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

[Lotus102]

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.

Webber ran Vettel extremely close at RBR in 2009-10 and had been seen as a potential champion for some time so I considered him thus on that basis - I don't think he was any less of an alpha then than Mansell was in 1986, say.

But this issue does raise a question of whether the whole concept is valid. If you can have two teammates knocking seven bells out of each other on the way to a potential title the way Vettel and Webber, and Hamilton and Rosberg, did on occasion, yet one or other isn't seen as an 'alpha'...what's the point of the conversation?

I had a bit of a go in my post above, but I think I would define it as a driver who:

1 Is at the top of their career and could potentially win any race they start in halfway competitive car
2 Has fought for (if not won) at least one championship
3 Could be clear team-leader at any top team if they weren't partnered with someone else who fulfilled 1 and 2

[Wass85]

....

[Wass85]

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?

Exactly my points, they are just concentrating on the negatives and that's it.

Having the two best drivers enables the car to reach places it wouldn't with a more average pairing.

It prevents other teams having said star drivers.

The best drivers get consistent points in the most difficult of circumstances, these kind of points are vital in a title challenge.

And speaking of collisions, crashes still happen between teammates that are not closely matched, it happens every season in F1.

You have to realise that by having the two best drivers, on most weekends you will have one driver that will clearly out perform his teammate and thus win the race unchallenged. This happens no matter how good his rival is which means guess what, no crashes......

[Capharol]

as it was mentioned already, you guys seems to forget the team environment, yes viewers and media love poisoned environment it gives them things to talk about, but for the team themselves it isn't so fun and good at all

[izzy]

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.

yes i agree. He's smarter than that He's always saying how the engineers are cleverer than him for example. I think he has a terrific metric for what he wants to be, which is "the best" F1 driver, and that's how he survives losing even over a season like 2011 or 16 (when he was the best in fact), and as you say he takes responsibility and looks to himself to work harder and do it better. Tho he couldn't survive being beaten consistently i don't think, like Jenson or Valtteri. He would get more and more aggressive.

it shows how "alpha" is too binary really, when in motor racing it's more a progressive scale of a dominant personality and Alpha=10 while Lewis and say Seb might be 8 or 9

[Just_a_fan]

it shows how "alpha" is too binary really, when in motor racing it's more a progressive scale of a dominant personality and Alpha=10 while Lewis and say Seb might be 8 or 9

"alpha" is a state of mind, not ability. It might also be called "diva".

[NathanOlder]

it shows how "alpha" is too binary really, when in motor racing it's more a progressive scale of a dominant personality and Alpha=10 while Lewis and say Seb might be 8 or 9

"alpha" is a state of mind, not ability. It might also be called "diva".

Yeah definitely, having 2 great drivers in a team is perfect. You don't automatically become an alpha just because you are good. Maybe some are confusing 2 great drivers with 2 alpha drivers.

Surely an alpha driver is someone who basically wants it "my way or no way at all". Like Senna and Prost in 89.

Jenson and Lewis at Mclaren were just 2 great drivers in the team. Like Massa and Kimi in 07 & 08.

Alonso is 100% A proper alpha, Max seems to be setting himself up like that, although that may just be RedBull pushing it that way with making Max feel loved enough to sign a long term contract

[Manoah2u]

it shows how "alpha" is too binary really, when in motor racing it's more a progressive scale of a dominant personality and Alpha=10 while Lewis and say Seb might be 8 or 9

"alpha" is a state of mind, not ability. It might also be called "diva".

Yeah definitely, having 2 great drivers in a team is perfect. You don't automatically become an alpha just because you are good. Maybe some are confusing 2 great drivers with 2 alpha drivers.

Surely an alpha driver is someone who basically wants it "my way or no way at all". Like Senna and Prost in 89.

Jenson and Lewis at Mclaren were just 2 great drivers in the team. Like Massa and Kimi in 07 & 08.

Alonso is 100% A proper alpha, Max seems to be setting himself up like that, although that may just be RedBull pushing it that way with making Max feel loved enough to sign a long term contract

I think it also rather depends on the pairing.

Max and Daniel were no 'alpha' / diva combination at all, apart from the fact that things can get 'a tad heated'.
I feel however that if you'd put Max and Charles together in 1 team, it would become quite a clash of 'divas'.

Vettel and Webber were an example of that same 'alpha/diva' behaviour.
Rosberg and Hamilton were an example of that too.

Hamilton and Bottas clearly aren't,
Vettel and Raikkonen weren't either,
and Sainz and Norris aren't either,
indeed Button and Hamilton weren't either.

where Ocon and Perez definately were.

As said, being a 'top talented' driver does not equal being a 'alphadiva'.
Hell, you don't even have to be in the same team.

Hamilton and Massa definately showed some alphadiva behaviour against eachother.

The alphadiva behaviour indeed is a risk and negative factor for a team if not controlled properly,
and will surely 'cost' the team itself effort to steer into the right directions so you won't see a Chernobyl meltdown.

Button and Hamilton once 'clashed' aswell in Canada, but there was no diva behaviour there.
Rosberg and Hamilton clashed (more than once) and it got real ugly, and i'm not even delving into Alonso.

That said, the combo Hamilton and Rosberg did show just how murderously dominating that pairing was.
The harmony between Hamilton and Bottas is much, much better, but i think it's safe to say that the competition between eachother is far less than it was with Rosberg, not the least because i feel Rosberg was a faster and better racer than Bottas.

Personally, i have the feeling Ocon isn't the 'wunderchild' some people claim, but i think he definately fits the 'Diva' label, and it would bring similar situations as with Rosberg but then without Rosberg's 'better' performance.
Yes i'm saying this without a real proper view on Ocon and more of a gut feeling, so don't make more of that please.

If i'd compare that to pairing Hamilton against Daniel Ricciardo, with DannyRic imho not fitting the 'Diva' description at all, then i think that pairing could and probably would be just as harmoneous as with Bottas right now, but at the same time, i very much concider Ricciardo a much faster and better racer than Bottas, which i'd say see beneficial results for both the team and drivers.

I'd personally concider Verstappen's chances on a WDC fight quite less when he's up against Hamilton and Ricciardo, versus being up against Hamilton and Bottas, with the latter simply not being 'strong' enough against Max, where Daniel definately is.

So with that in mind, i honestly think Mercedes would do better by hiring a guy like Ricciardo over Bottas.

In the same breath, i have the -gut- feeling that if you'd pair Max to Lewis in the same team, we could end up with Hamilton-Rosberg scenes, and that would give LeClerc, or perhaps even Albon in a strong RBR-Honda, 'suddenly' a serious shot at the title.

Long story short: Yes, two alphadiva's in a team isn't the best option. Two topdrivers in the same team definately IS.

[izzy]

it shows how "alpha" is too binary really, when in motor racing it's more a progressive scale of a dominant personality and Alpha=10 while Lewis and say Seb might be 8 or 9

"alpha" is a state of mind, not ability. It might also be called "diva".

yes although, in motor racing, it's part of performance too. There are drivers who are as 'fast' as anyone, but when it comes to racing, they're too sweet . Jenson, Fisi, Valtteri, that lot. It's a state of mind as you say, but they need it to be top dog, otherwise they're a wingman.

And coming the other way, if they don't have the physical talent they simply can't dominate whatever they do, they have to go and do something else not motor racing, or not F1. Be a TP

[Just_a_fan]

it shows how "alpha" is too binary really, when in motor racing it's more a progressive scale of a dominant personality and Alpha=10 while Lewis and say Seb might be 8 or 9

"alpha" is a state of mind, not ability. It might also be called "diva".

yes although, in motor racing, it's part of performance too. There are drivers who are as 'fast' as anyone, but when it comes to racing, they're too sweet

Button, the "sweet one", ran Hamilton in to the wall in Canada 2011 (whilst shouting on the radio "what is he doing?") in the race that everyone says was a classic. He wasn't being "sweet" then. He was doing something to try to get an edge over someone who, by most metrics, was just better than him.

The best don't generally need to be "alphas", they just do the whole racing thing better than the others. "Alphas" are trying to impose themselves on others because that's how they might get an edge over someone who is as good as them. The best just let their natural performance do the talking.

Hamilton is hard but fair. Hamilton wins without running people in to walls, without "exploding".

Jim Clark was the best of his generation by any standard. He wasn't an "alpha", he was just "the best".

Ergo, you don't need to be your definition of alpha to be successful if you just happen to be "one of the best".

[Just_a_fan]

[long post removed for quoting]

Long story short: Yes, two alphadiva's in a team isn't the best option. Two topdrivers in the same team definately IS.

You don't do short posts, do you?

[izzy]

Button, the "sweet one", ran Hamilton in to the wall in Canada 2011 (whilst shouting on the radio "what is he doing?") in the race that everyone says was a classic. He wasn't being "sweet" then. He was doing something to try to get an edge over someone who, by most metrics, was just better than him.

The best don't generally need to be "alphas", they just do the whole racing thing better than the others. "Alphas" are trying to impose themselves on others because that's how they might get an edge over someone who is as good as them. The best just let their natural performance do the talking.

Hamilton is hard but fair. Hamilton wins without running people in to walls, without "exploding".

Jim Clark was the best of his generation by any standard. He wasn't an "alpha", he was just "the best".

Ergo, you don't need to be your definition of alpha to be successful if you just happen to be "one of the best".

JB was a 3 at best on my Alphaness scale, everyone used to push him around till he was older. Canada was just looking in the right side mirror and oh deciding to move left.

Lewis is 8.5, that's the difference that's never going away between him and Valtteri. It's how he got Seb the penalty in Canada, sent Max the message in Mexico and Monaco, etc etc. Mindset as you said, on top of the skills, to dominate and be a hard ass mother

Jim Clark? How would he have got on today? We have no idea. Tho yes obviously the more they have of one advantage the less they need the others, but today they need everything. Someone as fast as Lewis but soft as Jenson would be crushed by Max and Charles

[Phil]

Just to clarify, I was only using the term "alpha" because it was mentioned beforehand and I was running along with it. I prefer "alpha" to "number 1" because I am convinced no team has a stipulated driver as being favored. If this were the case, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot on the off chance the second driver is actually performing better.

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.

I wouldn't go too far back in time to make a point, because back then, many things were different. With less computing back then, the driver took in a more central role to how the car performed. It was his feedback that shaped the car. Two good drivers good go in opposite directions. It was easier for those drivers to build huge teams around them and lead them. In (very) modern F1, computers are used to simulate the best set-up and development. The drivers have to drive it.

Moving on, many mention the high risk of two highly competitive team-mates coming together and crashing, giving away large sums of points (43 points) to the nearest competitor. Sure, but how many times has this happened? Lets take Rosberg & Hamilton. Because they were both in the same car, they were often racing each other and within close proximity in the race. But to a degree, the whole situation was still controllable and Mercedes showed how it (must) is done. They controlled strategy and they made strict rules of engagement. Don't follow it? You're out. In the scenario that they had both driven in different teams, but in similar paced cars, they would probably still have raced each other, but that duel had not been controllable.

If it was my team, I'd rather have the headache of having two aces in my team fighting each other but having control over that engagement than not. For one, you have the best in your team, e.g. they are both bringing in points for your team and not for another team and driving AGAINST you. They are also pushing each other so you always have two benchmarks. If one driver underperforms, he is immediately shown up by the other ace in the team. If you go with the "great driver 1, mediocre driver 2", you get essentially Ferrari 2015 - 2018. 3 years of thinking Vettel is a great benchmark and that he is getting everything out of the car, only to later find out that perhaps he wasn't, but he wasn't shown up.

[Lotus102]

I hear what you're saying but I think it's more complicated than that. Ferrari 2017-18 had an excellent car but was markedly poorer than Mercedes operationally, to the extent that Vettel had to bear an unreasonable share of the burden on strategy decisions etc, and it was that factor that did more to damage title hopes than Vettel's pace. It also seemed to me that he was not as well supported emotionally by the team as Hamilton and Rosberg were. I don't think it's fair to say that he wasn't a good benchmark and wasn't necessarily getting everything out of the car that he could have done - I don't believe the Vettel of 2017 or the first half of 2018 was quite the same driver as the Vettel of 2019, when he was struggling with having thrown away a winnable championship and facing a genuine challenge from the other side of the garage. I think he's faster when he feels secure, and in 2019 he did not feel secure. (See also 2014 when he was dealing with the loss of the blown diffuser and a new and unexpectedly fast teammate). Equally, Hamilton seems stronger to me now than he did against Rosberg - less prone to sulking when things weren't going his way and less prone to mistakes.

But there's a balance to be struck. I don't think Raikkonen was close enough to Vettel often enough, even though his presence in the team was overall good for Vettel. I think Bottas is close enough to Hamilton to make the partnership work, and like Raikkonen, he doesn't rock the boat, so everyone's happy. It takes a teammate to really get under another driver's skin.

[Phil]

All good points. The problem though remains, if you have one good driver and a slow one, you'll never really know if the good driver is performing at his best, or just good enough. He'll always be perceived as simply being better and one will have to assume he is the benchmark. If you have two fast drivers, this is not the case. If one doesn't perform, he will immediately be shown up by the other. The competitive nature means that both will be pushing each other forward.

I firmly believe this is one of the reasons why Hamilton is that good as a driver today: throughout his career, he faced fierce competitors in Alonso, Button and Rosberg. From all these pairings he learned and grew. You can only grow when you realize your own failings. You only 'fail' when you face better opposition. A driver who is always nurtured will at some point believe he is the best at everything because he will always be the better driver against a slower one. How will he learn to grow?

Vettel is learning now, facing a very tough young protegee who has a lot of talent. This will make Vettel a better driver. And more importantly, Ferrari as a team now have two fast drivers. If one isn't performing, the other is. If Leclerc hadn't been there, would Ferrari have won that many races last year? Had 7 pole positions? That knowledge is only there through the better performance of their "second driver".