86 replies to this topic

[Daemon]

Ok you two....*SLAP*SLAP*...now go to your rooms and stop calling each other names...



[This message has been edited by Daemon (edited 03-04-2000).]

[tom]

ahahahaha,
calm down fellas i was just making a few wee jokes , it doesn't mean i'm a phycho..

ahhhhhhh what a loser..............

crap effort.
--------------------

irvine = w@nker

[Wal]

That Irvine is a real "pisse vinaigre".

He does'nt has to give lesson to any other driver.

He already prooved he is a "choker".

[Daemon]

Wal - the only thing Eddie Irvine proved was that in 1999 he was the second best driver on the grid, and Mika Hakkinen was the best. How can he be a choker when he should never have been in a position to challenge anyway.

If its a choker that you're after then look no further than the Sultan of Shunt, David Coulthard. 4 years in the best cars, and he hasn't even looked like challenging for the WDC once...

[tom]

damon,
listen to this guy wal would you.
he knows what he's talking about.

and i'v got $20 here that says you don't know what your talking about damon.

---------------------------------------

irvine = w@nker

[ana]

If Irvine is such a crap why did we have to wait until last race to found out who will be WC. Does that make MH good driver. MH had some bad luck and DC happened few times but that is not enough to claim in the same sentence that EI is crap and MH is great driver. EI is not the biggest talent in F1, I agree with that, but he had some good moments, in fact he had more good moments than majority of curent drivers and that's not just because of the car. You may not like his big mouth but that has nothing to do with his driving.

[614david]

Right, okay guys-
Of the two drivers being discussed here, which one has a better chance of winning the title? Answer- David Coulthard.
Eddie Irvine has absolutely no right to go around slagging off another driver, who actually has a shot at the title, when he couldn't even manage to hold on to his top drive for 2000, what is his contract to Jaguar? 2-3 years? After that it's bye bye Eddie, and i for one won't be missing him!! He is bitter and i think that is why he launches these attacks on DC, so maybe he should grow up, and concentrate on getting his car off the starting line come Australia, instead of worrying about what David is doing.
tom, i'm sorry about this, but i'm going to *borrow* your signature for a second- Irvine is a complete w@anker, and i really don't see why anybody thinks David will take any notice of what he says whatsoever!!
Damon- do you ever miss a chance to slag DC off?

Sorry, but it had to be said!!

[mono-posto]

What do you mean "he couldn't hold onto his top drive fro 2000". He chose to go to Jaguar. A number 1 at Jag is better than a number 2 at Ferrari, second fiddle to MS, in his opinion.

------------------
"If I had to live my life over again, I'd be a plumber."
-Albert Einstien

[614david]

He didn't choose to go to Jaguar!! He chose Jaguar out of the teams that offered him a place- those teams didn't include Ferrari, who had told him as early as, i think it was Monaco, that they weren't going to renew his contract- Eddie has even admitted it, though at the time he was coming out with all sorts of bullshit about maybe staying at Ferrari- they had already to;d him NO!!
Anyway, that is entirely off the mark, as reference to what i was saying originally, and that is that Eddie shouldn't slag off drivers who are in a better position to himself!!

[Peeko]

Oh please. DC has a better chance than Eddie because of the team he's in; nothing to do with talent. DC maybe the quicker of the 2, but Eddie is by far and away the smarter and more consistent driver. Like I said before, DC is in the Andrea DeCesaris mold: quick and stupid.

What really bugs me about DC is that he complains about backmarkers'n stuff and how they don't cooperate and one day the shoe will be on the other foot, and blah blah blah; and then here he is doing the exact same thing races later, actually no, even worse than that because DC's was intentional. I mean, talk about a freaking hippocrate!!!!

[tom]

irvine is useless , dc is a good driver.

dc is not a stunning driver like mika but he's still a good driver , he just has very bad luck.

irvine is a slow driver but he just has very good luck,

everytime dc was leading a race last year his car fell to bits.

dc'a only problem is he needs a bit of decent luck and needs to bne a bit more consistent........sometimes he's very fast but sometimes he's not so fast .....

irvine is slow and consistently slow .....ALL SEASON he sux.

-----------------------

irvine = w@nker

[614david]

THANKS TOM!!;);)

[Pacific]

David Coulthard didn't end up with McLaren by a roll of the dice, a dart board, or anything else. The McLaren team took Coulthard long ago because they felt he had talent. They may have tried to get Michael Schumacher before Coulthard, but that makes sense, MS is only a two-time WDC.

David Coulthard is a good driver. He can be fast and people wouldn't be able to slag him so much if that f#cking car would have held up at France, etc. The only thing that keeps me from feeling completely sorry for DC is the fact he's got Heidi. That may be what keeps DC going for all I know. I know that even though I've liked Mika Hakkinen longer because of his Lotus connections, it would be nice to see David Coulthard win the WDC so people can stop ragging on a guy who has a lot of talent and horrible luck. I can name a couple mistakes Michael Schumacher made last year too. About the only driver I can't really find a mistake for last year is Heinz-Harald Frentzen.

DC ran into Hakkinen once. Spa was Mika's best impersonation of Michael Schumacher on Damon Hill or Jacques Villeneuve, and for those who got a scare about Salo and DC at Hockenheim, they never touched. DC is an actual racer. In fact, at Austria, Mika did come down a bit on DC. DC could have backed off like so many other drivers ALWAYS do in F1, but DC battles for spots. As a NASCAR fan that has races where people actually pass on a regular basis you come to realize that racing accidents happen. Maybe some day F1 will have racing even equal to CART someday.

While F1 is awesome technologically, it has awesome car, and most of the great drivers, it still doesn't put on a real good show too often. I watch it though because it's auto racing and in hope of seeing Minardi or Arrows get some points. Or to see some of my favorite drivers do well.

When Herbert won, that was great. I could care less about the circumstances, drivers falling out because of mechanical problems or because they can't keep the car on the road is part of racing. Herbert was faster than those remaining, and those remaining were able to keep their car on the track for the most part and did not have mechanical failure. So to everybody who belittles Johnny's win, kiss Johnny's @ss, attrition is part of racing.

[614david]

Well said Pacific!!

[Wolbo]

Peeko,

The words 'Eddie' and 'smart' in one sentence? Please, you've got to be joking.

Eddie as WDC last year would have been a total joke and the worst champion since Giuseppe Farina.

IMHO Cubie outperforms Eddie in every area accept luck.



------------------
"May the downforce be with you"

[Linus27]

Mika a stunning driver? thats questionable

DC needs some decent luck?????? So its OK for DC to have luck but not Eddie?????? Double standards now. What next?

[Ricardo F1]

How can you question whether a two time WDC is a stunning driver?

[tom]

yes linus .mika is a stunning driver , so is villeneuve so is frentzen ......ok so is schumi ,,,,,,,,,,but mika's better.

and about the luck.
irvines to slow to deserve luck.
fast drivers deserve luck cos they work hard for it .........not like little asses like eddie who cruise around at 10kmh and god pours luck all over them.

------------------------------

irvine = w@nker

[Pacific]

While I'm not exactly a Michael Schumacher or Eddie Irvine fan myself, what makes you hate those two drivers so much? A former NASCAR driver named Ned Jarrett once said "Luck is the ability to capitalize on circumstance."

Eddie Irvine has improved a lot over the years. He doesn't cause so many wrecks anymore. He did a good job for Ferrari when all is said is done. He raced around in the points when all was going well and helped Michael Schumacher out. What more could Ferrari ask of Eddie? He almost won the blokes the WDC. I don't suppose it was luck when Ferrari blew that pit-stop for Eddie causing him to lose. I don't suppose it was luck either in Suzuka way back when when Eddie was doing so great and had to make way for Schumacher. Irvine was quite competitive against Rubens Barrichello in Jordan? Does this make Rubens slow?

There are four drivers in F1 that get a lot of slagging here at Atlas and a lot of it isn't objective: Michael Schumacer, David Coulthard, Eddie Irvine, and Jos Verstappen. Considering Eddie's profile, maybe he's stolen some dates from some people, I don't know. As for Michael, people tend to hate winners like Schumacher, Earnhardt, Jeff Gordon, etc. Eddie Irvine, I can see how is mouth is annoying, but to translate to hate? And as for Jos, I have no clue what people have against Jos. They say he's a gravel trap master yet with Stewart, the Honda Developmental team, and so far with Arrows in testing he's keeping the car fast and on the track. Apparently 1998, 1999, and early 2000 don't count for reputations of Dutch drivers. God forbid if Tom Coronel, or Christijan Albers ever come into F1 and end up in a gravel trap.

[Linus27]

Well written pacific but your banging on a locked door with Tom, Eddie and what he knows on F1. Its a case of the lights are on but no one's at home.

RicardoF1

I question it because that is what I think. He would not be a double world champion if Michael was in the 99 season or Villeneuve was in the Mac or the Ferrari. Mika, David Eddie were the only three drivers who had the best equipment around to go for the title. David was not consistant enough and Eddie is not in the same league as Mika so Mika had no choice but to win it even if he did make it hard for himself at times. On paper he should have cleaned up when Michael was out but for some reason he never.

[Linus27]

Oh and also, stunning no, AVERAGE YES. The car is half the story.

[Irvinegirl]

Linus is right, tom has made his mind and nothing can obviously change that...(even if Eddie would be absolutely incredibly stunning this year..)

What suprises me is that 614David has almost sunk to tom's level...I know you can do better than that 614David..
Well I hope you were joking...

I for one just simply CANNOT understand how anyone could hate any driver..
I mean if you really love the sport..

Well I know how useless this is...

[Ricardo F1]

Linus - I still don't see how you can say that if MS was there last year he would have won the WDC ahead of MH. He didn't in 1998 did he? No.

Now you can argue that the two cars were far more equal last year, indeed across the season probably exactly the same. So would Schumacher have had the advantage. Well, he was behind by the time they got to the British GP, so why should anything change. You could easily argue that the reason the WDC went down to the wire last year was indeed because MS wasn't there - where was the motivation for Mika??? Eddie Irvine? Puurlease. . . DC's bad fortunes had him out of the championship by then as well.

The difference between Mika and MS is slight if any, but I'd be more than happy to tip the hat to Mr. Schumacher. But to say that a guy who has won 2 WDC's is Average??? Then so is Mr Schumacher - Hakkinen may have a great car to win the WDC but at least he doesn't cheat.

[tom]

linus you little rat , it seems like your the one who doesn't take facts aboard.

"On paper he should have cleaned up when Michael was out but for some reason he never."

thats what you said.

LISTEN TO THIS.

there was a reason why he never cleaned up .........REMEMBER HIPPY , his wheel fell off while he was leading , then dc took him out while he was leading , then his tyre blew up while LEADING ......................

see linus if you watched the races you'd have seen there were logical reasons why he didn't clean up.

PRICK.

0OOOOOOO---------------------

IRVINE = W@NKER

[Todd]

tom,

REMEMBER HIPPY , his wheel fell off while he was leading , then dc took him out while he was leading , then his tyre blew up while LEADING ......................

David Coulthard was leading when Mika's wheel fell off in Silverstone.

Hakkinen was running third when his tire "blew up" in Germany. He was leading both times he threw his car off the road, however.

------------------
Forza Michael Schumacher,
Todd

[tom]

ok todd , so dc didn't still have to take a pitstop in silverstone.........think , remember the brain knows alot more than your bit of paper that says 'hakkinen sux' .........come on admit it boy you have a bit of paper infront of you that says hakkinen sux /schumi's the fastest ...........grow up fella and watch the whole race.

remember hakkinen had to keep piting cos his wheel was very loose and finally it fell off ......he was leading comfortably before his wheel came loose...

and at hockenhiem he was leading comfortably .......he was only running 3rd cos his fuel pump stuffed up in the pitstop.

come on you saw how quickly he got past frentzen at hockenhiem before his tyre blew out..............................irvine was gonner look like stupid dumbass snail he is if that tyre didn't blow up...........

remeber todd , if you do a bit more thinking in life you'll have a much more stable life......and you'll know alot more .........throw out that piece of paper too.....and remember to watch the whole melbourne race won't you.

--------------------------------------

irvine = w@nker

[Linus27]

RicardoF1

Well I prefere Mika than Michael anyday as I agree that Michael makes up the rule book as he goes and it would be the best thing in the world to me to see Michael never win the drivers championship or constructors for Ferrari but if Eddie got a shot at the championship last year then what would Michael's chances have been if he was in it for the whole year.

Tom

Yeah I remember last year, Mr Mika Average in the best car going slammed it into the wrong gear in Monza and then gave up in Nurburg because big daddy gave him the wrong pit call and didn't Mika slam the car AGAIN into the wall at San Marino and then could not overtake Michael at Sepang. Jesus how average is that. Even DC got past him. MMMM Pressure, can't take that can he and as you ended your usual biased Mike rhetoric bullshit by calling me a PRICK then this indicates to me what sort of level we are working on in your camp and what sort of person you are. I sense le dance victoire if you have had to resort to insulting me peronally.

IrvineGirl

Thanks and I also think David614 has gone down to Tom's level. She used to do good posts but they are now full of Irvine slagging.

[This message has been edited by Linus27 (edited 03-08-2000).]

[Pacific]

Hakkinen has stated that at Imola he's quite positive something broke in the car. The car detreading in Germany was not his fault either. Poor DC had it happen too!! McLaren design flaw. As for not being able to get past Michael Schumacher. A lot of F1 drivers have had that problem. In fact when you try neat things can happen. Ask Damon Hill and Jacques Villeneuve. David Coulthard will try to pass Schumacher and risk getting punted because he has nothing to lose really.

Mika Hakkinen isn't perfect, but he's pretty damn good. He's outdone all of his McLaren teammates except Senna. Go figure. Although, in Mika's first race with McLarenhe outqualified Senna!!! Mika didn't do too bad with Johnny Herbert at Lotus either. Towards the end of 1992 Mika was doing really good in the Lotus in qualifying. When Mika didn't qualify for San Marino in 1996, that was more car troubles than anything else. Herbert qualified, but 26th!! Johnny Herbert doesn't get the respect he deserves though. "Anybody who gets outqualified by Johnny Herbert must suck." Right, look at Herbert's history. He hasn't done too bad. He did pretty good at Benetton considering they NEVER let him test the car and reduced the amount of telemetry he could view.

Michael Schumacher isn't perfect either. He's been in no worse than the 3rd best car since 1996 yet he couldn't beat Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve, or the average Mika Hakkinen. These drivers all have no skill. The Williams and McLaren cars both run like slot cars. There are grooves in the tracks and they have needles operated by Williams and McLaren computers while the Williams and McLaren drivers are along for the ride. This year, Ferrari looks pretty good, if he doesn't get it this year...what's the excuse then? And if McLaren stays superior so long, could it possibly be that DC and Mika, gasp, can give good technical feedback to help the McLaren design crew!?!?!?!? I mean, I remember when McLaren was inferior to Ferrari, and now they've surged ahead and been there for a while. Ferrari isn't as inferior as everybody makes them out to be. Eddie Irvine sure seemed to make good use of his Ferrari last year in the standings. Much better than anyone anticipated.

I get tired of people belittling Mika Hakkinen, when he's proven his entire career to be fast. Average...right. Well, Mr. Average just might win the WDC for a third time in a row. Ayrton Senna wasn't driving tanks with McLaren either but nobody calls him average.

[tom]

linus , i now think you are a total looser.

"mmmmmmmm....pressure he can't handle that either can he..."

thats what you said ........

i remember mika won suzuka [his 2nd world title in a row] by driving a perfect race under pressure.........and he was lapping 2 seconds faster than irvine in clear air.................so it seems he can handle the pressure and your full of ****......thats right, you are full of ****.

----------------------------------------

irvine = w@nker

[Linus27]

Oh Tom, do you really think I care what you think of me, oh yeah so much so I'm jubbing at the thought of it. NOT

So thats your argument, Mika won at Suzuka under pressure. From who as it wasn't Michael or Eddie. Remember, Michael wasn't in the title chase and Eddie is not fast enough so what pressure and what has the Suzuka race got to do with any of the points I made. Oh yeah nothing, more random Mika bullshit. At least try and stay consistant Tom, your braking up on us and not making much sense.

[Pacific]

No pressure on Mika? It's called, stay fast to stay ahead of Schumacher so he doesn't screw with you and make certain to win to increase odds of beating Eddie Irvine to WDC. If Mika makes a mistake at Suzuka, it's all over. If Mika doesn't drive fast, then Schumacher might beat him, in which, in all liklihood, getting the poitns to beat Irvine was all over.

I just can't imagine what would have happened to Eddie Irvine's head if he won the WDC. Mika Hakkinen is a bit more humble. Eddie probably would have had to make more modifications that the paint job on his helmet. Eddie just doesn't seem of the Championship caliber. Seeing Schumacher, Hakkinen, and Villeneuve on the grid as champs is easy to deal with, we all pretty much know they're all top five F1 drivers. Perhaps they are the top 3 drivers. I really don't think Eddie is top five though. If Eddie had been able to do that with Michael on the team, well, that'd have been different. Eddie has his fans though, and I can understand that in that I'm hoping that David Coulthard can legitimately challenge Mika and Michael for the WDC this season. It'd be neat to see Barrichello in the hunt along with HHF. Those are the five main contenders for the Championship as I see it currently. Then you have a second tier of challengers including Johnny Herbert, Eddie Irvine, Jacques Villeneuve, Jarno Trulli, and Ralf Schumacher. I'd be very surprised to see anybody on the podium except for these 10 drivers.

[Linus27]

Mika and Pressure???? MMMMMM, its lucky for then that Michael has just come out and said he did not want to Eddie to win and wanted Mika to win the WDC and he did not help Eddie. Its funny how Mika has only won in top cars, the 1998 and 1999 McLaren. His win in the 1997 car was handed to him. Senna won in a lesser car and so has Schumacher, Berger, Panis, Herbert and probably a few others. I would like to see Mika win a lesser car. Its a case of Damon Hill again. He was great in the Williams but then it was the best car at the time. Thats the problem Ron Dennis said about Hill. He said he has only won in a good car and has done nothing in a lesser car except Spa and Ralf would had taken him barring team orders. Believe me I like Mika, I do think he's good, no very good and its an incredible achievment to win 2 WDC but then he did win it in the best car and did not win a simgle race until he was in them.

[614david]

Err, people (especially Linus and tom),calm down guy's, this isn't worth getting so worked up about. Why do i have the feeling that you guys are gonna continue this for at least another three pages?
You don't hate each other that much, so keep it friendly!!;)

[Pacific]

So all those times Mika was leading in the McLaren when it had mechanical failures mean nothing.

Yeah, well Michael Schumacher has never won in anything other than the second best car on the grid, so what's your point? You might argue the 1993 Benetton some, but it wasn't too bad at all.

It takes a good car to win, otherwise you can't do ****. Ask Jacques Villeneuve. Oh, Jacques never won in anything other than a Williams, he must suck. Bullshit!! It's called nobody could do anything with that BAR last year. The reliability was just too horrid. What the hell did you expect Mika to do, win in the ****ing Lotus?

Johnny Herbert won with the fourth best car on the grid last year, and I don't see anybody praising him to high heaven, and he beat two McLarens and two Ferrari's fair and square. Irvine and Hakkinen were still in the race. That means that Herbert is better than Schumacher because Schumacher has never won in a car 4th best on the grid. Guess what, Olivier Panis won in a Ligier fair and square. Schumacher wrecked in that race. Olivier must be the best driver EVER!!!!!!

See look, I can distort things too. I've never seen Michael Schumacher score points in the worst car on the grid. That must mean Marc Gene is the best driver EVER!!!! Or tied for last, meaning Pedro de la Rosa and Gene are tied for best EVER!!! GO SPAIN!!! THE ARMADA WILL REIGN AGAIN AND YOU ALL WILL TREMBLE IN THE POWER OF SPANISH DRIVERS ALONG WITH THEIR FRIENDS FROM ARGENTINA THE TRUTH IS THEY NEVER LEFT YOU!!!

You may even recall Michael Schumacher rating a certain Mika Hakkinen in his personal top five before Mika had ever won an F1 race.

[Pacific]

Oh, and as for Damon Hill, I seem to recall he did okay in a certain Jordan in 1998. He almost won in the Arrows-Yamahahahahahah in 1997 at Hungary. But he had Bridgestones they all cried. Excuses, excuses, nobody had a gun put to their head to use Goodyears. Why penalize a team for a good business decision. :(Because it's devestating to Michael Schumacher winning every race.

Fact of the matter is, it takes a good car to win, and the Arrows-Yamaha did a great job of proving it was not a competitive package in the end. (Probably the Yamaha more so than the Arrows chassis.)

You cannot extract more out of a chassis then what is there. All that happens is some drivers can extract more than others. Senna never achieved anything more than the Toleman, or the Lotus, or the McLaren, or the Williams could give him. What he did was prove that you could get more out of a car than other drivers could get. This is why the car is more important than the driver no matter who the driver is. No driver could have won an F1 race with a Forti-Corse Ford.

So when Panis won in the Ligier, it showed that the Ligier could win a race. The other drivers either wrecked, their own fault, or they had mechanical failures like Jean Alesi. Either way, the Panis-Ligier package outdid everybody else on that day. Olivier drove the car to the finish and the Ligier car and Mugen-Honda engine held up and did so at a pace that was enough to beat the other cars and drivers who managed to finish.

[Linus27]

Well there is no argument if you are going to twist it like that but I prefere to stick to reality. Damon Hill did a crap job in the 1998 Jordan. I do not call Michael Schumacher's maiden win in the Benetton the best car but his driver talent in the wet gave him that win, not the car. The same for his win in Spain in 96 in that dog of a Ferrari. I am not saying Mika is crap, bad or putting him down in anyway whatsoever but he has only achieved his wins in the best car. As for breaking down in the lead. You could write a book on the amount of times that has happened to Alesi. It means ****. One point you make is about other people winning is devestating to Michael Schumacher. Do you think I am a Schumacher fan because you are oh so wrong. Far from it. I hope he never wins a title of any type again. So you say the car is more important than the driver, so are you saying that Michael Schumacher would do an equal job as Marc Gene in the Minardi. I think not which is my point. Or to reverse the point, if Gene was in the McLaren, would he be as good as Mika. It is not the car only but the driver also. I can bet you this, Mika would outperorm Gene if they were both in the Minardi.

[tom]

ahahahaha

-------------------------

irvine = w@nker