GilesGuthrie
Staff Emeritus
- 11,038
- Edinburgh, UK
- CMDRTheDarkLord
As reported in this week's Autosport magazine, Jaguar have dropped yet another test driver. The teaam which at one point had four testers on its books now has only Andre Lotterer, as it seeks to build on recent showings of pace.
Outspoken driver Eddie Irvine (who I think is all mouth and no trousers) has recently made comments surrounding the need for an experienced driver as a tester, which means he's only four years behind the realisation of the likes of Williams and McLaren, both of whom have a policy of hiring testers with race experience. Irvine has made some rather snide comments about team-mate de la Rosa's ability to develop the car, which is interesting in the light of his own singular failure to consistently contribute to either developmental results or race pace.
It is interesting that the team should make such a decision on its test team while being undecided on the race team. Rumours persist that Australian Mark Webber is in the frame for a race seat, although contractual negotiations are said to be holding this up. The second seat is de la Rosa's by contract, but there has recently been talk that DLR will be paid off, and Williams tester Antonio Pizzonia will take the second seat. Would this be wise? I can't really see the logic of dumping both drivers in the same season, as I said when we were talking about Toyota. When all the major teams are going for year-on-year consistency, it seems odd that Jaguar should be seeking to drop both its drivers. The team has been wracked by instability since it was bought from the Stewarts, and it's really time that they did something about this. Surely it would be better to keep DLR, whose calming influence on the team can clearly be seen, and drop motormouth Irvine, who costs too much (at a time when Ford seem to be tightening their collective belt) and doesn't deliver consistently. If I were Lauda, I would have Webber, DLR and Lotterer in the team, and that's it.
However, I'm not Lauda, and I really haven't been able to understand most of the decisions and statements that he's made while in control of Jaguar, so who know's what will happen!
Outspoken driver Eddie Irvine (who I think is all mouth and no trousers) has recently made comments surrounding the need for an experienced driver as a tester, which means he's only four years behind the realisation of the likes of Williams and McLaren, both of whom have a policy of hiring testers with race experience. Irvine has made some rather snide comments about team-mate de la Rosa's ability to develop the car, which is interesting in the light of his own singular failure to consistently contribute to either developmental results or race pace.
It is interesting that the team should make such a decision on its test team while being undecided on the race team. Rumours persist that Australian Mark Webber is in the frame for a race seat, although contractual negotiations are said to be holding this up. The second seat is de la Rosa's by contract, but there has recently been talk that DLR will be paid off, and Williams tester Antonio Pizzonia will take the second seat. Would this be wise? I can't really see the logic of dumping both drivers in the same season, as I said when we were talking about Toyota. When all the major teams are going for year-on-year consistency, it seems odd that Jaguar should be seeking to drop both its drivers. The team has been wracked by instability since it was bought from the Stewarts, and it's really time that they did something about this. Surely it would be better to keep DLR, whose calming influence on the team can clearly be seen, and drop motormouth Irvine, who costs too much (at a time when Ford seem to be tightening their collective belt) and doesn't deliver consistently. If I were Lauda, I would have Webber, DLR and Lotterer in the team, and that's it.
However, I'm not Lauda, and I really haven't been able to understand most of the decisions and statements that he's made while in control of Jaguar, so who know's what will happen!
