Is a clear number 1 and number 2 driver set up that bad?

[WhiteBlue]

Ok, here's my opinion. Having two of the best drivers on the grid in one team CAN work. PROVIDING they both know "how to lose".

Everything you write is true in theory.

However, Ego is vicious thing. Not many top drivers will ever play number 2, Alonso is one driver who I can never see accepting anything than number 1 status for example.

Indeed, Alonso already demonstrated that he throws his toys out the pram if his team mate is as good as him.

It is not very often that I have to defend Alonso. I think he has learned something from the 2007 season. So his reactions may not be quite so impulsive as they were. But he clearly is an alpha animal who enjoys the spoils of being a lead driver at Ferrari. I think it will take a lot of adverse circumstances (aka Ferrari screw ups) to make him change his current team fixture. And if he does it he will be less comfortable with a McLaren style situation than Kimi would be.

[Stradivarius]

I don't think there are many drivers who couldn't cope with a competitive team mate. Alonso and Hamilton in 2007 is often mentioned as a proof of this disadvantage, but ultimately, Hamilton threw away the title in the last two races on his own, while McLaren scored the most points in 2007. I think that the McLaren team has to take most of the blame from what happened in 2007. One thing is the spy gate which created a lot of negative attention for a long time. Another thing is that McLaren appeared to favour Alonso at the beginning of the season. But then Hamilton surprised everyone and performed even better than Alonso for a long period and it could seem that McLaren changed their approach. Alonso's response was stupid and immature, but McLaren created the situation. They should never have treated Alonso as number one if they weren't prepared to continue doing so for the whole year.

I am sure that it is possible for a team to manage two drivers like Alonso and Hamilton in a good way. Even if McLaren did a poor job with this in 2007, that doesn't mean it wasn't possible to do a good job with those drivers and make them understand that they are employed by the team and need to consider the team's best interest.

But if two top drivers come to the same team it is likely that one of them will get the upperhand. And then the other "top driver" will probably want to move to another team. If you can't beat a driver in the same car, you need a different car in order to win.

[sennafan24]

But if two top drivers come to the same team it is likely that one of them will get the upperhand. And then the other "top driver" will probably want to move to another team. If you can't beat a driver in the same car, you need a different car in order to win.

This is essentially why I think two top drivers will not work.

[RB7ate9]

What every team strives for is consistency. Consistently fast, consistently reliable, consistently winning maximum points.

The ideal situation for a team is to have two very fast drivers, but to have one that is CONSISTENTLY just off the pace of the other. Then, you have the one driver that will win consistently, the second driver that will secure second place consistently, BUT both drivers will be able to win/podium consistently if anything happens to the other so that the team will continue to consistently win the WCC.

Two #1 Drivers: Senna/Prost = Massive WCC points, huge internal conflict
Alonso/Hamilton = Plenty of Points in WCC, but internal conflict (Neither WDC/WCC)
Hamilton/Button = Plenty of Points in WCC, but internal conflict 2010-2012 (neither WDC/WCC)
Webber/Vettel (2010) = Won WCC, but internal conflict and took victories off each other

The best illustration of the clear #1/2 pairings of fast drivers has to be Red Bull in 2011. It is clear (i.e. my personal bias aside) that Vettel had the measure of the RB7 and the field BUT Webber was no slouch in it either with all but one finish in the top 5 (retirement at Monza). And that is with the RB7 publicly suiting Vettel's loose-front style. Because both were fast, they could haul points consistently. But, since there was a consistently FASTER driver, the team could depend on a win, and the second driver collecting points while dueling with the other cars around him.

A clear #1/2 set up for a team will only work if you are a top-tier team that knows they can fight for podiums consistently (Red Bull, Ferrari, Mercedes, Lotus). If a team is midfield, then you want two #1 drivers since you want both of them ready to take the maximum points possible at any time (Force India, Mclaren *sigh*, Sauber, Toro Rosso). And if you are the lowest tier, then you can't really afford to fully support both drivers and should probably focus on getting one driver into the points, while the other to develop the car (Williams, Caterham, Marussia).

[Stradivarius]

But if two top drivers come to the same team it is likely that one of them will get the upperhand. And then the other "top driver" will probably want to move to another team. If you can't beat a driver in the same car, you need a different car in order to win.

This is essentially why I think two top drivers will not work.

What do you mean when you say that it will not work? That the team won't be able to keep the same drivers for many years, or that the team won't be able to achieve good results? If you mean the former, I agree, but personally I think the team's main focus is on results.

In my opinion, McLaren's results in 2007 were great and, although they didn't win any title, I'd say that they performed better than in 2008. Both drivers scored more points than Hamilton did in 2008 and the team took more victories. If I am not mistaken, McLaren had at least one driver on the podium in every single race of 2007. I think you need to go back to Senna and Prost in order to find similar consistency. In 2005 McLaren was also strong and had an even faster car for most of the season. But their reliability was bad. Häkkinen won the title in 1999, but I think it is fair to say that it was a result of Schumacher's accident at Silverstone. In 1998 McLaren won both titles, but I think Bridgestone deserves a lot of the credit for that. But in 2007 McLaren had the best car in total. I may be wrong, but I think they didn't have one single reliability issue with their car all season and they won 8 races in addition to 9 second places and 7 third places in 17 races.

If I was team principal and I could get both Alonso and Hamilton to my team, I would definitely have signed them both (unless I already had a driver that I wanted to keep, i.e. Vettel or Kimi). One thing is that in any other team they would be a threat, but another thing is that the only situation where the wrong driver "stealing" points from the other would be races where my team finished with two cars in first and second place. With today's points system the wrong driver would steal 7 points from my championship contender and only a maximum of 3 points from the rivals. But if they are not first and second, it makes little difference and I think the advantage of having two drivers capable of beating all the rivals would more than make up for the points lost because the wrong driver won. Unless my team took many 1-2 finishes, in which case my team was dominating and would probably secure both titles anyway. After all, the best driver will win more often than the second best driver.

And if one of the drivers should leave after a few years, it wouldn't be the worst problem. I would probably keep the best driver and be in the situation that some other teams seem to prefer.

[sennafan24]

But if two top drivers come to the same team it is likely that one of them will get the upperhand. And then the other "top driver" will probably want to move to another team. If you can't beat a driver in the same car, you need a different car in order to win.

This is essentially why I think two top drivers will not work.

What do you mean when you say that it will not work? That the team won't be able to keep the same drivers for many years, or that the team won't be able to achieve good results? If you mean the former, I agree, but personally I think the team's main focus is on results.

The team will not be able to keep their drivers for long term, and the fallout hurt the morale and focus of the team. I would also speculate if a top driver has a equal car to two top drivers in who are in the same team, but instead has the team built around him and a clear number 2, it will give them a advantage of less distractions and a better atmosphere to work in. I believe that will also help that drivers performance over the two top drivers in the same team.

[Stradivarius]

I don't think it's necessary for a team to have both driver for long term in order to keep morale and focus. In fact, we often see that teams improve their performance once they change one or two of their drivers. For example: Mercedes this year after changing one driver, Lotus last year after changing both drivers. Ferrari in 2010 after changing 1 driver (actually they changed 2 drivers from the final races of 2009). Red Bull in 2009 after changing one driver. McLaren in 2007 after changing both drivers.

I think if you compare a top team with one top driver to a top team with two top drivers, you will usually find that the team with two top drivers does better. It is not often we see three top drivers from two teams fight for the championship, but in 2010 I think it is fair to say that both Vettel and Webber were top drivers for Red Bull, while Alonso was the only top driver for Ferrari. Red Bull did better. In 2007 some would say that there were 2 top drivers from McLaren and 1 from Ferrari, but I would say that Ferrari also had 2 top drivers. Massa was generally at the same level as Kimi. As I already have pointed out, Ferrari and Kimi won the championship because Massa was competitive. He took some points from Kimi, but he took even more points from Alonso and Hamilton. Both McLaren drivers would have been ahead of both Ferrari drivers if Massa hadn't been competitive. Unlike 2006, when Massa usually failed to beat Ferrari's biggest rival, he did so more often in 2007 and Ferrari won the title as a result of that.

[sennafan24]

I don't think it's necessary for a team to have both driver for long term in order to keep morale and focus. In fact, we often see that teams improve their performance once they change one or two of their drivers.

Maybe its not vital, but it does seem to help.

What is the most successful tandem in modern times? Schumi and Rubens. It was a settled and relaxed team for the most part, with little distractions or drama. It was a well functioning machine where everyone knew their role. Rubens whilst I am sure was not loving being number 2, could check his ego at the door. Unlike other teams around that point, they had more focused long term goals. Heck, for almost a decade that team worked a dream with a number 1 and number 2 driver (substituting Irvine for Rubens in the middle) and took a slumping Ferrari team to success most teams can only dream of.

Your 2010 point I get, but it very easily could have gone the other way to Ferrari in the WDC. The team were maybe right to have Alonso outright number 1, the team was wrong in the strategy they deployed in the last race. The Red Bull had a better car that year, but Ferrari almost and maybe should have clinched it. I think Ferrari concentrating on Alonso, greatly helped them almost achieve WDC glory.

2008 is another example, I know you have pointed out the points lost, points gained in that year. However, it goes without saying that Lewis had a firm number and in my view a inferior car to the Ferrari with two top drivers piloting it. I feel the harmony in the team, coupled with concentrating on Lewis's efforts greatly helped gain WDC success.