Should Ferrari, McLaren or BMW throw their efforts behind one driver?
13th August 2008, 10:00 by Keith Collantine 48 Comments »
McLaren, Ferrari and BMW have led the way since Melbourne
Mathematically the drivers’ championship could still be won by anyone. Realistically, it’s likely to go to a Ferrari or McLaren driver, or just maybe one of the BMW duo.
At present all three teams are operating equal status policies for their drivers. But as we saw at the end of last season the earlier a team can switch to backing one driver the better it is for their prospects of winning the drivers’ title.
Driver equality is a hotly debated topic in Formula 1. Do you think any of the top three teams should start backing one of their drivers over the other to improve their chances of winning the title?
Ferrari
Last year Ferrari let both their drivers fight for the title – something we had not been accustomed to seeing in the days of Michael Schumacher. But sensibly, once one of their drivers fell out of mathematical contention for the title, they concentrated their efforts on the other.
It was Felipe Massa who fell out of the running for the title with two races to go. And so at Interlagos Ferrari neatly moved him aside via the pit stops to let Kimi Raikkonen through to take the victory he needed to seal the championship.
McLaren were not able to do the same as both their drivers were in the running for the title until the final race. So having one driver not scoring as many points as the other played into Ferrari’s hands.
But so far this year Raikkonen and Massa are only three points apart. It’s not likely that one driver is going to fall very far behind the other any time soon.
McLaren
Like Ferrari, McLaren could find themselves in the opposite situtation to where they were last year in the final races of 2008.
Heikki Kovalainen is already 24 points behind Lewis Hamilton, so the point at which he is mathemtically no longer able to win the championship is likely to come sooner.
McLaren have already shown this year that although they operate a policy of equality it is executed with a degree of realism. Kovalainen won praise from the team for not holding up Hamilton in the late stages of the race at Hockenheim when his team mate was visibly quicker than him.
Once one of their drivers falls out of the running for the title – which is most likely to be Kovalainen – expect him to fall into the number two role just like Massa had to last year.
BMW
BMW’s situation is rather different because, although they’ve made another clear step forward in form this year, they still don’t have the pace of the other two teams to be clear championship contenders.
Although they operate a policy of equality they, like McLaren, swapped their drivers’ positions at one race this year. At Montreal Robert Kubica was on a different strategy to Nick Heidfeld following a safety car intervention, and Heidfeld made no attempt to keep Kubica behind. As a reuslt, Kubica was able to build up the lead he needed over Heidfeld and won the race.
If BMW were closer to the sharp end every weekend then a policy of supporting Kubica over Heidfeld (as Kubica is ahead in the drivers’ championship) could net him a few useful extra points in this very closesly-fought championship.
But they’ve fallen down the order since the high of Montreal and favouring one driver over another at this stage would surely only breed unnecesary resentment.
On the other hand…
I can’t deny that my feelings on this matter are rather clouded by the fact that I just plain don’t like team orders.
Watching the dreary, Schumacher-dominated seasons of 2000-4 where Rubens Barrichello wasn’t allowed to finish in front of him until after the inevitable title was won, gave me a new respect for the kind of driver policies McLaren practised in 1988 and 1989. i.e., Hire the best two drivers in the world and let them race each other.
The likes of Peter Windsor would no doubt argue that Schumacher demonstrated the best way to run a team which everyone else should copy: install the best driver as number one and have a second-rate number two surrender every precious point to him.
It’s a logical argument. But I think part of the difference between collecting titles and achieving true greatness lies in beating your toughest rival when he’s driving the same car as you.
I am rather glad that Ferrari, McLaren and BMW are letting their drivers fight each other – at least until one of their drivers drops out of the running. Because of that I am confident that at the end of the year, whoever wins, we will know we have a worthy champion.
sChUmAcHeRtHeGrEaTeStEvEr said on 13th August 2008, 10:15
i agree keith, however i think the difference in the schumacher era was there was no1 really on par with him to race against where in the 80′s early 90′s you had senna,prost, mansell and piquet.
i think mclaren should start supporting hamilton more now heikki wont overcome that deficit in my opinion and plsu he cant get anywhere near hamilton in a race.
Rohan said on 13th August 2008, 11:19
I think that you have understated the difference between McLaren’s claims of equality and what actually goes on in the team – it is clear that Heikki is treated as a number 2 driver in almost every respect, despite McLaren’s protestations to the contrary.
Keith Collantine said on 13th August 2008, 11:31
Rohan – So in what ways does Kovalainen not get equal treatment to Hamilton?
bert said on 13th August 2008, 11:50
wel, keith, becouse kovalainen always gets the lamest strategy. (i could be wrong).
Aaron Rook said on 13th August 2008, 11:58
If you ask any f1 driver no matter who far down the feild they are they will give you the same answer on what they want to achieve they all want to be a world champion that is why they are competing not to be 2nd best but to be first
Lustigson said on 13th August 2008, 12:04
From a team’s standpoint, I fully understand team orders and a clear No. 1 and No. 2 status.
However, as a fan, I loath the concept of fixing races to have a better position for the Championship, at least until some three-quarters of the season.
Late in the season, though, it actually adds to the exitement to have No. 2 able to give up position for No. 1 to lift the title.
DG said on 13th August 2008, 12:23
@Bert – It might just be that Kovi isn’t a confident enough driver yet to make the strategy work? Which goes for a lot of other drivers out there too!
Nice article Keith, and I do agree about how the three teams are running this year, but with two apparently equal drivers, there must be a time where a line is drawn and the team (including the other driver) support the driver with a better points score, even if the time is only obvious at the final race of the season!
I didn’t like the Old Schuey way of doing things because it was so obvious that Massa could be just as fast yet was never allowed to challenge, but at the moment the difference between the drivers in any team on the track could only be a few hundreds of a second, so how do you choose the ‘No 1′?
And that is where the ‘Alonso’ debate begins because some drivers must have nicer personalities and be better with the PR and generally easier to talk to than others – thats human nature, and so might be chosen purely on these merits…..
diseased rat said on 13th August 2008, 12:30
Ferraris policy of driver inequality in the Schumacher times contributed to one of the most boring eras in F1 ever. That alone is enough to allow us to see it’s not a good idea.
I find the claims that Mclaren favour Lewis bizarre. He’s just faster, it’s just fairly obvious?
Jack said on 13th August 2008, 12:42
You’re forgetting something – the Schumacher era may have been boring, but it yielded unprecedented success. The teams won’t care if they make F1 boring if they are the ones who are winning it.
Journeyer said on 13th August 2008, 12:49
I agree with you, Jack, but I think their point would be: The winning teams will have to care, lest they kill F1 by accident with the way they’re winning.
Paige said on 13th August 2008, 12:57
I think it really depends on the situation at the point in the season. Here’s the strategy I would pursue if I was running a F1 team.
I would start the season off with complete equality, letting the drivers fight (provided that they don’t knock each other out, of course). This only makes sense from the perspective of the constructor, as keeping both drivers on equal status will keep them motivated to go out and give their all, which will maximize constructor points. (Remember, from the perspective of the constructor, its more important to win the WCC than to have one of their drivers win the WDC.) I would maintain the equal status until one of the drivers is mathematically eliminated from winning a WDC. At that point, I would designate the other driver as the support driver for the man still in t he running for the WDC. This is basically what Ferrari did last year, and it worked beautifully: Raikkonen won the WDC.
Paige said on 13th August 2008, 13:05
Regarding specifically this year, I think it’s way too early for anyone to be designating #1 or #2 drivers. Kovalainen is still very much mathematically in the hunt right now, being 24 points back with seven races left. All of the top-3 drivers (actually, all of he top-5 drivers) in WDC points have been inconsistent this year and/or have run into some rotten luck at multiple points, which Kovalainen himself has experienced. Who is to say that this won’t continue and Kovalainen won’t be be there to capitalize? Raikkonen overcame a 19 point deficit in the last two GPs of the season to win the WDC last year. Sure, Hamilton just plain lost it, but Raikkonen was still up on the wheel and capitalized on his decline.
Kovalainen is really starting to put the pieces together on the season. If you take away the rotten luck he had in the Spain, Turkey, and Monaco stretch, he’s probably square with the Ferrari drivers in the standings right now. He’s had a string of solid points finishes since France, and he’s capped it off with his first win at Hungary. With a solid rhythm going and a jolt of confidence, there’s no reason why he can’t make a charge for it.
Journeyer said on 13th August 2008, 13:06
But Paige, I guess the problem is: what if BOTH drivers are still in the running? McLaren had to keep their equality policy for their drivers, and such a policy allowed Hamilton and Alonso to take points off each other, which opened the door for Raikkonen. But had only Hamilton OR Alonso been in the team, either of them would’ve become world champion.
Lustigson said on 13th August 2008, 13:12
@ Journeyer
That’s exactly the dilemma teams might face, and maintaining equality throughout the season cost McLaren the Championship last year, but Williams, too, in 1986. That’s a risk the team must take.
Paige said on 13th August 2008, 14:27
Journeyer,
I disagree completely. The main door opening that Raikkonen got was Hamilton’s off on entry into the pits in China. If Lewis had kept his head cool, we would be talking about him being the first rookie to win a WDC right now.