Phil, yes, mostly all very reasonable commentary. Although, while I'd prefer that purely equal treatment without any orders was mandated in the rules, there certainly is #1 status at Ferrari and there somewhat is at Mercedes at present. Agreed that at present there is no #1 at Red Bull.
Yes. Thankfully, so far, race-related favouritism has only been minor, namely allowing the Wunderkind to crash Ricciardo out of the race twice without reprimand. However, Horner's statements yesterday that Ricciardo could soon end up like Webber, with all the unfair treatment and discrimination that that implies, give a pretty clear indication of where the team intended on heading.
Source: http://www.newsonf1.com/2018/03/verstap ... w-project/"I am his new project. He (Marko) wants to repeat the Vettel story..."
Thank you for posting this. I stumbled upon it yesterday evening and it is a very insightful podcast. Few nice stories about RBR history and the early relationship between Horner, Marko, Newey and Mateschitz. Also seems Geri does some nice lasagne.
I wish you were less sensible mate. It would save me from having to read your l o n g posts.Phil wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:25 pmYou guys are mad. There is no #1 status. Such a status would be limiting to the team itself, if for whatever reason, the #2 guy significantly outperforms the #1, or if for whatever reason through circumstance, sheer luck or silly mistakes, the #1 ends up behind. To then be limited by a contractual agreement where a #1 and #2 are stipulated makes little sense, for any team.
What could be stipulated might be better support, better engineers, priority on updates etc, but even those are highly subjective and not enforceable in reality. Which are the better engineers in a pond of 100ths of employees? Are the newer updates always better? In the end, every team is the employer and the team is greater than one or two drivers. If you have the 3rd best car on the grid and arguably the best chassis and potential to supply a championship winning car, the drivers come to you and not the other way around. Why on earth should a driver who has 1.) never won a championship 2.) being mostly beaten in qualifying have any leverage in asking for a supposedly better status within the team that isn't enforceable anyway?
It makes zero sense.
In the end, these contracts come down to salary, duration and exit clauses and marketing time/commitments. They perhaps also stipulate a certain amount of 'freedom' for engagement on track against your team-mate. E.g. does the contract stipulate that they are free to race or if it's up to the team to make that determination by team-orders. This could be important, but if the team you are hoping to sign a lucrative contract for happens to be a desirable one, how much leverage and bargaining worth as a driver can you bring to the table?
Fact of the matter is; Max has been faster. He may be less consistent, prone to more errors, but the qualifying battle is quite shattering to Daniel even if you discount the technical issues that prevented him of a fair fight. That's the reality of it. It doesn't mean Daniel is slow, is also slower on race pace, doesn't have his worth or that he isn't still one of the best drivers on the grid. He may well be, but against Max and on 1-lap pace, there is that risk that his stock and attractiveness towards other teams might take a hit if he continues to be comprehensively beaten.
So in the end, it's good for Dan, that he frees himself from the RedBull family. RB have shown time and time again how ruthless they are if they are unhappy with ones performance. Kvyat is testament to that, but also earlier drivers too (Hartley, Buemi etc) that got the axe. By going to Renault and measuring himself against perhaps a potentially slower but known quality driver (Hulkenberg), his stock may increase and make him a more probable candidate for 2021.
Lastly, I'd also like to note that I can't remember any blatant favoritism against Daniel Ricciardo. Even in 2014, he had the full support of the team, even against the 4 time WDC champion driving alongside him. They allowed him to race, they allowed him to pass and on occasion also allowed him by through team-orders. This should be evidence enough that there was no #1 status stipulated in any contract, not even for the 4 time WDC champion. Why should there be now in regards to either Dan or Max?
Sorry I was just going off these news reports.RonDennis wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:23 pmYou're delusional if you believe that Ricciardo will earn 35 million yearly.
Yeah, that's where it goes wrong.carisi2k wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:52 pmSorry I was just going off these news reports.RonDennis wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 1:23 pmYou're delusional if you believe that Ricciardo will earn 35 million yearly.
https://www.grandprix247.com/2018/08/06 ... ault-deal/
https://www.f1today.net/en/news/f1/2402 ... th-renault
Reports from the Daily Express.
Redbull are very good at hiding the preferential treatment. They do not do it with instructions etc. (Max is faster than you). However there are aspects to a car's development that are common across both drivers which favour a particular driver or driving style. Whilst set up is as per the driver, aero and engine in particular can (and is) developed around one driver.Phil wrote: ↑Thu Aug 09, 2018 2:08 pmIn the end, it boils down to; Who is bigger, the team or the driver?
A driver like Hamilton or Vettel may have a certain leverage. Hamilton as a marketing object who has an appeal and reach far outside of F1. Both him and Vettel are now 4 times champions, so there's added value in that (from a marketing perspective) and they are known quantities in the performance they bring. However, even a team such as Mercedes knows their star driver is nothing without the car. Hence; For Hamilton to retain his popularity and success, he needs Mercedes and has as much to thank for. Mercedes position is even better once you consider that Hamilton, as gifted and popular he may be, is unlikely to grab a seat at a close competitor (Ferrari or RedBull). So Mercedes knows well that if Hamilton asks for something they are unwilling to give, he can't bargain too high, or... it's the highway for him. Mercedes 1, Hamilton 0.
And if there were a stipulated contractually #1 agreement, Hamilton wouldn't have been asked in Hungary last year to give back 3rd position to Bottas. If there were stipulated number 1 or number 2 drivers, Bottas wouldn't be maintaining in public that he trusts the team to give them equal opportunities.
Same applies to Vettel too. Yes, Ferrari may have been employing team-orders to help their 'better' driver in maximizing his points for the sole purpose to win the championship. This is likely NOT because there is something stipulated in the contract, but because they are placing their eggs in the basket that seems best equipped to win the championship. Same happened in 2008 when Massa ended up being the driver in the better position for the champion, despite Kimi winning it the year before.
Again, it's absurd to think a team would let a driver dictate terms. If Ferrari are favoring Vettel or if Mercedes are favoring Hamilton through use of team-orders, they are doing it because they want to, because they see it as the best strategy to maximize their winning chances and not because those drivers have a contract that gives them certain priorities.
In other teams, such as McLaren and Alonso, well, it could be different because obviously McLaren are as a team in a more desperate position given the strength of the car and their historic achievement (past 6 seasons). Alonso undoubtedly brings a huge value to the team in performance and sponsorship, so arguably, a team like McLaren may see themselves in a position to offer certain bonuses they otherwise wouldn't in order to secure their star driver (and with that attract further sponsorship). Even there too however, I doubt a team would go as far to offer a clear number 1 status because it would make them vulnerable to if, god forbid, the #2 starts out performing their star driver. And given the ego Alonso has, who knows, he probably doesn't see it as a requirement anyway, given he pretty much annihilated pretty much any team-mate he ever had (bar Hamilton).