Silly Season 2016/2017

[Jolle]

Ferrari seems to have decided to continue with Kimi. If this is true this may affect many other drivers options to change(Ricciardo, Rosberg, Alonso,etc). I like Kimi but if he is out of Ferrari a lot of interesting changes could happen.

Although a Ferrari seat is something most drivers dream of, a number #2 seat is not the one an ambitious guy like RIC is gunning for.

[Vasconia]

Ferrari seems to have decided to continue with Kimi. If this is true this may affect many other drivers options to change(Ricciardo, Rosberg, Alonso,etc). I like Kimi but if he is out of Ferrari a lot of interesting changes could happen.

Although a Ferrari seat is something most drivers dream of, a number #2 seat is not the one an ambitious guy like RIC is gunning for.

Unless Ferrari promises him that they will have equal treatment. Why not? Ferrari has changed and Vettel is not Schumacher.

[Jolle]

Ferrari seems to have decided to continue with Kimi. If this is true this may affect many other drivers options to change(Ricciardo, Rosberg, Alonso,etc). I like Kimi but if he is out of Ferrari a lot of interesting changes could happen.

Although a Ferrari seat is something most drivers dream of, a number #2 seat is not the one an ambitious guy like RIC is gunning for.

Unless Ferrari promises him that they will have equal treatment. Why not? Ferrari has changed and Vettel is not Schumacher.

Equal treatment until push comes to shove. When the guy in the other seat is hired to become the next WC, you're going to be on the back foot real soon.

[Ennis]

Although a Ferrari seat is something most drivers dream of, a number #2 seat is not the one an ambitious guy like RIC is gunning for.

Unless Ferrari promises him that they will have equal treatment. Why not? Ferrari has changed and Vettel is not Schumacher.

Equal treatment until push comes to shove. When the guy in the other seat is hired to become the next WC, you're going to be on the back foot real soon.

.. unless you outpace him.

Ferrari want the best driver over a season. Schumacher was undoubtedly the best driver over a season, so it made sense to give him priority on the odd weekend where his teammate may have otherwise won.

If Ricciardo can go there and outpace Vettel, they'll throw their weight behind his WDC bid at some point. If they're both far away from the WDC, they'll just let them race.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

Schumacher was undoubtedly the best driver over a season, so it made sense to give him priority on the odd weekend where his teammate may have otherwise won.

And how many such weekends have we witnessed in his 10 years at Ferrari? Other than the one where Barrichello was asked to slow down in Austria 2002 and the same year in Indianapolis, Schumacher returned the favor.

[OneAlex]

Half the reason Ferrari stays with Kimi (aside from his image) is the fact that Kimi will never rock the boat with Seb, who Ferrari seems to want to build the team around like with Schumi.

Seb is a hands on diplomat who will gather the team around him, Kimi will... be Kimi, he'll just take a back-seat to anything off the race track, turn up on the day and be nearly as good, then go home again.

I just can't see them ever wanted Daniel of all people in that second seat, even if he is potentially faster. He would be more hands on also and sort of "get in the way" of the Ferrari-Vettel vision I feel.

Besides, Red Bull seem to be reigning in Mercedes better than Ferrari now, so despite Daniel's "I will go to a team who can win" comments, I see him sticking with RB for a few more years (unless next year's car is somehow a big step back).

[Phil]

I think some people are getting a bit confused over this "number 1 and number 2" business.

With Schumacher there was a huge difference: Schumacher was worth a lot to Ferrari, not only because he was quick, but as a WDC he also carried a lot of selling power. Brand-name. All in all, it was a win win for all involved: Keep the winning formula, keep Schumacher winning, keep promoting the brand Ferrari as the winning team. A scenario in which the 2nd driver starts to mess with that winning formula and you might end up in a scenario that is less beneficial. So there was a clear motivation to keep things as they were. Given that Schumacher was already the 'better' driver over the course of season, it was deemed logical to also enforce team-orders. When you have a driver as big as Schumacher had become with his multiple WDC successes, it's easier to start talking about contractual number 1 status. It's either that, or you risk pushing away that driver.

Vettel is in no such position IMO. He carries some weight as a 4 times WDC, but the situation at Ferrari is different. They haven't won a WDC since soon 10 years. There is no winning formula and there is no room for a driver to be "bigger than the team", much less when you aren't winning. Alonso had to find that out too, even after coming so close in securing that win.

Mercedes might have a reason to give Hamilton contractually a number 1 status. But they won't. Why? Because Hamilton is not bigger than the team. Mercedes know they have the winning formula in the car. If Hamilton doesn't like it, they could easily replace him with any other driver and rest assured, this year, last year, or the year before, one of their drivers would have won the championship. So no, no reason to give either driver contractual number 1 status. In fact, not having any number 1 has made life easier for Mercedes. Instead of receiving too much pressure from the other teams about having such a huge advantage, they at least put on quite a show in 2014 with both their drivers at it to win and secure the WDC. It's softened the situation a bit.

So, even if Ricciardo goes to Ferrari, there is no number 1 driver. They [Ferrari] might like Vettel as a driver, but they'd be utterly stupid to put all their eggs into one basket, especially if it isn't even proven to be a winning Formula, as it was in the Schumacher era. For that to happen, it first needs to happen. That success needs to start and then that day might come again. Or maybe it won't. Drivers are less of a factor than they were back then. Today, it's to a large part the car and the team that wins championships. The driver still needs to drive it, but the value of a driver has become smaller. Back a few decades ago, I'm guessing the driver would be responsible way more on the time sheets because driver ability (and sanity) was everything. Now, the gift is mostly in perfecting the lap, not making any mistakes and getting the most of it. But the grid is very close and the gap between great and supreme driving is smaller.

[Vasconia]

Schumacher was undoubtedly the best driver over a season, so it made sense to give him priority on the odd weekend where his teammate may have otherwise won.

And how many such weekends have we witnessed in his 10 years at Ferrari? Other than the one where Barrichello was asked to slow down in Austria 2002 and the same year in Indianapolis, Schumacher returned the favor.

Yes, and Australia was a so stupid movement! it was so clear that Schumacher was going to win that championship... they could have given this present to Rubens(because he deserved it) but they totally ruined it, and gave a good excuse for the haters.

[Jolle]

I think some people are getting a bit confused over this "number 1 and number 2" business.

With Schumacher there was a huge difference: Schumacher was worth a lot to Ferrari, not only because he was quick, but as a WDC he also carried a lot of selling power. Brand-name. All in all, it was a win win for all involved: Keep the winning formula, keep Schumacher winning, keep promoting the brand Ferrari as the winning team. A scenario in which the 2nd driver starts to mess with that winning formula and you might end up in a scenario that is less beneficial. So there was a clear motivation to keep things as they were. Given that Schumacher was already the 'better' driver over the course of season, it was deemed logical to also enforce team-orders. When you have a driver as big as Schumacher had become with his multiple WDC successes, it's easier to start talking about contractual number 1 status. It's either that, or you risk pushing away that driver.

Vettel is in no such position IMO. He carries some weight as a 4 times WDC, but the situation at Ferrari is different. They haven't won a WDC since soon 10 years. There is no winning formula and there is no room for a driver to be "bigger than the team", much less when you aren't winning. Alonso had to find that out too, even after coming so close in securing that win.

Mercedes might have a reason to give Hamilton contractually a number 1 status. But they won't. Why? Because Hamilton is not bigger than the team. Mercedes know they have the winning formula in the car. If Hamilton doesn't like it, they could easily replace him with any other driver and rest assured, this year, last year, or the year before, one of their drivers would have won the championship. So no, no reason to give either driver contractual number 1 status. In fact, not having any number 1 has made life easier for Mercedes. Instead of receiving too much pressure from the other teams about having such a huge advantage, they at least put on quite a show in 2014 with both their drivers at it to win and secure the WDC. It's softened the situation a bit.

So, even if Ricciardo goes to Ferrari, there is no number 1 driver. They [Ferrari] might like Vettel as a driver, but they'd be utterly stupid to put all their eggs into one basket, especially if it isn't even proven to be a winning Formula, as it was in the Schumacher era. For that to happen, it first needs to happen. That success needs to start and then that day might come again. Or maybe it won't. Drivers are less of a factor than they were back then. Today, it's to a large part the car and the team that wins championships. The driver still needs to drive it, but the value of a driver has become smaller. Back a few decades ago, I'm guessing the driver would be responsible way more on the time sheets because driver ability (and sanity) was everything. Now, the gift is mostly in perfecting the lap, not making any mistakes and getting the most of it. But the grid is very close and the gap between great and supreme driving is smaller.

When Schumacher (together with Brawn and Byrne) came to Ferrari they didn't win a championship in over 15 years, not even with the Alonso like Prost and the best engineers of the era (Bernard). The similarities are quite strong. Also, don't mistake having equal opportunities with the racing team and/or the team bosses/marketing department/sponsors. To make things more complicated, the current team boss from Ferrari is their old marketing manager (from Philip Morris who bought/have exclusive rights to all of the marketing of the Ferraris).

Ferrari likes to market world champions, it just works much better.
"4 times WC" vs "3 times Grand Prix winner"

RIC will have his fair shot in 2017 with the RedBull, VES should need some more time to grow and then he might look at HAM's seat for 2019 and beyond.

ROS has a bit of the same problem, but his timing is probably worse. McLaren would suit him, but not fast or available enough for 2017 and Renault is just too slow.

[Phil]

Ferrari likes to market world champions, it just works much better.
"4 times WC" vs "3 times Grand Prix winner"

No, Ferrari isn't in it to market anyone but themselves. They did so under Schumacher (eventually), because it benefited them. They'd be stupid to limit perhaps a better driver by contractual terms because the other driver has the better credentials. There's no way this makes any business sense whatsoever.

No doubt, the team will rally behind whichever driver is in the better position and has the better potential to win the championship for them. They did so in 2008 when for instance that was Massa and not Kimi, even though Kimi was the reigning WDC. They will do so again, if which ever driver mid season has a much better chance of closing the gap. If that happens to be Kimi mid way through the season, I have no doubt they will put their weight behind him. They've gone too long without a title to put one driver above the team.

I'll quote Luca Di Montezemolo; no one is bigger than Ferrari

[PlatinumZealot]

Mercedes might have a reason to give Hamilton contractually a number 1 status. But they won't. Why? Because Hamilton is not bigger than the team. Mercedes know they have the winning formula in the car. If Hamilton doesn't like it, they could easily replace him with any other driver and rest assured, this year, last year, or the year before, one of their drivers would have won the championship. So no, no reason to give either driver contractual number 1 status. In fact, not having any number 1 has made life easier for Mercedes. Instead of receiving too much pressure from the other teams about having such a huge advantage, they at least put on quite a show in 2014 with both their drivers at it to win and secure the WDC. It's softened the situation a bit.

Phil, to their manufacturer team's operation and marketing, wouldn't you say that Hamilton is as irreplaceable as Schumacher was in Ferrari?

[Jolle]

Mercedes might have a reason to give Hamilton contractually a number 1 status. But they won't. Why? Because Hamilton is not bigger than the team. Mercedes know they have the winning formula in the car. If Hamilton doesn't like it, they could easily replace him with any other driver and rest assured, this year, last year, or the year before, one of their drivers would have won the championship. So no, no reason to give either driver contractual number 1 status. In fact, not having any number 1 has made life easier for Mercedes. Instead of receiving too much pressure from the other teams about having such a huge advantage, they at least put on quite a show in 2014 with both their drivers at it to win and secure the WDC. It's softened the situation a bit.

Phil, to their manufacturer team's operation and marketing, wouldn't you say that Hamilton is as irreplaceable as Schumacher was in Ferrari?

It's got nothing to do whether the team is bigger then the driver, it's about marketing value. Vettel (or Hamilton) is worth more for the sponsors/team/Marlboro/etc then the other, non WC driver. That's why they are paid 2-3 times the amount of their teammates.

[PlatinumZealot]

Mercedes might have a reason to give Hamilton contractually a number 1 status. But they won't. Why? Because Hamilton is not bigger than the team. Mercedes know they have the winning formula in the car. If Hamilton doesn't like it, they could easily replace him with any other driver and rest assured, this year, last year, or the year before, one of their drivers would have won the championship. So no, no reason to give either driver contractual number 1 status. In fact, not having any number 1 has made life easier for Mercedes. Instead of receiving too much pressure from the other teams about having such a huge advantage, they at least put on quite a show in 2014 with both their drivers at it to win and secure the WDC. It's softened the situation a bit.

Phil, to their manufacturer team's operation and marketing, wouldn't you say that Hamilton is as irreplaceable as Schumacher was in Ferrari?

It's got nothing to do whether the team is bigger then the driver, it's about marketing value. Vettel (or Hamilton) is worth more for the sponsors/team/Marlboro/etc then the other, non WC driver. That's why they are paid 2-3 times the amount of their teammates.

I am not talking about that though. Phil said two very interesting things.

He said this:

With Schumacher there was a huge difference: Schumacher was worth a lot to Ferrari, not only because he was quick, but as a WDC he also carried a lot of selling power. Brand-name. All in all, it was a win win for all involved: Keep the winning formula, keep Schumacher winning, keep promoting the brand Ferrari as the winning team.

Then this:

Mercedes might have a reason to give Hamilton contractually a number 1 status. But they won't. Why? Because Hamilton is not bigger than the team. Mercedes know they have the winning formula in the car. If Hamilton doesn't like it, they could easily replace him with any other driver and rest assured, this year, last year, or the year before, one of their drivers would have won the championship.

So, two very contrasting outcomes in Phil's view, even though the drivers are delivering the same things; speed, marketing value, Champion pedigree, brand name. On the surface of it, it seems contradictory that he thinks that Hamilton is very replaceable and Schumacher was not even though their situations are almost the same. I won't say if I agree or disagree, but I want to see him flesh it out more.. interesting contrast.

[Phil]

In my view, i think the difference lies in that the formula 1 era was different in Schumachers time. I think back then, the driver(s) carried more weight because the cars were more difficult to drive - so a good driver was more desireable, more important. What also strikes me about of Schumacher - and i'm saying that as a huge Hamilton supporter - is that he seemed to be every bit as part of the puzzle, as involved, as important, behind the scenes, as he was when driving the car. That made him somewhat irreplacable. I see similar traits in Vettel (as a driver) too, but i think todays Formula 1 has made drivers more redundant. They dont carry as much weight anymore as a decade ago.

Hamilton might be every bit as good as a driver than Schumacher was, but look at how dominant that Mercedes is since 2014. Even if Hamilton wasnt driving for Mercedes, either Mercedes driver would have won the championships in these years. Easily. Hamilton is just very marketable as a brand and of course, he is very talented behind the wheel. Good reason to pay him a huge salary and keep him at the team, but IMO he is less central to the WDC winning success. If perhaps the other teams were closer, then Hamiltons value and detriment to that success would increase. So having said that, i dont think there is enough reason for Mercedes to give contractual number 1 status.

I think Schumachers success and the unparalleled success and domination of Ferrari back in 2000 to 2005 was a very unique time. It all fitted, fell into place. It wasnt Schumacher alone, and i think his success didnt come over night (and neither did that support of the team towards him) - it grew with every win, with every WDC until the bond was that strong, that he, along with the team, Brawn and Todt, was every bit as part of that success and thus became irreplaceable. I dont think we will see such a situation in F1 again...

The only similar degree of importance of one single individual i can think of since then,would be perhaps Adrian Newey and how his genius led to a team winning multiple WDCs in an era focused on aero development.

Just my 2 cents and all IMO.

Edit: typed on my mobile. Sorry for any typos...

[godlameroso]

James Allison going back to Renault?!