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

[sennafan24]

I talk in reference to recent opinions on Mercedes and long standing opinions on Red Bull/Ferrari. In recent history it does seem the clear and focused number 1 and number 2 driver works a lot better.

Take the Ferrari era in the early to mid 00's. Schumi and Rubens were far from best friends, they by most accounts were cordial for the most part until they fell out in America in 2005. But, they delivered as a tandem, Schumi was the clear number 1, and like Irvine before him seemed to accept that role for the most part (unlike his Brawn days). Everyone knew their role and their was little in fighting. The results speak for themselves.

Vettel and Webber have been the same since 2010 to a lesser extent. Webber has shown more open discontentment, and has cried foul openly a lot more, but a lot of the time his number 2 status has been down to Vettel outperforming the aging Aussie. With Vettel the number 1 priority, Red Bull have reaped rewards.

2007 proves that if you mix top top drivers together things can go haywire. Lewis and Alonso for various reasons did not deliver a WDC or WCC to the team with arguably the best car. Think about that for a second, the two best drivers in the field with one of the best cars could not bring home either title. Yes, one of these failures were due to spygate, but the i-fighting and controversy could not have helped. The following year in a car that I felt was inferior to the Ferrari, Lewis and McLaren with Heiki as a clear number secured the WDC.

People point to Senna/Prost, but their car was so far leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the field (and their driving talents were to be fair) that it was hardly a team effort as there was no team really there in 1989 when things went sour.

This is why as much as we can hope we get Vettel/Kimi or even better Vettel/Alonso we cannot blame Red Bull if they choose the underdevloped Riccardo as the driver to support Vettel. I believe Riccardo if he does go to Red Bull next year will become like Heiki was to Lewis in 2008/2009. Which for Vettel and Red Bull is no bad thing.

Kimi despite the friendship maybe a bit too much of a shall we say character to stand for being number 2, and if Kimi starts to outperform Seb I cannot see Seb taking a back seat. I think it could end up like Lewis/Alonso with Kimi riding off to the sunset after a year or so. I prefer Alonso to Seb as a driver and as a person, but Seb was right in saying Alonso is not someone you would want as a teammate and not just because he is a great driver.

Lewis and Rosberg is going the same way as Vettel/Webber it would seem. As Lewis has adapted to his new car/surroundings he has modestly outperformed Nico since Canada, mostly on merit. I was watching a old race on Sky from 1991 with Mansell and Patrese, and it seemed like their head to head was similar to Lewis/Rosberg. Mansell like Lewis took time to adapt and Patrese outperformed him like Rosberg did Lewis. Once Mansell found his feet, it was back with the program with Mansell as the number 1 like contracted and Patrese the number 2.

I am not saying Lewis is contracted to be number 1, but it may benefit the team if they focus the car around him and put him as the clear number 1, which people are claiming they are already doing. A clear focus on one driver and a steady number 2 to support as shown above does seem to work. If Rosberg is a bit too good to be number 2, there are other teams out there for him I am sure.

So in short, I think it is best to have a clear food chain with teammates and not two bulls battling it out (no pun intended) I hope we get Seb/Kimi or Seb/Alonso in the future, but as shown above there are perfectly rational reasons why it should not happen if history teaches us anything. If a top driver can get their own version of Rubens, Massa post crash or a less whiny version of Webber, I would advise them to do so.

[DaveKillens]

When you examine this issue from the team's perspective, it makes sense to have a delegated hierarchy. As pointed out, in 2007 the McLaren drivers took points off each other in their personal spats, and in the end, the drivers and team were losers.

AS far as drivers go, no one wants to be number two, they all want to be number one. One big reason is because just to reach Formula One they have an ego and competitive drive. And there are many drivers who will not accept the role of being number two, could you imagine Alonso or Hamilton being ordered to support the other driver?

But let's examine this from the perspective of the people this sport is supposed to cater to, the fans. This sport's main product is the drivers, the main focus and attention is on them, and fans usually prefer to cheer for an individual. When you see the results, read the papers, or witness the flags and concession sales, it's mainly focused on the drivers. In fact, the reason so many regulations exist to ban driver aid technologies is to make sure that drivers count, so that they do have an impact on the results.

Although I don't personally root for any one driver, I'm a passionate fan of the sport, and for the record, definitely oppose team orders. When 22 cars line up on the grid, I want to see 22 drivers battling every corner, every lap until the end. That is why they call it a race, a competition.

But sadly, Formula One is set up as a team sport, sponsors get to have their livery on both cars, and at season's end, Bernie pays out based on team points. There is no money for driver results.

But it all goes back to the fans, because without them the sport would not exist. The great majority of fans aren't unhappy with team orders because those fans cheer for a driver perceived to be number one. But there are also many other fans who cheer for a driver for different reasons, because of nationality, or even because he's an underdog. And I often speculate whether one day in May of 2002, some Brazilian spent a half-year's salary to fly to Europe to watch his hero and fellow Brazilian Reubens Barrichello lead the race at the A1-Ring, only to see him have to give way on the last lap, all because of team orders. Imagine how this imaginary person must have felt?

[wesley123]

Personally, I dont think it is bad, afterall it is a TEAMsport, and with a TEAMsport comes a TEAMeffort. You dont see soccer with every man going for the goal? No, some defend, some are in between, some are going for the goals, and some support the one going for the goal. And in F1 the drivers go for the goal, and in some occasion the teammate supports him.

I think that the thing that happened in Austria in 2002 has damaged this team effort, it made this second placed driver thing look bad, and I think it is still hurting it.

[sennafan24]

AS far as drivers go, no one wants to be number two, they all want to be number one. One big reason is because just to reach Formula One they have an ego and competitive drive. And there are many drivers who will not accept the role of being number two, could you imagine Alonso or Hamilton being ordered to support the other driver?

I agree it is best for the fans, like I said I would love to see Vettel against Alonso and watch the sparks fly on and off the track. It would make cracking entertainment and a more reflective viewpoint on who is the better driver.

The bit I quoted is something I wonder about. I am sure Heiki would still rather be McLaren's number 2 driver than Catheram's test driver. Some drivers just do not have what it takes for a top team to invest in them as a clear cut number 1. On the current grid, I see only Lewis, ALonso, Seb, Kimi and maybe Button who have that level of talent and skill. There are plenty of Sutil's and Webber's who just never reach should a lofty level.

Speaking of which Sutil may be perfect for Lewis's number 2 if Rosberg wants to make a go at it elsewhere. They seemed to have mended fences and Sutil is good enough to keep Lewis decent whilst not upsetting the applecart. Sutil would be perfect number 2 fodder for any of the top guns in my opinion. Di Resta may also be worthy of say being Alonso's number 2.

[DaveKillens]

Some drivers just do not have what it takes for a top team to invest in them as a clear cut number 1. On the current grid, I see only Lewis, ALonso, Seb, Kimi and maybe Button who have that level of talent and skill. There are plenty of Sutil's and Webber's who just never reach should a lofty level.

Meaning no disrespect, you appear to have categorized drivers as to what role they should play. Even though the recent trend is to have a farm system and bring in younger and younger drivers, there should still be room to allow any driver the opportunity to develop.

Those "lofty level" drivers are few and far between, you have chosen five out of hundreds of thousands of drivers, each pretty darn good. Some, such as Senna and Schumacher stood out from day one, but some take time to develop. Alonso didn't set the world on fire in his first year in Formula One, neither did Mario Andretti. Even such drivers as Webber and Massa missed out on becoming WDC by the slimmest of margins. How people would perceive them if things had happened just a little differently.

But if it is a team sport (and I do agree on that) then why is there a WDC?

[sennafan24]

Meaning no disrespect, you appear to have categorized drivers as to what role they should play. Even though the recent trend is to have a farm system and bring in younger and younger drivers, there should still be room to allow any driver the opportunity to develop.

Yeah, I can get behind that. Kimi took a year with D.C as his teammate to develop and beat D.C. The same could happen in theory with Perez and Button.

Some like say Patrese with Mansell are designated to be number 2 contract wise, and the intention is always to have that driver as number 2. That would conform to the "role they should play"

I think the dynamic I speak of should be enforced when it is clear one driver is better than the other, or when a driver is signed in a supporting role (like I suggested for Sutil). For example, call me naive but I believe Webber and Vettel in 2009 were treated equally and over time Vettel proved to be the number 1 driver hence why he is given that status now.

Just so we are clear, I am not saying a Sutil should not be given a chance to compete with a Lewis or Alonso initially, but as stated some drivers are signed with the intention of being in a supporting number 2 role.

I kinda of agree if 2010 would have gone Webber's way he would be viewed differently, same goes Massa.

[Websta]

2007 isn't a great example - if it weren't for spygate, Hamilton and Alonso would have secured the WCC comfortably, and if it weren't for the world's smallest gravel trap or a gearbox issue/whatever that was in Brazil, Hamilton would have won the title. Despite the two McLaren drivers taking points off each other throughout the season, Hamilton was still in the strongest position to win the title going into the final rounds.

[Stradivarius]

2007 isn't a great example - if it weren't for spygate, Hamilton and Alonso would have secured the WCC comfortably, and if it weren't for the world's smallest gravel trap or a gearbox issue/whatever that was in Brazil, Hamilton would have won the title. Despite the two McLaren drivers taking points off each other throughout the season, Hamilton was still in the strongest position to win the title going into the final rounds.

I agree that 2007 isn't a great example, but not because of the ifs and buts. I would actually argue that 2007 is an example of the oposite. If you take a look at the results, it is true that Alonso and Hamilton took some points off each other. But they also took points off their rivals in Ferrari, which is clearly an advantage for the team. If we consider Alonso as a title candidate for McLaren (which I believe everyone did in 2007), Hamilton actually helped him more than he hurt him by driving at the front. Hamilton finished ahead of Alonso in the points 6 times, but he finished ahead of Raikkonen in the points 8 times. If Hamilton had been a slower driver, like Kovalainen in 2008 who rarely challenged neither Hamilton or his main rivals, Alonso would have gained 8 points in 2007. However, Raikkonen would have gained 13 points. So Alonso actually gained a net 5 points towards Raikkonen in the championship by having a quick teammate.

Now, we could of course look at it the reverse way and see how many points Alonso stole from Hamilton and from Raikkonen. Then it flips the other way, as Alonso took 14 points off from Hamilton and only 6 points from Raikkonen. Alonso finished ahead of Hamilton in the points 9 times, and he only finished 4 times ahead of Raikkonen in the points. But this could seem to be a result of McLaren's strategy, as they favoured Alonso at the start of the season. In Monaco Hamilton was put on a silly strategy, qualifying with more fuel, so he was beaten to pole by Alonso. He then had a longer first stop, carrying fuel for 5 laps more than Alonso on the 2nd stint. And when Alonso made his 2nd stop, Hamilton was brought in early, allegedly because McLaren feared a safety car might prevent him from coming in as planned. If I am not mistaken, Hamilton was even told not to challenge Alonso during the race.

In Turkey 2006 Ferrari actually gambled with Schumacher in an attempt to help Massa beat Alonso. Ferrari wanted both cars ahead of Alonso and they assumed Schumacher would make it anyway, so they let him wait behind Massa in the depot when both came in under the safety car. They could have given both of them a light fuel load in order to make sure they both stayed ahead of Alonso. But they chose to give both drivers a heavy fuel load, convinced that they would make up for that later in the race. As a result, Schumacher came out behind Alonso with a heavier car and couldn't keep up. This clearly demonstrated Ferraris need for a strong 2nd driver. In those races where you have the quickest car, you want both drivers ahead of the rivals. Today this isn't quite as important as before, as most of the points difference lies between 1st and 2nd place. But until 2009, you could double your points advantage in a race by having your teammate finish directly behind you.

[SiLo]

Yeah is a bit off topic here, Mclaren lost it themselves, not the other way around.

I feel from what we have seen when teams implement a 1st and 2nd driver is that they win more races and/or championships, simple as really. Whether you like it or not is up to you, but I'm certain they won't consider what you think if they are sure it will win them more races, which gets them more money at the end of the day.

[sandokan83]

Normaly the number one driver appears naturaly.
It´s more interesting when the top drivers are in diferent teams like in this season.

But if we look for Ferrari case in witch Schumacer was totally dominant we realize that sometimes having a number one driver is very productive the problem is when something happens to the number one driver ( silvertone 1999) and the second one cannot make a good job.

[sennafan24]

2007 isn't a great example - if it weren't for spygate, Hamilton and Alonso would have secured the WCC comfortably, and if it weren't for the world's smallest gravel trap or a gearbox issue/whatever that was in Brazil, Hamilton would have won the title. Despite the two McLaren drivers taking points off each other throughout the season, Hamilton was still in the strongest position to win the title going into the final rounds.

I mentioned spygate being an outside variable in my opening post.

However, it is my theory that the in-fighting did not help McLaren. I would suggest it would have hurt at least Alonso's performance on track, and maybe distracted Lewis in some instances as well with him being a rookie. Pure speculation on my part of course.

Another benefit of having a number 1 and number 2 driver is that you can design and develop a car with a certain driver in mind. For example, Jenson and Lewis are two very different drivers with differing styles and strengths, so it may take more time and resources to produce a car that caters to both come race weekends.

[Stradivarius]

I assume we are not discussing whether or not a team should exercise team orders when they already have a clear title candidate, as this is obviously advantageous to the team. This is about wether or not a team with one top driver should make sure they don't employ another top driver as his teammate. I can understand that for example Alonso was more comfortable with Fisichella as his team mate in 2005 and 2006 than he was with Hamilton in 2007. But it is difficult to judge whether or not this hurt his performance any more than the 8 points Alonso would have gained if Hamilton had never beaten him. However, we do know that Raikkonen would have gained 13 points if Hamilton had never beaten him, so Hamilton's performance definitely helped Alonso in the title race. Instead of being just 1 point away from the championship in 2007, he would have been 6 points away if Hamilton hadn't been able to score points.

We can also take a look at Raikkonen and Massa in 2007. Massa took 6 points from Raikkonen in 2007 by beating him in Bahrain, Monaco, USA and Turkey. So if Massa had been slower, Raikkonen would have scored 6 more points. But Massa also took 10 points from Hamilton. He beat Hamilton in Bahrain, Spain, France, Nübugring, Turkey, Spa and Brazil. So if Massa hadn't been able to fight at the front, Raikkonen wouldn't have won the title in 2007. He would actually have ended up 3rd behind both Hamilton and Alonso. So Ferrari definitely enjoyed having two drivers at the front in 2007. In 2008 it was the same situation in Ferrari, but then Massa was the title contender. Kimi took 3 points from him, but he took 5 points from Hamilton. So again, the team's chances was helped by having a competitive 2nd driver.

So to me it seems obvious that two competitive drivers was the way to go, at least until 2009. In addition to the above considerations, it should also be considered that any strong driver within the team cannot help the other teams. For example, if Alonso had been with Red Bull since 2010, it might have been a bit more stressfull for Vettel, but Red Bull would not have faced as strong competition as they did in 2010 and 2012, so I am quite sure it would have been good for them.

[sennafan24]

I assume we are not discussing whether or not a team should exercise team orders when they already have a clear title candidate, as this is obviously advantageous to the team. This is about wether or not a team with one top driver should make sure they don't employ another top driver as his teammate.

Correct.

I think there is a balance here. For example Mika/D.C I would say most years it was formatted that Mika was the clear number 1, this was the case it would seem in their prime years of 1998-2000. D.C was still a "competitive" enough driver but a firm number 2. I am not calling for a complete nobody as a number 2 as the way forward, but some akin to a D.C or Rubens who can score points but do not upset the applecart.

I think a team with a clear food chain seems to function better, look at Senna/Berger as another example. McLaren never had to worry about internal problems with drivers in the years of that partnership. Berger would not take points away from Senna, but he would score enough to ensure WDC's would come McLaren's way and take points away from Senna's rivals on occasions.

My theory is that having two bulls creates strife that hinders the teams performance, as two ego's are needed to be catered to.

I get the logic of 2008 with Ferrari, but the gains you mentioned were minimal. Plus, there was strife in the team that year with Kimi and Ferrari's relationship breaking down.

[beelsebob]

I assume we are not discussing whether or not a team should exercise team orders when they already have a clear title candidate, as this is obviously advantageous to the team. This is about wether or not a team with one top driver should make sure they don't employ another top driver as his teammate.

Correct.

I think there is a balance here. For example Mika/D.C I would say most years it was formatted that Mika was the clear number 1, this was the case it would seem in their prime years of 1998-2000. D.C was still a "competitive" enough driver but a firm number 2. I am not calling for a complete nobody as a number 2 as the way forward, but some akin to a D.C or Rubens who can score points but do not upset the applecart.

Oddly, I'd suggest that DC is probably one of the strongest "number 2 drivers" you could ever have picked. He came close to the WDC several times, beat Mika over prolonged periods, and is still the highest scoring British driver of all time.

[sennafan24]

Oddly, I'd suggest that DC is probably one of the strongest "number 2 drivers" you could ever have picked. He came close to the WDC several times, beat Mika over prolonged periods, and is still the highest scoring British driver of all time.

Yeah, there was 2 seasons he outscored Mika I recall, 1997 and 2001. But 2001 was the year where Mika's head was not in the game and he retired the year after. In years where the title was at stake, Mika was usually seen as the clear number 1.

Not disagreeing flat out, but what years would you say D.C "came close" to winning the WDC. I always remembered he scored respectfully, but I only remember one year when he was in serious contention which I recall was maybe 2000 around the half way stage?