Jolle wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 24, 2018 6:33 pm
It's not a sure way to be champion but it is, when you have two drivers within a tenth, a way to loose a championship. Look at the history. McLaren didn't thought that Hamilton was so quick in his first year. With that car Alo should have become WC.
The solution is simple and easily solvable as manageable: team-orders. Worked at Ferrari under numerous occasions with Vettel/Kimi, worked at Mercedes between Hamilton/Rosberg, works at Force-India between Perez/Ocon, at RB between Max/Ricciardo. As i said, it boils down to a simple employer/enployee relationship. If a driver doesnt want to play ball, it’s easy to sit him out for a race. Worked at Mercedes, why shouldnt it at Ferrari?
Note: i am really not suggesting Ferrari should get two competitive drivers and let anarchy reign. I am saying they could and if/before things go havoc, they could step in and manage accordingly. Something McLaren didnt/couldn’t do in 2007 because one of their drivers was going rogue and team orders were not allowed.
Jolle wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 24, 2018 6:33 pm
If you think Ferrari's problem is Vettel, Vettel should go and they should hire someone better. Combining two top drivers doesn't work.
Obviously, that wont happen, given the contract Vettel has. I am entertaining the idea that Ferrari values winning a championship above all else and in a hypothetical scenario of signing Alonso alongside Vettel, what could the worst be that happens? And would it be impossible for the team to manage? You are arguing it is, but i am yet to see it as an impossible feat when other teams before have managed that just fine.
You argue as if having two competitive drivers is bad and the scenario of Kimi as this ideal number 2 driver as being the ideal case for Ferrari. Well is it? How often has Kimi taken points off Hamilton when Vettel won? How often has Kimi stepped up and won when the team needed him to?
Arguably, Bottas is way more competitive than Kimi is, yet with 3 wins last year (times he took points away from Hamilton too), Mercedes still managed to win both championships with 3 races to go. Perhaps this logic of signing a number 1 and number 2 driver isnt that sound after all? Because when you do exactly that, instead of finishing 1&2 in the right order, the number 2 driver rarely steps up to the challenge.
Hypothetically, with the car Ferrari currently has, i’m inclined to think that with both Alonso and Vettel driving there, they would likely have 1&2s more often than a win here and there but their 2nd driver somewhere behind their closest rival.
A simple math example:
Assumption; 20 races, two equally strong teams fighting for wins. 10 races team A is fastest, other 10 races team B is quicker. Team A employes a fast No1 driver and a slower No2 driver. Team B has two equally competitive drivers.
Both Team A and Team B wins 10 races. Team A with a No1 driver secures all wins for his team, where as with Team B and due to the competitive nature of both drivers, they split the wins and 2rd/3th places equally.
Team A, Driver 1: 10 wins (10*25=250) + 10 3rd places (10*15=150) = 400 points.
Team B, Driver 1&2: 5 wins (5*25=125) + 10 2nd places (10*18=180), 5 3rd places (5*15=75) = 380 points
The underlying assumption is that Team A’s No2 driver fails to be fast enough to take away points of either drivers of Team B. Thus, every time Team A wins, the drivers of Team B are right behind. Because Team B is overall more competitive, they split all wins, but also take away points of Team A when being in the quicker car.
As you see, in this very simplistic math example, Team A barely wins it by 20 points, despite having more than double the wins of either driver of Team B. Arguably, i’d rate Team B stronger as having two stronger drivers gives them more options to influence their chances by use of team orders. By using team orders, they could easily make up that point deficit, whereas Team A pretty much needs to capitalize on those 10 wins by their number 1 driver.