The Driver's championship and 2 two number 1 drivers

[hemichromis]

For many years we have been hoping to see two number 1 drivers fighting for the championship in the same car.
I have noticed that although the teams say they do not have a number 1 or 2 driver the stats do not bear this out.
As I have looked at the championship it seems clear that the winning team has a gulf of skill between their drivers in most cases.

There was of course Mclaren's attempt at having two number 1's that failed in a spectacular fashion.

Is a number 1 and number 2 driver the way to go for championships?

[JonoNic]

Good luck keeping this a technical thread

[NL_Fer]

Not from the start f the season, one driver can mis his form or have problem adapting the car of that year. Beter is to decide halfway, when it is clear who is the fastest driver.

[Big Tea]

Every team has to have a 'fallback position'. Meaning that if all other things are equal and someone can not make a sensible decision, it is what will happen.
It could be the driver who has the most points at the time, the driver who is infront at the time, or, the driver they think is most likely to get the best results.

Choosing the latter is obviously favoritism, but it has to be in place, even if not done.

[Tim.Wright]

Mathematically, it's pretty obvious that if you favour one driver he will end up with more points than either would have if they fought for position with no team orders.

[PlatinumZealot]

For many years we have been hoping to see two number 1 drivers fighting for the championship in the same car.
I have noticed that although the teams say they do not have a number 1 or 2 driver the stats do not bear this out.
As I have looked at the championship it seems clear that the winning team has a gulf of skill between their drivers in most cases.

There was of course Mclaren's attempt at having two number 1's that failed in a spectacular fashion.

Is a number 1 and number 2 driver the way to go for championships?

Technically impossible within the same team. Once the two drivers are given equal status in the same team there is no more Number One. If you really mean two elite drivers though; don't you consider Nico Rosberg an Elite driver?

[AJI]

There was of course Mclaren's attempt at having two number 1's that failed in a spectacular fashion.

I assume your talking about 2007, because it could be argued that 88 and 89 were great examples of how having two #1 drivers can be a spectacular success.

Ross Brawn's feelings on this subject are quite interesting. If his #2 driver won a race he was disappointed because the wrong driver won.

[GPR-A duplicate2]

There was of course Mclaren's attempt at having two number 1's that failed in a spectacular fashion.

I assume your talking about 2007, because it could be argued that 88 and 89 were great examples of how having two #1 drivers can be a spectacular success.

Ross Brawn's feelings on this subject are quite interesting. If his #2 driver won a race he was disappointed because the wrong driver won.

From F1 as a show perspective, it would be good to have two No.1 drivers, but as a team, it is pretty much useless exercise. The time, energy and focus that the team has to put into handling the team mate headaches, far outweigh the advantage (if any) they bring to the table as a team. There are only two titles available, one for the team and one for the driver and from a team's perspective, there is no reason to have two No.1 drivers as there is no ROI for such an investment, except for loads of negative energy in the team.

While there was no loss in winning titles for 88-89 and 2014-2016 except for loads of heartache for the team, 2007 rightly proves why a team shouldn't have two No.1 drivers, when there is even competition from outside.

For situations like 88-89 and 2014-16, it's the competition's fault for not living up to it and producing inferior equipment and a team who did the best the job, shouldn't feel any obligation to go through the pain of giving liberty to two drivers to go haywire and in the process waste valuable energy and resources to manage unsavory situations.

So Ross Brawn was right. Ferrari is always right in this regard and Mercedes has learnt the lesson, hard way. I don't think Toto would ever invest into another strong driver, for as long as Hamilton is in the team. That model would continue even after Hamilton leaves. Toto would settle for one dominant driver in the driver and the other one, pretty much a side kick. That's the way to go.

[Andres125sx]

I find it amazing how people keep assuming 2007 was a season with two #1 drivers...

Lewis Hamilton was a rookie with ZERO experience in F1. Alonso was current two times WDC. The only sugestion that they would receive equal treatment is an unquestionable evidence of favouritism towards Lewis. No other F1 team in 68 seasons have ever considered providing equal treatment to current champion and a rookie, because it´s absurd (as time demostrated).

McLaren claiming they would provide equal treatment to current champion and a rookie was self-explanatory about their real interest, later proved with Lewis causing a penalty to his own team after demanding Alonso (and mclaren doing nothing to stop him), or Dennis claim "we don´t fight Kimi, we fight Alonso".... and Kimi won the title


And before people accuse me of Alonso fanboy, I must say I was shocked with Lewis GP2 season in 2006, and I was really hoping for a great and fair battle between both in 2007, a battle McLaren/Dennis ruined... Hamilton was his protege since he was 12 after all and both he, McLaren and even FIA were very interested on Lewis winning the title in his very first season.

F1 agenda, similar to Max receiving no penalti for blocking Ricciardo, when they see a marketing bomb the rulebook becomes secondary


I´m saying all this to explain my point of view, wich is even if they claim equal treatment, they always have a #1, only that for marketing reasons, and also to keep respect to his #2, they do that sort of PR claims. And I agree with that philosophy, this is F1, a team competition, and the team is always more important than any driver so maximizing their chances is their job

[Just_a_fan]

If Toto was running a definite #1 / #2 in the way Brawn did, he would have told Bottas to pull over and let Hamilton through in Baku (even before the tyre failure made it moot). Likewise in Bahrain where Hamilton was third behind Bottas.

Bottas is allowed to win on merit and I don't think either driver would have it any other way.

[Jolle]

The one time McLaren really had two "number one" drivers was during the days of Hamilton and Button. They even got equal pay. With Prost/Lauda, Senna/Prost and Hamilton/Alonso it was more a case of a fast rookie next to an experienced world champion who proved to be as fast as/quicker then the old garde.

For Rosberg/Hamilton, for Mercedes Hamilton was their main focus, he got paid a lot more then Rosberg for instance. He was also contracted to make them WC. For the team and racing on track, they got equal rights, which was nice. Looks like with them you have to earn your no 1 position on track.

[Andres125sx]

If Toto was running a definite #1 / #2 in the way Brawn did, he would have told Bottas to pull over and let Hamilton through in Baku (even before the tyre failure made it moot). Likewise in Bahrain where Hamilton was third behind Bottas.

Bottas is allowed to win on merit and I don't think either driver would have it any other way.

I think the #1 status is not stablished beforehand (mainly), as that could be harmful for the team if the favourite have a poor season, wich is a perfectly plausible posibility. But once there´s a significant gap in the WDC between the two, any team will support the driver on top.


When they don´t, or they support someone without a significant difference in the WDC, 2007 surely is a good example for F1 teams about what NOT to do. Lewis was doing an amazing season, but he was a rookie after all, and the pressure in final GPs was too much for him, as it may have been for any other rookie fighting for the title in his very first season

[Just_a_fan]

I think the #1 status is not stablished beforehand (mainly), as that could be harmful for the team if the favourite have a poor season, wich is a perfectly plausible posibility. But once there´s a significant gap in the WDC between the two, any team will support the driver on top.

Not sure Brawn's Ferrari did that. MS was the #1 and everything revolved around him and his success. The other driver was just there to take points from others. Ferrari in Brawn's day were all about the WDC and the WCC was a "nice to have if we can".

I'm not aware of any other team doing it to that degree except, perhaps RedBull with Vettel - although even he wasn't given total freedom from his team mate.

[AJI]

I think the #1 status is not stablished beforehand (mainly), as that could be harmful for the team if the favourite have a poor season, wich is a perfectly plausible posibility. But once there´s a significant gap in the WDC between the two, any team will support the driver on top.

Not sure Brawn's Ferrari did that. MS was the #1 and everything revolved around him and his success. The other driver was just there to take points from others. Ferrari in Brawn's day were all about the WDC and the WCC was a "nice to have if we can".

I'm not aware of any other team doing it to that degree except, perhaps RedBull with Vettel - although even he wasn't given total freedom from his team mate.

Brawn had quite a different attitude, one might even say a 'traditionalists' attitude.
As you said, it's all about the WDC for him and he has always unapologetically backed one driver in the team. It's sensible, but can seem harsh in this age of everyone being equal when even the losers are winners. We often hear, 'this is like a win for us!' these days in almost all aspects of life.
Back on topic, I think we've shown that one #1 driver or two #1 drivers can work. It just depends on whether you have the ego of Ron Dennis or Ross Brawn.

[Andres125sx]

I think the #1 status is not stablished beforehand (mainly), as that could be harmful for the team if the favourite have a poor season, wich is a perfectly plausible posibility. But once there´s a significant gap in the WDC between the two, any team will support the driver on top.

Not sure Brawn's Ferrari did that. MS was the #1 and everything revolved around him and his success. The other driver was just there to take points from others. Ferrari in Brawn's day were all about the WDC and the WCC was a "nice to have if we can".

I'm not aware of any other team doing it to that degree except, perhaps RedBull with Vettel - although even he wasn't given total freedom from his team mate.

Fair enough, I have to agree with this