planetf1.com

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

kleefton wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:
Oh come off it, whatever your opinion that's a ridiculous line of argument. We have no idea the difference between the Merc and Red Bull with the drivers factored out.

Kubica was out qualified 20-0. Sometimes Albon is close to Verstappen as well.

I don't find a half second gap difficult to believe between a top driver and a an unproven rookie coming in mid season. In light of no evidence to the contrary I will believe it is genuine. It would hardly be fair to Verstappen to effectively say he's doing too good a job. How well can a driver perform against his team mate while you to believe it? Where's the cut off if 0.5 seconds is too big a gap? 0.4, 0.3...

The only ridiculous thing is you refusing to accept the fact that it is not an ordinary gap.
Please bring up a comparable driver pairing that shows a similar disparity. Kubica Russell doesn't count because there are a actually a few times kubica had been close and the consensus is that he is the worst driver on the grid anyway.
It's actually quite comical that you claim that albon has been close sometimes. He only matched max once and max had a technical issue in that session. Besides that it's like they're driving different cars.

I'm loving your posts. It's good to know that someone else has actually seen what I've been witnessing here.

I didn't realise that Max had a technical issue in Japan Q3, but that explains what I suspected, and that was that Albon was not really on Max's pace on that weekend. If you look at the race, Albon only finished 10 seconds ahead of Sainz in the McLaren and was about 45 seconds or so off the lead group, so I don't think Albon was competitive at all in Japan.

Yeah max mentioned on an interview that he had less power in q3 than he had in fp2.

But where you and I differ is that i think albon is compromised while you believe he is downright terrible. But my question to you is why didnt he look terrible at Toro rosso?

In any case I'm going to leave this here. I ask for one recent example of such one sided teammate pairing and the guy is going to bring up kovalainen and hamilton and alonso and piquet. Last I checked that was a decade ago and doesn't qualify as recent, and none of those looked as bad as verstappens teammates anyway. Kovi outqualified Lewis around Monaco ffs. I'm done here.

Vandoorne vs Alonso was a clean sweep last year for a reference.

I would agree with you that Albon is compromised at Red Bull, and is not able to show his true pace currently. I don't think we can expect an inexperienced driver to jump into a car mid-season and be able to adjust to its new dynamics. I would argue however that Albon didn't look terrible at Toro Rosso because he didn't look terrible. And that the difference in pace between Verstappen and Albon is only slightly affected by Albon's inability to adjust to the new car.

Kvyat isn't the best candidate to measure a driver's worth against, and the fact that Albon was pretty much on par with him (IIRC) doesn't bode well for him. I don't think Albon has the potential to be a top car driver, but I understand Red Bull's decision to continue with him for next year. They've destroyed the confidence of a few too many drivers recently. I suspect he won't last for the 2021 season, unless Verstappen commands a position of choosing his teammates by then.

Supposedly the Verstappen camp didn't want Albon for 2020. They were pushing for a more experienced team mate. Hulkenberg I assume.

There are no examples of a rookie changing teams mid season up against one of the best. Closest thing is Grosjean dropping into Renault mid season in 2009

mikeyg123 wrote:

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

kleefton wrote:
The only ridiculous thing is you refusing to accept the fact that it is not an ordinary gap.
Please bring up a comparable driver pairing that shows a similar disparity. Kubica Russell doesn't count because there are a actually a few times kubica had been close and the consensus is that he is the worst driver on the grid anyway.
It's actually quite comical that you claim that albon has been close sometimes. He only matched max once and max had a technical issue in that session. Besides that it's like they're driving different cars.

I'm loving your posts. It's good to know that someone else has actually seen what I've been witnessing here.

I didn't realise that Max had a technical issue in Japan Q3, but that explains what I suspected, and that was that Albon was not really on Max's pace on that weekend. If you look at the race, Albon only finished 10 seconds ahead of Sainz in the McLaren and was about 45 seconds or so off the lead group, so I don't think Albon was competitive at all in Japan.

Yeah max mentioned on an interview that he had less power in q3 than he had in fp2.

But where you and I differ is that i think albon is compromised while you believe he is downright terrible. But my question to you is why didnt he look terrible at Toro rosso?

In any case I'm going to leave this here. I ask for one recent example of such one sided teammate pairing and the guy is going to bring up kovalainen and hamilton and alonso and piquet. Last I checked that was a decade ago and doesn't qualify as recent, and none of those looked as bad as verstappens teammates anyway. Kovi outqualified Lewis around Monaco ffs. I'm done here.

Vandoorne vs Alonso was a clean sweep last year for a reference.

I would agree with you that Albon is compromised at Red Bull, and is not able to show his true pace currently. I don't think we can expect an inexperienced driver to jump into a car mid-season and be able to adjust to its new dynamics. I would argue however that Albon didn't look terrible at Toro Rosso because he didn't look terrible. And that the difference in pace between Verstappen and Albon is only slightly affected by Albon's inability to adjust to the new car.

Kvyat isn't the best candidate to measure a driver's worth against, and the fact that Albon was pretty much on par with him (IIRC) doesn't bode well for him. I don't think Albon has the potential to be a top car driver, but I understand Red Bull's decision to continue with him for next year. They've destroyed the confidence of a few too many drivers recently. I suspect he won't last for the 2021 season, unless Verstappen commands a position of choosing his teammates by then.

Supposedly the Verstappen camp didn't want Albon for 2020. They were pushing for a more experienced team mate. Hulkenberg I assume.

That's interesting. I suppose Verstappen thinks Albon is too weak to be a rear-gunner for him, and that he also thinks he's better than everyone so it doesn't matter how good of a driver he teams up with is.

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:

kleefton wrote:

F1 Racer wrote: I'm loving your posts. It's good to know that someone else has actually seen what I've been witnessing here.

I didn't realise that Max had a technical issue in Japan Q3, but that explains what I suspected, and that was that Albon was not really on Max's pace on that weekend. If you look at the race, Albon only finished 10 seconds ahead of Sainz in the McLaren and was about 45 seconds or so off the lead group, so I don't think Albon was competitive at all in Japan.

Yeah max mentioned on an interview that he had less power in q3 than he had in fp2.

But where you and I differ is that i think albon is compromised while you believe he is downright terrible. But my question to you is why didnt he look terrible at Toro rosso?

In any case I'm going to leave this here. I ask for one recent example of such one sided teammate pairing and the guy is going to bring up kovalainen and hamilton and alonso and piquet. Last I checked that was a decade ago and doesn't qualify as recent, and none of those looked as bad as verstappens teammates anyway. Kovi outqualified Lewis around Monaco ffs. I'm done here.

Vandoorne vs Alonso was a clean sweep last year for a reference.

I would agree with you that Albon is compromised at Red Bull, and is not able to show his true pace currently. I don't think we can expect an inexperienced driver to jump into a car mid-season and be able to adjust to its new dynamics. I would argue however that Albon didn't look terrible at Toro Rosso because he didn't look terrible. And that the difference in pace between Verstappen and Albon is only slightly affected by Albon's inability to adjust to the new car.

Kvyat isn't the best candidate to measure a driver's worth against, and the fact that Albon was pretty much on par with him (IIRC) doesn't bode well for him. I don't think Albon has the potential to be a top car driver, but I understand Red Bull's decision to continue with him for next year. They've destroyed the confidence of a few too many drivers recently. I suspect he won't last for the 2021 season, unless Verstappen commands a position of choosing his teammates by then.

Supposedly the Verstappen camp didn't want Albon for 2020. They were pushing for a more experienced team mate. Hulkenberg I assume.

That's interesting. I suppose Verstappen thinks Albon is too weak to be a rear-gunner for him, and that he also thinks he's better than everyone so it doesn't matter how good of a driver he teams up with is.

He perhaps needs to be teamed up with a top 10 driver but Red Bull have no such drivers currently on their roster.

Greenman wrote:

f1guyus wrote:According to the Gazzetta Leclerc keeps 3rd place Ferrari pays 50,000 euro fine.

How ?

The punishment is meant to be disqualification !

The FIA / Ferrari relationship is a joke.

.

It was hardly worthy of disqualification.

From what I've seen the amount of fuel was still within the regulations, it was just different to the amount declared.

I'm not quite sure why they declare fuel, especially when its apparently checked when the car leaves the garage anyway, but to be calling for disqualification for what sounds like a technicality is way too extreme.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

Greenman wrote:

f1guyus wrote:According to the Gazzetta Leclerc keeps 3rd place Ferrari pays 50,000 euro fine.

How ?

The punishment is meant to be disqualification !

The FIA / Ferrari relationship is a joke.

.

It was hardly worthy of disqualification.

From what I've seen the amount of fuel was still within the regulations, it was just different to the amount declared.

I'm not quite sure why they declare fuel, especially when its apparently checked when the car leaves the garage anyway, but to be calling for disqualification for what sounds like a technicality is way too extreme.

There's a new directive were the stewards want all the fluids recorded that go into the car, I believe they don't want anything burning in the engine that shouldn't be?

So I'm guessing here that the car gets weighed and they know how much it should weigh but the Ferrari then weighs nearly 5Kgs more than it should weigh?

Now why do they want to do this?

Maybe because they can't trust the fuel flow sensor to measure how much fuel is being burned in the car in the wake of tampering allegations, I believe it was said that the sensor as well as measuring the flow of fuel into the engine also measures the amount of fuel that's been used?

So they weigh the car before and after the race and the difference should correspond to what the fuel flow sensor has recorded, if the car is lighter than it should be then perhaps the car has been burning more fluid then the ffs has recorded by either oil burning or by exceeding the fuel flow limit?

A bit unfortunate that the team that's being investigated declares it's car 5Kgs lighter than what it was.

I'm purely speculating here.

kleefton wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

kleefton wrote:
The only ridiculous thing is you refusing to accept the fact that it is not an ordinary gap.
Please bring up a comparable driver pairing that shows a similar disparity. Kubica Russell doesn't count because there are a actually a few times kubica had been close and the consensus is that he is the worst driver on the grid anyway.
It's actually quite comical that you claim that albon has been close sometimes. He only matched max once and max had a technical issue in that session. Besides that it's like they're driving different cars.

I'm loving your posts. It's good to know that someone else has actually seen what I've been witnessing here.

I didn't realise that Max had a technical issue in Japan Q3, but that explains what I suspected, and that was that Albon was not really on Max's pace on that weekend. If you look at the race, Albon only finished 10 seconds ahead of Sainz in the McLaren and was about 45 seconds or so off the lead group, so I don't think Albon was competitive at all in Japan.

Yeah max mentioned on an interview that he had less power in q3 than he had in fp2.

But where you and I differ is that i think albon is compromised while you believe he is downright terrible. But my question to you is why didnt he look terrible at Toro rosso?

In any case I'm going to leave this here. I ask for one recent example of such one sided teammate pairing and the guy is going to bring up kovalainen and hamilton and alonso and piquet. Last I checked that was a decade ago and doesn't qualify as recent, and none of those looked as bad as verstappens teammates anyway. Kovi outqualified Lewis around Monaco ffs. I'm done here.

Yes, it is a shame that you don't realise that Albon looked pretty bad at Torro Rosso in the end. He wasn't able to easily beat Kyvat, the two of them looked fairly evenly matched, although Kyvat did outscore him due to that podium in Germany.

Gasly on the other hand has managed to beat Kyvat fairly convincingly so there is a case for Gasly having had the slightly 'stronger' season overall than Albon. I mean he's outscored Albon for a start in the WDC, he was a bit worse on pace overall in the Red Bull but did at least have one solid weekend in Britain compared to zero solid weekends for Albon in the Red Bull. Then in their Torro Rosso stints, it looks like a big win for Gasly there, so as bad as Gasly has been, he's probably had a slightly better season than Albon which is just insane.

Red Bull should have given the drive to Gasly for 2020, not only would that show that once you are demoted it isn't necessarily the end for you, you can come back, but also it looks like Albon needs the same kind of 'kick-up-the-backside' demotion that the other drivers have been given.

F1 Racer wrote:

kleefton wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

kleefton wrote:
The only ridiculous thing is you refusing to accept the fact that it is not an ordinary gap.
Please bring up a comparable driver pairing that shows a similar disparity. Kubica Russell doesn't count because there are a actually a few times kubica had been close and the consensus is that he is the worst driver on the grid anyway.
It's actually quite comical that you claim that albon has been close sometimes. He only matched max once and max had a technical issue in that session. Besides that it's like they're driving different cars.

I'm loving your posts. It's good to know that someone else has actually seen what I've been witnessing here.

I didn't realise that Max had a technical issue in Japan Q3, but that explains what I suspected, and that was that Albon was not really on Max's pace on that weekend. If you look at the race, Albon only finished 10 seconds ahead of Sainz in the McLaren and was about 45 seconds or so off the lead group, so I don't think Albon was competitive at all in Japan.

Yeah max mentioned on an interview that he had less power in q3 than he had in fp2.

But where you and I differ is that i think albon is compromised while you believe he is downright terrible. But my question to you is why didnt he look terrible at Toro rosso?

In any case I'm going to leave this here. I ask for one recent example of such one sided teammate pairing and the guy is going to bring up kovalainen and hamilton and alonso and piquet. Last I checked that was a decade ago and doesn't qualify as recent, and none of those looked as bad as verstappens teammates anyway. Kovi outqualified Lewis around Monaco ffs. I'm done here.

Yes, it is a shame that you don't realise that Albon looked terrible at Torro Rosso. Well he wasn't able to easily beat Kyvat, the two looked fairly evenly matched, although Kyvat did outscore him due to that podium in Germany.

Gasly on the other hand has managed to beat Kyvat fairly convincingly so there is a case for Gasly having had the slightly 'stronger' season overall than Albon. I mean he's outscored Albon for a start in the WDC, he was a bit worse on pace overall in the Red Bull but did have one solid weekend in Britain compared to zero solid weekends for Albon in the Red Bull. Then in their Torro Rosso stints, it looks like a big win for Gasly there, so as bad as Gasly has been, he's probably had a slightly better season than Albon which is just insane.

Red Bull should have given the drive to Gasly for 2020, not only would that show that once you are demoted it isn't necessarily the end for you, you can come back, but also it looks like Albon needs the same kind of 'kick-up-the-backside' demotion that the other drivers have been given.

Listening to how Gasly talks he maybe is somewhat of a one trick pony in that he can only drive cars that suit him, as in there's nothing wrong with my driving it's the car, he seems to either lack adaptability or simply doesn't feel the need to adapt his driving?

pokerman wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

kleefton wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

kleefton wrote:
The only ridiculous thing is you refusing to accept the fact that it is not an ordinary gap.
Please bring up a comparable driver pairing that shows a similar disparity. Kubica Russell doesn't count because there are a actually a few times kubica had been close and the consensus is that he is the worst driver on the grid anyway.
It's actually quite comical that you claim that albon has been close sometimes. He only matched max once and max had a technical issue in that session. Besides that it's like they're driving different cars.

I'm loving your posts. It's good to know that someone else has actually seen what I've been witnessing here.

I didn't realise that Max had a technical issue in Japan Q3, but that explains what I suspected, and that was that Albon was not really on Max's pace on that weekend. If you look at the race, Albon only finished 10 seconds ahead of Sainz in the McLaren and was about 45 seconds or so off the lead group, so I don't think Albon was competitive at all in Japan.

Yeah max mentioned on an interview that he had less power in q3 than he had in fp2.

But where you and I differ is that i think albon is compromised while you believe he is downright terrible. But my question to you is why didnt he look terrible at Toro rosso?

In any case I'm going to leave this here. I ask for one recent example of such one sided teammate pairing and the guy is going to bring up kovalainen and hamilton and alonso and piquet. Last I checked that was a decade ago and doesn't qualify as recent, and none of those looked as bad as verstappens teammates anyway. Kovi outqualified Lewis around Monaco ffs. I'm done here.

Yes, it is a shame that you don't realise that Albon looked terrible at Torro Rosso. Well he wasn't able to easily beat Kyvat, the two looked fairly evenly matched, although Kyvat did outscore him due to that podium in Germany.

Gasly on the other hand has managed to beat Kyvat fairly convincingly so there is a case for Gasly having had the slightly 'stronger' season overall than Albon. I mean he's outscored Albon for a start in the WDC, he was a bit worse on pace overall in the Red Bull but did have one solid weekend in Britain compared to zero solid weekends for Albon in the Red Bull. Then in their Torro Rosso stints, it looks like a big win for Gasly there, so as bad as Gasly has been, he's probably had a slightly better season than Albon which is just insane.

Red Bull should have given the drive to Gasly for 2020, not only would that show that once you are demoted it isn't necessarily the end for you, you can come back, but also it looks like Albon needs the same kind of 'kick-up-the-backside' demotion that the other drivers have been given.

Listening to how Gasly talks he maybe is somewhat of a one trick pony in that he can only drive cars that suit him, as in there's nothing wrong with my driving it's the car, he seems to either lack adaptability or simply doesn't feel the need to adapt his driving?

Yeah, I mean he's not a great driver, it's as simple as that. None of Gasly, Kyvat or Albon should be on the grid, but Gasly is probably just about the best out of all three.

F1 Racer wrote:Yeah, I mean he's not a great driver, it's as simple as that. None of Gasly, Kyvat or Albon should be on the grid, but Gasly is probably just about the best out of all three.

Your crusade against Albon is borderline bizarre at this point. He's a frikkin' rookie up against arguably the best driver on the grid. Give him a chance.

Exediron wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Yeah, I mean he's not a great driver, it's as simple as that. None of Gasly, Kyvat or Albon should be on the grid, but Gasly is probably just about the best out of all three.

Your crusade against Albon is borderline bizarre at this point. He's a frikkin' rookie up against arguably the best driver on the grid. Give him a chance.

Albon is literally a couple of races away from many people turning against him. If he is still slow after race two of next season, then what more excuses are left for him, where else can any supporters go?

He's not really a rookie, he has had 21 grand prix now, that's plenty to start getting good at your craft. You make it seem like he can continue to be slow for the next 10 races or something and he would still not be allowed to be judged yet.

Wasnt there already a thread for Albon bashing? Do we have to read it here too? Im no huge fan but geez.

Ruste13 wrote:Wasnt there already a thread for Albon bashing? Do we have to read it here too? Im no huge fan but geez.

It's on topic because he was slow in the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix too.

F1 Racer wrote:

Exediron wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Yeah, I mean he's not a great driver, it's as simple as that. None of Gasly, Kyvat or Albon should be on the grid, but Gasly is probably just about the best out of all three.

Your crusade against Albon is borderline bizarre at this point. He's a frikkin' rookie up against arguably the best driver on the grid. Give him a chance.

Albon is literally a couple of races away from many people turning against him. If he is still slow after race two of next season, then what more excuses are left for him, where else can any supporters go?

He's not really a rookie, he has had 21 grand prix now, that's plenty to start getting good at your craft. You make it seem like he can continue to be slow for the next 10 races or something and he would still not be allowed to be judged yet.

It's his first season in F1, with half of it in a car that he had no pre-season experience in. Yes, he may well be just a couple of races away from more harsh judgement by several here, but that will be in his second season in a car that he will have had pre-season testing in.
Based on what I've seen thus far there does not appear to be much amiss with his racecraft. He is simply lacking pace against Verstappen.
Albon may simply not be good enough. Or he may be a very good driver. I'll reserve my judgement for now.

I can't even imagine the lambasting that drivers like Damon Hill and Eddie Irvine would have gotten if the internet was widespread and easily accessible in the mid '90s. Irvine was so many miles away from Schumacher, yet he was retained year after year. Then, through a heavy dose of chance and circumstance, it was Irvine and not Schumacher that was nearly Ferrari's first champion since the '70s

Albon has done enough to retain his seat. He has performed better than the guy he replaced. A lot better. Let's see how he does next year. If it's a miserable performance then we all know what's going to happen. Marko will make changes

The explanation for the gap between Max and Alex is simply that Max is just that good. If Max could be consistently faster than Ricciardo then there's every reason to believe he's this much faster than Albon. And gaps this size are not unheard of. We've seen it before with the likes of Schumacher and Alonso paired up with new/average drivers

I think the point that is being made, but slightly harshly, is that there are great drivers who should be in the seats that Gasly and Albon are in. JEV wasn't given as much chance to prove himself at Red Bull, yet Red Bull are now using the second seat of a top car as a third Toro Rosso. Let Gasly and Albon both go back to Toro Rosso next year, because, let's face it, Kvyat will most likely never get the chance to drive a Red Bull again. This will allow us to compare the two more accurately. Then give the Red Bull seat to someone who actually deserves it, such as Hulkenberg, and re-assess in 2021.

F1 Racer wrote:

Exediron wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Yeah, I mean he's not a great driver, it's as simple as that. None of Gasly, Kyvat or Albon should be on the grid, but Gasly is probably just about the best out of all three.

Your crusade against Albon is borderline bizarre at this point. He's a frikkin' rookie up against arguably the best driver on the grid. Give him a chance.

Albon is literally a couple of races away from many people turning against him. If he is still slow after race two of next season, then what more excuses are left for him, where else can any supporters go?

He's not really a rookie, he has had 21 grand prix now, that's plenty to start getting good at your craft. You make it seem like he can continue to be slow for the next 10 races or something and he would still not be allowed to be judged yet.

He was the dictionary the definition of a rookie.

Johnson wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Exediron wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Yeah, I mean he's not a great driver, it's as simple as that. None of Gasly, Kyvat or Albon should be on the grid, but Gasly is probably just about the best out of all three.

Your crusade against Albon is borderline bizarre at this point. He's a frikkin' rookie up against arguably the best driver on the grid. Give him a chance.

Albon is literally a couple of races away from many people turning against him. If he is still slow after race two of next season, then what more excuses are left for him, where else can any supporters go?

He's not really a rookie, he has had 21 grand prix now, that's plenty to start getting good at your craft. You make it seem like he can continue to be slow for the next 10 races or something and he would still not be allowed to be judged yet.

He was the dictionary the definition of a rookie.

Exactly, 'was'. Albon was a rookie, not Albon is a rookie. Big difference. He's already had a season and a third of races under his belt in old money, (i.e. back when 16 races per season was the norm).

mcdo wrote:I can't even imagine the lambasting that drivers like Damon Hill and Eddie Irvine would have gotten if the internet was widespread and easily accessible in the mid '90s. Irvine was so many miles away from Schumacher, yet he was retained year after year. Then, through a heavy dose of chance and circumstance, it was Irvine and not Schumacher that was nearly Ferrari's first champion since the '70s

Albon has done enough to retain his seat. He has performed better than the guy he replaced. A lot better. Let's see how he does next year. If it's a miserable performance then we all know what's going to happen. Marko will make changes

The explanation for the gap between Max and Alex is simply that Max is just that good. If Max could be consistently faster than Ricciardo then there's every reason to believe he's this much faster than Albon. And gaps this size are not unheard of. We've seen it before with the likes of Schumacher and Alonso paired up with new/average drivers

Irvine out-qualified Schumacher in their first race together I believe. Not only that but he was capable of beating the McLaren's on occasion and affecting their races during 1998 and 1999 which helped Schumacher and Ferrari out in the races, (think France 1998 etc.). Sure, he was still a tier below a Barrichello/Bottas type driver, hence why he was eventually replaced by Barrichello in 2000 and then Ferrari started winning big style, but Irvine was still good enough to get decent points and help Ferrari win the WCC in 1999. I would say someone like Irvine or Herbert were similar to a Hulkenberg type driver of today.

Albon and Gasly appear to be two tiers below Bottas/Barrichello, and therefore one tier below Irvine/Hulkenberg, which is why people are suggesting that Hulkenberg would still be an upgrade for Red Bull whilst also being no threat to Max and always obeying team orders.

F1 Racer wrote:

mcdo wrote:I can't even imagine the lambasting that drivers like Damon Hill and Eddie Irvine would have gotten if the internet was widespread and easily accessible in the mid '90s. Irvine was so many miles away from Schumacher, yet he was retained year after year. Then, through a heavy dose of chance and circumstance, it was Irvine and not Schumacher that was nearly Ferrari's first champion since the '70s

Albon has done enough to retain his seat. He has performed better than the guy he replaced. A lot better. Let's see how he does next year. If it's a miserable performance then we all know what's going to happen. Marko will make changes

The explanation for the gap between Max and Alex is simply that Max is just that good. If Max could be consistently faster than Ricciardo then there's every reason to believe he's this much faster than Albon. And gaps this size are not unheard of. We've seen it before with the likes of Schumacher and Alonso paired up with new/average drivers

Irvine out-qualified Schumacher in their first race together I believe. Not only that but he was capable of beating the McLaren's on occasion and affecting their races during 1998 and 1999 which helped Schumacher and Ferrari out in the races, (think France 1998 etc.). Sure, he was still a tier below a Barrichello/Bottas type driver, hence why he was eventually replaced by Barrichello in 2000 and then Ferrari started winning big style, but Irvine was still good enough to get decent points and help Ferrari win the WCC in 1999. I would say someone like Irvine or Herbert were similar to a Hulkenberg type driver of today.

Albon and Gasly appear to be two tiers below Bottas/Barrichello, and therefore one tier below Irvine/Hulkenberg, which is why people are suggesting that Hulkenberg would still be an upgrade for Red Bull whilst also being no threat to Max and always obeying team orders.

Albon is 0.5 off now as a rookie and after coming in mid season. My guess is that next season it will be more like 0.3 as drivers almost always improve after their rookie seasons and are usually much better if they've had a pre season.

F1 Racer wrote:

Johnson wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Exediron wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Yeah, I mean he's not a great driver, it's as simple as that. None of Gasly, Kyvat or Albon should be on the grid, but Gasly is probably just about the best out of all three.

Your crusade against Albon is borderline bizarre at this point. He's a frikkin' rookie up against arguably the best driver on the grid. Give him a chance.

Albon is literally a couple of races away from many people turning against him. If he is still slow after race two of next season, then what more excuses are left for him, where else can any supporters go?

He's not really a rookie, he has had 21 grand prix now, that's plenty to start getting good at your craft. You make it seem like he can continue to be slow for the next 10 races or something and he would still not be allowed to be judged yet.

He was the dictionary the definition of a rookie.

Exactly, 'was'. Albon was a rookie, not Albon is a rookie. Big difference. He's already had a season and a third of races under his belt in old money, (i.e. back when 16 races per season was the norm).

F1 Racer wrote:

Johnson wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Exediron wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:Yeah, I mean he's not a great driver, it's as simple as that. None of Gasly, Kyvat or Albon should be on the grid, but Gasly is probably just about the best out of all three.

Your crusade against Albon is borderline bizarre at this point. He's a frikkin' rookie up against arguably the best driver on the grid. Give him a chance.

Albon is literally a couple of races away from many people turning against him. If he is still slow after race two of next season, then what more excuses are left for him, where else can any supporters go?

He's not really a rookie, he has had 21 grand prix now, that's plenty to start getting good at your craft. You make it seem like he can continue to be slow for the next 10 races or something and he would still not be allowed to be judged yet.

He was the dictionary the definition of a rookie.

Exactly, 'was'. Albon was a rookie, not Albon is a rookie. Big difference. He's already had a season and a third of races under his belt in old money, (i.e. back when 16 races per season was the norm).

So by 1950's standards he's a 2.5 season veteran?

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Johnson wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:
Albon is literally a couple of races away from many people turning against him. If he is still slow after race two of next season, then what more excuses are left for him, where else can any supporters go?

He's not really a rookie, he has had 21 grand prix now, that's plenty to start getting good at your craft. You make it seem like he can continue to be slow for the next 10 races or something and he would still not be allowed to be judged yet.

He was the dictionary the definition of a rookie.

Exactly, 'was'. Albon was a rookie, not Albon is a rookie. Big difference. He's already had a season and a third of races under his belt in old money, (i.e. back when 16 races per season was the norm).

So by 1950's standards he's a 2.5 season veteran?

Correct.

To gauge experience, it's the number of races partaken in that is most important, not the number of seasons.

When the future F1 seasons expand to 25 races, drivers will be getting more experienced much faster. This really shouldn't be a hard concept to understand. Drivers are doing more of everything in a calendar year now, compared to what they used to do. More starts, more qualifying sessions, more overtakes, more managing of tyres etc. The races are replacing testing mileage, and undertaking more race weekend experience is better at improving your race weekend performace than more testing improves your race weekend performance. So drivers nowadays should be getting adept at reaching their optimum race weekend performance far sooner than in the past where they had less race weekends and lots of testing days.

It's the same rationale behind Max Verstappen being a very experienced driver now even though he is 'only 22'. Michael Schumacher was almost 29 by the time he reached the same number of grand prix, and therefore experience, as Max.

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Johnson wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:
Albon is literally a couple of races away from many people turning against him. If he is still slow after race two of next season, then what more excuses are left for him, where else can any supporters go?

He's not really a rookie, he has had 21 grand prix now, that's plenty to start getting good at your craft. You make it seem like he can continue to be slow for the next 10 races or something and he would still not be allowed to be judged yet.

He was the dictionary the definition of a rookie.

Exactly, 'was'. Albon was a rookie, not Albon is a rookie. Big difference. He's already had a season and a third of races under his belt in old money, (i.e. back when 16 races per season was the norm).

So by 1950's standards he's a 2.5 season veteran?

Correct.

To gauge experience, it's the number of races partaken in that is most important, not the number of seasons.

When the future F1 seasons expand to 25 races, drivers will be getting more experienced much faster. This really shouldn't be a hard concept to understand. Drivers are doing more of everything in a calendar year now, compared to what they used to do. More starts, more qualifying sessions, more overtakes, more managing of tyres etc. The races are replacing testing mileage, and more race weekend experience is better at improving your race weekend performace than more testing improves your race weekend performance. So drivers nowadays should be getting adept at reaching their optimum race weekend performance far sooner than in the past where they had less race weekends and lots of testing days.

It's the same rationale behind Max Verstappen being a very experienced driver now even though he is 'only 22'. Michael Schumacher was almost 29 by the time he reached the same number of grand prix and therefore experience as Max.

Verstappen is the example that disproves your theory. He is still getting better each year.

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:
Exactly, 'was'. Albon was a rookie, not Albon is a rookie. Big difference. He's already had a season and a third of races under his belt in old money, (i.e. back when 16 races per season was the norm).

So by 1950's standards he's a 2.5 season veteran?

Correct.

To gauge experience, it's the number of races partaken in that is most important, not the number of seasons.

When the future F1 seasons expand to 25 races, drivers will be getting more experienced much faster. This really shouldn't be a hard concept to understand. Drivers are doing more of everything in a calendar year now, compared to what they used to do. More starts, more qualifying sessions, more overtakes, more managing of tyres etc. The races are replacing testing mileage, and more race weekend experience is better at improving your race weekend performace than more testing improves your race weekend performance. So drivers nowadays should be getting adept at reaching their optimum race weekend performance far sooner than in the past where they had less race weekends and lots of testing days.

It's the same rationale behind Max Verstappen being a very experienced driver now even though he is 'only 22'. Michael Schumacher was almost 29 by the time he reached the same number of grand prix and therefore experience as Max.

Verstappen is the example that disproves your theory. He is still getting better each year.

Wut?

Don't most drivers get slightly better with each passing year? Isn't Hamilton getting slightly better each year until age eventually catches up with him? Wasn't Schumacher better in 2004 than he was in 1998?

So Albon is chasing moving goal posts and needs to improve more than the standard incremental improvement that all drivers will be gaining, in order to make up actual ground.

F1 Racer wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:
Exactly, 'was'. Albon was a rookie, not Albon is a rookie. Big difference. He's already had a season and a third of races under his belt in old money, (i.e. back when 16 races per season was the norm).

So by 1950's standards he's a 2.5 season veteran?

Correct.

To gauge experience, it's the number of races partaken in that is most important, not the number of seasons.

When the future F1 seasons expand to 25 races, drivers will be getting more experienced much faster. This really shouldn't be a hard concept to understand. Drivers are doing more of everything in a calendar year now, compared to what they used to do. More starts, more qualifying sessions, more overtakes, more managing of tyres etc. The races are replacing testing mileage, and more race weekend experience is better at improving your race weekend performace than more testing improves your race weekend performance. So drivers nowadays should be getting adept at reaching their optimum race weekend performance far sooner than in the past where they had less race weekends and lots of testing days.

It's the same rationale behind Max Verstappen being a very experienced driver now even though he is 'only 22'. Michael Schumacher was almost 29 by the time he reached the same number of grand prix and therefore experience as Max.

Verstappen is the example that disproves your theory. He is still getting better each year.

Wut?

Don't most drivers get slightly better with each passing year? Isn't Hamilton getting slightly better each year until age eventually catches up with him? Wasn't Schumacher better in 2004 than he was in 1998?

So Albon is chasing moving goal posts and needs to improve more than the standard incremental improvement that all drivers will be gaining, in order to make up actual ground.

This is a new theory for you. Your old one was drivers don't improve at all.

I would say most drivers improve for the first few years and then level out. Certainly they improve a lot from their opening season.

Button was beaten in his first two seasons and so was Kimi. Rosberg was beaten in his rookie year as well.

These are 3 of our last 5 champions.

They weren't beaten by the likes of Alonso or Michael Schumacher either. They were beaten by Ralf Schumacher , Fissichella, Heidfeld, Coulthard and Webber. Not a WDC between them.

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Johnson wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:
Albon is literally a couple of races away from many people turning against him. If he is still slow after race two of next season, then what more excuses are left for him, where else can any supporters go?

He's not really a rookie, he has had 21 grand prix now, that's plenty to start getting good at your craft. You make it seem like he can continue to be slow for the next 10 races or something and he would still not be allowed to be judged yet.

He was the dictionary the definition of a rookie.

Exactly, 'was'. Albon was a rookie, not Albon is a rookie. Big difference. He's already had a season and a third of races under his belt in old money, (i.e. back when 16 races per season was the norm).

So by 1950's standards he's a 2.5 season veteran?

Correct.

To gauge experience, it's the number of races partaken in that is most important, not the number of seasons.

When the future F1 seasons expand to 25 races, drivers will be getting more experienced much faster. This really shouldn't be a hard concept to understand. Drivers are doing more of everything in a calendar year now, compared to what they used to do. More starts, more qualifying sessions, more overtakes, more managing of tyres etc. The races are replacing testing mileage, and undertaking more race weekend experience is better at improving your race weekend performace than more testing improves your race weekend performance. So drivers nowadays should be getting adept at reaching their optimum race weekend performance far sooner than in the past where they had less race weekends and lots of testing days.

It's the same rationale behind Max Verstappen being a very experienced driver now even though he is 'only 22'. Michael Schumacher was almost 29 by the time he reached the same number of grand prix, and therefore experience, as Max.

I see your point, but I think it is not as relevant. As there are too many different tracks to gauge that. If they ran the same track 5 times in 5 consecutive weekends, then I'd say that yeah, this driver is no rookie, he has experience now. But they may have 16 GPs under their belt but never been to a high altitude one like Mexico for example, you can't say that this driver should have known as he is experienced. He clearly is not!!!

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Johnson wrote:
He was the dictionary the definition of a rookie.

Exactly, 'was'. Albon was a rookie, not Albon is a rookie. Big difference. He's already had a season and a third of races under his belt in old money, (i.e. back when 16 races per season was the norm).

So by 1950's standards he's a 2.5 season veteran?

Correct.

To gauge experience, it's the number of races partaken in that is most important, not the number of seasons.

When the future F1 seasons expand to 25 races, drivers will be getting more experienced much faster. This really shouldn't be a hard concept to understand. Drivers are doing more of everything in a calendar year now, compared to what they used to do. More starts, more qualifying sessions, more overtakes, more managing of tyres etc. The races are replacing testing mileage, and undertaking more race weekend experience is better at improving your race weekend performace than more testing improves your race weekend performance. So drivers nowadays should be getting adept at reaching their optimum race weekend performance far sooner than in the past where they had less race weekends and lots of testing days.

It's the same rationale behind Max Verstappen being a very experienced driver now even though he is 'only 22'. Michael Schumacher was almost 29 by the time he reached the same number of grand prix, and therefore experience, as Max.

I see your point, but I think it is not as relevant. As there are too many different tracks to gauge that. If they ran the same track 5 times in 5 consecutive weekends, then I'd say that yeah, this driver is no rookie, he has experience now. But they may have 16 GPs under their belt but never been to a high altitude one like Mexico for example, you can't say that this driver should have known as he is experienced. He clearly is not!!!

Verstappen went around the outside of Nasr at Blanchimont in Spa because he's done the same move on a racing sim. So technically he has driven possibly thousands of laps around Spa! And it follows from this statement that he has lots of experience thus far.

However, I would say driving more races per year will not make him more experienced mentally. People need time to reflect on their actions and how they can improve, and, if anything, more races will probably hinder this.

I wasn’t watching really closely, but did Albon not push Vettel pretty hard throughout the second half of the race? I know he was fortunate to gain 4s during the first round of pit stops, but that seems a pretty respectable way to end the season? Perhaps there is something I missed - no doubt F1 Racer will have some opinions but anyone else?

I think there are better drivers that could be in that seat, and I’m not sure how long he’ll last at Red Bull but he continues to surprise and do a decent job.

WHoff78 wrote:I wasn’t watching really closely, but did Albon not push Vettel pretty hard throughout the second half of the race? I know he was fortunate to gain 4s during the first round of pit stops, but that seems a pretty respectable way to end the season? Perhaps there is something I missed - no doubt F1 Racer will have some opinions but anyone else?

I think there are better drivers that could be in that seat, and I’m not sure how long he’ll last at Red Bull but he continues to surprise and do a decent job.

He did not surprise and he did not do a decent job.

The Ferrari's had poor pace and Albon couldn't beat either of them despite having a better car.

F1 Racer wrote: Red Bull should have given the drive to Gasly for 2020, not only would that show that once you are demoted it isn't necessarily the end for you, you can come back, but also it looks like Albon needs the same kind of 'kick-up-the-backside' demotion that the other drivers have been given.

No Red Bull should have given the drive to Alonso, I'm beginning to get the feeling that MV is going a bit diva, I know that the policy is to put a junior RB driver in the car but it is very odd that non of these guys have matched MV. If MV wants to win a WDC he has to face up to the fact that he will be beaten by his team mate. Not every GP of course but it will happen. It makes MV look better if he beats the newbies but he doesn't give me the impression that he is adding positive input to the other side of the garage. He needs to be part of a team to succeed.

Option or Prime wrote:

F1 Racer wrote: Red Bull should have given the drive to Gasly for 2020, not only would that show that once you are demoted it isn't necessarily the end for you, you can come back, but also it looks like Albon needs the same kind of 'kick-up-the-backside' demotion that the other drivers have been given.

No Red Bull should have given the drive to Alonso, I'm beginning to get the feeling that MV is going a bit diva, I know that the policy is to put a junior RB driver in the car but it is very odd that non of these guys have matched MV. If MV wants to win a WDC he has to face up to the fact that he will be beaten by his team mate. Not every GP of course but it will happen. It makes MV look better if he beats the newbies but he doesn't give me the impression that he is adding positive input to the other side of the garage. He needs to be part of a team to succeed.

Well yes, I agree that Alonso should have been given the drive, you are right.

I have thought lately that driver input / dynamics tends to get overlooked recently, perhaps because of the level of consistency we have seen from Mercedes (& Red Bull beforehand) and much of the focus is then on the cars. I read a really interesting quote from FE a while back, where Vandoorne stressed the importance of getting De Vries up to speed as quickly as possible and having a competitive driver pairing to help push the team forward. I think having drivers comfortable enough to share as much data as possible, and promoting open competition and continual improvement is a massive advantage for a top team. I think it is just one more area where Mercedes excel. I bet that the approach the teams take on this can also have a big impact on the relative pace of the two drivers in a team.

Schumacher forever#1 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote: Exactly, 'was'. Albon was a rookie, not Albon is a rookie. Big difference. He's already had a season and a third of races under his belt in old money, (i.e. back when 16 races per season was the norm).

So by 1950's standards he's a 2.5 season veteran?

Correct.

To gauge experience, it's the number of races partaken in that is most important, not the number of seasons.

When the future F1 seasons expand to 25 races, drivers will be getting more experienced much faster. This really shouldn't be a hard concept to understand. Drivers are doing more of everything in a calendar year now, compared to what they used to do. More starts, more qualifying sessions, more overtakes, more managing of tyres etc. The races are replacing testing mileage, and undertaking more race weekend experience is better at improving your race weekend performace than more testing improves your race weekend performance. So drivers nowadays should be getting adept at reaching their optimum race weekend performance far sooner than in the past where they had less race weekends and lots of testing days.

It's the same rationale behind Max Verstappen being a very experienced driver now even though he is 'only 22'. Michael Schumacher was almost 29 by the time he reached the same number of grand prix, and therefore experience, as Max.

I see your point, but I think it is not as relevant. As there are too many different tracks to gauge that. If they ran the same track 5 times in 5 consecutive weekends, then I'd say that yeah, this driver is no rookie, he has experience now. But they may have 16 GPs under their belt but never been to a high altitude one like Mexico for example, you can't say that this driver should have known as he is experienced. He clearly is not!!!

Verstappen went around the outside of Nasr at Blanchimont in Spa because he's done the same move on a racing sim. So technically he has driven possibly thousands of laps around Spa! And it follows from this statement that he has lots of experience thus far.

However, I would say driving more races per year will not make him more experienced mentally. People need time to reflect on their actions and how they can improve, and, if anything, more races will probably hinder this.

That pass shouldn't have been really allowed, he drove completely off the circuit.

Why do you guys bother, let him believe (or try to convince us) that Albon is the worst driver ob the planet. You'll not get him to change his opinion even if you poke his argument full of holes.

F1 Racer wrote:

mcdo wrote:I can't even imagine the lambasting that drivers like Damon Hill and Eddie Irvine would have gotten if the internet was widespread and easily accessible in the mid '90s. Irvine was so many miles away from Schumacher, yet he was retained year after year. Then, through a heavy dose of chance and circumstance, it was Irvine and not Schumacher that was nearly Ferrari's first champion since the '70s

Albon has done enough to retain his seat. He has performed better than the guy he replaced. A lot better. Let's see how he does next year. If it's a miserable performance then we all know what's going to happen. Marko will make changes

The explanation for the gap between Max and Alex is simply that Max is just that good. If Max could be consistently faster than Ricciardo then there's every reason to believe he's this much faster than Albon. And gaps this size are not unheard of. We've seen it before with the likes of Schumacher and Alonso paired up with new/average drivers

Irvine out-qualified Schumacher in their first race together I believe. Not only that but he was capable of beating the McLaren's on occasion and affecting their races during 1998 and 1999 which helped Schumacher and Ferrari out in the races, (think France 1998 etc.). Sure, he was still a tier below a Barrichello/Bottas type driver, hence why he was eventually replaced by Barrichello in 2000 and then Ferrari started winning big style, but Irvine was still good enough to get decent points and help Ferrari win the WCC in 1999. I would say someone like Irvine or Herbert were similar to a Hulkenberg type driver of today.

Albon and Gasly appear to be two tiers below Bottas/Barrichello, and therefore one tier below Irvine/Hulkenberg, which is why people are suggesting that Hulkenberg would still be an upgrade for Red Bull whilst also being no threat to Max and always obeying team orders.

Way to skip past Irvine's miserable 96/97. It wasn't until his 3rd season with the team that he performed as an adequate No. 2 to Schumacher. All of this after having been in the sport since 1993

Yet somehow Irvine in 98/99 is the barometer we should be measuring Albon's rookie season team swap up against

mcdo wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

mcdo wrote:I can't even imagine the lambasting that drivers like Damon Hill and Eddie Irvine would have gotten if the internet was widespread and easily accessible in the mid '90s. Irvine was so many miles away from Schumacher, yet he was retained year after year. Then, through a heavy dose of chance and circumstance, it was Irvine and not Schumacher that was nearly Ferrari's first champion since the '70s

Albon has done enough to retain his seat. He has performed better than the guy he replaced. A lot better. Let's see how he does next year. If it's a miserable performance then we all know what's going to happen. Marko will make changes

The explanation for the gap between Max and Alex is simply that Max is just that good. If Max could be consistently faster than Ricciardo then there's every reason to believe he's this much faster than Albon. And gaps this size are not unheard of. We've seen it before with the likes of Schumacher and Alonso paired up with new/average drivers

Irvine out-qualified Schumacher in their first race together I believe. Not only that but he was capable of beating the McLaren's on occasion and affecting their races during 1998 and 1999 which helped Schumacher and Ferrari out in the races, (think France 1998 etc.). Sure, he was still a tier below a Barrichello/Bottas type driver, hence why he was eventually replaced by Barrichello in 2000 and then Ferrari started winning big style, but Irvine was still good enough to get decent points and help Ferrari win the WCC in 1999. I would say someone like Irvine or Herbert were similar to a Hulkenberg type driver of today.

Albon and Gasly appear to be two tiers below Bottas/Barrichello, and therefore one tier below Irvine/Hulkenberg, which is why people are suggesting that Hulkenberg would still be an upgrade for Red Bull whilst also being no threat to Max and always obeying team orders.

Way to skip past Irvine's miserable 96/97. It wasn't until his 3rd season with the team that he performed as an adequate No. 2 to Schumacher. All of this after having been in the sport since 1993

Yet somehow Irvine in 98/99 is the barometer we should be measuring Albon's rookie season team swap up against

Yeah, but you're forgetting that Irvine was reasonably competitive against Barrichello in 1994 and 1995, and scored points in his first race in 1993, (which required you to come in the top 6 back then).

Irvine had plenty of decent races in 1997, for example Argentina he almost won and was all over the back of Villeneuve at the finish. He scored plenty of podiums that year too, 5 podiums in fact. 1996 his car was terribly unreliable and it was just a bad car, so much so that even Schumacher was never in championship contention with it and two of his three wins required monsoon conditions and other cars falling off the road, the other win was at his favourite circuit but that was later in the year anyway when the car had improved. Even so, Irvine finished in the top 7 in every race he finished in 1996. And don't get me wrong, he wasn't 'great', but he wasn't Albon/Gasly bad, he was a step above them in my opinion, as was the likes of Brundle and Herbert.

mcdo wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

mcdo wrote:I can't even imagine the lambasting that drivers like Damon Hill and Eddie Irvine would have gotten if the internet was widespread and easily accessible in the mid '90s. Irvine was so many miles away from Schumacher, yet he was retained year after year. Then, through a heavy dose of chance and circumstance, it was Irvine and not Schumacher that was nearly Ferrari's first champion since the '70s

Albon has done enough to retain his seat. He has performed better than the guy he replaced. A lot better. Let's see how he does next year. If it's a miserable performance then we all know what's going to happen. Marko will make changes

The explanation for the gap between Max and Alex is simply that Max is just that good. If Max could be consistently faster than Ricciardo then there's every reason to believe he's this much faster than Albon. And gaps this size are not unheard of. We've seen it before with the likes of Schumacher and Alonso paired up with new/average drivers

Irvine out-qualified Schumacher in their first race together I believe. Not only that but he was capable of beating the McLaren's on occasion and affecting their races during 1998 and 1999 which helped Schumacher and Ferrari out in the races, (think France 1998 etc.). Sure, he was still a tier below a Barrichello/Bottas type driver, hence why he was eventually replaced by Barrichello in 2000 and then Ferrari started winning big style, but Irvine was still good enough to get decent points and help Ferrari win the WCC in 1999. I would say someone like Irvine or Herbert were similar to a Hulkenberg type driver of today.

Albon and Gasly appear to be two tiers below Bottas/Barrichello, and therefore one tier below Irvine/Hulkenberg, which is why people are suggesting that Hulkenberg would still be an upgrade for Red Bull whilst also being no threat to Max and always obeying team orders.

Way to skip past Irvine's miserable 96/97. It wasn't until his 3rd season with the team that he performed as an adequate No. 2 to Schumacher. All of this after having been in the sport since 1993

Yet somehow Irvine in 98/99 is the barometer we should be measuring Albon's rookie season team swap up against

In fairness '96 and '97 were not really indicative of his talent. Especially in '96, didn't he have something like 8 or 9 retirements in a row with that bathtub for a car? A couple of them were his fault, but most were due to the car failing in any kind of way. The fact that Schumacher got wins in that car is a testament on how far ahead he was of his peers at that time, but I doubt many other drivers back then would have done better than Irvine in that car.

Your point still stands though, he didn't fare much better in '97 in a vastly improved car.

Siao7 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

mcdo wrote:I can't even imagine the lambasting that drivers like Damon Hill and Eddie Irvine would have gotten if the internet was widespread and easily accessible in the mid '90s. Irvine was so many miles away from Schumacher, yet he was retained year after year. Then, through a heavy dose of chance and circumstance, it was Irvine and not Schumacher that was nearly Ferrari's first champion since the '70s

Albon has done enough to retain his seat. He has performed better than the guy he replaced. A lot better. Let's see how he does next year. If it's a miserable performance then we all know what's going to happen. Marko will make changes

The explanation for the gap between Max and Alex is simply that Max is just that good. If Max could be consistently faster than Ricciardo then there's every reason to believe he's this much faster than Albon. And gaps this size are not unheard of. We've seen it before with the likes of Schumacher and Alonso paired up with new/average drivers

Irvine out-qualified Schumacher in their first race together I believe. Not only that but he was capable of beating the McLaren's on occasion and affecting their races during 1998 and 1999 which helped Schumacher and Ferrari out in the races, (think France 1998 etc.). Sure, he was still a tier below a Barrichello/Bottas type driver, hence why he was eventually replaced by Barrichello in 2000 and then Ferrari started winning big style, but Irvine was still good enough to get decent points and help Ferrari win the WCC in 1999. I would say someone like Irvine or Herbert were similar to a Hulkenberg type driver of today.

Albon and Gasly appear to be two tiers below Bottas/Barrichello, and therefore one tier below Irvine/Hulkenberg, which is why people are suggesting that Hulkenberg would still be an upgrade for Red Bull whilst also being no threat to Max and always obeying team orders.

Way to skip past Irvine's miserable 96/97. It wasn't until his 3rd season with the team that he performed as an adequate No. 2 to Schumacher. All of this after having been in the sport since 1993

Yet somehow Irvine in 98/99 is the barometer we should be measuring Albon's rookie season team swap up against

In fairness '96 and '97 were not really indicative of his talent. Especially in '96, didn't he have something like 8 or 9 retirements in a row with that bathtub for a car? A couple of them were his fault, but most were due to the car failing in any kind of way. The fact that Schumacher got wins in that car is a testament on how far ahead he was of his peers at that time, but I doubt many other drivers back then would have done better than Irvine in that car.

Your point still stands though, he didn't fare much better in '97 in a vastly improved car.

See above, Irvine did much better in 1997 in an improved car.

I agree that 1996 was an awful car so Schumacher wasn't even in a championship fight to require a number 2 to help him. In 1997 Schumacher was like Alonso in 2012, performing miracles despite a huge car disadvantage. I don't recall Massa being a useful number 2 in 2012 either, which would always be the case when the world class driver is only just hanging in the title fight by performing miracles, the other driver will always be well out of contention. Yet Massa was clearly better than Albon and Gasly surely?

Whereas in 1998/1999 Schumacher was in a much fairer championship fight each year with only a slight car disadvantage, (till he broke his leg halfway through 1999), meaning that it would be more expected for the number 2 to also be more competitive and Irvine indeed was during this period.

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

mcdo wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

mcdo wrote:I can't even imagine the lambasting that drivers like Damon Hill and Eddie Irvine would have gotten if the internet was widespread and easily accessible in the mid '90s. Irvine was so many miles away from Schumacher, yet he was retained year after year. Then, through a heavy dose of chance and circumstance, it was Irvine and not Schumacher that was nearly Ferrari's first champion since the '70s

Albon has done enough to retain his seat. He has performed better than the guy he replaced. A lot better. Let's see how he does next year. If it's a miserable performance then we all know what's going to happen. Marko will make changes

The explanation for the gap between Max and Alex is simply that Max is just that good. If Max could be consistently faster than Ricciardo then there's every reason to believe he's this much faster than Albon. And gaps this size are not unheard of. We've seen it before with the likes of Schumacher and Alonso paired up with new/average drivers

Irvine out-qualified Schumacher in their first race together I believe. Not only that but he was capable of beating the McLaren's on occasion and affecting their races during 1998 and 1999 which helped Schumacher and Ferrari out in the races, (think France 1998 etc.). Sure, he was still a tier below a Barrichello/Bottas type driver, hence why he was eventually replaced by Barrichello in 2000 and then Ferrari started winning big style, but Irvine was still good enough to get decent points and help Ferrari win the WCC in 1999. I would say someone like Irvine or Herbert were similar to a Hulkenberg type driver of today.

Albon and Gasly appear to be two tiers below Bottas/Barrichello, and therefore one tier below Irvine/Hulkenberg, which is why people are suggesting that Hulkenberg would still be an upgrade for Red Bull whilst also being no threat to Max and always obeying team orders.

Way to skip past Irvine's miserable 96/97. It wasn't until his 3rd season with the team that he performed as an adequate No. 2 to Schumacher. All of this after having been in the sport since 1993

Yet somehow Irvine in 98/99 is the barometer we should be measuring Albon's rookie season team swap up against

In fairness '96 and '97 were not really indicative of his talent. Especially in '96, didn't he have something like 8 or 9 retirements in a row with that bathtub for a car? A couple of them were his fault, but most were due to the car failing in any kind of way. The fact that Schumacher got wins in that car is a testament on how far ahead he was of his peers at that time, but I doubt many other drivers back then would have done better than Irvine in that car.

Your point still stands though, he didn't fare much better in '97 in a vastly improved car.

See above, Irvine did much better in 1997 in an improved car.

I agree that 1996 was an awful car so Schumacher wasn't even in a championship fight to require a number 2 to help him. In 1997 Schumacher was like Alonso in 2012, performing miracles despite a huge car disadvantage. I don't recall Massa being a useful number 2 in 2012 either, which would always be the case when the world class driver is only just hanging in the title fight by performing miracles, the other driver will always be well out of contention. Yet Massa was clearly better than Albon and Gasly surely?

Whereas in 1998/1999 Schumacher was in a much fairer championship fight each year with only a slight car disadvantage, (till he broke his leg halfway through 1999), meaning that it would be more expected for the number 2 to also be more competitive and Irvine indeed was during this period.

Don't get confused about '97 though, Irvine did better than '96, but that's because Williams didn't have two good drivers anymore and Irvine picked some podiums (mostly when the other three had retired). He still managed to only finish 7th overall (8th if you count Schumacher), behind even Berger who missed 3 GP's. Not much to brag frankly