FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[spankyham]

Ever since the ridiculous "team orders" restriction was lifted I have read a few times about this concept of whether drivers are given "equal treatment". Recently it has been more of a topic at McLaren and, next year for Mercedes.

As I've understood it, the pro-lobby some how have a view that drivers in the same team should have equal treatment. Personally I think that's a load of poppyc0ck (hmmm I like that word poppyc0ck).

"Equal treatment" to me is like "racing line" in that it doesn't really exist. My own personal point of view is that it's not possible to achieve in a practical sense and that I wouldn't want to strive for it anyway.

Teams need and should have a defined #1. It's up to the #2 driver, if he wants to become #1 to earn it through his results, and of course, no impediment should be placed in the #2's way in striving to achieve the goal of becoming #1.

An example of why "equal treatment" is simply unachievable is when a team designs a car's seating position. The angle and size of the driver space has to be the same, but it has to accommodate the larger driver - So teams simply can't give drivers "equal treatment". Another example is say, a new wing. If there is only one who tests and gets to use it? Sometimes the #1 driver doesn't want it - I've seen times when Nando has chosen to race with older spec wings while Felipe has used the newer spec. That will most likely be because Nando didn't want it, but as #1, he rightly should have a say in when he uses it - I say that with the caveat that it will (and should) be, ultimately the prerogative of the team boss to decide.

[bud]

Depends on the driver pairing.

Fernando for example demands #1 status yet his time at McLaren there was a fair play tzar. Funny that.

[What's Burning?]

I don't disagree spanky but there is a flaw in that philosophy, a flaw in that style of treatment and that is made clear in a situation like Korea. There Massa was clearly faster than Alonso. Unquestionably. I understand that Massa has reached his expiration date this year already and the scuderia is committed to Alonso, effectively it's too late to change that since Massa is mathematically out of it. But the flaw is clear, in that environment there is a window of opportunity a time to establish that number one and number two and its not always going to be the fastest driver that gets the support as we witnessed in Korea once that commitment is made.

[zpetrov]

I think the best choice is to combine the two approaches!

IMO, it makes sense to start with "equal treatment" in the sense that there are no race orders and neither driver is given a preferential strategy or forced to hold up others, etc. at the start of the season.

This incentivizes both drivers to work hard to gain #1 status as the season progresses and it keeps morale high and happy (if one driver was #2 right off the bat his incentives are pretty severely reduced).

Late in the season, when one driver clearly has an edge, it makes sense to start favoring 1 driver in order to maximize chance of winning driver title.

So I am a fan of the "rank order tournament theory"- you start off equal to motivate the drivers because they know that as the season goes on one of them will be given the #1 status which is a huge boost in the championship. It's also favor so no one should feel disheartened- if you end up being #2 in Korea, it's not because you didn't have a fair chance.

Obviously a problem might arise- the #2 driver might say that he was made #2 prematurely. But I doubt that's such a big deal. It can be resolved either because usually by the final 3rd of the season it's obvious who is doing better, and because the team can just set up some kind of flexible but quantifiable benchmarks for when someone qualifies for the #1 status.

[myownalias]

I have no issues with preferential treatment as long as the #2 driver knows that he will be playing second fiddle when signing up; if a team sells 'equal treatment' and then apportions #1 and #2 drivers; I find that unacceptable. But having a clear #1 from the outset means that maximum points go to the lead driver; having equal standing means that it could take more than half a season before one driver makes a break for it in the points; at that point it could be too late because other teams, say Ferrari have put all their eggs in one basket immediately!

[Hammer278]

I think the best choice is to combine the two approaches!

IMO, it makes sense to start with "equal treatment" in the sense that there are no race orders and neither driver is given a preferential strategy or forced to hold up others, etc. at the start of the season.

This incentivizes both drivers to work hard to gain #1 status as the season progresses and it keeps morale high and happy (if one driver was #2 right off the bat his incentives are pretty severely reduced).

Late in the season, when one driver clearly has an edge, it makes sense to start favoring 1 driver in order to maximize chance of winning driver title.

So I am a fan of the "rank order tournament theory"- you start off equal to motivate the drivers because they know that as the season goes on one of them will be given the #1 status which is a huge boost in the championship. It's also favor so no one should feel disheartened- if you end up being #2 in Korea, it's not because you didn't have a fair chance.

Obviously a problem might arise- the #2 driver might say that he was made #2 prematurely. But I doubt that's such a big deal. It can be resolved either because usually by the final 3rd of the season it's obvious who is doing better, and because the team can just set up some kind of flexible but quantifiable benchmarks for when someone qualifies for the #1 status.

I agree with this philosophy. But it's just wrong when a driver starts a season as #2...that just kills intra team battles which is a big big thing in F1.

[LewEngBridewell]

Preferential treatment, IMO, should come more into play in the 2nd half of the year, when the title-battle is beginning to take shape. What the Scuderia did at the A1 Ring in 2002, however, wasn't really necessary. Hence the outrage that ensued.

[racechick]

I agree with what most people are saying here. Number one status by outcome not by design.
And up to the point where a clear number one emerges, and beyond half way through the season, then the team should treat the drivers as absolutely equally as possible. If only one new bit is available, first choice goes to the driver ahead in the points; if there is an optimum time to pitstop, choice goes to the driver who qualified ahead. As the season nears the end and a number one emerges on merit, then is the time to apply team orders. Both drivers should be informed of this right at the beginning so there are no awkward situations later in the season. Well that would be my team anyway

[Jabberwocky]

Drivers are employees and should do as they are told.

[Hammer278]

Drivers are employees and should do as they are told.

The ethical issue comes in. The sport is built for racing, if a team goes against that it's legal yet not ethical. In terms of CSR/PR perspective they have failed.

[racechick]

Drivers are employees and should do as they are told.

But the paying public , without whom their would be no F1, want to see racing. If the teams don't want intra team racing then do away with the WDC and make it WCC only, then they can have team orders to their hearts content. The WDC is the most prestigious, if it went F1 would be the loser. So if the drivers are racing each other they should all get a fair crack of the whip.

[Jabberwocky]

A team only survives on money

Money is given with success, points/wins/championships plus making the team more attractive to sponsors.

The most important championship to a normal person is the the drivers championship. If you had 1 million (insert whatever currency you want here) would you rather spend it on sponsoring HRT or one of the top teams? Which would you company get more air time etc?

If Vettel released in a press conference that he would be driving for Caterham next year, Caterhams sponsorship real estate price would triple because it could have a 3 times world champion driving for them.

So as a team who needs money, would you rather put all your eggs in one basket early and know you are going to get a WDC and not have 2 drivers squabble at the start of the season taking points of each other? Later in the season when one driver has an edge it might be too little too late.

[racechick]

It's still a sport and I want to watch drivers racing. If that's not wanted do away with the drivers championship.

[Jabberwocky]

If the teams did not make money there would be no sport!

[racechick]

But they would make money. They'd make money from winning as a team and from marketing as a team