Driver Parity: To Be Or Not To Be?

[Chiefy]

Should drivers in F1 receive equal treatment within their teams, or is the "one lead driver, one second string" a better system?

This year Alonso has made clear his dissatisfaction at not being given the benefit of McLaren's total attention and doubtless has caused many, even Pat "the fisherman" Symonds, to claim that having a distinct no.1 and no.2 in the leading teams is the best way forward. But will such statements be enough for "the fisherman" to net Snr Alonso for 2008? And is this really the best way to go?

Personally I don't see the problem with driver parity. It's done no harm to the lower teams, obviously - but in the case of even Ferrari it has not been an issue. And remember, this is Ferrari who always favoured Michael Schumacher over their other driver! But this year they have let their drivers go about their business, waiting until Massa was mathematically incapable of winning the title before utilising him as back-up for the Kimster. And when you look at it, Hamilton and Alonso only ended the season a point away from the champion - so has it really done them so much harm to do it all the way they have? Anything could have happened in Brazil and for all we know Hamilton could have won it by a point himself... So what's all the fuss about?

Driver parity: yay or nay?

[BootsOntheSide]

It's been such a strange season, in terms of how the fortunes of the top 2 teams have varied. Fernando and Kimi were both the theoretical #1s in their teams, but Hamilton and Massa respectively outpaced them (and outlucked) both early in the season. Were Ferrari simply lucky that their #2 had his run of misfortune and relative underperformance sooner? Other than Hungary and Japan, Alonso was constantly faster than Lewis in the second half of the season, but the biased media ignored that and made it politically harder for Ron. Lewis had his big lead with 2 races to go, and failed to convert it.

[Knowlesy]

Driver parity benefits me as the spectator.

Number 1/2 status benefits the team using that method.

[Gt_R]

I think it can't be said for absolute. When a team has a car advantage, it doesn't matter if they have a no.1/2 system or parity.

But it can be costly to adopt parity if your rival team is quicker, or close contest.. and that depends on what each team does.

One can say Mclaren lost because of "parity"... but the truth is that it is screwups in Brazil, Japan and China lost it. Ferrari also almost lost the chance of the championship in mid season when both drivers take turn finishing ahead of each other, ensuring that neither could make up the points gap to Mclaren (until Mclaren tripped).

There's just no absolute right or wrong answer. It's just how a team choose to react to the competition, and choose the method that best optimise the probability of winning

[kipper]

I prefer that a team puts both drivers on an equal basis at the start of a season, for it does tend to provide a more open contest. That said, having a dedicated number 1 and 2 driver does enable the team to focus on its best chances, although this can work against the team if their number one driver is unable to race. For instance, it can be argued that in '99, if Irvine was not required to support Schumacher in some of the earlier races, he would have accumulated the couple of points needed to overhaul Hakkinen in the championship.

[garcon]

I hope no-one's suggesting that teams should be forced to give their drivers equal status.

It's bad enough having the no team orders rule.

[Kirk]

I would suggest that the only way driver driver parity could occur in F1, would be to scrap the constructors championship altogether. As outrageous as that may sound to some, I'm sure it can be accomplished.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by Kirk

I would suggest that the only way driver driver parity could occur in F1, would be to scrap the constructors championship altogether. As outrageous as that may sound to some, I'm sure it can be accomplished.

I'm not sure that would work.

The constructors would still want to win the driver's title, so the temptation to put all their weight behind a designated No.1 driver would still be just as strong as it is now.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by garcon

I hope no-one's suggesting that teams should be forced to give their drivers equal status.

It's bad enough having the no team orders rule.

I don't think you can force a team to do anything to be honest, but driver parity I believe is more sporting, and better for the sport as a whole..

If one of the drivers as was the case with Ferrari this year has a clear mathematical advantage, then that is the time for the team to put more support behind that driver...Otherwise I prefer to see two teams within a team if you will, a fair contest..

[flashing]

You can frankly argue this either way, but I have always believed that it is up to each team to decide how they operate. But there is one point that I have often thought is overlooked. A modern F1 team consists of over a thousand people, whose efforts are directed at running two cars.

If you artificially control the performance of one car you are surely demotivating a large percentage of your race team.

Imagine working on the side of the garage with the driver that the team policy doesn’t actually want to win?

It’s no surprise that the two most respected team bosses in the paddock, Frank Williams and Ron Dennis run real ‘racing’ teams.

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by flashing

If you artificially control the performance of one car you are surely demotivating a large percentage of your race team.

Imagine working on the side of the garage with the driver that the team policy doesn’t actually want to win?

That's why it's often best to have two drivers of differing ability.

In the early 90s McLaren never needed to engineer a No.1 / No.2 situation because it happened naturally. Although Gerhard Berger was good, he was simply no match for the genius across the garage, and therefore a hierarchy was naturally established, and harmony reigned between the drivers.

[JeremySmith]

As flashing has said, and I agree this is why Ron Dennis and Frank William's believe in giving their drivers equal status, I do not see a problem with that concept at all, I find it is completely logical and the most sporting...If this does not suit one or other driver then that person should simply not be there..

[flashing]

Originally Posted by Super Hans

That's why it's often best to have two drivers of differing ability.

In the early 90s McLaren never needed to engineer a No.1 / No.2 situation because it happened naturally. Although Gerhard Berger was good, he was simply no match for the genius across the garage, and therefore a hierarchy was naturally established, and harmony reigned between the drivers.

That’s true, but only after Senna had ruthlessly ousted Prost, but that’s another story.

But if McLaren had protected Alonso by controlling Hamilton (or trying to, it’s exceeding hard to actually hide who is actually the faster/slower driver over a GP weekend) then how hollow would have been the Spaniards success?

Before the season started even Ron Dennis didn’t know just how good Hamilton was/is let alone the wider world. So once he realised that just how good he was, he should be praised for just letting them (pretty much) get on with it and race. And wasn’t it Frank Williams who said that Hamilton was a once in a generation talent in the obvious mold of Senna/Schumacher.

This season there has been only one driver who has been throwing his toys out of the pram at McLaren and that’s Alonso, probably because he can see himself being cast in the role of aforementioned Berger

[Obi Offiah]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Other than Hungary and Japan, Alonso was constantly faster than Lewis in the second half of the season, but the biased media ignored that and made it politically harder for Ron.

Perhaps I need to review the races again but from what I remember Lewis was faster than Alonso in Hungary, Turkey (but had tyre problems), Japan, China (made a mistake and team made a bad call) and Brazil (but had gearbox maladies).

Obi

[FPV GTHO]

I'm against situations where people walk into a team and find themselves in a #1/#2 situation. At the start of a season, i'd rather be able to see team mates competing with each other up until a point either the championship is out of reach for someone, or even if its not but its evident the direction its going. If they know the situation however when signing the contract, its not necessarily better from a fans point of view but if the driver complains later then theyve only got themselves to blame as they knew when they made the deal. The situation this year with McLaren i think didnt warrant #1/#2 drivers. Both Alonso and Hamilton looked set for the title all year, and only lost it when they forgot about Raikkonen. Ferrari done the right thing IMO by giving Massa and Raikkonen freedom to compete until Massa had no chance, and Raikkonen needed everything to fall his way. Going back to 2005 when Montoya still wanted to fight Raikkonen as long as he was a mathematical chance, despite missing 2 rounds through injury, was a situation that needed a #1/#2 arrangement.

[Yannick]

I don't think that a #1 and #2 is always beneficial for the team.
In 1994, the drivers championship-winning Benetton team used to basically be a one car team, built around Michael Schumacher's car. Surely, JJ Lehto's injuries from a crash in testing initiated these troubles, but the team didn't give the 2nd car enough priority to score the constructor's title as well. In those races when Michael was banned, they started with two #2 drivers ... and that went nowhere.

2007 has proven that when top 2 teams have pilots on equal rights (or at least try at one point), it's hard for the "best of the rest" to win anything.

Still, this way it's more fun for the spectators.

[crmalcolm]

Ultimately, it should be a team's decision. In an ideal world, I'd like to see both drivers start on an equal footing, and then status determined by whoever is better placed in the championship at the start of the race.

[Ralf's Girl]

Originally Posted by FPV GTHO

I'm against situations where people walk into a team and find themselves in a #1/#2 situation. At the start of a season, i'd rather be able to see team mates competing with each other up until a point either the championship is out of reach for someone, or even if its not but its evident the direction its going.

I agree. I think Ferrari got it spot on this year (and it's not often I say that!) by letting their drivers compete with each other until Massa fell too far behind to challenge for the title. I do, however, think they were aided by the fact that both drivers very rarely performed at their best at the same time - it seemed to be that when Massa had a good weekend Raikkonen had a shocker, and vice versa, which saved them any awkward 'team orders' headaches.

Having two drivers who are equal is better for the sport and its fans, but running with a #1/#2 setup is often better for the team. I don't think the teams should be dictated to about how they treat their drivers - it's up to them and the #2 driver is usually aware of the situation he's in (I don't think anybody became Michael Schumacher's team-mate thinking he'd get equal chances to win). I do want to see teams apply some common sense, though, like Ferrari did this year, and not start the season favouring one driver over the other.

[Nicholosophy]

Remove the concept of the constructor's championship, rejig the way prize money is awarded so that it is based on driver position, and then there will be no need for team orders unless it comes down to a driver's championship win. It's in their interest to have the two drivers as far up the list as possible and who wins doesn't matter as long as one of them gets the driver's title.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by NickoGP

Remove the concept of the constructor's championship, rejig the way prize money is awarded so that it is based on driver position, and then there will be no need for team orders unless it comes down to a driver's championship win. It's in their interest to have the two drivers as far up the list as possible and who wins doesn't matter as long as one of them gets the driver's title.

Would depend on how the money is structured. Would a 2nd and 12th be more beneficial than 5th and 6th. If the former, then teams would definitely favour 1 driver with the 2nd purely as a support.

[Chiefy]

Further to the original question: do you think it was justifiable for Alonso to expect or demand number one status within the McLaren team? And should Michael Schumacher have yielded to driver parity in the past when behind his team-mate (ie Austria 2002)?

[Super Hans]

Originally Posted by Chiefy

Further to the original question: do you think it was justifiable for Alonso to expect or demand number one status within the McLaren team?

Well, Alonso will have been aware that McLaren have a policy of treating their drivers equally, so he can't have expected contractual No.1 status, but he no doubt assumed he would dominate his rookie team-mate and therefore establish himself as the unofficial No 1 driver within the team. Not an unreasonable assumption I suppose, but one which looked increasingly naive as the season unfolded.

[JeremySmith]

Originally Posted by Chiefy

Further to the original question: do you think it was justifiable for Alonso to expect or demand number one status within the McLaren team? And should Michael Schumacher have yielded to driver parity in the past when behind his team-mate (ie Austria 2002)?

No because McLaren do not offer favoured status..

No to the second part of your question...Schumacher had at *all times* number one status at Ferrari...

[FPV GTHO]

Perhaps Alonso was simply so surprised with Hamiltons instant performance, it assumed it could only be coming from him recieving favourable treatment. He then started making those comments to justify his thoughts.

[JeremySmith]

I think that is more the case FPV GTHO..