Ask the Driver ~ Paul Charsley
November 19, 2009 by Negative Camber
Filed under Ask the Driver by Paul Charsley, F1B Op-Ed, Parc Fermé, Top Story
Hi Paul
Whenever I hear commentators and pundits talking about the team “choosing” one driver over the other I always wonder if it’s really true. Obviously in a case like Hamilton vs. Kovi we saw a few instances where the new parts could only go on one car and it’s a no brainer which one it will be. But during the season you always used to hear about Red Bull and the choice between supporting Vettel or Webber. What could the team actually do to favour Vettel anyway, short of asking Webber to pull over a la Rubens/Schuey.
Keep up the good work
Royce Amatique.
Well Royce I think the word “Chosen” is a little bit overused, just ask the mechanics who work on the unchosen car as to whether they are trying hard enough. All these guys have tremendous pride in what they do and I remember when my brother was on the test team at Arrows and Brabham, he spoke with glee of how a driver crashed his primary car and had to use the test car and went quicker with it. Even within a team these guys push each other competitively with preparation as much as team drivers push each other.
I would use the word preferred in most of these instances. Obviously like more talented drivers, there are better engineers and mechanics and if a driver has no.1 status he gets his pick of the crop. Even if a team has dual no.1’s, during a season a driver can gain huge influence and gain certain advantages by his performance and/or treatment of the team as a whole. So perhaps certain upgrades would go his way first as the season progresses. Also during a race, strategies have to be a little or a lot different between the two cars and the preferred driver would get the one with the highest degree of possible success. Also like in any business a good boss makes his employees go above and beyond their job description, so a good driver can rally a team to go that extra mile, and get them to always double and triple check everything and always be thinking of ways to improve things. I think Red Bull did the best job on the grid of supplying equal cars as Webber showed on occasion.
Thanks for the question and keep them coming!!
Paul
Loading ...
In fact, you could ask this question to the Fred…. :-;
The main thing that I have heard Mark Webber talk about regarding preferential treatment is during quali. One driver will get the slightly lower fuel load to help them get track position the other will get 5kgs or so more (usually only a couple of kilos). This changed every race, alternating which driver gets the lighter load.
Red Bull tended to give each driver a very similar strategy, unless the circumstances dictated the need for something different. Unlike McLaren where it was obvious that their driver were given much different loads (I concede it was difficult to tell as it was rare that both drivers made it to Q3 together).
McLaren’s 2009 season (for that matter every teams) was exception, and early part of season both their drivers were not making past Q1-Q2. 2008 season was more of the norm and you could see Kovy’s Qualifying was hampered by Macca from first race. Unlike Redbull who kept alternating light fuel in Q3 on both their cars. McLaren’s post race statements about “Fuel corrected” Kovy was faster than Lewis, clearly indicated which driver was clearly the team’s favorite. I could have understood giving both drivers equal opportunity till say one is clearly having better chances.
And second part about getting pick of Mechanics, wasn’t Kovy the one who was sent on wrong tires in China’08. and then there are always whispers of tweaking Tire pressures. Car mysteriously being not ready till last moment before Qualifiers, the list can go on.
I preferred the single lap qualifying system. I am sure teams would have still had say in “fuel load” but at least additional variable like “releasing a driver in traffic” and tanking his timed lap were eliminated.
Thanks Paul
That makes good sense
Nice breakdown of the issue of chosen drivers, thanks for the insight.
So would you say that Alonso’s comments in ‘07 about his car effectively being sabotaged (e.g. deliberately setting incorrect tyre pressures) were him simply overreacting? I can’t imagine top-class F1 mechanics wanting to stymie their own success by doing so…
Also, you didn’t say whether you thought this practise was A) fair and B) the best way to manage team :-)
I guess I should have stated that there are always exceptions to the rule, Mclaren being the main reason for that.Apart from the Senna/Prost years when their advantage was so huge they could offered to just to let their guys race, for a while anyway. I do think sometimes management can make decisions and relay them to the team, fully knowing them not to be on the up and up, if you’ve listened to the Tommy Byrne Downshift you will be well aware of this. I’ve even been victim to this, it’s pretty disheartening when a mechanic from a team comes and tells you why the car you drove never stood a chance of competing or even finishing.
I think the practice of hobbling a car is very rare, but I beleive the focus of a team to one driver over another is fairly common.Some teams are more transparent of this, like Ferrari, than others. With F1 being as highly competitive as it is now I would say it is a valid strategy, not fair per say, but for the most part the drivers are being paid to do a job and know what they are getting into.
I think it’s mostly about a continous good rankings. If a driver is in top 3 most of the time, then I believe he will be chosen a lot more than a driver that sometimes is #1 but mostly ends on 4th or 5th position.