Irvine in F1 magazine

clear thinking

Eddie Irvine gave an interesting interview in F1 mag that is well worth a read.

Plenty of interesting comments on Bernie, DRS and lots of other stuff.

I have to say I agree with him on the DRS as it gives an undefendable advantage with no recourse. Even better is his point that any idiot with DRS can pass rather than it being the skill it once was.

As a long time Irvine F1 Fan its great to read that he's still doing well for himself. Another great comment was about the missed world championship in 1999, the car came out of the wind tunnel straight after silverstone!

Regarding Bernie, suggest that his money grabbiong is a bit too extreme, that the points system is a joke (and it is), that the strong reliability of the cars is a sign that the tech is too restricted...

like i said, agree or not its a great interview ... Maurice Hamilton asking the Q's!

amacachi

Most of the arguments against DRS are flaky at best, for the vast majority of moves involving it the move either started a corner beforehand or the trailing car was at least a second a lap faster, that's what people wanted before it came in.

What points system would you like?

clear thinking

DRS is flaky both ways really. I'd like to see it where if the driver decides to use it he has to keep it open up to a certain point after the corner.

Regarding points... can of worms really, but i'm a 10-6-4-3-2-1 punter.

The 8-6-4, 25-18... are similar percentages for 1st v 2nd (75% & 72%) and this is too high for second.

10-8-6 devalues a win, most of the championships won with a poor Win record were done in this system - Vettel in 2010 being an exception with a rubbish 26.3% in the new points system.

One system is the best way to compare different era's... and while it was reasonably possible to ignore the differences until recently its now a joke and has very little effect on championship positions anyway.

amacachi

clear thinking wrote: »

DRS is flaky both ways really. I'd like to see it where if the driver decides to use it he has to keep it open up to a certain point after the corner.

Regarding points... can of worms really, but i'm a 10-6-4-3-2-1 punter.

The 8-6-4, 25-18... are similar percentages for 1st v 2nd (75% & 72%) and this is too high for second.

10-8-6 devalues a win, most of the championships won with a poor Win record were done in this system - Vettel in 2010 being an exception with a rubbish 26.3% in the new points system.

One system is the best way to compare different era's... and while it was reasonably possible to ignore the differences until recently its now a joke and has very little effect on championship positions anyway.

The first year of the 25-18... system I worked out the previous few seasons under it and it was pretty much the same barring a point here or there.
For 2010 what system would be fairest? Most wins, 2nds and 3rds were all tied between Vettel and Alonso with Vettel having more 4th places. In fact their points-scoring matches perfectly except for a 4th vs 2 8ths which is what gives the 4 point gap.

During those years with the poor win-rates for champions I'd like to see you come up with a system that "fixed" (having decided what you think is right) more than a couple of the 10 seasons since the early 90s. If ya wanna mention a coupla seasons where the 10-6-4 would've been better I'll see if it would've made a difference.

EDIT: Had a look there, only season it would've made any difference since 10-8-6 was brought in was 2008, Massa would've won under 10-6 but Hamilton would win under the current system.

clear thinking

amacachi wrote: »

The first year of the 25-18... system I worked out the previous few seasons under it and it was pretty much the same barring a point here or there.
For 2010 what system would be fairest? Most wins, 2nds and 3rds were all tied between Vettel and Alonso with Vettel having more 4th places. In fact their points-scoring matches perfectly except for a 4th vs 2 8ths which is what gives the 4 point gap.

During those years with the poor win-rates for champions I'd like to see you come up with a system that "fixed" (having decided what you think is right) more than a couple of the 10 seasons since the early 90s. If ya wanna mention a coupla seasons where the 10-6-4 would've been better I'll see if it would've made a difference.

EDIT: Had a look there, only season it would've made any difference since 10-8-6 was brought in was 2008, Massa would've won under 10-6 but Hamilton would win under the current system.

I suppose your last point is pretty much the same as mine, so why do they flute around when there is minimal effect. Even the new system would have seen minimal changes down to 13th place if changed to 10-6-4, and a few drivers with minimal points in the difference would reverse position.

In 2011 Vettel would have had nearly double the points - 147 to buttons 83.

Going back in time, i would guess a 10-6-4 would change one or two championship results. The 10-8-6 was obviosly a knee jerk fear of Schumachers 2004 72% win percentage.

So your challenge well its either pre 1991 or post 2004 plus one or two season excluded the poorer results.... 2007, 2008, 2010 would be interesting, prior...hmm... and 76 (James Hunt!!) and 88, I'll have a go at the sums too.

amacachi

My preference would be most wins gets the title. People don't like that for some reason so my next preference would be average finishing position, may as well be logical about it all. :pac:

amacachi

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I have always been a fan of Eddie I like the way he carried himself i.e a complete playboy, he was a real throwback to the classic era of F1 drivers.

Fingers crossed vectra doesn't see that post. :pac:

vincenzolorenzo

I thought the 10-6 system was great and was only changed cos everyone was crying about how dominant Schu and Ferrari had been. Very short-sighted view. There's no chance of the points going back to that system tho, mainly because its much easier for the lower teams to score a few points when they go down to 10th rather than just 6th and thats what determines their prize money at the end of the season!

vectra

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I have always been a fan of Eddie I like the way he carried himself i.e a complete playboy, he was a real throwback to the classic era of F1 drivers.

amacachi wrote: »

Fingers crossed vectra doesn't see that post. :pac:

Actually I enjoyed Eddie.. "To a point" where he moaned just a bit too much..
Would like to see him in the paddock being interviewed more often though..Or to even replace one of the three stooges :pac:

clear thinking

vectra wrote: »

Actually I enjoyed Eddie.. "To a point" where he moaned just a bit too much..
Would like to see him in the paddock being interviewed more often though..Or to even replace one of the three stooges :pac:

He said when the Beeb approached him he'd do the likes of Monza, Monaco and possibly Silverstone, so there was no deal.

juan.kerr

Always had a bit of a soft spot for Irvine but would still take many of his comments with a pinch of salt.

He was still in the running for the championship up to the last race in 1999 so I do have an issue with his take on Ferrari's support for him. Ultimately he had the chance to take the title with a win and didn't / couldn't.

juan.kerr

amacachi wrote: »

My preference would be most wins gets the title. People don't like that for some reason so my next preference would be average finishing position, may as well be logical about it all. :pac:

No, having watched F1 for 20 + years I think a points system is the best option. I think the medal or most wins systems are a bit of a joke and would have an unexpected effect on racing (as most F1 rule changes have had).

I preferred the 10:6 ratio for first and second which was a big enough gap to reward the winner over second place. Working off wins only would be too much of a reward while the current 10:7.2 or 10:8 up to recently wasn't sufficient.

So I would like to see second place get 15 points, 12 for third etc, I'm okay with points down to 9th or 10th since the smaller teams need to have some thing to aim for.

I think the 25 points for a win is a step towards to the US points systems which are a joke.

Jordan 199

I won't be rushing out to buy F1 Racing for an article about Eddie Irvine.

As for F1 Racing, that used to be a good magazine.

vincenzolorenzo

Why do you think it has gotten worse?

Jordan 199

vincenzolorenzo wrote: »

Why do you think it has gotten worse?

I can't really put a finger on it, but I did get tired of it. Same stuff came up or rehashed articles. It doesn't grab me anymore.

I first started buying it when I came out in 1996, but for the last 3/4 years I gave up buying it apart form the odd issue. I just got tired of it.

As far as I know, it's the only dedicated F1 magazine nowadays, compared to 10 years ago when you had Formula 1 Magazine and F1 News.

vincenzolorenzo

The only reason I ask is because I've been thinking the same lately. Have bought it religiously for years and will probably renew my subscription for 2012 but there is something about it that it seems to have lost something. I don't know what it is though! On a side note I've become a big fan of Motorsport in 2011, some great articles in it!

Jordan 199

vincenzolorenzo wrote: »

The only reason I ask is because I've been thinking the same lately. Have bought it religiously for years and will probably renew my subscription for 2012 but there is something about it that it seems to have lost something. I don't know what it is though! On a side note I've become a big fan of Motorsport in 2011, some great articles in it!

Do you mean Motorsport Magazine with the green cover that you are talking about in your last sentence?

I think F1 Racing's problem is that there is no other dedicated F1 magazine to compete with it. The last time I bought it was when there was a special on Schumi.

I just get Autosport now as it has a blend of F1, Nascar, WRC etc...

vincenzolorenzo

Yeah the one with the green cover alright. I think the main reason i like it is the analysis pieces. no point in monthly magazines spending much time on motorsport news, that what the web and autosport are for. Good historical articles too which is right up my street

frostie500

vincenzolorenzo wrote: »

Yeah the one with the green cover alright. I think the main reason i like it is the analysis pieces. no point in monthly magazines spending much time on motorsport news, that what the web and autosport are for. Good historical articles too which is right up my street

Motorsport is a great magazine with pieces on everything from F1 to sportscar and then a few historic pieces as well. Also its impossible to beat Nigel Roebuck's analysis who is without question still the best F1 writer

StephenHendry

read that article. enjoyed it as eddie always calls a spade a spade. he was a bit unlucky not to win the wc in 99. i think that race in the nurburgring, where there was a big delay with putting on the tyres for him during one of the pitstops definitely cost him a few extra points that might have made all the difference for him.

Clooney George

My personal preference would be most benefits gets the name. Individuals don't like that for some purpose so my next personal preference would be regular completing location, may as well be reasonable about it all.