'Political' F1 drivers [merged thread]

Don't know if there was any actual price to be paid but Alonso's 'I am fighting Newey rather than Vettel' comments score 10 out of 10 for plain idiocy. The thing is the comment had no impact on Vettel, or Newey but was very likely indeed to alienate Alonso from his team of engineers and mechanics. After all Alonso in so many words said they are all second rate at best.

...The final one is Vettel & probably is the most dangerous until everyone figures him out which people are doing - Vettel is the babyface who plays the field as the innocent wonderkid with no agendas - however as time passes we're beginning to see Vettel showing his political edge - especially intra-team with Webber..who I feel he pummeled into the ground politically more than performance wise. Red Bull where happy to keep the equal status in the team but after Seb won that 1st world title (where sparks flew like crazy between them) he maneuvered himself into an unspoken number 1 at RBR, and mainly through winning Helmut Marko over through his babyface supertalent game. Now he's also pushing subtle hints out in the media regarding certain things - the most recent being who he'd rather have at Red Bull. I reckon Vettel is growing adept at playing the field politically & is growing to challenge Alonso...

Don't know if there was any actual price to be paid but Alonso's 'I am fighting Newey rather than Vettel' comments score 10 out of 10 for plain idiocy. The thing is the comment had no impact on Vettel, or Newey but was very likely indeed to alienate Alonso from his team of engineers and mechanics. After all Alonso in so many words said they are all second rate at best.

Why repeat an inaccurate quotation?

He's made two statements. In the Spanish interview, he left Vettel out.

If Alonso is such a great politician, how come that, despite being one of the two fastest drivers in F1, he hasn't won a title since 2006, has burnt his boats with two race-winning teams, and pissed off a third? He's turned gold into lead.

Not seen Nelson Piquet on here. Threw away an outside chance at the '82 title to cement a better go for '83 - and in doing so gained the undying loyalty of the BMW engineers whose turbo was being rubbished. Then got Honda on his side to such an extent that his team signed up the beyond-redemption Nakajima into a world championship-worthy seat. And still wangled a very decent Benetton drive after taking Lotus from winning races to DNQing.

I see why there's some credit to be given to Piquet in that sense, but he certainly wasn't perfect. He had a big chance to go to McLaren at some point (don't remember which season - I think it was shortly before they decided to hire Senna instead), and in Jo Ramirez's book it says he had a meeting with Ron Dennis and duly managed to rub him completely the off way by spending the whole time talking about money. So had he been a little more careful behind the scenes he might have landed himself in the car to beat for years and years to come, instead of a fading decadent Lotus and an occasional-race-winning-at-best Benetton.

I think Webber is one of the few straight shooters in F1 - very little politics in his make up. I feel he is quite honest about things.

I don't know where that came from, but the general view within the team about Barrichello was downright scornful, and MS was AFAIK way more popular in Italy - and still is - than Woobens.

Don't know if there was any actual price to be paid but Alonso's 'I am fighting Newey rather than Vettel' comments score 10 out of 10 for plain idiocy. The thing is the comment had no impact on Vettel, or Newey but was very likely indeed to alienate Alonso from his team of engineers and mechanics. After all Alonso in so many words said they are all second rate at best.

How do you know that?

This is in public - in private they might all be steeped in politics up to their ears!

-Alonso is the consumate politicker - on every level. He manipulates whatever situation he can to his advantage and tries the same with people as well.
-Lewis likes to think he is a great politicker, but his attempts fail miserably (and that is a compliment).
-Raikkonen will toss a coin in the politic ring here and there, but for the most part stays out of it.
-Vettel is a formidable opponent when it comes to rebuking politics, he is a pro. But he doesn't do much of it himself. Hilarious that he is called political for being straight forward and honest in saying he prefers Kimi over Alonso for a teammate. Politics is disseminating or manipulative - that is not what was going on there.
-Button - he is a cool politicker, but only mildly so.
-Webber - he ranks just behind Alonso for politicking. He doesn't have the dastardly edge tho - he wouldn't stoop to the outrageous.
-Nico R - about the level of Kimi, just a tad.
-Perez - No idea.
-Massa - He has the backbone for it, but seems to give up before barely getting started at it. I think many things in life bring him joy and he finds it more fun to focus on those.
-Grosjean - He tries - but he has to earn the respect of the paddock before anyone will take his politicking seriously

And there are your 10 drivers in the top 5 cars. The others have little to do with politics at the moment.

It's fair to assume considering "more comments = more results".
Unless you assume it'd have a positive impact.

Edited by Kimbo, 01 August 2013 - 12:08.

Results depend on many things, not just comments. There's no way to know whether it had an effect on Vettel, so claiming it didn't is pure conjecture. Case closed.

This reminds me of how Alonso could have ended up in Red Bull in 2009 instead of Vettel if he hadn't asked for too much money. He could have been 5xWDC now.

Edited by Winter98, 01 August 2013 - 12:48.

Or he could have alienated the RBR team, or maybe just one of the main players, such as Newey. Or perhaps he couldn't have helped develop the RBR as much as Vettel, or ???.

What RBR and Vettel have done is special, and IMO you couldn't just plug another driver into the seat and have him automatically emerge 3x WDC.

Nice post. I think Prost could have hardly foreseen that Ron Dennis would fall in blind love with Senna (like he later did with Hakkinen and perhaps Hamilton). The choice McLaren had was between Senna and Piquet. I think Prost realised the huge influence Honda would have on the team's affairs and that they might be helping the other driver - both Senna and Piquet were Honda drivers already. Maybe he saw the old fox Piquet as the bigger threat in this situation and thus recommended Dennis to pick Senna. Ayrton had in my opinion underperformed in championship point terms in 1985-1987. What I mean is, Senna was very fast and the Lotus was a pretty good car especially in his hands but he wasted lots and lots of point scoring and winning opportunities those years, so Prost probably thought he was less capable than Piquet to challenge him over the lenght of a season. Which was actually not a bad guess looking at 1988 and 1989 championship points tables.

If Alonso is such a great politician, how come that, despite being one of the two fastest drivers in F1, he hasn't won a title since 2006, has burnt his boats with two race-winning teams, and pissed off a third? He's turned gold into lead.

Not seen Nelson Piquet on here. Threw away an outside chance at the '82 title to cement a better go for '83 - and in doing so gained the undying loyalty of the BMW engineers whose turbo was being rubbished. Then got Honda on his side to such an extent that his team signed up the beyond-redemption Nakajima into a world championship-worthy seat. And still wangled a very decent Benetton drive after taking Lotus from winning races to DNQing.

There's now way of knowing a lot of things. Pic and van der Garde might be the best drivers on the grid, severely limited by their cars. Yet no one is saying it is conjecture to claim they are not the best drivers. Why is that? Maybe because a lot of things point towards the oppposite?

Everything you said is what Senna wanted you to think of Prost ;).

And Prost used Ballestre (the FIA director in the '80s) to get an advantage over Senna. For example during the Japanese GP Prost got Ballestre so far that he moved the pole position to the dirty side of the track. Senna who was on pole was furious and claimed that the pole position should be on the clean side (logically) or that the polesitter had the chance to choose the position. There are many other examples like that.

That's definitely possible. I'm not saying that he would have automatically emerged 3xWDC; of course not. But I bet "what could have been" incredibly grates Alonso as he watches Vettel become a multiple world champion. And I bet Lewis's 2008 title grated him, too, because that title "could have been" his, as well. If I were him, I know it would grate me.

A driver who is truly good at politics is never suspected of being involved in politics.

I see why there's some credit to be given to Piquet in that sense, but he certainly wasn't perfect. He had a big chance to go to McLaren at some point (don't remember which season - I think it was shortly before they decided to hire Senna instead), and in Jo Ramirez's book it says he had a meeting with Ron Dennis and duly managed to rub him completely the off way by spending the whole time talking about money. So had he been a little more careful behind the scenes he might have landed himself in the car to beat for years and years to come, instead of a fading decadent Lotus and an occasional-race-winning-at-best Benetton.

Honda wanted Nakajima in the 2nd seat when they started supplying Lotus.

This is well said. And based on that Button is a good example. In this thread people say he is nice an non-political, but he went to lion's den (Hamilton's team) and turned it around in his favour. Coincidence? No.

Schumacher also. He wasn't as openly political as Prost or Alonso, but silently doing his business, building teams around him and winning everything.

This is well said. And based on that Button is a good example. In this thread people say he is nice an non-political, but he went to lion's den (Hamilton's team) and turned it around in his favour. Coincidence? No.

Schumacher also. He wasn't as openly political as Prost or Alonso, but silently doing his business, building teams around him and winning everything.

Whoever said Webber is bad in politics is probably right. Same about Barrichello. They openly complain about being a no2 driver, which may help to get some sympathy from the media. But it certainly doesn't help them in their own teams nor in their career in general. Other teams don't take them so seriously too - "aha he is a number two driver. Well not good enough to lead our top team then."

A driver who is truly good at politics is never suspected of being involved in politics.

They also wanted him in the 2nd Williams seat...

For which season...?

1988, alongside Piquet. It was because Williams wouldn't dump Mansell that Honda dumped Williams. Piquet went with Honda, or vice versa.

This should be moved directly in "greatest F1 myths" thread

Some of it was also down to Frank Williams being in a wheelchair, the Honda bods found that very awkward. But Honda had a contract to supply Williams for 1988 and broke it so they could supply McLaren. The pretext was that Williams wouldn't take on Nakajima.

You should read Nigel Mansell's biography to see what he says about Prost. Exact the same as what Senna was saying and exactly how most people view Prost.

And Prost used Ballestre (the FIA director in the '80s) to get an advantage over Senna. For example during the Japanese GP Prost got Ballestre so far that he moved the pole position to the dirty side of the track. Senna who was on pole was furious and claimed that the pole position should be on the clean side (logically) or that the polesitter had the chance to choose the position. There are many other examples like that.

Prost also used Renault to get a Williams seat for 1993, the seat that '92 title winner Nigel Mansell was occupying and that was a dominant car: a ticket to a title. At the same time that he managed to get Mansell's seat he made sure there was a clause in his contract that Senna could not sign for Williams as his teammate.

Prost was widely regarded as the most political driver in F1.

Edited by Sakae, 01 August 2013 - 16:11.

A great display of vivid imagination in above.

Enzo Ferrari, Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone were all racing drivers early on in their careers - and I'd back their political skills against any F1 driver of the last 60 years!

You should read Nigel Mansell's biography to see what he says about Prost.

For example during the Japanese GP Prost got Ballestre so far that he moved the pole position to the dirty side of the track.

Edited by E.B., 01 August 2013 - 22:29.

How's that a compliment exactly?

I don't see him as political at all. Just a nice, easy going guy. And that naturally gets you a lot of support from the team.

Because I don't think Hamilton is naturally wired to be political (as his failing at it shows). I'm not into politics - I find it manipulative and generally unsportsmanlike. So, for me, it is brilliant that Hamilton is no good at it.

I agree, but I don't think it's through lack of effort on his part. All drivers have to be 'political' to a certain extent to get themselves the best environment (team support/car/...) that they can to show what they can do. No driver is non-political, however much we want to believe in the pureness of their spirits.