|
|
Post by Carl on Jan 23, 2019 1:38:37 GMT
After throwing out everything in my closet, my entire wardrobe is now from the Tommy Hilfiger / Lewis Hamilton collection!!!
The ladies all tell me I'm too sexy for my clothes   "I'm too sexy for my shirt
Too sexy for my shirt
So sexy it hurts
I'm too sexy for my car
Too sexy for my car
Too sexy by far
And I'm too sexy for my hat
Too sexy for my hat
What ya think about that?"
-Right Said Fred, Tommy & Lewis
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Jan 24, 2019 5:31:59 GMT
I see Eddie Irvine is sprouting forth again, disparaging Vettel, calling Michael the greatest and better than Senna, how Lewis is way ahead of today's competition but nowhere near Michael, interesting for someone I have very little time for and whose ambition always seemed money orientated, what he did say of worth was how sanitised everything had become and how especially the 50's and 60's your chance of surviving was small whereas nowadays it is 'too safe' however, driving a vehicle at 300 kph could never be considered safe in my humble opinion but I do think he has a point. Irvine also feels more manufacturers should be encouraged to join in, on this I am divided, in a way I would rather [save Ferrari] no manufacturers in F1, but that is unlikely to ever happen again but there again,
but interesting from someone I have always found very disinteresting
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Jan 24, 2019 7:04:41 GMT
I see Eddie Irvine is sprouting forth again, disparaging Vettel, calling Michael the greatest and better than Senna, how Lewis is way ahead of today's competition but nowhere near Michael, interesting for someone I have very little time for and whose ambition always seemed money orientated, what he did say of worth was how sanitised everything had become and how especially the 50's and 60's your chance of surviving was small whereas nowadays it is 'too safe' however, driving a vehicle at 300 kph could never be considered safe in my humble opinion but I do think he has a point. Irvine also feels more manufacturers should be encouraged to join in, on this I am divided, in a way I would rather [save Ferrari] no manufacturers in F1, but that is unlikely to ever happen again but there again, but interesting from someone I have always found very disinteresting Well said, Chris. I always saw Eddie Irvine as something of a nonentity, but as you note, a few of his observations are sound while others sound like someone past his prime insisting his prime was the best of times. |
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Jan 24, 2019 16:56:27 GMT
Thanks for pointing the Eddie Irvine story out Chris, I've just read it and it is typical Irvine stirring the pot and indirectly making himself look great. A strange character Eddie Irvine, but pretty sharp when it comes to money, not sure about his status right now but at one time he had accumulated large wealth.
I saw him interviewed on the grid at Monaco either last year or 2017, can't remember as all years seem to blend into one another these days, and he looked like a slightly younger version of an old Mickey Rourke, not good!
Contrary to what has been written by others on alternative sites today, mostly morons who know nothing about the sport other than being "fan boys", Irvine was a good and talented driver; BUT; he was lazy and quite happy to play second fiddle to Schumacher in return for the money. I have quoted this a few times before; once when at the Brands Hatch F3000 meeting when Irvine was driving a Reynard for Eddie Jordan I had a brief chat with Jordan who hilariously said " the trouble with Irvine is that he is a lazy little b*st*ard", nothing changed later in his career.
He also couldn't accept the fact that Johnny Herbert pre accident was way quicker than him, also he never forgave Ayrton for the incident at Suzuka post race. To say that Schumacher was better than Senna is laughable; did Michael ever put himself up against the equivalent of Alain Prost in a team that was the other guys team; no! If he had gone to McLaren up against Mika then I would look at him in a different light in that regard.
On one thing he is right about and that is the sterile and overly safe state of the sport now, but then most of us feel that way. We do not want to see deaths or injuries, but penalties for getting it wrong should be there in physical form and not a stupid stewards time penalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by René on Jan 24, 2019 19:36:36 GMT
After throwing out everything in my closet, my entire wardrobe is now from the Tommy Hilfiger / Lewis Hamilton collection!!! The ladies all tell me I'm too sexy for my clothes "I'm too sexy for my shirt
Too sexy for my shirt
So sexy it hurts I'm too sexy for my car
Too sexy for my car
Too sexy by far
And I'm too sexy for my hat
Too sexy for my hat
What ya think about that?"
-Right Said Fred, Tommy & Lewis
You look hot, Carl! Way to go! |
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Jan 24, 2019 21:49:50 GMT
JC, Eddie finished runner up in 99 and showed that sufficiently motivated he could drive but I never saw him as anything but a good number 2 and feel Rubens was quicker -and Johnny pre-accident was a match for anyone, and I would include Michael in that list, but I am influenced about Eddie as he has never appealed to me and his audacity at Suzuka was not appreciated
I wholeheartedly agree JC, I always felt Mika was a quicker driver than Michael and after the 1st WDC much more in control, but Michael had a brilliant team around him and he was mesmeric when driving without competition and his regularity of speed was truly brilliant, as was his wet weather driving but then I look at Estoril in 1985 or Watkins Glen in 79 or Spa in 63/65 and are they comparable? I never felt Michael was 'on a different plane to the others' as I did with the 3 previously mentioned and I guess Stirling and Fangio, and neither do I about Lewis,
talking of team 'mates' Mat Oxley has done a nice piece of Lorenzo and Marquez, and draws a comparison to Senna and Prost as the 'best' pairing ever, possibly, certainly in MotoGP he's right as he proved it but in F1? would not 1955 Fangio and Moss or 67 Jimmy and Graham be worthy of such an accolade?
|
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Jan 25, 2019 7:15:06 GMT
An interesting point Chris re Jimmy and Graham. In 1967 they may have been the strongest team pairing for that time but not the best. That would have been Jimmy and Jackie. The 1988 pairing of Senna and Prost is to my mind the strongest ever. Here you had the top two drivers in the same team at the same time. Moss/Fangio is close.
I agree with Charle's point about Senna being better than Schumacher. The fact that Schumacher never wanted a person of similar or greater skill than him as a team mate will forever keep him from being a super great in my mind. None of the previous greats were scared of having an equal in the same team. They saw it as a challenge to prove they had no equal.
I think Charles summed up Irvine very well. Talented but lazy. Like most of these guys he is very bright but I just couldn't stand the man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Jan 25, 2019 17:48:03 GMT
After throwing out everything in my closet, my entire wardrobe is now from the Tommy Hilfiger / Lewis Hamilton collection!!! The ladies all tell me I'm too sexy for my clothes You look hot, Carl! Way to go!
Cool... money for nothin' and clothes for free!
|
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Jan 25, 2019 20:00:22 GMT
An interesting point Chris re Jimmy and Graham. In 1967 they may have been the strongest team pairing for that time but not the best. That would have been Jimmy and Jackie. The 1988 pairing of Senna and Prost is to my mind the strongest ever. Here you had the top two drivers in the same team at the same time. Moss/Fangio is close. I agree with Charle's point about Senna being better than Schumacher. The fact that Schumacher never wanted a person of similar or greater skill than him as a team mate will forever keep him from being a super great in my mind. None of the previous greats were scared of having an equal in the same team. They saw it as a challenge to prove they had no equal. I think Charles summed up Irvine very well. Talented but lazy. Like most of these guys he is very bright but I just couldn't stand the man. Rob, Eddie Irvine was hard character to like, he fostered an image that wasn't in the least endearing, but he probably doesn't give a rats what people think as he is what he is. For someone who tries to be so edgy he certainly liked playing the sop to Schumacher, although I have read that went a bit pair shaped at times when he tried to make a point. I think that Chris' idea of Jim Clark & Graham Hill being an all time great pairing is a good one for this reason. Jim Clark was so darn good it would have been difficult for anyone to have been relatively equal, to my mind he was better than Senna and Prost put together. Graham Hill is far too often overlooked as a great, because he was measured against Jim. Graham was for me on a par with Dan Gurney and John Surtees, and with respect of results he was ahead of them both. Dan was quicker than both and just behind Jimmy, and in any era other than Jim Clark's any of those three would have been right up with some more readily rated. Graham Hill has been grossly underrated over the following decades, but just look how he pushed Jim and later JYS & Jochen Rindt. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Jan 26, 2019 11:50:02 GMT
wholeheartedly agree JC, I think Graham was terribly undervalued not just underrated, some of his drives were top drawer, I think the 1964 French GP and obviously the 1962 German GP spring to mind and I do feel his talents are overlooked, I would have loved to have seen him and Jimmy in a GT40 at Le Mans - sharing the car - honestly think they would have swept anyone away-
Rob, I think why at the time I would put Jimmy and Graham as the 'best' partnership is because of what they had already achieved not what they were going to, ok JYS was mighty and speedwise was the number 2 in F1 terms, I would say world terms but who was to know how the likes of AJ would have faired in F1 at that time, but I don't see Jimmy and Jackie as the best pairing, but going back to the original partnership point if I may, as JC feels Jimmy was so far ahead of anyone else past-present and future anyone sharing a team with Jimmy would be naturally elevated to the best team,
Rob/ JC, I have never put Schumacher in that top bracket, one because they were always question marks around the legality of his cars and I would be so happy if that was proved wrong and his cars were legally ok, secondly his tactics, what he did to Damon and Jacques is still 25 years on incomprehensible to someone such as I, something I always mark Senna down for as well, thirdly- as you say team-mates, fourthly I think others were quicker or Michael could be beaten, fifthly - Jimmy didn't need Colin as much as Michael needed his team around him, Senna or Prost also could have won with any team but I doubted if Michael could have, as possibly proved at Mercedes, sixthly, Alain proved you can take time out and return a winner, had not that tragedy in Germany happened and Jimmy had retired in 68 - he was more than capable of coming back 2 or 10 years later and winning again
Mr Irvine liked to be his own man so to speak unless it came to money when he was quite prepared to be anyone's man, especially Jaguar
|
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Jan 26, 2019 12:03:02 GMT
As an all round person, gentleman, racing driver etc Jim Clark was to me the greatest of the F1 Champions followed by Stewart, Fangio and Senna, but he was not as good as Prost and Senna combined, sorry to disagree.
Graham Hill was very good but to me I don't put him in the all time greats. Sure he pushed Jimmy and JYS at times, but not consistently and there were quite a few occasions in JYS first season that he was better than Hill in an equal car. That was almost unprecedented at the time and has happened only once or twice since then. Villeneuve in 1996 and Hamilton in 2007. There maybe a couple more but I can't think of any off hand. So though Hill and Clark was a great combination it was not the greatest it could have been at that point in time. The Fangio/Moss was probably the best at that point given the available resources. Definitely to me the Senna/Prost was the best at the time given those racing, and still the best of the lot of those pairings that actually happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Jan 26, 2019 17:02:53 GMT
Clark and Stewart could have been the very best as teammates. They were solid friends, but rivalry does funny things to friendship. Would Stewart have been content to be close but always second place? Both men had/have great honor and could easily have been the greatest of all time as teammates. Dan Gurney was another candidate to team with his good friend, as they did so well at Indianapolis, but I suspect even someone that great would have had to accept being subordinate to the greatest. Undeniably, Colin Chapman missed many golden opportunities when he failed to notice RRT members' fledgling escapades behind the wheel. 
|
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Jan 26, 2019 17:09:45 GMT
Not wishing to set up a disagreement Rob as i can clearly see your point and respect it as we are largely in agreement. However I would say that unlike Senna & Prost, Jim Clark had no weaknesses. The oft quoted remark that he could not stand being pressured was a complete fallacy, and something I believe was put about by John Surtees. However it did not take into consideration the fact that on the few occasions Jim did crash in mid battle it was down to outdriving the car against someone with a better suited vehicle (Brands Hatch ROC 1965), or when he got caught out by an errant back marker.
Ayrton has been exclaimed as masterful in the wet, which he was, however by his own admission he had to work at perfecting his technique; whereas Jim; JYS and Stirling were just born naturals in those conditions. So therefore my point that Jim Clark was better than Prost & Senna combined is based on my belief that he was totally complete as a driver, the other two were not.
JYS was as near complete but there were times when he came up against a guy who was out & out faster i.e. Jochen Rindt and Ronnie Peterson. Jim Clark had no peer in the outright speed department and it is thought that he only ever drove to his maximum on one occasion and that was the 1962 German GP, in which he frightened himself once too often and decided that discretion was better than valour.
I think that you are correct about the Fangio/Moss pairing, that was a mighty one, as was the Moss/Tony Brooks Vanwall partnership in 1958. Tony Brooks standing is not reflected by results but all who raced against him are adamant (Stirling included) that he was one of the greats.
With regard to Graham Hill one other thing is worth noting and that is the fact that he did not drive a race car until he was 25 years old, so his record is pretty remarkable with that in mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Jan 26, 2019 17:43:32 GMT
Hi Charles
Very good points. I agree with your assessment re Jim Clark vs Senna and Prost. I also think he had no equal and was so freakishingly (sic) talented that he hardly ever had to push his personal envelope to win. I don't think Jim Clark in his prime would have been beaten by any other driver in their prime in an equal car regularly.
I also think we could have point and counter point forever and in the end it would boil down to personal viewpoints as it is so difficult to compare drivers between different eras with each other. I have also done some re-thinking, research and review of Graham Hill given yours and Chris's comments and have realised that he was a bloody good driver, not as natural as Jim Clark but consistently the second best overall in the period 1962 to 1967. I think he was losing his edge a bit by 1968 but still put in a wonderful season and was a deserved champion. Therefore I must agree with you and Chris that the pairing of Hill and Clark at Lotus in 1967 was the strongest available at the time. Jackie and Jim would have been wonderful though Jackie would never drive for Lotus.
As you say Jackie was very good but was not always the fastest, though I wonder what Jackie and Jim might have done if they could have driven theirs cars of the time with as much impunity that drivers on the whole have been driving since the advent of carbon fibre tubs. I always think that both of those were sensible enough and talented enough to win at their personal slowest speed for the circumstances.
It has been an interesting discussion /debate for me and I hope for others. It is always good to review one's views based on other points of view.
I have been rather distant on this blog so far this year as by the end of last season I was worn out from watching, discussing and building car models so felt very stale. It's good to be blogging again with you guys.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Jan 27, 2019 8:00:19 GMT
and it is wonderful to hear your comments Rob, I thoroughly enjoy everyone's contributions and miss the comments of our table members who don't participate very often nowadays and hope with model building or car building ongoing they will return refreshed and eager for the new season - incidentally as someone who is not blessed with model making skills I am always in a bit of awe with those who have, mutter mutter, hope all is going well Rob - cheers
JC, I think Chris Amon also said something about Jimmy not being fond of being hassled after the Tasman series in 1968 - saying he noticed Jimmy get a bit ragged when under pressure, but then countered this by saying, but then who puts Jimmy under pressure and he probably wasn't used to it, but then that brings me to 1964 Brands where I think Graham was at his peak driving wise and pressurised Jimmy for the whole race- yet who won? Jack was another who said Jimmy was prone to giving up once overtaken, something I have researched and cannot find any evidence to support that comment, I did find some evidence to contradict this - for example the Dutch GP 1966 Jack!
Jimmy could be beaten - that is a reality, Seppi beat him twice at Enna,but no one could beat him consistently, that to me was the difference. That and as far as I recall Jimmy only finished second once in a GP and that was with a 6 or 7 cylinder car at the Ring in 1963, so where John Surtees got his comments from I have no idea, mind you they said that Ascari couldn't handle pressure either, well, when you win 8 or 9 races on the trot, why would you have to?
|
|
