40 replies to this topic

[selena]

In my opinion, Irvine is better, in terms of speed, starts, driving manner and strategy.
What do you F1 fans think?

[Ricardo F1]

Coulthard all round, though Irvine is probably more calculating and better at ensuring his car finishes.

[selena]

I find Irvine steady and reliable (although not in the first two races of this year, though but he brought the car home in Imola).

[The Swerve]

Coulthard is an ace qualifier - Eddie is maybe better in the race.

[Linus27]

I am going to wait for 614David to reply first as she is the best person here.

[The RedBaron]

Coulthard is faster I reckon, always has been. Better? hmmmh close - too hard to call

[runggald]

They're both crap and neither deserve to be in F1. Surely this has to be Coulthard's last year...

[Todd]

Eddie Irvine is in another league from David Coulthard. Put Eddie Irvine in a McLaren and he would lead every race. His races for Jaguar have shown that he is a great qualifier too. He just had the misfortune of spending most of his F1 career being measured against Michael Schumacher. He still pulled it off with a lot more class than Johnny Herbert. It doesn't look like Rubens Barrichello will take the heat as well either.

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

[404KF2]

Irvine.

(I can't believe that I agree with Todd ;) )

[Joe Fan]

Irvine but Coulthard has more potential.

[Haz]

DC by a long shot. I can't think of any impressive drives by Irvine. You have to remember that DC won races in non Newey cars, so he has talent. It just seems that ever since he handed those victories to Mika that his confidence is totally gone. He's still relatively young, so he has a chance of turning his career around.

What has Irvine ever done? Last year he was pathetic. The only reason he had any sort of shot at the title was because of the Ferrari's outrageous reliability and speed. Irvine nearly winning the title was more an indication of the strength of Ferrari, not his talent. Mclaren and Mika goofing up all the time also didn't hurt either. I'd say most F1 drivers could have won the title last year in the Ferrari.

Irvine at 35 also doesn't have many years left in him. We have probably seen the best he has to offer, and he can only get worse.

[Cociani]

I think that DC is faster but over a season and given equal cars EI would gather more points. Eddie is a very steady calculating driver. He has the reputation of track of being reckless but is far from reckless on the track where it counts.

[Williams]

Selena, a very good question. Like all good questions, the answer is not easy.

Both drivers are capable of consistently racking up points, both drivers have won races, both are level-headed (OK, one is cube-headed), but both drivers have knack of failing to perform at the crucial time, DC usually with some spectacular error, Irvine by simply and unaccountably failing to perform.

Irvine is probably psychologically a bit tougher.

Neither of them will ever be champion.

If I were a team owner who had to choose between them, I would have to go with DC, if only because he is younger (29 vs. 35). With a reliable set of wheels under him, I think Coulthard is by far the best #2 driver in the sport.

If McLaren manages to keep DC happy for years or two, they will be getting the better end of the deal. That is unlikely to happen, and I am sure DC will be moving on next year.

[Bruce]

Put Coulthard in the Ferrari in place of Irvine last year and they would have had their first WDC in 20 years...

He's better then Eddie - but that is hardly high praise...

[Mobile_Chicane]

DC and Irvine are pretty close. David is a better qualifyer but in a race it would be quite even.

Todd,

More like he would spin off trying to keep up with Mika if he was in a McLaren.

Eddie hasn't done anything special this year in the JAG. They have underperformed with two average drivers. Rubens did a lot better in early 1999 than Eddie is doing now. And its clear that he is better and faster than Eddie. If you don't believe it even Michael your hero said so just a month ago. What does that tell you?

[selena]

I agree with Swerve and Todd. However, I think DC is also a good driver, no doubt about that. But his driving style seem to be strategyless. I do not know who is better at set-ups, though.

[This message has been edited by selena (edited 04-19-2000).]

[smarty]

certainly Eddie

[h2fan]

I'd go with Irivine. The difference may be confidence as opposed to ability, but Irvine over performed last year, while Cubehead under performed. D.C. used to be a pretty good driver, (especially his starts), but that seems to have gone now, he can't overtake back markers and he's in awe of M.H. Irvine always knew he wasn't as good as Schumacher as was content to be as good as he could be without having to overreach himself, hence no confidence problems when he lost to M.S., D.C. I reckon though he could beat M.H. a few years ago, and as we all know he was (very) wrong, hence the confidence loss. Possibly an over simplistic explanation, but look at the difference with HHF when he left Williams and got his confidence back at Jordan. In my honest opinion the best thing that D.C. could is to leave McClaren next year. He may not end up in a team as dominant but if it he can perform well in another team, it may be all the boost he needs. Sometimes you have to take 1 step back before you can take 2 steps forward.

Rgds,

H2FAN

------------------
H2FAN

H20 = Water, H2F = Champagne

[Turbo]

Hard to say as there's no even ground on which to compare them (different teams, different equipment, etc.). I would guess that Coulthard is more consistent in terms of qualifying, but that Irvine might be a better qualifier on a rare occasion. For race, Irvine appears to be a better racer in terms of overtaking, though DC shows flashes of brilliants (like the pass on MS at Sepang). They both make their share of occasional mistakes. One thing I'm sure of--Irvine is a MUCH better trash talker, Coulthard is much better at saying what Ron and McLaren would like to hear.

------------------
Bring back slicks and turbo!

[Pacific]

The possibility that Heinz-Harald Frentzen had traction control last year really makes me question his abilities again. He's not doing anything too amazing this year. Jarno Trulli looks set to catch Frentzen any time now. It's disappointing for me, as a Frentzen fan, to know that there's a good chance he's not as good as I thought he was last year. Still a pretty good driver no doubt, but...

As for David Coulthard vs. Eddie Irvine. David Coulthard has more talent. I have stated before that I think David Coulthard is the perfect number two driver in F1. He ALWAYS gets points if the car finishes nowadays. That's all you can ask, and it's consistently in third place behind Mika and Michael or Michael and Mika, whatever the order. If Mika's car holds up of course. If you have a driver that pretty much gets third places all the time, that adds up to decent points over the course of a season.

Irvine was erratic at Ferrari, or his car was. One of the two. As for Irvine in the Jaguar, he's doing exactly what I expected of him. I thought that the Jaguars should be 7th and 8th after the McLarens, Ferraris, and Jordans. But, the Jaguar car has horrible reliability problems, which have really destabilized Johnny Herbert's confidence which is death for Herbert. Things snowball for Herbert. When things start going good, he starts performing as he can perform, which is quite good. But when things get down, he finds a way of keeping them there too. His luck changes by accident some race and starts the other direction. In that regard, if Herbert had more confidence in his car this season, I think he'd be a bit more upbeat which seems to make a difference in his performance. Irvine has suffered less mechanical problems, and seems less phased by the ones he does have. I think Irvine is content in knowing he put up a decent fight last season for Ferrari. He wasn't perfect, but Irvine was the perfect number two driver for Michael Schumacher, and that was important for the team. I'm beginning to wonder about Rubens Barrichello some. Rubens is probably more talented, but the fact the Irvine was resigned to the fact Schumacher was superior meant he didn't get down on himself for not outperforming his teammate. What Irvine did was just try to collect points every race.

What Irvine can't do, is get the car on the podium every race, like DC seems to be able to do. And sometimes, David Coulthard will have one of those weekends where he's the best, like at France last year. That race was his, poor guy. Hakkinen and Coulthard complement each other very well it seems. Fact also is, I think Coulthard is better at setting up a car than Hakkinen or Irvine. I think a lot of Hakkinen's success comes down to Coulthard's testing and using Coulthard's telemetry to help set his car up and then Mika uses his superior driving abilities to go out and always one up DC by a couple tenths or so and just edge out Schumacher while doing it.

This is why I don't think Coulthard will be relieved of duty after this season at McLaren. Hakkinen isn't strong enough technically, and Heidfeld, well, what's he learning at Prost? He's building character I suppose. Learning to accept failure perhaps. Not of his own doing. This season almost looks lost for Heidfeld. Mercedes needs to step in next season to help Prost so they can help their own young star. Ricardo Zonta doesn't look worthy to replace David Coulthard right now either. I don't think Panis is strong enough technically either to replace Coulthard. Panis gives them a test driver who can go testing with Coulthard and Panis knows how an F1 car should perform, he'll put in good times, and keep it on track for some good secondary telemtry to Coulthard. I think Coulthard is more important to McLaren than most realize, and this is why Ron Dennis likes Coulthard so much. Coulthard probably learned a lot from Damon Hill at Williams along with the Williams team.

[BuzzingHornet]

Todd, you're not serious! Irvine would not beat Hakkinen, ever. He's a good driver but DC is better in qualifying and IMO the races too... he gets overshadowed by Hakkinen though but he's a lot closer to MH than EI was to MS

Irvine is not bad at all but he's not that quick... he's a pretty good racer but on pure speed he gets dropped

[614david]

Hi, sorry i'm late
To answer the wuestion, they are VERY different, and it will come as no surprise to you that i think David is the better of the two, but not without reason. David, is very fast, very good at setting up an f1 car, very fit and very capable, he is intelligent and he has great potential. David is also youger than Eddie, who is now coming to the end of his career where David is only in the middle of his.
Davidnearly always brins a reliable car home in 1st 2nd or 3rd, and deserves praise for that.
I'm taking nothing away from Eddie Irvine. he has done well in his career and may have gone further if he had not been stuck in the shadow of Michael Scumacher. They have both been unfortunate in that they have been compared to two drivers brimmimg with natural talent, and they have both had to fight for their reputations. i think David's results over the period of time they have been racing together are better than Eddie's, but basically they both do something incredible, and where i think David is better, i have enormous respect for anybody who can do the job they do, and if that includes Eddie Irvine, so be it.

[magnum]

Since Irvine managed to challenge for the Championship last year in the Ferrari, while Coulthard couldn't even hardly even beat Frentzen, Irvine gets my vote. Coulthard has lost his bottle a long time ago - whe has been with the Williams and the McLarens and has achieved practically nothing while his teammates have gone on to be world champions at both teams.

[FIAsco]

I hope we will get the definitve answer to the question next year woth DC switching over to Jaguar. As the two seem to like each other very much that would guarantee some fun ;)
For the moment i would stick with all the people who claim that DC is more talented but did not make as much out of his talents as Irvine did.

[Linus27]

After reading Haz's coments I am very scared that there are people out in thi world like that. Are you sure your watching F1?

[614david]

Has tom changed his username to Haz?

P.S FIAsco, yes, Coulthard annd Irvine are just the best of friends- i think not
David's best mate is Jacques Villeneuve (i'm not being sarcastic and eddie's best mate is guiness!!

[This message has been edited by 614david (edited 04-19-2000).]

[JordanF1]

Irvine is by far better. If he had been in the McLaren for the last few years he would have a lot more race wins than Coulthard. Coulthard only has 4 wins at McLaren where as Irvine won 4 races last year alone. Coulthard is on his way out of McLaren and next year he might be Irvine's #2 at Jaguar. Irvine will wreck his head if that happens.

[BuzzingHornet]

Irvine only ever won when the fast guys dropped out or his team mate let him... how many races did it take SALO to outrace Irvine? He never beat MS or MH is a straight fight, which DC has done. I know the McLaren was great but Schumacher showed that it was a race winning machine, and Irvine was often nowhere near

[Pacific]

McLaren have had it if they sack Coulthard any time soon. Heidfeld has to develop before that happens. Coulthard is better technically than both Hakkinen and Panis. Then add in he speaks English natively and so do the mechanics, and the natural advantage Coulthard has technically over Hakkinen and Panis grows. Panis is just a very capable test driver who won't wreck the McLaren in testing and still give them good telemetry and maybe add in the odds thoughts here and there. Coulthard is very important to McLaren. The number of times Coulthard and Hakkinen have been leading when their car breaks down is horrible. DC would have more the 4 wins if his car wasn't suffering problems whenever he leads.

DC will NEVER go to Jaguar while Eddie Irvine is there. They'd be too busy trying to destabilize each other, bad for the team. When DC leaves McLaren, (read when Heidfeld gets probably two good years experience in a Prost, which is not this year) he'll probably go to a team like BAR (especially if Villeneuve is still there) or perhaps Renault or Arrows. Maybe Sauber. A lot of teams could use what Coulthard has to offer. Toyota would love to have Coulthard in 2002.

It just so happens that Coulthard's teammate is the fastest driver on the grid and is able to take all the testing that Coulthard puts in with set-ups and stuff and throw in lightning laps. Notice Hakkinen was always pretty good at Lotus and at McLaren, but never dynamite. He never had a teammate who could help him set-up wise as much as Coulthard. The fact Coulthard and Hakkinen get along helps their working relationship a lot. Hakkinen has to know without Coulthard he wouldn't be beating Michael Schumacher. Cause Michael has no major weaknesses. He's fast, he's good technically, and he's the best at adapting to track conditions. Michael Schumacher was chosen by Ferrari to revive the team for reasons more than just "he's fast." You have to look deeper into why Schumacher gets such results. Well, the deeper, less apparent aspects, are why Coulthard has been with McLaren the past couple years. Ron Dennis has always liked David Coulthard, and there are good reasons for that. The habits DC picked up at Williams certainly helped him a lot. No doubt Damon Hill was certainly a good thing for him. That's the interesting thing. Damon Hill's strong point seems to have been the technical aspects of the car. His pure driving skills, which aren't bad of course, aren't in the same class as say Schumacher and Hakkinen, but he could sort the car out and make sure it stays competitive and as long as him and Michael didn't run into each other, bring the car home first or second.

One reason Hill may have struggled, is if Jordan were the team with traction control, and that appears most likely, is Hill got taken out of the equation a bit with set-ups. Damon Hill might be the kind of driver who does worse with driver aids, because he has to have a good feel for what the car is doing naturally to set it up, especially to his own liking. Add in Hill hated the narrow track cars and grooved tires, and you get, "What am I doing getting up this Sunday?" And that showed.

[This message has been edited by Pacific (edited 04-19-2000).]

[AlesiGOD]

Coulthard is better than Irvine!

[Schuthard]

I must also say that Coulthard all round is the better driver 'cos he is.
Also, being a Scot I'd say David even if I didn't like him!!


[This message has been edited by Schuthard (edited 04-19-2000).]

[Damop]

I would say Irvine is better than DC. He is more consistent, and is showing this year that he is legitimately quick.

Pacific - are you ever able to post something that isn't two screens long??? I bet your response to this is even long ;)

[Linus27]

Buzzing

Is that why Irvine pissed all over DC in Austria last year and Salo for that matter.

[John B]

It happens far too rarely, but DC has proven the ability to dominate a GP weekend and in late 1995 had a stretch of 4 straight poles and a dominant win (his first at Estoril). Of course during that time he also drove into the pit wall with the Australian GP in hand....Irvine has not shown that ability yet

[John B]

(meaning dominating as opposed to hitting the pit wall ;))

[Arnaldo]

Neither

[Mobile_Chicane]

Paicific,

Mika is not that bad technically. He does not rely on DC for his setups. The fact that he uses his teammates setups sometimes is a bit of a psychological thing. Maybe he learnt it from Ayrton who did the same to his teammates. There was nothing worse for Berger than to watch Senna blow away his fastest lap times after he had done all the winter testing work. It would be pretty demoralising to watch your teammate better your lap time again and again on your own setup? wouldn't it?

Senna did the same to Mika who even said that Senna used his setups while they raced together.

[Jaeger]

They are both mediocre drivers at best, but I'd give DC the edge because he's a better qualifier.

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

[BuzzingHornet]

Linus27, yeah he beat DC in one race, but so what? He's never looked close to Hakkinen. Salo was dropped back to interfere with the pit strategy of McLaren, either that or he's really really lame cos he was virually dead last at the time, in the constructors winning car... ditto for Spa last year too. Hockenheim, Salo had the race in the bag. If I was him I would have carried on and won because he's never going to get his hands on winning machinery again, not after he gets savaged by Diniz this year ;)

i'm only half joking

[Elias]

I consider Coulthard to be faster, Irvine maybe a bit more reliable race finisher.

[Sudsbouy]

I'm going with the majority on this thread and going to vote for Coulthard. However, I will give Irvine the nod as far as mental toughness is concerned.

Irvine's irreverant style really serves him well, especially when coupled with some decent results on the track. I think there's an element of wink 'n nod to his outrageous comments and at a personal level he's easier to deal with.

In a straight-up contest for a single corner, I'd give Irvine the edge (I think he's got Coulthard's head a little screwed up). However, over the course of a season, considering their relative testing/setup capabilities (remember how Irvine's Ferrari gradually drifted away from the front in Schumacher's absence), Coulthard by a mile (or a couple of kilometers).

Thank you.

[This message has been edited by Sudsbouy (edited 04-20-2000).]