Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

2013 f1 paydrivers/drivers who bring money

Started by pingu666 , Nov 11 2012 01:01

Please log in to reply

25 replies to this topic

#1 pingu666

Member

9,272 posts
Joined: October 07

Posted 11 November 2012 - 01:01

1 red bull - none really, but if you wanted to be extreme then vettel

2 ferrari - alonso brings along santandar

3 macca - suspecting perez will bring some money or for 2014

4 lotus - grojohn brings total

5 merc - none sort of, but nico and lewis might have "personal" sponsors

6 sauber - second driver almost certainly needs to bring money

7 fifi - probably one pay driver, and di resta might equal a engine discount

8 williams - pastor brings a boat load of cash, second driver probably brings some

9 torro rosso - both drivers be red bull protegie's, so sorta pay drivers

10 caterham - wants pay drivers (is petrov confirmed?)

11 marusia wants 1 pay driver to partner glock (dont know if glock brings any funding)

12 hrt - does de la rosa bring any money? narian certainly does

I think thats 9-10 drivers there on just talent/opportunity, and 14ish on talent, chequebook and deals

bit alarming to think of the pyramid underneath them in europe and america everyone is a paydriver (in junior formula)

Im not saying there bad drivers, just interesting how quickly things have changed from a few years ago.

Back to top

#2 BigCHrome

Member

4,049 posts
Joined: July 10

Posted 11 November 2012 - 01:13

There's always been pay drivers.

Also you're not really grasping the difference between a driver backed by a company and an actual pay driver.

Back to top

#3 e34

Member

762 posts
Joined: September 10

Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:45

There used to be a time when the term paydriver meant "a driver who is not good enough to drive a F1 car on merit, and has to pay for the privilege".

Then the Kimi-Ferrari affair came along, and distressed Kimi fans started to say (I suppose that, at least initially, tongue in cheek) that Alonso was a paydriver because Santander was the main sponsor of Marlboro-Ferrari (let's not forget that back then most of Santander sponsorship money went to Philip Morris, and not to Ferrari).

From then on, paydriver become an insult against a driver without any real meaning. In which way are Alonso's and Karthikeyan's driving abilities similar? What should McLaren's drivers, who has to work their asses off in PR activities for McLaren and its sponsors, be called, slave-drivers or something? Is Massa, who supposingly is not a paydriver, better for Ferrari in any meaningful way, than Alonso? Is it any better that a driver costs several million Euros to a team, as opposed to bring several million Euros in sponsorship?

And lastly, if Alonso or Vettel (who also makes it to the OP list, I really don't understand how) are not on merit in F1, who are?

Back to top

#4 Jackmancer

Member

3,226 posts
Joined: September 09

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:03

From your 'paydriver' list, I actually think Maldonado, Petrov, Di Resta, Gutiérrez and of course Alonso are very talented.

And to say both STR drivers are pay-drivers makes no sense to me. That's 7 of your 14 paydrivers.

Back to top

#5 BackmarkerUK

Member

348 posts
Joined: March 12

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:19

Drivers who actually pay money to a team as a contractual condition:

Pastor Maldonado (courtesy of PDVSA)
Bruno Senna (courtesy of Embratel)
Vitaly Petrov (courtesy of Lada)
Narain Karthikeyan (courtesy of Tata)
Charles Pic (courtesy of Lagardere)
Sergio Perez (courtesy of Telmex)

That's not to say that other drivers do not have personal sponsors to make themselves a little more money (like Glock with Deutsche Post), or that having a particular driver doesn't help teams attract specific sponsors (Grosjean and Total for Lotus), but these are the only ones I believe where it is a contractual condition that they pay for their seat.

EDIT: Of drivers who might be on the grid next season, we could add Esteban Gutiérrez, Giedo van der Garde, Max Chilton, Dani Clos, and Jaime Alguersuari to the list, and remove Sergio Perez.

Edited by BackmarkerUK, 11 November 2012 - 09:20.

Back to top

#6 Brandz07

Member

3,500 posts
Joined: February 10

Posted 11 November 2012 - 23:15

Toro Rosso drivers are clearly not pay drivers.

If they are, then so was Lewis, and Vettel as well, as you said..

Edited by Brandz07, 11 November 2012 - 23:24.

Back to top

#7 scheivlak

Member

16,489 posts
Joined: August 01

Posted 11 November 2012 - 23:37

just interesting how quickly things have changed from a few years ago.

Really?

Back to top

#8 prty

Member

8,439 posts
Joined: April 05

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:08

I think you are confused with the concept of pay drivers and mixing it with sponsored drivers, maybe as it has been said, as a result of the crying that Raikkonen being fired in 2010 caused. The difference is that a pay driver doesn't have the necessary abilities, and doesn't earn a salary, instead he pays to drive and "rent" the car.

I think it's pretty natural that most high profile drivers like F1 drivers are, have a sponsor. Would you call Ronaldo o Messi "pay footballers" because they are sponsored by Nike or whoever?
Real pay drivers, of that list maybe Karthikeyan but not many more. Also it's funny some of the criteria you used:

1 red bull - none really, but if you wanted to be extreme then vettel
[...]
9 torro rosso - both drivers be red bull protegie's, so sorta pay drivers

Edited by prty, 12 November 2012 - 08:17.

Back to top

#9 Lights

Member

17,877 posts
Joined: February 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:37

There used to be a time when the term paydriver meant "a driver who is not good enough to drive a F1 car on merit, and has to pay for the privilege".

Back to top

#10 onemoresolo

Member

960 posts
Joined: July 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 13:44

Alonso? Really?

There's a difference between a driver who's driving attracts sponsors, than one who's sponsors attracts drivers. Does Alonso drive for Ferrari because of Santander? Or do Santander sponsor Ferrari because of Alonso? It's pretty obvious, isn't it?

And the Torro Rosso guys are not pay drivers, however you try to spin it.

I make 14 drivers on the grid next season who won't be bringing funding; RB, Ferrari, Merc, Toro Rosso, Button, Kimi, Hulkenburg, Bottas, Kovalainen, Glock.

Grosjean's Total is a bonus - they sponsored them already anyway. Would likely have got the drive on merit. Same with Di Resta and the engines (is that even confirmed?). I don't consider either to be pay drivers, so 16 out of 24.

Maldonado, Perez, arguably Petrov, may have got into F1 through money but have since shown their ability. Pic has also impressed, matching Glock any many occasions).

Gutierrez (likely at Sauber) will keep the Telmex money but again could prove himself given his junior series record.

Only Karthikayen is a pure pay driver - there for money, and money alone.

Back to top

#11 pingu666

Member

9,272 posts
Joined: October 07

Posted 12 November 2012 - 14:42

im not saying there rubbish, just bringing money one way or another is a large part of why they have there seat.

torro rosso pretty much have pay drivers because there sponsored to run red bull drivers, so thats a key requirement.

i think 2008/07 with all the works teams there where far fewer drivers bringing money.

Back to top

#12 bub

Member

2,722 posts
Joined: July 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 16:06

Economic climate for you.

Back to top

#13 MichaelPM

Member

3,066 posts
Joined: October 07

Posted 12 November 2012 - 17:52

bringing money one way or another is a large part of why they have there seat.

I suppose the money won from RBR's championship titles positions mean that Vettel and Webber are pay drivers under that definition.

That also makes Newey a pay engineer :lol:

Edited by MichaelPM, 12 November 2012 - 17:53.

Back to top

#14 fabr68

Member

3,963 posts
Joined: January 10

Posted 12 November 2012 - 17:56

I thought that the term "pay driver" is used for those drivers who pay from personal funds for a team to let them drive their car instead of getting paid by the team to drive their car.

Back to top

#15 johnmhinds

Member

7,292 posts
Joined: July 09

Posted 12 November 2012 - 19:32

Did I miss something, isn't the term pay drivers just meant to refer to drivers that don't take any money back out as a salary.

As far as I know Karthikeyan is the only true pay driver on the grid this year. Everyone else is getting paid to drive, whether it's through teams or sponsors.

There are a few other drivers who bring along their own sponsors who may pay part or all of their wages, but that's just the nature of all sport economics these days not just F1.

Edited by johnmhinds, 12 November 2012 - 19:33.

Back to top

#16 kpchelsea

Member

249 posts
Joined: June 12

Posted 12 November 2012 - 20:50

I would class a pay driver as someone who wouldn't even be considered on talent alone, therefore i see Karthikeyan as an obvious paydriver, after that it gets a bit more murky, i don't think Senna would last long on talent alone, i reserve judgement on Pic with him being a rookie

Back to top

#17 Anderis

Member

7,411 posts
Joined: December 09

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:35

I think the borderline between being a pay-driver or not is almost invisible today. If you look at those drivers who are in F1 and bring sponsorship backing with them, most of them were also front-runners in lower formulas. Even Karthikheyan has not that bad record, not to mention others.

I think it may be the time to change mentality around both F1 drivers and fans. Nowadays you don't get a seat in F1 based on money only. It is about fairly big talent combined with money or huge talent without money. Nobody bar HRT is prone to hire driver only due to money he brings, because there are enough drivers around who have both sponsorship backing and decent racing record.
I don't understand why some drivers refuse to look for sponsorship, because all sponsorship he brings may not also secure him a racing seat, but also increase the competitiveness of his team making his chances for getting better results bigger. Or maybe some of them are aware they have very little chance of attracting some sponsors and that's why they are saying such things?
Now it's the time when drivers and their sponsorship backing are like one package and that's why many teams are looking for financial benefits, because there are plenty of decent paydrivers available and getting additional sponsorship gives you more competitiveness
It may be sad that some decent drivers are finding themselves without seat due to lack of sponsorship, but the best young talents, like Hulk, are still able to be around there without sponsorship backing. Some of good drivers are disappearing because they were only good and nothing more and they couldn't make enough difference to justify hiring him instead of pay-driver, because this pay-driver was close enough to him in terms of racing skills to secure and advantage for the team if his skills are combined with sponsorship backing.
Some people may want F1 grid to contain 24 best available drivers, but the current outcome is not that far away from this, having some of the very best combined with some with sponsorship backing but being not far away from the rest of the very best at the time.

i reserve judgement on Pic with him being a rookie

As for rookie Pic is doing very decent job IMO and he seems to have a potential to be at least on a simillar level with Glock.

Back to top

#18 bourbon

Member

7,265 posts
Joined: February 10

Posted 13 November 2012 - 19:46

im not saying there rubbish, just bringing money one way or another is a large part of why they have there seat.

But it is not true that a "large part of why" Alonso "has his seat" is due to bringing money one way or another. Alonso would have his seat anyway - the pay arrangement might be modified, but that has nothing to do with actually getting the seat. He has that seat because Ferrari believed in his talent.

Perez found a great sponsor, but there are many good mexican drivers and only the greatest of them get the notice of the wealth for sponsorship. It is sort of like RB used to be, sponsoring drivers it liked and teams. While the sponsor pays for the drive - per se - the driver had to be subra talented to get the sponsorship. Teams seek the money, but they have the benefit of the driver being "pre-screened" by the sponsor as having massive talent. Obviously in countries with few drivers and less talent, this doesn't hold, but where the competition is great (i.e., mexico) you have a different situation.

So I don't think it is as clear cut as you would have it.

torro rosso pretty much have pay drivers because there sponsored to run red bull drivers, so thats a key requirement.

In cases like these, you have both taken the drivers out of the equation and left them in it. That is, ALL STRF drivers are going to come from the RBR young driver's program and will have RB sponsorship (so there is nothing driver specific). Ricciardo and Vergne do not have their seats because of the RBR money they bring, The RBR money comes with every joe, shmoe and Flo in the young driver's program.

Back to top

#19 bub

Member

2,722 posts
Joined: July 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 19:52

But it is not true that a "large part of why" Alonso "has his seat" is due to bringing money one way or another. Alonso would have his seat anyway - the pay arrangement might be modified, but that has nothing to do with actually getting the seat. He has that seat because Ferrari believed in his talent.

I agree of course Alonso deserves his seat but would Ferrari have kicked Raikkonen out for him if he didn't have Santander?

Back to top

#20 BullHead

Member

7,934 posts
Joined: May 08

Posted 13 November 2012 - 20:24

Did I miss something, isn't the term pay drivers just meant to refer to drivers that don't take any money back out as a salary.

As far as I know Karthikeyan is the only true pay driver on the grid this year. Everyone else is getting paid to drive, whether it's through teams or sponsors.

There are a few other drivers who bring along their own sponsors who may pay part or all of their wages, but that's just the nature of all sport economics these days not just F1.

^ what he said....

Back to top

#21 InvertedLift

Member

272 posts
Joined: December 11

Posted 14 November 2012 - 04:06

The (and all) STR drivers are literally the exact opposite of pay drivers.

They wouldn't be in F1 otherwise because they don't have massive sponsorship. They are paid to be in F1 purely because of their talent. If they don't perform they are out.

They are the furthest thing from pay drivers there is.

Back to top

#22 Creepy

Member

582 posts
Joined: February 12

Posted 14 November 2012 - 04:33

I agree of course Alonso deserves his seat but would Ferrari have kicked Raikkonen out for him if he didn't have Santander?

Yes, only that a year later. Although yeah, rather than a "kick" (with tons of money) that would have been more like an "end of partnership".

Edited by Creepy, 14 November 2012 - 04:39.

Back to top

#23 johnmhinds

Member

7,292 posts
Joined: July 09

Posted 14 November 2012 - 06:45

The (and all) STR drivers are literally the exact opposite of pay drivers.

They wouldn't be in F1 otherwise because they don't have massive sponsorship. They are paid to be in F1 purely because of their talent. If they don't perform they are out.

They are the furthest thing from pay drivers there is.

This is also one of the main reasons Alguersuari and Buemi didn't move on to other teams.
They came up through the RedBull driver programs based on talent alone and once RedBull dropped them they didn't have enough outside money or sponsorship to offer other teams.

Amazing to think that Alguersuari and Buemi are only 22 and 24 and their F1 careers are all but over.

Back to top

#24 GhostR

Member

3,789 posts
Joined: September 03

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:17

For me, the definition of a Pay Driver: would not get a seat in F1 without the money they bring in (either by literally paying for the seat, or by bringing a major sponsor). Contractually obliged to bring in the money they promise, and failure to do so could trigger their removal. *Does not* get paid a salary as part of their contract - but might get paid by the sponsor they brought in, as part of their personal arrangement with the sponsor.

Alonso, Vettel, the STR boys ... none of those come even close to being "pay drivers". They're not on the grid because of money, they're there because at least one team thinks they have the talent to be potential (or actual) WDCs.

Back to top

#25 fabr68

Member

3,963 posts
Joined: January 10

Posted 14 November 2012 - 12:50

I agree of course Alonso deserves his seat but would Ferrari have kicked Raikkonen out for him if he didn't have Santander?

Probably

Back to top

#26 tommi34

Member

379 posts
Joined: August 09

Posted 14 November 2012 - 22:06

Ferrari's politics inside team would've been different without Santander and Kimi's results better, too.

But yeah a pay driver is different thing than sponsors being involved in driver decisions.