Silly season 2021-2022-2023

[Jolle]

“Deserves” is not the right term I think, it’s more a case of being chosen by the team.
With the incoming drivers cost cap, Bottas will be to expensive anyway.

IMO, it's a missed opportunity to not make driver salaries part of the 'regular' cost cap.
It would be pretty cool to see what would happen in that case - will teams settle for an expensive, experienced driver (reducing budget for car development), or take a shot at a cheap but talented rookie, allowing more budget towards car development. With the current plans, such trade-offs are missing (although it is still there in engineering staff- more expensive engineers, or more dev. budget?)

Could be interesting but with the top drivers they are paid way more for their image and stuff they their true driver ability.

[Manoah2u]

Russell has not “earned” or “deserved” the Mercedes seat... Has he showed glimpses of great driving? Yes... But unluckily the points of reference with him aren’t great, not only has he driven so far in a car that definitely lacks in performance, but his team mates aren’t top tier drivers to be used as references of how much faster the Williams could actually go... He did had a great drive in Bahrain for Mercedes, but it was done in arguably the easiest layout ever in Formula 1, very hard to tell how good he really is from 1 race in a circuit layout that isn’t demanding for the drivers.

I don’t think he has done anything to earn or deserve the seat yet and just as he has showed some solid driving, he has also binned it in more than one occasion by mistakes of his own, he still needs to prove that the hype is real... Unluckily, unless we see him, not only in a better car, but against a more solid driver, we won’t really know if he is in that same group of top drivers.

I'll repeat. He was overtaking Bottas in the Mercedes P10 in a WILLIAMS that belongs in p17,18,19,20.

He gets his car in Q2 consistantly.
Has beaten his teammates EVERY weekend.

and was flaming fire in his first outing in a Merc.

but hey, Bottas deserves that seat more

Your assertion of what happened in Imola is uninformed. https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arti ... w-at-imola

yeah sure bud.
Russell was OVERTAKING bottas. for position. i suggest you start watching the races instead of reading biased reports.

The undeniable fact is Bottas underperforming that Mercedes. It's below sub-par.
Russell is outperforming that Williams. He's miles above what his teammates are able to extract (Kubica/Latifi).
Russell's Williams performances are very much those of Senna in the Toleman and Schumacher in the Jordan.

Bottas is just embarassing. Above all, the wet weather conditions more or less 'level' the field a bit and it comes much, much more down to the driver. And we all saw what a mess Bottas was making and how untouchable almost Russell was.

Whatever the case, the overtake @ tamburello went wrong. I don't think Russell is 100% to blame but i also dont think he's without blame. It would have been much wiser to back out right there and then, and go for the next opportunity.
He would have had him at the pit straight guaranteed the next lap.

Which means Russell would have 100% beaten Bottas AND swing in some points. It's also very likely that Hamilton would have lost his position to both Russell and Bottas after limping back home and there would have been no red flag. Since Russell was doing great on the tires, and Bottas horrible, it's also not unlikely that Bottas had to make yet another stop. So any threat from Bottas coming back would have been gone and at the very best Hamilton MIGHT have found himself closing in to Russell at the tail end of the race, but even that remains to be seen.
No matter how you put it, it was a bad weekend for Mercedes. The contact between Russell and Bottas made no difference to that.

It was not Russell's fault Bottas was driving like a worn towel and Hamilton careered off into the gravel trap.
Bottas still would have fallen further behind without a single doubt, and Hamilton would have not been able to come back to the podium without the red flag, so in all reality, Russell actually saved Mercedes' race and kept Hamilton ahead in the championship. And that's all with the certainty that had that collision not occurred, Russell would have beaten Bottas in any way you put it, in a Williams.

Russell would have finished AHEAD of Hamilton and AHEAD of Bottas.

Lame excuses and 'debriefings' dont change that fact one bit.

[DChemTech]

“Deserves” is not the right term I think, it’s more a case of being chosen by the team.
With the incoming drivers cost cap, Bottas will be to expensive anyway.

IMO, it's a missed opportunity to not make driver salaries part of the 'regular' cost cap.
It would be pretty cool to see what would happen in that case - will teams settle for an expensive, experienced driver (reducing budget for car development), or take a shot at a cheap but talented rookie, allowing more budget towards car development. With the current plans, such trade-offs are missing (although it is still there in engineering staff- more expensive engineers, or more dev. budget?)

Could be interesting but with the top drivers they are paid way more for their image and stuff they their true driver ability.

Well, that's part of the choice they need to make, then

[El Scorchio]

IMO, it's a missed opportunity to not make driver salaries part of the 'regular' cost cap.
It would be pretty cool to see what would happen in that case - will teams settle for an expensive, experienced driver (reducing budget for car development), or take a shot at a cheap but talented rookie, allowing more budget towards car development. With the current plans, such trade-offs are missing (although it is still there in engineering staff- more expensive engineers, or more dev. budget?)

Could be interesting but with the top drivers they are paid way more for their image and stuff they their true driver ability.

Well, that's part of the choice they need to make, then

But then do we want to see drivers being forced out of the sport just because through experience and years of driving (basically no fault of their own) they become 'too expensive'? Essentially getting punished for having longevity and good results and earning the right to better compensation.

It does make a good argument for promoting (deserving) young talent and you do want to see it come through, but there's a tipping point. I personally wouldn't want to see drivers like Perez, Ricciardo, Bottas, Vettel, Raikkonen, Gasly, Alonso forced out in favour of cheaper but inexperienced drivers. (I leave out LH, MV, CL because obviously they aren't going anywhere regardless) It's a great shame to substantially weaken the talent pool in order for the teams to make savings. Where is the interest in the sport with a revolving door of rookie drivers coming and going every year after year? Do we want a sport full of Mazepins and Latifis? Most fans tend to follow drivers, and that is where mass interest in the sport comes from. Lose all the star power and you kill it.(I know it's a little different on here and for some the cars are the stars, but that's not how the wider audience sees it.)

We should also remember that although the sport is safer than it's been ever, these guys are risking their lives every time they race- case in point Grosjean- and deserve adequate compensation for that. The idea of driving down salaries in that respect (which would happen if they were part of the cap) leaves a bit of a bad taste for me.

But it makes for a very interesting debate.

[DChemTech]

But then do we want to see drivers being forced out of the sport just because through experience and years of driving (basically no fault of their own) they become 'too expensive'? Essentially getting punished for having longevity and good results and earning the right to better compensation.

It does make a good argument for promoting (deserving) young talent and you do want to see it come through, but there's a tipping point. I personally wouldn't want to see drivers like Perez, Ricciardo, Bottas, Vettel, Raikkonen, Gasly, Alonso forced out in favour of cheaper but inexperienced drivers. (I leave out LH, MV, CL because obviously they aren't going anywhere regardless) It's a great shame to substantially weaken the talent pool in order for the teams to make savings. Where is the interest in the sport with a revolving door of rookie drivers coming and going every year after year? Do we want a sport full of Mazepins and Latifis? Most fans tend to follow drivers, and that is where mass interest in the sport comes from. Lose all the star power and you kill it.(I know it's a little different on here and for some the cars are the stars, but that's not how the wider audience sees it.)

We should also remember that although the sport is safer than it's been ever, these guys are risking their lives every time they race- case in point Grosjean- and deserve adequate compensation for that. The idea of driving down salaries in that respect (which would happen if they were part of the cap) leaves a bit of a bad taste for me.

But it makes for a very interesting debate.

I don't regard that as a big problem, but yeah, that's cars and stars as you say.
But let's say you give a decent rookie a 500k$/y salary, and a veteran 2.5M$/y. That leaves you 2M$/y short for car development, but you may easily make that up in terms of experience, both on track and in guiding development. Maybe for a top-tier you'd be willing to chip in 5M$/y or so. So I don't expect teams switching to revolving-door rookies in that scenario, and certainly not of the caliber Mazepin. But also here, there is a tipping point. If the driver starts demanding 10M$ or 20M$, the balance might shift. At that point, I have little sympathy for the driver anymore. Of course these numbers are already lower than driver salaries currently, but well, I think salaries in sports are too high anyhow (even if they make sense from an unregulated marketing perspective), and it wouldn't be bad to return to some normalcy there. For any human being, the prospect of gaining some 10-20 M$ in a 10-year career, doing something you enjoy, should be more than enough to keep them satisfied.

[Big Tea]

Could be interesting but with the top drivers they are paid way more for their image and stuff they their true driver ability.

Well, that's part of the choice they need to make, then

But then do we want to see drivers being forced out of the sport just because through experience and years of driving (basically no fault of their own) they become 'too expensive'? Essentially getting punished for having longevity and good results and earning the right to better compensation.

It does make a good argument for promoting (deserving) young talent and you do want to see it come through, but there's a tipping point. I personally wouldn't want to see drivers like Perez, Ricciardo, Bottas, Vettel, Raikkonen, Gasly, Alonso forced out in favour of cheaper but inexperienced drivers. (I leave out LH, MV, CL because obviously they aren't going anywhere regardless) It's a great shame to substantially weaken the talent pool in order for the teams to make savings. Where is the interest in the sport with a revolving door of rookie drivers coming and going every year after year? Do we want a sport full of Mazepins and Latifis? Most fans tend to follow drivers, and that is where mass interest in the sport comes from. Lose all the star power and you kill it.(I know it's a little different on here and for some the cars are the stars, but that's not how the wider audience sees it.)

We should also remember that although the sport is safer than it's been ever, these guys are risking their lives every time they race- case in point Grosjean- and deserve adequate compensation for that. The idea of driving down salaries in that respect (which would happen if they were part of the cap) leaves a bit of a bad taste for me.

But it makes for a very interesting debate.

But if there is a cap, there is not 'too expensive'. There is top rate or 'other'.
How often do we hear drivers say it is not about the money, its a show thing? so if there is a mark for 'top driver' they hit it, no need to demonstrate they are the top rate.

As above, there is nothing stopping drivers having a 'side line' on telly or on a product, or even a car named after them.

Possibly some sort of external payment to a management company owned by the driver or related to the driver that handles expenses etc, which I assume the team carries now?

[Jolle]

It’s not as easy then you think. Mercedes pay Hamilton for instance a large amount because he boosts sales. Let’s say 5 million to race the car, 40 million for his image. If they would just pay him the 5 and invest the 40 into the car, he wouldn’t be their brand image and their investments in F1 would fall short of boosted image and sales.

Remember, we all pretend F1 is a sport, but for Mercedes, RedBull and Philip Morris it’s a marketing tool.
The stars like Hamilton, Verstappen, Alonso, Vettel and Raikkonen boost these marketing values sky high. They are an integral part of the (marketing) succes of F1.

[Jolle]

An obvious way to go around the salary cap, is to pay a driver a few million for his licence and insurance and then hire him for a off season DTM race for an exuberant amount of money.

[DChemTech]

It’s not as easy then you think. Mercedes pay Hamilton for instance a large amount because he boosts sales. Let’s say 5 million to race the car, 40 million for his image. If they would just pay him the 5 and invest the 40 into the car, he wouldn’t be their brand image and their investments in F1 would fall short of boosted image and sales.

Remember, we all pretend F1 is a sport, but for Mercedes, RedBull and Philip Morris it’s a marketing tool.
The stars like Hamilton, Verstappen, Alonso, Vettel and Raikkonen boost these marketing values sky high. They are an integral part of the (marketing) succes of F1.

Sure, I understand that part, but for me it doesn't weigh very heavily - I think it would be good if the salaries become a bit more footed in reality (even if from an investment perspective they are sensible), and in general, it would be good if the world becomes a bit less star-struck. I am not too fond of the whole trickle-up economics that sports has become, be it F1, football or any other major series.

But regardless, the proposed driver salary cap will limit the possibility of teams to invest in drivers from a marketing perspective, it's just that by keeping the salary cap separate from the general cost cap, there's no trade-off between driver investment and car investment. And that trade-off, IMO, would be interesting.

[SiLo]

An obvious way to go around the salary cap, is to pay a driver a few million for his licence and insurance and then hire him for a off season DTM race for an exuberant amount of money.

Likely why they didn't bother including it in the cost cap. It's just very easy to circumvent.

[Just_a_fan]

The reality is that some or all of a driver's salary is actually paid for by various sponsors and that's why it's excluded from the budget cap. Those sponsors then demand personal appearances, image rights etc

I bet Hamilton, Max, etc, wouldn't be too worried by a $5m salary but absolute freedom to attract external sponsorship, publicise whatever charity or other cause they wish, no demands on their time other than those they choose. Currently, the drivers are controlled and the salary effectively includes a rental figure for their image and marketing rights. The rental figure depends on their marketability. Ergo, the top names get the most money.

[Jolle]

It’s not as easy then you think. Mercedes pay Hamilton for instance a large amount because he boosts sales. Let’s say 5 million to race the car, 40 million for his image. If they would just pay him the 5 and invest the 40 into the car, he wouldn’t be their brand image and their investments in F1 would fall short of boosted image and sales.

Remember, we all pretend F1 is a sport, but for Mercedes, RedBull and Philip Morris it’s a marketing tool.
The stars like Hamilton, Verstappen, Alonso, Vettel and Raikkonen boost these marketing values sky high. They are an integral part of the (marketing) succes of F1.

Sure, I understand that part, but for me it doesn't weigh very heavily - I think it would be good if the salaries become a bit more footed in reality (even if from an investment perspective they are sensible), and in general, it would be good if the world becomes a bit less star-struck. I am not too fond of the whole trickle-up economics that sports has become, be it F1, football or any other major series.

But regardless, the proposed driver salary cap will limit the possibility of teams to invest in drivers from a marketing perspective, it's just that by keeping the salary cap separate from the general cost cap, there's no trade-off between driver investment and car investment. And that trade-off, IMO, would be interesting.

Of course drivers salaries are crazy. But… somehow they are worth it for corporations like Daimler. That means that Hamilton is making Daimler more money then he gets (they are not stupid). So, if there would be a drivers cost cap of, let’s say, 10 mln a year and Daimler would get the same output… where does that excess money go to? Stockholders? The board?
Let’s say the marketing value of Hamilton is around 300 mln for Daimler, wouldn’t it be fair that he is paid accordingly?

That the sport got stars, is part what pays the bills. Brands like stars and pay for that. Without a star associated with the team, sponsor income would be down significantly.

F1 has a value of around 3 billion I think, a big chunk of that is because of the 4-5 big names attached to that brand. Income generated because of those names is a multitude of what those drivers are paid.

Nothing of this has anything to do if you like them or not or how they are performing on track, just basic marketing economics.

I think it would be very unfair to make a lot of money from those names and then cut their pay.

[gshevlin]

I bet Hamilton, Max, etc, wouldn't be too worried by a $5m salary but absolute freedom to attract external sponsorship, publicize whatever charity or other cause they wish, no demands on their time other than those they choose. Currently, the drivers are controlled and the salary effectively includes a rental figure for their image and marketing rights. The rental figure depends on their marketability. Ergo, the top names get the most money.

A lot of the detailed negotiations over driver contracts are about how many sponsor events or marketing days the driver is obligated to participate in, and what freedom they have to negotiate marketing contracts separate from the team (subject to rules that they cannot do deals with corporations where those corporations' market sectors conflict with those of the team sponsors or partners). One of the reasons why Lewis Hamilton became unhappy with McLaren is said to have been the number of sponsor events they demanded that he take part in. He wanted more free time. Of course, since joining Mercedes, Lewis has fallen foul of the rule on not being seen to support rival corporations' marketing events on at least one occasion.
When Ayrton Senna joined McLaren, they violated their hitherto sacred rule of identical driver uniforms and allowed him to carry the logo of Banco Nacional on his own driving suit. That was because he was ...Ayrton Senna. I suspect that some of the money from the personal sponsorship contract went to the team for allowing the logo on his driving suit, and Ayrton kept the rest.

[zeph]

Russell would have finished AHEAD of Hamilton and AHEAD of Bottas.

And THAT is the point. Mercedes was struggling that weekend. It wasn't just Bottas.

Also, calling Mark Hughes biased seems...odd...

[aMessageToCharlie]

Russell would have finished AHEAD of Hamilton and AHEAD of Bottas.

And THAT is the point. Mercedes was struggling that weekend. It wasn't just Bottas.

Also, calling Mark Hughes biased seems...odd...

The other Mercedes car was in contention for the win. I wouldn't call that struggling.

Hamilton crashing out on his own from P2 doesnt make Bottas' performance any better.