him and paid him handsomely for 2/3? years only to find he was no better than Pedro de la Rosa.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

pokerman
Posts: 34466
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by pokerman »

Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
cmax wrote:I think he was a bit harsh on Vettel and I am also wondering what does Lewis has to do to be in the same league as Schumi. Better yes, but not in the same league? Does this mean if Michael is F1, then Lewis would be GP2 category?

I think you might be taking it a little too literally. Many people might say that Bottas is not in the same league as Hamilton, but he's clearly still an F1 driver

So Hamilton should take credit for being a F1 driver?

It's Irvine's opinion, I guess most people would say that Schumacher was better than Hamilton however I'm not sure how many would say that Hamilton is not even in the same league as Schumacher?

BIB: I don't really understand what you mean? I'm in no way having a dig at Hamilton here anyway

As to the second part, "same league as" is just a hyperbolic expression used to illustrate that one is clearly better. Even if you disagree, I don't think you need to read too much into it beyond that

It's not something I would be wanting to disagree with, maybe your comparison with Bottas was perhaps a bit unfortunate?
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

pokerman
Posts: 34466
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by pokerman »

Underviewer wrote:Michael Schumacher comprehensively beat Irvine when they were teammates at Ferrari. Since then, Irvine has claimed Schumacher was a 'god' who was unbeatable and in a different league to every other driver who ever and will ever compete in F1. And how dare Vettel win four championships when Irvine won zero. And F1 is child's play and boring now compared to when Irvine was in F1. A carbon copy of all interviews with Eddie Irvine.

At the end of the day it's just Irvine's opinion but it's actually something he can't measure or prove and in respect to his era drivers always seem to think that their era was the best.

There's basically nothing wrong with Irvine saying that Schumacher was better than Hamilton because I believe that's what most people think anyway but he goes beyond that and says he was in a different league and I start to think was he really, was Schumacher in a different league to Alonso in 2006 then likewise was Alonso in a different league to Hamilton the year after in 2007?
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

pokerman
Posts: 34466
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by pokerman »

BMWSauber84 wrote:
Lojik wrote:
Sutton wrote:Not alot wrong with anything he says tbh


Not so sure;

1) I think the quality of the field that Schumacher faced compared to now is debateable.
2) Rosberg might like a quiet word with him about nobody ever outscoring Michael over 2 season (he did it over 3)
3) And the points between Button/Hamilton is a very poor metric and needs to be put into context (much like my point 2).



1) I largely agree with. Hakkinen was top class, but aside from him the amount of other great drivers on the grid was pretty negligable at times between 1995 until Alonso came thorough. Honorable mention for Kimi of course.

2) I think Irvine refers to Michael's peak years. Between 2010-2012 Schumacher had clearly lost a fair chunk of pace.

3) I agree, he made that remark without adding crucial context. I don't want to belittle Button as his 2011 performance was the best of his career IMO. But 2012 would have been a monstrous drubbing without the reliability factor.

...and McLaren incompetence.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

pokerman
Posts: 34466
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by pokerman »

BMWSauber84 wrote:And is F1 really much more boring and predictible now? Yes the engines are quieter, but we had 5 different race winners in 2018 and three different teams won.

Apart from the odd anomaly like 1982, 2003, 2008, 2012 etc those numbers are about standard for the majority of F1 seasons. People hark back to the early 2000's and 90's like it was endless summers, thrilling overtakes and close battles on the track all the time. It wasn't.

The 1999 Spanish grand prix was about as boring as it gets. Aside from the start there was one on-track overtake all race. Hill on Barrichello for a non point scoring 7th place. And Barrichello was later disqualified anyway. But those V10's made a nice noise at least.

During Max Moseley's campaign in response to the lack of overtaking in F1 in comparison I believe to Indycars, he said something along the lines of overtaking should be hard because when it's achieved it should be then seen as being something special.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

User avatar
Blake
Posts: 6819
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Location: Nebraska, USA
Contact:

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Blake »

pokerman wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:And is F1 really much more boring and predictible now? Yes the engines are quieter, but we had 5 different race winners in 2018 and three different teams won.

Apart from the odd anomaly like 1982, 2003, 2008, 2012 etc those numbers are about standard for the majority of F1 seasons. People hark back to the early 2000's and 90's like it was endless summers, thrilling overtakes and close battles on the track all the time. It wasn't.

The 1999 Spanish grand prix was about as boring as it gets. Aside from the start there was one on-track overtake all race. Hill on Barrichello for a non point scoring 7th place. And Barrichello was later disqualified anyway. But those V10's made a nice noise at least.

During Max Moseley's campaign in response to the lack of overtaking in F1 in comparison I believe to Indycars, he said something along the lines of overtaking should be hard because when it's achieved it should be then seen as being something special.


If only that were true. However, many of the IndyCar overtakes are as exciting as most of the F1 overtakes. The thing IndyCar has going for it is that the finish is usually still exciting, whereas the F1 finish is often known after all 2.
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

pokerman
Posts: 34466
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by pokerman »

Blake wrote:
pokerman wrote:
BMWSauber84 wrote:And is F1 really much more boring and predictible now? Yes the engines are quieter, but we had 5 different race winners in 2018 and three different teams won.

Apart from the odd anomaly like 1982, 2003, 2008, 2012 etc those numbers are about standard for the majority of F1 seasons. People hark back to the early 2000's and 90's like it was endless summers, thrilling overtakes and close battles on the track all the time. It wasn't.

The 1999 Spanish grand prix was about as boring as it gets. Aside from the start there was one on-track overtake all race. Hill on Barrichello for a non point scoring 7th place. And Barrichello was later disqualified anyway. But those V10's made a nice noise at least.

During Max Moseley's campaign in response to the lack of overtaking in F1 in comparison I believe to Indycars, he said something along the lines of overtaking should be hard because when it's achieved it should be then seen as being something special.


If only that were true. However, many of the IndyCar overtakes are as exciting as most of the F1 overtakes. The thing IndyCar has going for it is that the finish is usually still exciting, whereas the F1 finish is often known after all 2.

I enjoyed watching Indycar racing in the 80's, as to the the unpredictable races, sorry but from what I've seen that's down to the SC lotteries, one minute a driver can be leading a race the next minute he can find himself down in 9th place.
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Zoue »

pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
cmax wrote:I think he was a bit harsh on Vettel and I am also wondering what does Lewis has to do to be in the same league as Schumi. Better yes, but not in the same league? Does this mean if Michael is F1, then Lewis would be GP2 category?

I think you might be taking it a little too literally. Many people might say that Bottas is not in the same league as Hamilton, but he's clearly still an F1 driver

So Hamilton should take credit for being a F1 driver?

It's Irvine's opinion, I guess most people would say that Schumacher was better than Hamilton however I'm not sure how many would say that Hamilton is not even in the same league as Schumacher?

BIB: I don't really understand what you mean? I'm in no way having a dig at Hamilton here anyway

As to the second part, "same league as" is just a hyperbolic expression used to illustrate that one is clearly better. Even if you disagree, I don't think you need to read too much into it beyond that

It's not something I would be wanting to disagree with, maybe your comparison with Bottas was perhaps a bit unfortunate?

It's just a comparison for illustration purposes to counter the GP2 analogy. Again, don't need to be reading too much into it

Zoue
Posts: 25158
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Zoue »

BMWSauber84 wrote:
Lojik wrote:
Sutton wrote:Not alot wrong with anything he says tbh


Not so sure;

1) I think the quality of the field that Schumacher faced compared to now is debateable.
2) Rosberg might like a quiet word with him about nobody ever outscoring Michael over 2 season (he did it over 3)
3) And the points between Button/Hamilton is a very poor metric and needs to be put into context (much like my point 2).



1) I largely agree with. Hakkinen was top class, but aside from him the amount of other great drivers on the grid was pretty negligable at times between 1995 until Alonso came thorough. Honorable mention for Kimi of course.

2) I think Irvine refers to Michael's peak years. Between 2010-2012 Schumacher had clearly lost a fair chunk of pace.

3) I agree, he made that remark without adding crucial context. I don't want to belittle Button as his 2011 performance was the best of his career IMO. But 2012 would have been a monstrous drubbing without the reliability factor.

BIB: True, but even that wasn't really representative as Button was struggling with his car setup. It's not like he suddenly forgot how to drive and that represented the true gap between them

Fiki
Posts: 7973
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Location: Belgium

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Fiki »

Blake wrote:I agree with much, even most, of what Eddie says, but I do think that Eddie is seemingly forgetting how critical the manufacturers were to the birth of F1, as well as its growth. Without the likes of Ferrari, Maserati, Alfa Romeo and Mercedes, F1 would have likely "died on the vine" so to speak. Without the competition between McLaren, Williams, Lotus & Ferrari, the great growth of F1 in the "middle years" F1 would likely have never reached the popularity it enjoys now. There have been non-manufacturers who have made significant impact, such as Williams, Red Bull, BRM, Burney and others, but it has indeed been the manufacturers that have made the difference. I think Eddie missed that aspect.

For what it is worth, while I think he was a tad harsh on Vettel, I cant, at this point argue with his Schumi, Lewis, Vettel ranking order.
Your remark about the manufacturers in the old days is correct, but I think the way they went racing was fundamentally different. One aspect is something I would love to see today; a driver/team renting a formula 1 car for their national Grand Prix, notably the Ferraris in Belgian racing yellow colours. The cars might be slightly older than the "proper" team cars, but they were there and competed. I still fail to see why a team would not be allowed to field a car they bought or rent, as long as the car conforms to the formula.

But my main comment concerns yours and Irvine's ranking of drivers. Eddie includes Senna in his views, what are your views on where Senna is situated - perhaps just vis-à-vis Schumacher?
I have never felt the need to alter my feeling that Senna is the fastest driver I have ever seen in action myself, that Prost remains the best driver of the pre-"mission control" era, and that Schumacher was as near perfect a combination of these two drivers*. I believe Schumacher era 1 would have been far more enjoyable to all racing fans if mission control had been forbidden, but it's clear I'm in a minority with that view. I even know fans who like tyre pitstops. 8O

So I would like to see where you think Senna is situated in that little ranking. And I will just add that I don't understand half of Irvine's explanation about the differences between Senna and Schumacher "technique".

* Note, for what it's worth, that I was never a fan of Senna or Schumacher, but I was and remain a fan of Prost.
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

User avatar
Lt. Drebin
Posts: 4796
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am

Re: Eddie Irvine's scathing assesment of Formula One today

Post by Lt. Drebin »

I still think we can not compare drivers of the different era, and the hazy lines between them makes it even harder to do so. Then, there is also a period of a driver in his prime and out of his prime. One can thin of many other factors. Also, who can deny that, for example Lecler wasn't driving on absolute human and physical limits and the limit of his car? Why won't he be then regarded as the best driver? Just because he was driving mediocre car? Or we just rate high drivers that had luck to sit in a few best cars?

So may parameters to consider.
The end is near

Post Reply