Vettel is overrated and a one-trick pony according to Eddie Irvine

[kals]

Bottom post of the previous page:

I agree and Hill's teammates were very fast and talented to add to that pressure, and there was also the Williams philosophy of investing in technology instead of wasting money on a star driver, save a very few exceptions, and that also contributed to his departure after winning the WDC.

It's a little more complex than that. Here's a snippet of some of the Hill | Williams discussion:

Williams used Hill as a scapegoat throughout 1994. His (and DC’s) performances were not great in 1995 however Hill has always freely admitted that he put himself under too much pressure that year. Plus also there were reliability issues during the season which meant the car was not on the same level as Benetton.

Once Senna passed away Williams went about looking for his natural replacement, they never got behind Hill. I’ve written about it elsewhere on the forum. That’s why they went to get Mansell, that’s why they tried out DC, that’s why they went and fetched JV from Indycar and gave him endless testing during the latter part of 1995. Williams wanted Frentzen to partner JV in 1996, but he had a contract with Sauber. So Hill was retained. As soon as Sauber’s option with Frentzen expired Williams snapped him up. Hill found out through a journalist at Autosport and thought it was a fabrication.

It's from here - viewtopic.php?p=342885#p342885

There's lots more elsewhere across the board.

Also, welcome to the Fastlane @chapa and thanks for contributing to the conversation

[chapa]

Williams had plenty of interest in signing Frentzen because Williams' option on the German was running out of time, and Hill apparently wanted more money to stay in the team, something that Frank Williams was unwilling to give. And, talking about Frentzen, FW wanted to sign him back in 1994, after Senna's death.

[kals]

Hill wanted more money because he was underpaid considering his status in the team. His status in 93 and 94 was as a number two driver, yet when Senna died Hill tried to lead the team but was met with great resistance from Head and Williams. Williams didn’t want to get behind Hill because he was never considered a long term option. At the same time Williams were never going to increase Hill’s retainer because they never intended to renew his contract.

[chapa]

Hill wanted more money because he was underpaid considering his status in the team. His status in 93 and 94 was as a number two driver, yet when Senna died Hill tried to lead the team but was met with great resistance from Head and Williams. Williams didn’t want to get behind Hill because he was never considered a long term option. At the same time Williams were never going to increase Hill’s retainer because they never intended to renew his contract.

Indeed, you are absolutely right, and he knew that, by becoming champion, his price would go up massively, and never having been a clear number one driver, paying tons of money could be a waste fot the team's interests in developing technology and infrastructures. Even if Williams still wanted to retain him at the end of 1996, (and Hill himself still had interest to stay, at least, for one more year until Renault pulled out and the team had to find a suitable engine deal), they had a problem, because they hired Villeneuve and activated their option on Frentzen and they wanted their services because he was a cheaper driver and had the potential to be as fast as Hill, so Hill had not much possibilities there, and it was a shame because he won the championship with solid drives that season.

[chapa]

Oh, and you mentioned that Autosport story, I've seen recently this article and it was interesting reading.
I don't know if I can put this link here. If I can't, then feel free to delete this, but here it is. It was a news story from 1996.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns00698.html

[kals]

Oh, and you mentioned that Autosport story, I've seen recently this article and it was interesting reading.
I don't know if I can put this link here. If I can't, then feel free to delete this, but here it is. It was a news story from 1996.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns00698.html

Happy for you to post the article, definitely appreciate you sharing. Thanks!

[chapa]

Oh, and you mentioned that Autosport story, I've seen recently this article and it was interesting reading.
I don't know if I can put this link here. If I can't, then feel free to delete this, but here it is. It was a news story from 1996.
http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns00698.html

Happy for you to post the article, definitely appreciate you sharing. Thanks!

You're welcome! There are some interesting features in their news archive, take a look, there are some extensive reviews of seasons, too. I think that journalist Joe Saward wrote a few.

[MonteCristo]

Me and Eddie Irvine are actually ... the same person.

[caneparo]

It's not as if Hill was the only person to hit a tyre stack at the 1996 Italian GP, was he?

People make mistakes in F1, it's a given. The suggestion he made more than most is false.

I was just recalling episodes of drivers making mistakes while leading. The history is full of this episodes, now i recall also when brabham lost it at the very last curve of the race.
When Irvine says that vettel is overrated he has probably a point, but let’s say at least that he won in a minardi, something nobody ever did. And if we follow irvine’s meter we should also say that also hamilton has never won a championship on an inferior car. We could say that both driver’s dominance happened thanks to dominant car

[erwin greven]

It's not as if Hill was the only person to hit a tyre stack at the 1996 Italian GP, was he?

People make mistakes in F1, it's a given. The suggestion he made more than most is false.

I was just recalling episodes of drivers making mistakes while leading. The history is full of this episodes, now i recall also when brabham lost it at the very last curve of the race.
When Irvine says that vettel is overrated he has probably a point, but let’s say at least that he won in a minardi, something nobody ever did. And if we follow irvine’s meter we should also say that also hamilton has never won a championship on an inferior car. We could say that both driver’s dominance happened thanks to dominant car

[Kai-Star]

The Leclerc v Vettel battle will be very interesting this year. Vettel already slipped up with Ricciardo as teammate and the jury has since then questioned the legitimacy of those 4 World Championships. But that's F1 too. You need to be in the right place at the right time.

[PTRACER]

The Leclerc v Vettel battle will be very interesting this year. Vettel already slipped up with Ricciardo as teammate and the jury has since then questioned the legitimacy of those 4 World Championships. But that's F1 too. You need to be in the right place at the right time.

I think doing things like sliding off at Hockenheim last year and being beaten like hell by Hamilton in every other race has caused us to question Vettel's ability.

I still think he's a Tier 1 driver, along with Hamilton, but Hamilton is clearly the best of the lot. Schumacher and Senna territory, dare I say.

[erwin greven]

Below Senna/Schumacher i would say.
But it is so difficult to value a driver in a series where the car determines 75%-80%(?) of the race pace.

[Kai-Star]

Judging Vettel and Hamilton without seeing them in the same car is nigh on impossible. Have either had the same teammate? Don't think that's happened either. Even Hamilton had minor slip ups against Button and Rosberg, not that he wasn't faster than either, it's just that he made more mistakes and got himself in worse situations. But most drivers have had something to quibble about. Schumacher coming back in his 40s wasn't the best idea, for instance. For my personal opinion, and of the recent drivers only Alonso would I compare to be at a similar level to Hamilton. It will be interesting to see where Verstappen's career goes however.

[caneparo]

You call a minor slip having rosberg beating him in the world championship? We’re not talking of a senna or a prost

[DoubleFart]

It was a minor slip - he lost because of car failure and the lack of competition to Mercedes.

I've said it before - Rosberg was off of Hamilton's quality pace to the extend that in 2018 or 2019 he would have been 3rd-5th on the grid. The Merc was so dominant that he could fuck up and still be 2nd.

If you've got somebody who is always going to follow you home, it's always going to be a minor slip that costs you.