Silly Season 2020/2021 (starting with silliness in 2019)

[Just_a_fan]

Mercedes have the luxury of having the best car, enough that the number 2 driver can still finish 2nd in the championship.

They've worked very hard to earn that luxury. And the car wasn't the best all of last season. Ferrari should have won other races but didn't for various reasons (reliability, driver/team mess up etc.).

And the whole aim of a Formula 1 team is to be the best so that they can do what Mercedes do. I'm surprised that you don't understand that as it's the whole reason for F1. And no, "putting on a show for the fans" is not why F1 exists.

[Manoah2u]

As for the second Merc seat.
I guess if it's definately true Lewis and Toto stay,
then the 'biggest' piece of the puzzle will be Daniel Ricciardo and Esteban Ocon.

Ricciardo is a proven beast, a race winner and definately a WDC capable driver.

Both Mercedes and Ferrari would do good to hire him.

Ferrari would have certain interest due to his italian roots (apart from his blazing speed and divebomb overtaking manouvres),
and the obvious fact they'd be taking aboard an asset that then won't be at the competition. He's arguably faster than Vettel, so
that would be an improvement too. Only risk is that Daniel left RBR because of Max, and he 'wants to be an alpha leader' (so to speak).
With LeClerc, that might clash ash it would put him in the same situation as with Max @ RedBull.

Would Mercedes then be a better option for Daniel?
Well, at the moment, Mercedes still holds all the cards for being the fastest, and i think it would be an interesting environment for Daniel.
He would definately be judged critically against Hamilton, so if he would beat him, that would 'up his value' quite a lot.
That said, the same problem returns: Mercedes has Hamilton as their 'star driver', so would Daniel play to that game when he wouldn't
against Max/perhaps LeClerc?

In both situations, he'd be in more or less the same condition. That said, Mercedes has the biggest benefit of the doubt there i think.
Not the least because Hamilton has so many titles with Mercedes that i think Mercedes would be more open for another driver to take the WDC.
Either way he's imho a sure grade up compared to Bottas, even if Bottas is a well trained lap dog.
Will Mercedes have interest in Ocon though?
He claims he was 'really close' or 'on the edge' of ending up in the 2nd Mercedes seat for 2020 -
Even though i'm doubting that, it would mean Mercedes is then definately weighing out Bottas.
And if Vettel is on the market, would Mercedes have interest in the German?

I think the 4 drivers that have to 'prove' themselves the most in 2020 are Bottas, Vettel, Ocon and Ricciardo.

Vettel because of LeClerc and arguably his last chance on a WDC with Ferrari (despite the signs the car isn't as good as should),
Bottas because he's not been doing so spectacularly at all and will be under even more scrutiny for 'earning' a 2021 seat.
Ocon because of his return to F1 and to show how he holds up against Ricciardo, and the theoretical interest for a 2021 Merc seat.
Ricciardo because Renault won't bring him what he wants and he must move to a topteam, if Ocon beats him, that won't do him much good,
so he has to beat Ocon more than anyone.

All along we have the battle of Hamilton vs the rest in his search for his 7th title, and with Ferrari 'reportedly/rumoured' to be on the back foot,
Verstappen is the absolute biggest factor here.

So 2020 will be interesting.

Hamilton vs Verstappen
Vettel vs LeClerc
Ricciardo vs Ocon
and then Bottas.

[Lotus102]

Others, as well as me, have pointed out that it has caused issues.

Indeed it has, also how many times have alpha drivers been together and not caused issues.

The list of alpha's causing problems may not be a huge list, but it has to be bigger than the list where it hasn't caused problems.

Absolutely. Even when it didn't cost the championship, it tended to cause huge internal problems for the team which had implications down the line, and when it did cost a championship, the knock-on effects could be even worse. Williams ended up losing both Reutemann and Jones after the debacle of 1981. After Renault sacked Prost the same year, they were never a championship force again. Senna/Prost and Hamilton/Alonso we know about. Pironi/Villeneuve ended up killing one and possibly ending the career of the other. The only situation I can think of where having two top-line drivers at each others' throats in a top-line team didn't end in disaster was RBR with Vettel/Webber, and even that poisoned the atmosphere in the team for a while.

The potential difficulties far outweigh any benefits.

[Lotus102]

I'm not sure Merc has an especially strong interest in Ocon at the moment but Toto will be keeping a close eye on him in 2020. My guess is that if he cannot play any nicer with Ricciardo than he did with Perez, then there'll be zero chance Merc will take him, regardless of how fast he is. The missing name I think is Russell. If Merc wants a potential superstar and future champion who will nevertheless be content to play second fiddle to Hamilton - but will be fast enough to help them win the constructors' championship and act as Hamilton's rear gunner when necessary, I don't think they could go far wrong. I'd be less surprised to see Russell in a Mercedes in 2021 or 22 than Ocon tbh.

[Just_a_fan]

will see interesting race from start with Vettel in 2020. I am 100% confident he will screw Ferrari and Lecrec. Nothing to lose from Vettel side. Nowhere to move in 2021 either stick with Ferrari or retire so we will see same repeat of 2019 with more fun.

I think he'll turn up and get his head down and put Leclerc under enough pressure that he bottles it a couple of times. Vettel is realistically only racing his team mate next season - if he wins then he gets another title chance in 2021, but if Leclerc beats Vettel again in 2020 then I see Vettel retiring from F1. Where else would he go other than a midfield team (where he might actually enjoy himself more)? So I think he'll take his millions and go enjoy raising his young family.

[Just_a_fan]

The missing name I think is Russell. If Merc wants a potential superstar and future champion who will nevertheless be content to play second fiddle to Hamilton - but will be fast enough to help them win the constructors' championship and act as Hamilton's rear gunner when necessary, I don't think they could go far wrong. I'd be less surprised to see Russell in a Mercedes in 2021 or 22 than Ocon tbh.

Agreed. Russell is definitely a future star if only he can get a drive to show it properly. He'd be a good fit in Mercedes, gets on with Hamilton, would be happy to play second fiddle if required by the team but still be fast enough to put pressure on Hamilton.

[NathanOlder]

I'm reading this morning that Toto and Mercedes are set to extend Mercedes stay in F1 according to the Italian version of Motorsport.com on this planetF1 article posted today.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/toto-wolf ... o-stay-on/

this was posted on the previous page, before a couple of innocents started getting themselves fished, just sayin

So it was apologies for missing that one

[Wass85]

You are looking at all the negatives of a star pairing and not the positives though.

That's because there aren't any positives for the team in having such a pairing. The media like it because it allows them to create a narrative around the relationship between the drivers. Some F1 watchers like it because it causes the occasional crash. Other than that, there's nothing good about it in real terms.

True it may cause tension in the team especially if make they on occasions crash but you're forgetting that having one driver win and the other off the podium in lower positions hurts the team just as much points wise.

Go ask Ferrari how the team felt when Vettel and Leclerc crashed out in Brazil, or Mercedes when Rosberg and Hamilton crashed out in Spain. Etc.

Then remember that if your two drivers take each other out whilst arguing over first place, that's 43 points the team loses in one instant. Having one driver win and the other coming third or fourth brings 40 or 37 points. So one crash out is the equivalent points loss as several races with 1st + 3rd/4th plus your opponents gain the extra points from moving up to 1st and 2nd place. If your drivers do it twice in a season, you can probably kiss the constructor title goodbye unless your car is night and day faster than everyone elses. That's the reality for the teams - these pairings can end up costing them a lot of money, both in salaries and in the cost of broken cars. And then you might lose a championship place which costs them in prize revenue.

So you don't believe having two of the fastest drivers has any positives, interesting.

Hey, of course having the fastest car enables an average driver to grab second on the grid and that's credit to the team and fair play to them.

[NathanOlder]

Totally agree with Lotus102 and Just_a_fan about George Russell, 3 drivers are on the short list in my opinion,

Ricciardo - Fastest of the 3 on the shortlist but the most expensive. Signing him has the bonus of stopping him drive for a rival team.
Bottas - Perfect team mate for Lewis, he's fast enough to be there when needed, not mega expensive but most of the time not quite aggressive enough when needed.
Russell - Cheapest option, will 100% agree to be number 2 and help Lewis while George can learn. Unknown speed so far, but the last 3 years beat everyone in the same car, perfect driver to challenge and then take over from Lewis when Hamilton retires.

[Phil]

Others, as well as me, have pointed out that it has caused issues.

Indeed it has, also how many times have alpha drivers been together and not caused issues.

The list of alpha's causing problems may not be a huge list, but it has to be bigger than the list where it hasn't caused problems.

It’s not relevant to ask or analyze how many times the drivers have come together. That is looking at a problem in isolation. It would be relevant to ask “how many times have two alphas caused problems that have cost them a championship”.

Your conclusion is that by taking out one alpha, that everything else would have unfolded the same only better for the other alpha. I find that very unlikely.

There are many positives in having two alphas:

- they both push each other and the team
- they benchmark themselves
- having the two best drivers in your team is better than having one or the other drive against you
- managing those two drivers in your team is doable - it’s not when they are driving in different teams
- two strong drivers are more likely to achieve more points for the team as a whole

In the end, having both Rosberg and Hamilton made Mercedes stronger. It made Hamilton (and Rosberg) a better driver. Not having two Alphas and you could argue it’s what hurt Ferrari (and Vettel) more. Vettel arguably didnt develop as a driver because he wasnt pushed and the team always thought they had a good benchmark... until hiring Leclerc and realizing that they didnt. How much did that cost? Did that not also cost two championships?

[NathanOlder]

I guess one thing overlooked in this conversation is how we determine whether a driver is an Alpha or not?

Anyone want to have a go? because Webber was mentioned earlier, and me personally wouldn't put him anywhere near the Alpha tag. Not sure about Rosberg either to be honest Phil. He was never seen as a team leader at Mercedes, or was he? he was there for 7 years and his team mate was always the guy everyone wants to see ect. Rosberg was just a fast driver, not really an alpha IMO.

[Just_a_fan]

Rosberg was always considered to be quick by people in the paddock, to be fair. He also bested (an admittedly out-of-retirement) Schumacher for three seasons straight. He just wasn't quite up to the level required until he dropped everything else and went all-in for one season. And even then it was touch-and-go in the end. And he couldn't keep it up so retired immediately afterwards.

[izzy]

I guess one thing overlooked in this conversation is how we determine whether a driver is an Alpha or not?

Anyone want to have a go? because Webber was mentioned earlier, and me personally wouldn't put him anywhere near the Alpha tag. Not sure about Rosberg either to be honest Phil. He was never seen as a team leader at Mercedes, or was he? he was there for 7 years and his team mate was always the guy everyone wants to see ect. Rosberg was just a fast driver, not really an alpha IMO.

yes good point, it's easy to get carried away with these labels isn't it. For me it's someone who insanely HAS to be dominant and can't survive otherwise. Fernando was the perfect example, that he just exploded! Rosberg? tricky one as he was so desperate he risked everything with cheating in front of his dad and everyone, but he wasn't quite good enough, but perhaps he was just spoiled more than alpha

But teams know, don't they, that's how Webbo was the famous No2 Driver and Ron didn't always bother even greeting DC! And Toto pretty much said he didn't put Esteban next to Lewis in case he took him out. What they need is 1 alpha and 1 really fast beta, Lewis+Valtteri is perfect

But the alpha mindset is basically destructive in the same team i think, F1 is a team vs team sport that's how it's set up

[Lotus102]

There are many positives in having two alphas:

- they both push each other and the team
- they benchmark themselves
- having the two best drivers in your team is better than having one or the other drive against you
- managing those two drivers in your team is doable - it’s not when they are driving in different teams
- two strong drivers are more likely to achieve more points for the team as a whole

In the end, having both Rosberg and Hamilton made Mercedes stronger. It made Hamilton (and Rosberg) a better driver. Not having two Alphas and you could argue it’s what hurt Ferrari (and Vettel) more. Vettel arguably didnt develop as a driver because he wasnt pushed and the team always thought they had a good benchmark... until hiring Leclerc and realizing that they didnt. How much did that cost? Did that not also cost two championships?

I'm not sure I agree. Some of it comes down to definitions. What do you consider an 'alpha'. E.g. does Lauda at McLaren in 1985 count? There are times when teams hire a driver in the full expectation that they will be a championship rival, only for them to disappoint. E.g. Frentzen at Williams in 1997.

Please forgive the rambling post that follows, but this interests me and I am intrigued to pursue the history lessons a little. Happy to delete if it's too far off topic.

Schumacher won five titles on the trot 2000-2004 with a clear No2 - albeit a very fast one who could occasionally beat him - and the entire team focussed around his needs (in fact Schumacher won all his titles with a clear No2). Piquet won two of his three titles with a very him-focussed Brabham and second-tier partners (and lost a very winnable title when he was partnered with Mansell). In the 80s and 90s McLaren arguably won more championships with two 'alphas' than they did with a clear No1-No2 set-up - but that's only if you include 1985, when Lauda was well off his best and coasting to retirement, and 1986 when Keke Rosberg was in a similar position - partnering Prost.

Williams won comfortably in 1992 and 1993 with what was effectively a lead/2nd driver pairing, and Benetton did the same in 1994 and 1995, though they missed out on the constructor's title in '94 through not having a decent partner to Schumacher. In 1996 and 1997, Williams arguably had two 'alphas' but in '96 they were far enough ahead for it not to matter if they took points off each other, and in '97 Frentzen was off the pace and only scored half the points Villeneuve managed. If HHF had been on it more often, Villeneuve would almost certainly have lost the title to Schumacher. The next two seasons were won by McLaren, and although Coulthard wasn't contractually a No2 driver, it was pretty clear by then that he wasn't quite on Hakkinen's level season-long, so I don't think you can truly consider them both 'alphas'. You can say the same for Alonso and Fisichella in '05-'06.

Massa and Raikkonen was a bit strange, as they each had seasons of being ahead of the other. I suppose Kovalainen was pretty highly rated when he was signed by McLaren but didn't turn out to be from the top drawer. Hamilton and Button is an interesting partnership. Definitely two alphas, but they seemed to rub along OK and I don't think you could unequivocally say that either cost the other or McLaren a championship - mostly because McLaren wasn't really a title winning team by that point, other than maybe in 2010.

I don't think anyone could argue that Vettel didn't perform better when he was comfortable in his position (even at RBR when Webber ran him very close on the track, he knew he would have the backing of the team in most circumstances, including developing the car to his very particular driving style) and tends to fall apart under a genuine challenge within his own team when things aren't going his way (Ricciardo, Leclerc). It strikes me that he needs the right amount of pushing to wring the extra couple of tenths out of himself, but too much pushing and he crumbles.

Hamilton seems to me to be a stronger overall performer now than he did when Rosberg was getting under his skin from across the garage. Did Hamilton grow more as a driver when he was partnered with a hungry, antagonistic Rosberg than he did when paired with the relatively unconfrontational Button?

So all-in-all I don't know if you can ever have a clear policy of 'two alphas' because you don't know exactly how things are going to pan out. Ex-champions can reinvent themselves as loyal rear-gunners or they can get crash-happy with their teammate. I still believe that more often than not, if you bring two of the current superstars of the sport into one team at the same time with both having an equal expectation of winning, you're asking for trouble. Ultimately a team can only control a driver who on some level wants to be controlled. In the late 2010s all the top teams seemed to consider that they'd rather Alonso was anywhere else than in their team...

[Just_a_fan]

yes good point, it's easy to get carried away with these labels isn't it. For me it's someone who insanely HAS to be dominant and can't survive otherwise. Fernando was the perfect example, that he just exploded!

Strangely, by that definition I don't think Hamilton would be considered an alpha. When he is pressed by a team mate, he tends to find a way to regain dominance by application rather than explode.