Fernando Alonso, Sebastian Vettel, Hockenheim, 2012

Why Ferrari would do better with “two roosters”

CommentPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Fernando Alonso, Sebastian Vettel, Hockenheim, 2012Ferrari ended speculation over their 2013 driver line-up one week ago when they announced Felipe Massa would keep his seat for another season.

The team’s president Luca di Montezemolo indicated the move was coming 24 hours earlier when he scotched rumours Sebastian Vettel would join Fernando Alonso at the team, saying: “I don?t want to have two roosters in the same hen house”.

Ferrari’s resistance to having two ‘number one’ drivers in the same team is not new. It’s a contentious talking point, and the arguments for and against their position are well-worn.

But recent changes in the sport should lead Ferrari to consider whether the policy is still in their best interests.

Finding a hen that will fly

Ferrari’s driver hiring policy would work perfectly if they could sign the two best drivers in F1 and one was always content to finish behind the other.

But racing drivers are competitive beasts – and the best of them do not want to spend year after year being ordered to finish second behind their team mates.

The best Ferrari can realistically expect from a number two is someone who is reasonably competitive, unlikely to end up in front of their lead driver, and prepared to pull over on the rare occasions that they do.

Go back ten years and this was the situation Ferrari had with Michael Schumacher and Rubens Barrichello. The F2002 was the class of the field, Schumacher racked up the wins and Barrichello played the dutiful number two.

Ferrari no longer have a car advantage that allows them to win races by half a minute or more. But nor does any other team and, with the technical regulations becoming ever tighter, nor are they likely to.

This has made it more important for Ferrari to maximise the points haul they get with both their cars. And changes to the points system have made that even more crucial.

Why two numbers ones is horse sense

Ten years ago points were only awarded to the top six finishers and were heavily weighted in favour of the winning driver.

That began to change when a new points system appeared in 2003. With the latest points system, introduced in 2010, the pendulum swung even further towards spreading points out more evenly between finishers.

This table shows what proportion of the total points available each weekend were awarded to the top ten finishing positions in 2002 and 2012:

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th
2002 38.46% (10) 23.08% (6) 15.38% (4) 11.54% (3) 7.69% (2) 3.85% (1) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0)
2012 24.75% (25) 17.82% (18) 14.85% (15) 11.88% (12) 9.9% (10) 7.92% (8) 5.94% (6) 3.96% (4) 1.98% (2) 0.99% (1)

The value of finishing in the top three has been reduced compared to finishing elsewhere in the top ten. Ten years ago a one-two finish gave a team 62.4% of the available points, 35.6% more than anyone else could score in the same race. Today a one two is worth 42.5% of the available points and just 15.9% more than the next-best team can score.

For Ferrari, as with any team, their chance of scoring a one-two finish is higher if they have the best two drivers available. If they don’t, and another team’s drivers beat Ferrari’s number two, then a one-four finish is worth little more than a two-three (37 points versus 33).

This shows how an under-performing number two driver will hurt a team like Ferrari much more now than it did ten years ago. When we look at Massa’s performance over the last three seasons, it’s clear that’s exactly what’s happening.

Snail’s pace

The top four teams in F1 at the moment have had the same driver line-ups for the last three years. Out of those, Ferrari’s second driver has performed the least well compared to his team mate:

2010 2011 2012*
Felipe Massa’s points as a % of Fernando Alonso’s 57.1% 45.9% 38.7%
Mark Webber’s points as a % of Sebastian Vettel’s 94.5% 65.8% 70.7%
Jenson Button’s points as a % of Lewis Hamilton’s 89.1% 118.9% 85.6%
Michael Schumacher’s points as a % of Nico Rosberg’s 50.7% 85.3% 46.2%

*Up to and including the Korean Grand Prix

Ferrari have re-signed Massa for another year despite his contribution to the team’s points tally being in steady decline over the past three seasons.

There are several reasons why this is the case, but a key one is that Massa has been more slow compared to Alonso than other drivers compared to their team mates.

The same lap time data gathered for the car performance analysis published here yesterday was used to work out how far each driver has been from the quickest lap time at each race weekend, and the gaps between them and their team mates:

Average gap to best lap time Average gap to team mate
Felipe Massa 1.31% 0.56%
Jenson Button 0.67% 0.31%
Mark Webber 0.77% 0.20%
Nico Rosberg 1.05% 0.09%

The three charts above spell out why Ferrari’s driver hiring policy is increasingly holding them back: it forces them to hire a driver who is slower relative to his team mate than their rivals have, who then fails to score as high a percentage of the available points as he should.

Ten years ago this might not have affected them so badly. But points are shared much more evenly between the teams now. What more, the performance difference between the top teams has shrunk, making it even more important for teams to get the most out of their cars by hiring the best available drivers.

The elephant in the room

Fernando Alonso, Ferrari, Korea International Circuit, 2012The assumption behind this is that Ferrari are equally interested in championship success as the other teams are. Which is to say, all the teams want to win the constructors’ championship and want one of their drivers to win the drivers’ championship.

However everything about Ferrari’s approach indicates they prize the drivers’ championship far above the constructors’ championship.

This is not entirely surprising. Mention the ‘F1 championship’ to an average fan and it will be taken for granted this means the drivers’ title, not the teams’.

In Ferrari’s case, this view may be a product of history: they are the only active team whose have been continuously involved in Formula One since before the constructors’ championship was created in 1958.

But perhaps there is a more mundane reason why the constructors’ championship simply doesn’t matter to Ferrari. For their rivals, constructors’ championship success alone determines how big a slice of F1’s vast prize fund they receive.

That is a less pressing concern for Ferrari because they automatically receive a special payment from the prize fund. This can be worth more than the different between two places in the constructors’ championship, as was the case last year.

But as we’ve seen, things change in Formula One. The distribution of F1’s prize money is likely a key point in the ongoing debate over the new Concorde Agreement which governs the sport.

Perhaps this is the final thing that needs to change before the Prancing Horse gets itself a pair of roosters.

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

Image ?? Red Bull/Getty images, Ferrari spa/Ercole Colombo

104 comments on “Why Ferrari would do better with “two roosters””

Jump to comment page: 1 2
  1. Couldn’t agree more with this article, Ferrari are trying to live their season out how they would have done a decade ago. I’ve long thought that they’re not bothered about the Constructors for the financial reasons laid out, plus there is so much more ‘romance’ to Ferrari bagging a drivers championship than perhaps any other team.

    Ferrari have been honest in their difficulties this year with their own wind tunnel. The car did not have a very good base but there’s everything to suggest that they will be stronger in Australia come 2013. They’re making use of the tunnel in Cologne and given their highly praised damage limitation with Alonso this year there’s a lot of promise for them next year. Ferrari just have to hope that the other teams aren’t too far out of touch so Massa can’t hold them up when needed.

    1. so Massa *can hold them up

  2. The thing is though, winning the WDC and winning the WCC are not mutually exclusive goals. They both rely ultimately on having a combination of a fast car, good teamwork, and a driver capable of extracting the potential of the car on a regular basis. Even prioritising one shouldn’t necessarily harm your chances of winning the other. And even, to an extent, tactics which maximise the potential for one driver to win the WDC can help to win the WCC; if you have a good driver in the second seat then he will take points off of the number 1 driver’s rivals. The problem for Ferrari is that Massa has failed to support them in both the WDC and the WCC. When Alonso has had a good result, Massa hasn’t been there with him taking points off his rivals, which means that the difference in points between Alonso and the other drivers hasn’t been as great as it could/should have been. This in turn means that Ferrari hasn’t gained the maximum number of constructors’ points available.

    This is the big problem for Ferrari; when the tactic of having clearly defined number 1 and number 2 drivers works well, it pays off, but when one of your drivers is as poor as Massa has been, questions about driver status become irrelevant. No amount of tactics and strategy will make up for the points deficit he creates by driving so poorly. Ferrari’s problem then, is not that they have a rooster and a hen, but that they have a rooster and a lame duck.

    1. @mazdachris

      the tactic of having clearly defined number 1 and number 2 drivers works well, it pays off, but when one of your drivers is as poor as Massa has been, questions about driver status become irrelevant

      But this is partly what I said in the article: if you have a policy of a clear number one and number two driver, you’re not going to be able to attract a sufficiently talented number two driver. The maths show they need someone quicker than Massa, but would someone quicker than Massa put up with being Alonso’s lapdog?

      1. @keithcollantine

        It’s a difficult question to answer since we can’t be sure exactly who on the grid would be faster than Massa. I’d imagine someone like De La Rosa would be happy to get into a Ferrari, even if it did mean being subordinate to Alonso. But that’s the problem Ferrari have; who would be faster than Massa while still being happy to play second fiddle? Webber decided it wasn’t a job he was interested in (despite the many people here who seem to believe he’s in exactly the same position in Red Bull).

        However, it’s worth asking just how sincere Luca really is in what he’s saying. When Raikkonen and Massa were teammates, it appeared that they were allowed to race each other fairly at the start of the season, and preferential treatment was only given when one driver appeared to have a significantly greater chance of securing the championship. This seems at odds with how his hen/rooster comments have been interpreted. Interpreted being the operative word; in actual fact, all the statement implies is that they would be after a driver who they didn’t think would clash with Alonso. It doesn’t necessarily follow that they would prevent the ‘number 2’ from racing Alonso at the start of the season if they turned out to be a match for him. The only times they’ve used team orders on Massa have been when he’s effectively been out of contention for the championship, so it’s hard to assess exactly what their policy is. Remember as well that at the time Raikkonen was replaced with Alonso, Ferrari had no reason to think that Massa’s performance was going to drop off; the were looking at the pre-2009, championship contending Massa. They effectively put Alonso alongside someone they considered to be a genuine championship contender. Who knows how that might have panned out had Massa not had his accident.

        Certainly though, I’d say there’s enough evidence to suggest that Ferrari haven’t had a policy of a clear number 2 who is always obliged to get out of the star driver’s way since Rubens Barrichello left. They may prefer to have a driver who is naturally slower than their ace, but it doesn’t necessarily imply that they wouldn’t be allowed to race them at the start of the season. They certainly haven’t said that directly, at least, and Stefano has openly said that they think they could manage two top level drivers side by side at Ferrari. That’s a more direct statement than anything involving poultry!

        1. @mazdachris, @keithcollantine, can I throw a name out there and suggest Timo Glock as Ferrari driver no 2?

          I think he is the most under rated driver on the grid, and has done a cracking job in the Marussia over the last couple of seasons. Unfortunately he is in such a slow car few people notice.

          While I agree that there is a difficulty in attracting a sufficiently talented driver to be Fernando’s lap dog, surely even that would be better than trundling around the back of the grid race after race?

          1. @mazdachris … I think that there is a chance they didn’t expect KR to lag as much as he did vs. FM that one year…they may have thought KR was going to be the rooster but he just couldn’t get it together for them to make that come to fruition to the degree they expected. Still won the WDC but not by stamping his authority on it or his teammate.

            And I think that since 2010, certainly mid-way, if not by the very hiring of FA in 09, it can be said that the policy, as now confirmed by LdM in his comments, has been in place to some degree for 2 decades. I just think KR wasn’t the rooster for them that they and many thought he would be. And FM never was but it was to KR’s weaknesses that year with the car moreso than they expected or even wanted FM to be a rooster.

            Do I think that there might be more leaway at the start of the season for the number 2 to actually be allowed a win? For sure, I can imagine several scenarios that might allow that, one of them being to make themselves not look so heartless to the non-rooster to the viewing audience that obviously has a sensitivity about this sort of thing, while there is still a full season of points ahead and plenty of time to mould things the ‘right’ way.

          2. I think to Keith’s excellent article and point, the math no longer makes sense to have a clear number 2, and it is so hard to find a ‘foggy’ number 2, one who will be within tenths of seconds of FA yet willing to forgo that potential to be a lapdog to help someone else win the WDC, that they should just hire two gladiators and let them have at it.

            Imho, they’ll not only give themselves a better chance at both Championships, they’ll thrill the paying viewing audience who are trying to enjoy a sport, not a fixed business.

            So, firstly, why would anyone so close in performance to FA give that up by agreeing to subservancy, and secondly, if as Keith suggests others who are not so close to FA don’t any longer make sense to be hired to partner him, then I think it is high time they started to rethink their policy, for themselves and everyone else to benefit.

          3. In fairness to FM… he did have an accident, he did have a team order that proved what everyone suspected was possible (they didnt’ hire FA for him (FM) to win), the tires have been a greater challenge, they did change the car dramatically over last year’s likely to FA’s liking given LdM’s confirmation of the ‘pecking’ order, he is not the rooster on the team. And he may have adapted anyway if present races are any evidence.

            I think FM is bigger than most give him credit for. I think he, like LH did, needs a change. Not saying he’s at LH’s level. Not saying I know to where, but I think he has the potential to show us much more, once unencumbered in a freer team philosophy. And I don’t discount how his experiences have been shaping him for when it does happen. I think several teams might jump at the chance to have FM, and I think a Ferrari powered team would have access to a lot of data on him to help in that regard. Or maybe he needs to move furher away from the roost than that…you know…spread his wings.

  3. On the first page of your Ferrari-carrer
    The future seemed so bright
    Then this spring turned out so evil
    I don’t know why I’m still surprised
    Even angels have wicked schemes
    And Fernando takes that to new extremes
    But you’ll always be my hero
    Even though you’ve lost your pace

    1. However I’m optimistic that Felipe can turn out to be a “rooster” next season, given how strongly he’s performing in the races right now.

  4. As a die-hard Alonso fan it probably comes as no surprise that I am in favour of one rooster. But my view of this has not been created from 2010 onwards but more from the mid 1980’s. (And I believe FA would beat SV over a championship in the same machinery.)

    My view stems from the fact that I believe that if the car is the fastest on the grid then the 2 roosters approach works admirably and should, in theory, be the sporting decision. Conversely, if you have 2 teams vying for the title, I believe a one rooster approach is better. The problem is, how would you know?

    If we go back to 1984, Prost and Lauda were able to fight each other because a McLaren driver was certain of the championship. Same goes for 1987, 88 and 89. 1992 started this ‘Ferrari Approach’ up until, realistically, 1998. IMO Hill should have done a more convincing job in 1996.

    1998 is a funny one. Coulthard was very much a top driver in 97 but in Jerez was ordered to move across to give Mika the win. Fair enough, but from race one in 1998 it was clear it was Mika who would be the serious title contender. As a Scotsman, I can’t say I was greatly impressed with the decision. In 2000, Ferrari could not afford to have a driver who took points from Michael, for the reasons Keith has stated above. Fisichella was signed to challenge Alonso but in reality that was a complete mismatch.

    Then in 2007, we had proof of why a strong team wins the title. McLaren should have backed one of their drivers earlier in the season. Its great to have hindsight but at the time there were many who said the same. Ferrari the next year completely backed Massa. Red Bull have always backed Vettel and although Horner does his best to make it seem like there is team unity and an even playing field, he always lays it on too thick. Silverstone and Turkey 2010 proved that RB back SV. And why shouldn’t they? If you’ve got one of the top drivers of his generation you must give him everything imo rather than scoring own goals. Germany 2010 left a sour taste at the time but given Massa’s form after that, could anyone really say that they wouldn’t have done exactly the same thing?

    As a fan of Alonso, I would not be scared to see Vettel next to him. But I would hate it if Hamilton won the title due to internal squabbling.

    1. @rbalonso

      Germany 2010 left a sour taste at the time but given Massa’s form after that, could anyone really say that they wouldn’t have done exactly the same thing?

      Given that Alonso failed to win the title, and that Massa’s performances have only got worse since the hammer-blow of being forced to give that win up, I certainly don’t think it was justified. And I think they were very fortunate the recent change of president at the FIA meant that instead of getting the punishment they deserved, the team orders ban was instead rescinded.

      1. I think that is a little unfair on Todt tbh, @keithcollantine. Team orders were unenforceable and were used by every team at one stage or another during the ban. There are always double standards with regard to them, everyone agrees that were it the final race of the championship that it is a no-brainer, but have moral issues if used before then. In the cut-throat nature of f1, I think it is a business decision.

        I also think that by that point Alolnso had justified himself as number one in the team, especially with the pit lane move in China. The real hammer blow I felt for Massa was in Bahrain. He outqualifed the double champion on his return, but lost the first corner to Alonso and when Vettel retired, the Maranello had a new poster boy. Things could have been very different had Massa won in Bahrain.
        You refer to Hockenheim as a ‘hammer blow’ but, in fact after Hockenheim Massa was on the podium again twice. His run of results was better after Hockenheim than before it.
        Before Germany he had 3 top 4 finishes in ten rounds.
        After Germany 4 in 8.
        Before 67 points in 10.
        After 59 in 8.
        Ferrai then had the option of ditching Massa for his below par performances and hire Robert Kubica, but he was rewarded with a Ferrari race seat in the following 3 seasons.

        My point is, if Ferrari had won the title by one point, history would justify the decision. Massa’s form only really fell apart on the Pirelli tyre and since his accident he has been no-where near Alonso. His performances did not noticeably fluctuate after the incident.

        I think that it is a little unfair to infer that Todt would have acted differently had it been Red Bull. It is his job to remain impartial and I have no reason to question Todt on Ferrari bias. This coming from an Alonso fan who watched the FIA go out of their way to punish him and Renault in Monza and Hungary.

      2. what a great opportunity to remain silent is lost….

  5. I will enjoy delving into this topic when I have a bit more time, but for now suffice it to say I’ve enjoyed this analysis of why the MS/Ferrari way doesn’t mathematically make sense any more.

    I’ve had to quickly scan the article and some responses but when I have more time I’d like to collect my thoughts further. I don’t know if anyone has said it, and I don’t think Keith has mentioned this in his article, but with the lack of testing nowadays there is more incentive to have the two very best drivers you can get on your team to help advance the car more quickly and efficiently…therefore there is big potential in both drivers squeezing out competitors by more quickly solving problems with the car that perhaps a weaker driver pairing may not arrive at as quickly.

  6. The problem is that too much focus has been put on felipes poor performances this season and it true their has been a couple, australia, maylasia and spain in particular(these were before felipe found a setup on the f2012 that worked for him in monaco)

    I was surprised by the hooha around massa’s performance in korea when he was close to alonso like it was the first time this season, something which couldnt be further from the truth. Korea was the 8th time that massa had finished a race within 10(often less) seconds of alonso this season. Not bad considering the plaudits alonso has been getting this season.

    The problem ferrari face is that if they put a driver 2 tenths of a second quicker in the second ferrari they wont only get closer to fernando they will reguarly start beating him.

  7. Sem (@05abrahamsemere)
    23rd October 2012, 19:23

    I’ve already said that Vettel is overrated…I ‘ll repeat again, put Button there if you want ‘two roosters’. Vettel is a spoilt brat who can only win when he has the best car and in the right conditions. The wise experienced heads of Alonso-Button are a much better combination than Alonso-Vettel.

    1. @05abrahamsemere
      You can say it as many times as you want and it still wont make it true.
      Backing it up with facts and analysis will help you a lot more then repeating:

      Vettel is a spoilt brat who can only win when he has the best car and in the right conditions.

      even a billion times.

    2. @05abrahamsemere 25 wins, 34 poles, 2 world titles and leading another one. Without anything to back your “opinion” up, you can say all you want, but you’ll still be laughed at.

    3. @05abrahamsemere Not remember how Button managed to have such a huge performance advantage in ’09? Double diffuser ring any bells?

      Now, I’m not saying that Button’s win was down to the car, not in the slightest, but you can’t argue Button is a better option over Vettel if you’re going to use that rubbish argument.

  8. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
    23rd October 2012, 19:58

    This was the idea behind McLaren getting Button and Hamilton. We all know what happened there;-) It’s a great strategy if you have the fastest car throughout the whole season. If you don’t have the fastest car then the team has to focus on 1 driver. If RB has a #1 driver which no one can deny, then any top team that chooses to support 2 drivers is at an automatic disadvantage. The only way to offest the #1 driver advantage is a much faster car, higher reliability and better strategies, plus tons of luck. Just a lot easier to go with a #1 driver and a competitive car – it’s a no brainer.

  9. I have other interests that I’m much more knowledgeable about, but none that I enjoy more than F1. Articles like this are one of the reasons why. Great job, Keith!

  10. At the end of the day Alonso has had it easy with Massa. I have always believed an on form Massa to be more than a match for Alonso something he is proving lately, and i hope it continues just as Barrichello started to pressurise Schuey. But you cannot compare a driver whoefully underperforming as Massa has been over the last two seasons with a guy who is cosseted by the team and at the top of of his game.

  11. Anthony Swift (@)
    23rd October 2012, 21:21

    Vettel and Alonsowould be awsome

  12. In the light of this discussion, can someone tell me what was the best, strongest and most succesful driver pairing in F1 (ie. that they didnt want to kill each other like 82, 88-89 and 07, and that they were winning)??

    1. I would say Mansell and Patrese in 92. My history of F1 in the 1950’s is not great but I think Fangio got on well with Moss

  13. If they kept Kimi with Alonso, they paid his salary anyway. 2010 would have been done and dusted – both WDC and WCC, 2011 would have been a much better year. 2012 WCC and WDC contenders.

    Money talks at Ferrari, hard too see how they deserve a Championship the way they act. Makes me sad for hundreds of people working behind the scenes at Ferrari, while LdM and Santander playing fantasy football.

  14. Nevertheless, despite Keith’s data-driven analysis, Ferrari signed Massa for 2013. Why is this then?

    1. Because they have FA right now, and the team is set up to favour him, and they aren’t about to read Keith’s excellent analysis and change their whole team philosophy that goes back at least 2 decades. This is the mode they are in right now, and while it would be awesome to see SV go to Ferrari after FM is gone, I think it is unlikely and they will replace FM with another driver who will play the number 2 role, likely one just happy to actually be at Ferrari, knowing the only way he is there is because he has agreed to their philosophy.

  15. Barichello played dutiful number 2 to Schumacher in 2002?

    Errm no, never before has team orders been so painfully pointed out by the number 2 driver as they were at Austria 2002. Hardly “dutiful number 2”. Rubens made sure EVERYONE knew what was happening that day, imagine if Ralf Schumacher had made such a fuss about the team orders at Spa 1998… but did Ralf even mention this in the ost race interviews? No.

    Actually I was watching quite alot of 2002 qualifying etc replays & one thing is clear. Rubens was always allowed to race Schumacher for qualifying position, & my guess is that once MS had outqualified Rubens all the eggs were thrown in his basket for race day so to speak.

    Sure Austria 2002 was clar team orders, but again so was spa 1998, so was singapore with alonso etc & bout 100 other examples by a variety of teams (red bull front wings at silverstone anyone?) so I find it strange to simply single out Ferrari as doing what they always do. From what I see they merely appear to be doing what ALL the teams do, with the possible exception of Mclaren

    1. No the big difference is that Ferrari uses a number 2 from race 1 of each season in reality. They gear the car toward the number 1 which immediately puts the 2 on his hind foot at the start of the season. The whole atmosphere on the team is about the 1. From race 1. The other umpteen examples you cite are more like one-offs when they are prudent at the time, and overwhelmingly the bulk of team orders come when the season is winding down and one driver on a team has a better mathematical WDC shot than the other. That’s the way it should be, and that’s why you have seen orders used often, but nobody has ever used them anywhere near like Ferrari has used them from race 1 of every season, season after season.

      In Austria 02, RB played the dutiful number 2, but the difference was that for a change he owned the weekend, outqualified everyone, and lead the bulk of the race, and combined with the fact that MS already had a comfortable lead in the standings, he was still told to pull over and it was like a straw that broke the camels back. I think he was convinced that in spite of his contracted role, he had earned that one. And all the fans who reacted in disgust obviously agreed.

      Sure RB was allowed to outqualify MS on occasion (keeping in mind RB was always driving a car built for MS) because it is harder to hold a driver back for quali without making it look so obvious, but MS had the luxury of knowing that no matter where RB qualified (usually behind MS due to being in MS’s car) he would still have the upper hand over RB in the race by contract. MS had no psychological or physical concerns about a teammate throughout his career at Ferrari. So it was never a matter of MS having to earn the ‘eggs’ for Sunday by outqualifying RB on Saturday. RB had to do his best in MS’s car on a team designed for MS only to succeed, and if he happened to occasionally outqualify MS, that was like a bone they would throw him, a pat on the back, ‘way to go RB, but of course you will remember your role on Sunday…it’s in your contract.’

  16. Look at Vettel’s all teammates LOL

Jump to comment page: 1 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.