Was Irvine faster or as fast as than Coulthard or Villeneuve?

Schumacher demanded and got a clear #2 team mate in Irvine.

Put it this way, I've seen the time sheets, and when Irvine was team mates with Jacques
Villeneuve and Tom Kristensen with Toyota in Japan (Group C and F3000), Kristensen was
regularly the fastest of the three and by far more consistent leaving Irvine and Villeneuve
scrapping over who was second fastest in the team. Of this, there was no doubt.

Irvine and Villeneuve played the political game and were aligned with Bernie's sponsors and
media pals so they got their chance in F-1 which is, sad to say, how things work in the business.

In 1999, after Schumacher broke his leg at Silverstone, Kristensen was on top of Jean Todt's
list as a replacement driver. But Irvine, knowing Tom's pace, blocked the move and Ferrari went
with Mika Salo.

It goes to show in F-1, it's not always the fastest or most consistent driver that gets the ride.

BHW

 

. . . and Salo dutifully fell on his sword and gifted a win to Eddie. It would have been Mika's only F1 victory.

 

The thing that is perfectly clear::
a) when Schumacher was driving, the car was getting faster
b) when Irvine was driving, the car was getting slower.

 

Wow,I didn't think Irvine had any word about how the team was run, all that time he just looked like the comic relief of the Scuderia Ferrari.

Maybe Todt realized that it was not worth hiring someone who was faster than the driver he was supposed to support.

 

It has been that way for a long time.

One aspect that is constantly forgotten in discussions about teams and drivers, even on this forum, is the power of the sponsors.
Big sponsors play an important role in the choice of drivers for a team.

 

Simple answer No. closer to coulthard than Villeneuve though. Coulthard was an eternal disappointment


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Irvine was tenacious and fast, he even managed to annoy Senna.
Irvine was a good Ferrari team mate, in a similar fashion to Bottas being a good team mate at Mercedes.
Only Mika H was close to Michael in sheer speed, but alas unavailable.
Villeneuve had the fastest car in Williams, and a pretty big mouth

I am privy to things about Coulthard but not on a public forum. Fair to say he certainly had room for improvement.

 

Irvine and Coulthard were pretty average drivers, I would risk saying just like Stroll. Villeneuve was definitely more talented than them, but not by much,

 

I would put Coulthard above Irvine, but not by much. Coulthard was a worker, Irvine a shirker.
Both were better than Stroll, in my eyes.
Gilles Villeneuve was fast, but inconsistent; he was spectacular but erratic.
His driving was style over substance, and therefore a wasted effort.

 

Eddie was a very talented driver, just like Rubens, but when you put them next to Michael they obviously look average.....still they were better than Damon, and he got to be W.C.

 

The year Eddie Irvine finished 2nd in the WDC, he was "given" 2 GP wins by his team mates.
There is no doubt that Miko Salo, and later Micheal Schumacher were under team orders to let him pass when they were ahead.

 

I met Eddie a while back , very talented guy , super smart , very funny and enjoyed life . I am sure he still does , maybe even more so .
Having said that , I think F1 was an end to the means for him , allowed him to accumulate a lot of wealth during his career and he used that wealth to create more wealth , good for him .
The championship he lost was his to lose , I don’t believe he was dedicated enough to the sport as others , hence he didn’t have the 10% edge when it mattered .
Very likeable person

 

Very fair assessment, I think. Irvine was a talented diletente, not really focused on winning.
Unlike many of his peers, he knew there is life outside F1.
He is more successful now since he left motor racing.

 

Eddie or Rubens was never Champions, I would have been more impressed if Schumi beat Hakkinen or Alonso as team mate

 

Irvine was talented like Rubens?! Are you serious?

 

Of course, they both drove together for the same team at the same time (Jordan), and results were pretty similar. In terms of raw speed they were pretty even, perhaps Eddie had the edge, Rubens however was much better at developing a car, in fact he was one of the best, wich made him a more complete driver, but on race day, both were pretty even.

 

This is were I strongly disagree with you Pedro; Damon Hill was obviously much better than both, because he got the title, even with a dominant car, but Rubens had had one in 2002, then again in 2004, then again in 2009...and wasn't crowned.
Damon won more than 20 Grand Prix, and he came to Formula One late, and not with the best of cards; he was crowned World Champion in 1996 which, to me, is the point.
There are many, many fast drivers. A dime a dozen. Much less world champions. Damon had his chance and grabbed it; I rate him much higher than Rubens or Eddie Irvine, whatever their talent might have been. Talent is one thing, but not the most important; the most important is how you use it.
If Rubens was that good, he should have been world champion; perhaps not in 2002 or 2004 against Michael, but then at least in 2009 with the Brawn, which was by far the dominant car; and he wasn't, but his teammate was.
Which, to me, says all, really.

Rgds

 

AS you said, had you paired Damon against Michael in that Ferrari and he would have been just as bad if not worse than Rubens or Eddie, and i also rate him below Jenson. However, Rubens had all sort of mechanical problems at Brawn, when he didn't, mainly in the second half of the season he was much better than Jenson. Damon was a good driver, just as Rubens, Eddie and Coulthard, i wouldn't put much between any of them, i would said that rubens was by far the best at understanding and developing a car (this much was said by Eddie and Jenson), i would also say that Damon was the least gifted wich could be seen by his below average performances in the wet (i know, he did well once, but more then often he sucked), Rubens, Eddie or Jenson were pretty handy in the rain, Dc was a disgrace most of the time. IMO none of them had the talent of for example Jonhy Herbert, but of course, Jonhy was all busted up, and was only 80% of the driver he had been before the accident.

 

Talent is nothing without results. In the end, the bottom line is the results: that is the proof of the pudding. As for the hierarchy between "talent", we can speculate for years but it proves nothing. The results do.

Rgds

 

Quoting myself...
This somehow reminds me of Niki Lauda; the Rat was once asked about the rules regarding the system of points used at the time (can't remember the year), and the fact that the said system was valuing consistency above raw speed.
He answered: "It is what it is, and you have to adapt to it taking your objective into account; my objective is the title, and therefore I am doing what's necessary to reach the title; if the rules change and value something different, then I shall adapt accordingly"

Rgds

 

1977 after he clinched the title...

 

I respectfully disagree, results prove nothing, (they can be achieved by pure luck), what you see on the track proves everything.

 

We both know that we disagree, Pedro. I never believed in pure luck, or bad luck; you make your own luck. We can actually see whatever we want on the track, or nothing at all; there has been many fast idiots, by the way. The proof of the pudding is winning, as it is the essence of the race: crossing the line first.

Rgds

 

on a related note, what always interests me is how the great drivers beat the best competition. Not to rate one driver highly because they "almost" won a few more titles, but I mean that Lauda/Prost, Senna/Prost, even Hamilton/Rosberg, all had a season or more where they had to beat a team-mate who was also a world champion. In other words, if you look at Prost and count his 4 titles, well, other than that Monaco in 84 was in the rain, he would have had another title OVER LAUDA, which is more impressive than say someone who wins a title with no other champion drivers in the field.

I'm not trying to champion Prost, but in addition, the battles with Senna, I think at least one of those seasons he scored more points than Ayrton, but with only counting X number of top places, Senna was the champion. Lauda/Prost/Senna, all great drivers with their actual records, but having to fight each other, with vairous points systems/factors out of their control, each of them could have had even more titles. For some reason that's just very impressive to me.