Jump to content


Photo

Ferrari & #1 status policy [split]


  • Please log in to reply
455 replies to this topic

#1 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,753 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 13 August 2012 - 03:36

I politely disagree. For a WDC chase to be "easy", one has to have a team-mate who is capable of stealing points from one's closest rivals. That differs actually quite little from what is required in a successful WCC campaign. With Flippy Ferrari are losing both since his journey of finding his inner-racer has amounted to nothing. Stupid Ferrari!!


Yes, but only a motivated driver, so one who is fighting (or, at least, thinks he's fighting) for the WDC, will bring in good points consistently. My point was that, in the long run, clearly supporting only one driver is shooting yourself in the foot as I don't think any driver can (or should) be motivated by $$ only. No matter how much Ferrari are paying Massa, the moment they told him he's No. 2, they compromised their WCC chances IMO. A driver who feels treated fairly by the team will work harder for them than a multi-million No. 2...

Advertisement

#2 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,938 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 13 August 2012 - 06:28

Yes, but only a motivated driver, so one who is fighting (or, at least, thinks he's fighting) for the WDC, will bring in good points consistently. My point was that, in the long run, clearly supporting only one driver is shooting yourself in the foot as I don't think any driver can (or should) be motivated by $$ only. No matter how much Ferrari are paying Massa, the moment they told him he's No. 2, they compromised their WCC chances IMO. A driver who feels treated fairly by the team will work harder for them than a multi-million No. 2...

Barrichello knew from the start he wasn't going to challenge for the WDC and it didn't stop him from scoring good points. I'm afraid this motivation topic is just an excuse for poor performances. There is a level of professionalism at play here too and the best thing Massa can do is perform at his very best just in case there is another opening for him somewhere else. As it stands no top team will go near him based purely on performance never mind his motivation moods.

#3 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 13 August 2012 - 06:42

In recent years, there was only one year when the No.2 driver at Ferrari was able to constantly challenge and beat the No.1 driver and that was 2008. I do not think Massa could complain about a lack of support back then.
A driver joining Alonso at Ferrari should be aware of the fact that he will be joining Alonso´s team, so he should not expect to be the No.1 there. He must aim to match Alonso, be close to him and challenge him speedwise. Massa is not close to Alonso and he rarely is a challenge for Alonso either. And there is no excuse for that, even for a clear No.2 driver.

There is no evidence that the second Ferrari is worse than the N0.1 car or has been worse in the past. I doubt that the mechanics for the No.2 car are worse or care less about their job. The only thing that might not happen is that the team would make changes to the car that the No.2 driver needs to beat the No.1 driver, when those changes do not improve the car overall. But outisde from Mclaren today, no team would do this.

Edited by seahawk, 13 August 2012 - 08:14.


#4 sofarapartguy

sofarapartguy
  • Member

  • 1,010 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 13 August 2012 - 07:56

I think with Massa a lot of people seem to forgot what a #2 driver should actually do. Massa is so far away back from Alonso that Ferrari ATM is a one-car team TBH.

Thus I believe that Massa deserves (though I'm really sorry for him) a zero support right now and should be sacked ASAP. Even as a Ferrari hater I have to admit that situation has become really pathetic.

#5 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 4,822 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 13 August 2012 - 10:09

Yes, but only a motivated driver, so one who is fighting (or, at least, thinks he's fighting) for the WDC, will bring in good points consistently. My point was that, in the long run, clearly supporting only one driver is shooting yourself in the foot as I don't think any driver can (or should) be motivated by $$ only. No matter how much Ferrari are paying Massa, the moment they told him he's No. 2, they compromised their WCC chances IMO. A driver who feels treated fairly by the team will work harder for them than a multi-million No. 2...


Professional cycling as a whole works on the premise that there is a designated team leader, and the others support him. Their motivation (beside the salary and often shared price money) is that they may be allowed to win a stage or two, and mainly that their good work will be seen and may land them a number one seat later.

Now I am not saying that F1 should work that way, but nevertheless, cycling would not exist in its present form if what you wrote was true.

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 13 August 2012 - 10:10.


#6 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,475 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 13 August 2012 - 12:13

A driver joining Alonso at Ferrari should be aware of the fact that he will be joining Alonso´s team, so he should not expect to be the No.1 there.

They shouldn't expect no.1 status at Ferrari because they'll be facing Alonso on a competitive basis, not because Ferrari is Alonso's team.

#7 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,753 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 13 August 2012 - 16:31

They shouldn't expect no.1 status at Ferrari because they'll be facing Alonso on a competitive basis, not because Ferrari is Alonso's team.


Do you really believe that 1) anyone coming to Ferrari will be given the chance to match Alonso and 2) that Alonso will automatically beat anyone that drives alongside him? Of course, the debate here will always be: did he beat the other because he has No. 1 status or because he's actually quicker, especially when he's a successful established driver there.

I think Alonso learned from what happened at McLaren in 2007 and a No. 1 status must have been part of the negotiations with Ferrari at some point. When he was at McLaren he clearly said that he was surprised that a 2 x WDC did not get No. 1 status, even worse, over a rookie and the fact that he looked at Ferrari, a team that had come from a recent history of No. 1, No. 2 status, and brought Santander backing when he came on board, is telling.

I think one of the reasons Massa is doing so poorly is that he's not the type of driver they need. He was clearly the teams' favourite son before FA came on board. He was close to winning a WDC and he outperformed Kimi, a recognized fast driver, for a season. He expected equal treatment no matter what. Ferrari must find someone new enough or someone desperate enough to return to F1, that is willing to play second fiddle but still perform at or close to the max. (Sutil, Alg...), or a driver that has no hopes of winning a WDC and sees F1 as an office job for Ferrari (Kova, Glock?).



#8 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 14 August 2012 - 05:10

They shouldn't expect no.1 status at Ferrari because they'll be facing Alonso on a competitive basis, not because Ferrari is Alonso's team.


And he is the No.1 beacuse of his much better performance compared to Massa and his work ethics etc. A young driver will need to know that he will have to earn the respect and support of the team before he can challenge Alonso. I can not see Ferrari act like McLaren did in 2007.

#9 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 6,644 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 August 2012 - 05:37

They shouldn't expect no.1 status at Ferrari because they'll be facing Alonso on a competitive basis, not because Ferrari is Alonso's team.


Ferrari will not sack Massa, he is doing exactly what they have asked him to do, imo. Massa did not forget how to drive; nor is his injury a problem (or the doctors would not clear him to drive); nor did he suddenly lose his prowess and talent that he'd built up to 2008 levels. There is no mystery here, imo.

#10 Konsta

Konsta
  • Member

  • 1,749 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 14 August 2012 - 05:42

Ferrari will not sack Massa, he is doing exactly what they have asked him to do, imo. Massa did not forget how to drive; nor is his injury a problem (or the doctors would not clear him to drive); nor did he suddenly lose his prowess and talent that he'd built up to 2008 levels. There is no mystery here, imo.

:confused: :confused:

Ferrari asked Flippy to either be slow or crash instead of scoring points?

#11 kosmos

kosmos
  • Member

  • 6,819 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 14 August 2012 - 05:45

Ferrari will not sack Massa, he is doing exactly what they have asked him to do, imo.


Sure, they are asking him to not help Alonso to win the WDC, to not help the team won the WCC, to not help the team to earn more money, and of course they are asking him to perform bad enough to get 25 points in 11 races.... :rolleyes:


#12 spinster

spinster
  • Member

  • 617 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 14 August 2012 - 07:15

In recent years, there was only one year when the No.2 driver at Ferrari was able to constantly challenge and beat the No.1 driver and that was 2008. I do not think Massa could complain about a lack of support back then.
A driver joining Alonso at Ferrari should be aware of the fact that he will be joining Alonso´s team, so he should not expect to be the No.1 there. He must aim to match Alonso, be close to him and challenge him speedwise. Massa is not close to Alonso and he rarely is a challenge for Alonso either. And there is no excuse for that, even for a clear No.2 driver.

There is no evidence that the second Ferrari is worse than the N0.1 car or has been worse in the past. I doubt that the mechanics for the No.2 car are worse or care less about their job. The only thing that might not happen is that the team would make changes to the car that the No.2 driver needs to beat the No.1 driver, when those changes do not improve the car overall. But outisde from Mclaren today, no team would do this.


you still don't get the point after all those years that 2008 Massa got n1 status as Kimi needed to get out of the car for alonso do you?

#13 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 14 August 2012 - 07:33

you still don't get the point after all those years that 2008 Massa got n1 status as Kimi needed to get out of the car for alonso do you?


:lol:

#14 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 14 August 2012 - 07:39

you still don't get the point after all those years that 2008 Massa got n1 status as Kimi needed to get out of the car for alonso do you?


Whatever you say. But this is even worse for Massa, because in that case he had not one season in which he deserved the No.1 status.

#15 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,298 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 14 August 2012 - 09:04

Do you really believe that 1) anyone coming to Ferrari will be given the chance to match Alonso and 2) that Alonso will automatically beat anyone that drives alongside him? Of course, the debate here will always be: did he beat the other because he has No. 1 status or because he's actually quicker, especially when he's a successful established driver there.


The only thing any driver going alongside Alonso has to achieve is matching his laptimes in the short term and then beat them in the middle term. While matching Alonsos consistency and/or throw him off balance with his performances. Then that new driver will become de-facto no.1 and Alonso would have to deal with it.

Would that be a tough task? You bet! And why should it be any other way? What you seem to demand, however, is Ferrari giving proven worse drivers than Alonso strict equal treatment. That makes no sense, and it won't happen. Do you really believe, even with super-equality, Massa would be capable of more than stealing valuable points from Alonso every 10th or so race, while overall never getting even close to beat him in the WDC? From what I've seen over the last years, that would be the "best" Massa could ever hope for.

I think Alonso learned from what happened at McLaren in 2007 and a No. 1 status must have been part of the negotiations with Ferrari at some point. When he was at McLaren he clearly said that he was surprised that a 2 x WDC did not get No. 1 status, even worse, over a rookie and the fact that he looked at Ferrari, a team that had come from a recent history of No. 1, No. 2 status, and brought Santander backing when he came on board, is telling.


The bolded doesn't make much sense, given that Massa was allowed to race Alonso for the first half of 2010. And for that we even have evidence, not just what you think.... If Alonso had negotiated no.1 status in his contract that wouldn't have happened.

I think one of the reasons Massa is doing so poorly is that he's not the type of driver they need. He was clearly the teams' favourite son before FA came on board. He was close to winning a WDC and he outperformed Kimi, a recognized fast driver, for a season. He expected equal treatment no matter what. Ferrari must find someone new enough or someone desperate enough to return to F1, that is willing to play second fiddle but still perform at or close to the max. (Sutil, Alg...), or a driver that has no hopes of winning a WDC and sees F1 as an office job for Ferrari (Kova, Glock?).


Well, exactly. Massa had it all laid out for him at the start of 2010. He knew the team, the style of car Ferrari builds, had beaten their last champion for 1.5 years. Yet still Alonso outperformed him very quickly and since the gap has only grown. The simple truth is, Massa can't match, let alone beat Alonso for any length of time. Once in a blue moon, yes, but every other driver on the grid (well, maybe not Narain) could do that to every top driver.

In a nutshell: Alonso is a distinctively better F1 driver than Massa, and he's using that advantage to full effect. What else do you expect?


#16 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,298 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 14 August 2012 - 09:09

you still don't get the point after all those years that 2008 Massa got n1 status as Kimi needed to get out of the car for alonso do you?


Just as Kimi got no.1 status in 2007 because Ferrari needed to justify driving Schumacher out of the team in favour of KR.

Before you ask for a source, it's the same as yours! :D

#17 spinster

spinster
  • Member

  • 617 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 14 August 2012 - 10:16

Just as Kimi got no.1 status in 2007 because Ferrari needed to justify driving Schumacher out of the team in favour of KR.

Before you ask for a source, it's the same as yours! :D


Of course but Kimi get WDC and Massa not!

#18 spinster

spinster
  • Member

  • 617 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 14 August 2012 - 10:18

Of course but Kimi get WDC and Massa not!


and even with his N1 status Rai was faster in the races...

#19 DrF

DrF
  • Member

  • 1,450 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 August 2012 - 11:02

In recent years, there was only one year when the No.2 driver at Ferrari was able to constantly challenge and beat the No.1 driver and that was 2008. I do not think Massa could complain about a lack of support back then.
A driver joining Alonso at Ferrari should be aware of the fact that he will be joining Alonso´s team, so he should not expect to be the No.1 there. He must aim to match Alonso, be close to him and challenge him speedwise. Massa is not close to Alonso and he rarely is a challenge for Alonso either. And there is no excuse for that, even for a clear No.2 driver.

There is no evidence that the second Ferrari is worse than the N0.1 car or has been worse in the past. I doubt that the mechanics for the No.2 car are worse or care less about their job. The only thing that might not happen is that the team would make changes to the car that the No.2 driver needs to beat the No.1 driver, when those changes do not improve the car overall. But outisde from Mclaren today, no team would do this.


I'm sure that development requests which suit #1 driver will be responded to and delivered before development requests for car #2 are even considered.

And when car2's driver is told by his RE that car1's driver is faster than him... not a surprise that car2's driver stops trying to win.

Look at the last 5 WCC

2007 Ferrari
2008 Ferrari
2009 Brawn
2010 RBR
2011 RBR

Which of these was won by a team with a clear #1 driver policy, as there has been at Ferrari since 2010?

You can't expect a driver who has no hope of winning the championship to race at 100%. If he is racing just for his salary, then he'll perform to get that salary and no more.




Advertisement

#20 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 14 August 2012 - 11:19

I'm sure that development requests which suit #1 driver will be responded to and delivered before development requests for car #2 are even considered.


If you are sure, it's settled then.

And when car2's driver is told by his RE that car1's driver is faster than him... not a surprise that car2's driver stops trying to win.

Look at the last 5 WCC

2007 Ferrari
2008 Ferrari
2009 Brawn
2010 RBR
2011 RBR

Which of these was won by a team with a clear #1 driver policy, as there has been at Ferrari since 2010?

You can't expect a driver who has no hope of winning the championship to race at 100%. If he is racing just for his salary, then he'll perform to get that salary and no more.


Oh, but Massa had every opportunity to beat Alonso early in the seasons, see the beginning of 2010, no messages of who is faster than who then. What would be stupid is that later in the season, even if Massa has demonstrated to be slower, allow him to finish in front of Alonso. Even more, is to use that late into season situation, to say that Massa didn't have any opportunity since the beginning. Which is plain wrong.

Anyway, I thought his issue was that he was never the same after his accident. So, which one is it? :drunk:

Edited by prty, 14 August 2012 - 11:21.


#21 sofarapartguy

sofarapartguy
  • Member

  • 1,010 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 14 August 2012 - 11:38

If you are sure, it's settled then.



Oh, but Massa had every opportunity to beat Alonso early in the seasons, see the beginning of 2010, no messages of who is faster than who then. What would be stupid is that later in the season, even if Massa has demonstrated to be slower, allow him to finish in front of Alonso. Even more, is to use that late into season situation, to say that Massa didn't have any opportunity since the beginning. Which is plain wrong.

Anyway, I thought his issue was that he was never the same after his accident. So, which one is it? :drunk:


Massa was OK at the beginning of the 2010, that is the problem. There were absolutely NO reasons for a Germany@10 team orders as Felipe would've won that race and rightly so. At some point you can understand his issues as team just moved over him instead of provide a real support when mattered.

And now Ferrari has got a payback.

Edited by sofarapartguy, 14 August 2012 - 11:39.


#22 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 14 August 2012 - 11:43

Look at the last 5 WCC

2007 Ferrari
2008 Ferrari
2009 Brawn
2010 RBR
2011 RBR

Which of these was won by a team with a clear #1 driver policy, as there has been at Ferrari since 2010?

You can't expect a driver who has no hope of winning the championship to race at 100%. If he is racing just for his salary, then he'll perform to get that salary and no more.


Which of those titles was not won by the dominating car? McLaren, the epic centre of fair driver treatment, won no titles and I remember a certain RBR driver saying things like "not bad for a No2...". So I respectfully disagree.

And in 2010 in Germany, Massa had only theoretical chances for the WDC, Alonso´s were slim but still much better than Massa´s, so there was a good reason for the switch.

Edited by seahawk, 14 August 2012 - 13:12.


#23 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 14 August 2012 - 11:48

Massa was OK at the beginning of the 2010, that is the problem. There were absolutely NO reasons for a Germany@10 team orders as Felipe would've won that race and rightly so. At some point you can understand his issues as team just moved over him instead of provide a real support when mattered.

And now Ferrari has got a payback.


Of course there were reasons to do that, it was the only possibility for a Ferrari driver to have a shot of the WDC.

Massa wasn't so poor guy and broken when he started to play second fiddle to Raikkonen after Monza 2007. To the point that it was Raikkonen who had to do that the year after. It just seems an excuse to justify how he stands against Alonso.


#24 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,475 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:02

Do you really believe that 1) anyone coming to Ferrari will be given the chance to match Alonso and 2) that Alonso will automatically beat anyone that drives alongside him? Of course, the debate here will always be: did he beat the other because he has No. 1 status or because he's actually quicker, especially when he's a successful established driver there.

No, I do not believe that Alonso will 'automatically' beat anyone who comes in. I do think, however, there isn't a driver on the grid good enough to relegate him to no.2 status, so at most, there will be two equal status drivers at Ferrari with Alonso there.

I think Alonso learned from what happened at McLaren in 2007 and a No. 1 status must have been part of the negotiations with Ferrari at some point. When he was at McLaren he clearly said that he was surprised that a 2 x WDC did not get No. 1 status, even worse, over a rookie and the fact that he looked at Ferrari, a team that had come from a recent history of No. 1, No. 2 status, and brought Santander backing when he came on board, is telling.

Well we know for a fact that Ferrari did not exercise any no.1/no.2 status at Ferrari until Hockenheim 2010. There were a few times prior to that where Massa was ahead of Alonso and Ferrari never ordered Massa to let Alonso by. This destroys any notion that Alonso ever had defacto no.1 status in the team. Just like with Kimi/Massa, nobody gets no.1 treatment until their teammate is out of the championship(realistically) and they are still in it. People will hold on to the idea just because they dont like Ferrari/Alonso or at least have a notion of them that simply cannot be shaken no matter how much evidence is shown to contradict it.

I think one of the reasons Massa is doing so poorly is that he's not the type of driver they need. He was clearly the teams' favourite son before FA came on board. He was close to winning a WDC and he outperformed Kimi, a recognized fast driver, for a season. He expected equal treatment no matter what. Ferrari must find someone new enough or someone desperate enough to return to F1, that is willing to play second fiddle but still perform at or close to the max. (Sutil, Alg...), or a driver that has no hopes of winning a WDC and sees F1 as an office job for Ferrari (Kova, Glock?).

Yep, same old regurtitated thinking here again. Massa is only ever asked to play a no.2 role when he's realistically out of the championship. Otherwise, there's no evidence that he's not being given a fair crack at the start of each season. Its not Ferrari's fault Massa hasn't been as competitive, but everyone wants to assume it is because of the Schumi years. Its not the same team anymore, though. Hasn't been for a while.

Edited by Seanspeed, 14 August 2012 - 12:03.


#25 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:21

Well we know for a fact that Ferrari did not exercise any no.1/no.2 status at Ferrari until Hockenheim 2010. There were a few times prior to that where Massa was ahead of Alonso and Ferrari never ordered Massa to let Alonso by. This destroys any notion that Alonso ever had defacto no.1 status in the team.

1. No 1/No 2 status can manifest itself in more ways than just "if No. 2 driver is ahead, order him to let the No. 1 driver by".

2. Team orders were illegal in 2010. The risk/reward of issuing that kind of order in the first race of the season (ie Australia) vs later in the season (ie Hockenheim) definitely changes. You think the FIA would have given the same (lenient) penalty if "Alonso is faster than you" had occurred in Australia? You think the potential rewards are of taking that risk are as aparent to Ferrari in race 1 (when they don't know if they will challenge for the title or if they may dominate for the title) vs Hockenheim (where they know they are challenging but that it will be tight)?

I don't think that what happened in Australia 2010 at all "destroys" the notion that Ferrari have a No. 1/No/2 policy. In contrast, we have Domenicalli confirming that this is the team's general philosophy recently.

I would also say that Alonso has clearly earned that status within the team with his performances both pre-Ferrari days and since arriving with the team. It's thoroughly deserved. IMO, it enhances his reputation rather than detracts from it. I am also sure that even without that aproach within Ferrari, he would be dominating Massa - maybe by a slightly smaller amount, but still by a significant margin.


#26 DrF

DrF
  • Member

  • 1,450 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:28

Which of theis titles was not won by the dominating car? McLaren, the epic centre of fair driver treatment, won no titles and I remember a certain RBR driver saying things like "not bad for a No2...". So I respectfully disagree.

And in 2010 in Germany, Massa had only theoretical chances for the WDC, Alonso´s were slim but still much better than Massa´s, so there was a good reason for the switch.

McLaren in 2007 had team management issues which we are all very aware of and in 2008 Macca did definitely not have equal driver status, further supporting my argument. In 2009 Brawn only had a dominant car for the first part of the season and were nearly pipped by RBR, who had no clear #1 driver. Again both RBR drivers were allowed to race. The #1 driver issue at RBR in 2010 is a matter of speculation, not team policy and at no point in the season was the alleged #2 told that the alleged #1 was faster than him. RBR has allowed both drivers to fight for wins and for the WDC until it is impossible for one of them to win the WDC and have reaped the rewards. Had RBR told Vettel to stand aside and support Webber in 2010 then it is very likely that they would not have won the WDC and who knows what would have happened to Vettel's spirits had he been ordered aside when he still had a theoretical chance of a WDC. Perhaps he'd not have fought so hard and they'd have lost the WCC too?

There should only be a need to order one driver aside when there is no chance, theoretical or not, to win the WDC. Germany 2010 was far too early for Ferrari to make that call. If Fernando was faster then why was he behind Massa?

This is not a Fernando-Bash. This is an observation that without one of the drivers having any chance of winning the WDC, no matter how slim, the WCC is not an option and the #1 driver is not going to be pushed by his team mate, nor helped in his WDC by that team mate taking points off his rivals from other teams. If Ferrari do get rid of Massa, then how are they going to attract a talented driver when they know what their role will be? At best it will be like for like, at worst it will be a journeyman and they will do even worse.

#27 halifaxf1fan

halifaxf1fan
  • Member

  • 4,846 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:44

Ferrari will not sack Massa, he is doing exactly what they have asked him to do, imo. Massa did not forget how to drive; nor is his injury a problem (or the doctors would not clear him to drive); nor did he suddenly lose his prowess and talent that he'd built up to 2008 levels. There is no mystery here, imo.



Sadly Massa is not the same driver post injury. It has been three years and he is still struggling to find his past performance levels, at this point he will be lucky to do so.

#28 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,514 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:50

What no one is addressing here is the belief (held by many) that Alonso needs to feel that he has the full support of the team in order to give his best, and that he can be seriously destabilised by having a competitive team-mate.

It can be argued that Alonso is now older and wiser than he was at McLaren, but we have no real evidence of that, because Ferrari have stuck with Massa even though he has underperformed badly since mid-2010.

Some have said that at the start of the Alonso-Massa partnership, there was clearly no #1 and #2 policy at Ferrari, since Massa was not ordered to let Alonso past until Hockenheim. But actually during 2010, we saw many more mistakes from Alonso than we have seen since he became the undisputed #1, so that is consistent with the theory that Alonso needs that #1 status in order to perform at his best.

And the fact that Ferrari have held onto Massa, instead of looking for a more competitive team-mate, suggests that they are worried about the effect that internal competition might have on Alonso.



#29 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,298 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 14 August 2012 - 12:59

McLaren in 2007 had team management issues which we are all very aware of and in 2008 Macca did definitely not have equal driver status, further supporting my argument. In 2009 Brawn only had a dominant car for the first part of the season and were nearly pipped by RBR, who had no clear #1 driver. Again both RBR drivers were allowed to race. The #1 driver issue at RBR in 2010 is a matter of speculation, not team policy and at no point in the season was the alleged #2 told that the alleged #1 was faster than him. RBR has allowed both drivers to fight for wins and for the WDC until it is impossible for one of them to win the WDC and have reaped the rewards. Had RBR told Vettel to stand aside and support Webber in 2010 then it is very likely that they would not have won the WDC and who knows what would have happened to Vettel's spirits had he been ordered aside when he still had a theoretical chance of a WDC. Perhaps he'd not have fought so hard and they'd have lost the WCC too?

There should only be a need to order one driver aside when there is no chance, theoretical or not, to win the WDC. Germany 2010 was far too early for Ferrari to make that call. If Fernando was faster then why was he behind Massa?

This is not a Fernando-Bash. This is an observation that without one of the drivers having any chance of winning the WDC, no matter how slim, the WCC is not an option and the #1 driver is not going to be pushed by his team mate, nor helped in his WDC by that team mate taking points off his rivals from other teams. If Ferrari do get rid of Massa, then how are they going to attract a talented driver when they know what their role will be? At best it will be like for like, at worst it will be a journeyman and they will do even worse.


You and others make a lot of assumptions how Massa is affected by being no. 2, or how much better he would do if he wasn't. But they are just that, assumptions. Webber last year wasn't doing much better vs. Vettel than Massa is doing vs. Alonso. It happens. If such a gulf exists between drivers, every team will consider the clear better man their no.1, and should he need any help in his WDC bid, would sacrifice the worse mans chances for it. Like RB did by ordering Webber not to attack SV in Silverstone 2011, for example. In such scenarios, with one driver doing clearly better than the other, team orders will happen at every team, should the worse driver accidentically threaten to spoil the better drivers chances at one particular race. That's sensible and not even worth debating IMO.

If, however, both drivers are doing roughly similar like MW and SV this year, or at times in 2010, then it get's interesting. Those are the times when team orders really can influence things a great deal, and every time that happens at Red Bull and the team has to make a decision whom to prefer, do you think the decision would ever go in Webbers favour?



#30 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:01

I don't think that what happened in Australia 2010 at all "destroys" the notion that Ferrari have a No. 1/No/2 policy. In contrast, we have Domenicalli confirming that this is the team's general philosophy recently.


No, we don't.

#31 DrF

DrF
  • Member

  • 1,450 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:04

What no one is addressing here is the belief (held by many) that Alonso needs to feel that he has the full support of the team in order to give his best, and that he can be seriously destabilised by having a competitive team-mate.

It can be argued that Alonso is now older and wiser than he was at McLaren, but we have no real evidence of that, because Ferrari have stuck with Massa even though he has underperformed badly since mid-2010.

Some have said that at the start of the Alonso-Massa partnership, there was clearly no #1 and #2 policy at Ferrari, since Massa was not ordered to let Alonso past until Hockenheim. But actually during 2010, we saw many more mistakes from Alonso than we have seen since he became the undisputed #1, so that is consistent with the theory that Alonso needs that #1 status in order to perform at his best.

And the fact that Ferrari have held onto Massa, instead of looking for a more competitive team-mate, suggests that they are worried about the effect that internal competition might have on Alonso.

Alonso had a relatively (compared to Hamilton, anyway) competitive team mate in 2005 and 2006. In 2007 there was too much else going on to pin it down just to his team mate's strength. His status in the team in 2008 didn't do much to help his performance, even if his team mate had to bring out a safety car. 2009 was an oddball year and we can see the effects of an uncompetitive Massa on Ferrari's standings ever since his role there was defined in such clear terms.

Alonso may not want it, but he NEEDS a competitive team mate to push him and Ferrari needs two strong drivers racing each other and the rest of the field if they want the WCC (and the WDC, which is a bye-product of the WCC).

#32 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:08

No, we don't.

"It has always been Ferrari's philosophy," [Domenicalli] explained, "to have a great champion and then a very good driver who is close to him."

http://formula-one.s...umber-2-driver/

#33 jstrains

jstrains
  • Member

  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:09

I am already tired of all these nowhere to leading discussions... they want to have a No.1 and 2 driver line up, what is so wrong about it? Almost everybody does but talks all this sh* of all being treated the same. Vettel clear No. 1, Hamilton as well...

#34 DrF

DrF
  • Member

  • 1,450 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:14

You and others make a lot of assumptions how Massa is affected by being no. 2, or how much better he would do if he wasn't. But they are just that, assumptions. Webber last year wasn't doing much better vs. Vettel than Massa is doing vs. Alonso. It happens. If such a gulf exists between drivers, every team will consider the clear better man their no.1, and should he need any help in his WDC bid, would sacrifice the worse mans chances for it. Like RB did by ordering Webber not to attack SV in Silverstone 2011, for example. In such scenarios, with one driver doing clearly better than the other, team orders will happen at every team, should the worse driver accidentically threaten to spoil the better drivers chances at one particular race. That's sensible and not even worth debating IMO.

If, however, both drivers are doing roughly similar like MW and SV this year, or at times in 2010, then it get's interesting. Those are the times when team orders really can influence things a great deal, and every time that happens at Red Bull and the team has to make a decision whom to prefer, do you think the decision would ever go in Webbers favour?


It's not a question of IF a team favours one driver over the other, it's WHEN they decide to implement this.

In my opinion, Ferrari did this too soon in 2010. RBR let Vettel and Webber race right up to the end in 2010. Yes, there were incidents, but the result was the WDC and the WCC, 2 years running. In 2011 Webber was not as dominant as Vettel and given the history between the two of them, RBR asked Webber to back off. I don't recall RBR ever asking Webber to get out of Vettel's way and if they did and I missed it, then I apologise.


#35 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,298 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:16

http://formula-one.s...umber-2-driver/


"It has always been Ferrari's philosophy," [Domenicalli] explained, "to have a great champion and then a very good driver who is close to him."


Which doesn't describe what Ferrari have for 3 years now at all.

#36 DrF

DrF
  • Member

  • 1,450 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:18

Which doesn't describe what Ferrari have for 3 years now at all.

No, they have a great driver and a driver who isn't allowed to race.

#37 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:21

Which doesn't describe what Ferrari have for 3 years now at all.

True. Poor Massa.

For what it's worth, if I were a team boss, I'd go for that philosophy too. I reckon it's the best way to get the WDC.

#38 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,298 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:22

It's not a question of IF a team favours one driver over the other, it's WHEN they decide to implement this.

In my opinion, Ferrari did this too soon in 2010. RBR let Vettel and Webber race right up to the end in 2010. Yes, there were incidents, but the result was the WDC and the WCC, 2 years running. In 2011 Webber was not as dominant as Vettel and given the history between the two of them, RBR asked Webber to back off. I don't recall RBR ever asking Webber to get out of Vettel's way and if they did and I missed it, then I apologise.


Well, they better had, it might have saved them a win and prevented a bit of carnage in Turkey 2010, when they tried to do it without telling Webber. :D

As for Ferrari doing it to soon: taking into account the respective performance level between FA and FM during the last two years, they actually did it too late.

#39 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,298 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:24

No, they have a great driver and a driver who isn't allowed to race.


At the respective places Massa is in the races, he is allowed to do anything he wants. But usually doesn't.

According to some here, that's because he's still sulking over Hockenheim 2010 each and every lap since. :cry:

:drunk:

Advertisement

#40 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 5,161 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:25

http://formula-one.s...umber-2-driver/


Oh, but that quote doesn't say anything about equal treatment, even if you want to twist it like that.

Furthermore, having a "great champion" and a "very good driver" is what McLaren also seeked in Hamilton-Kovalainen or Hamilton-Button, and Red Bull is seeking with Vettel and Webber, and what Lotus is seeking in Raikkonen and Grosjean. So Domenicalli didn't say anything extraordinary, even if some are desperately trying to clutch at straws. :D



#41 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,023 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:28

According to some here, that's because he's still sulking over Hockenheim 2010 each and every lap since. :cry:

:lol: Of course. And his sulk got worse at the start of this season and lasted a few races, until he came a bit (but not fully) out of his sulk a couple of races ago. McLaren were also pretty upset that Massa got Button to join him in his sulk for a period too. Some said this may be down to the tyres this year and setup, but they do not understand the power of the fluctuating sulk.

#42 DrF

DrF
  • Member

  • 1,450 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:28

Well, they better had, it might have saved them a win and prevented a bit of carnage in Turkey 2010, when they tried to do it without telling Webber. :D

As for Ferrari doing it to soon: taking into account the respective performance level between FA and FM during the last two years, they actually did it too late.


Asking a driver not to risk an accident trying to overtake his team mate is not the same as telling him to get out the way.

We'll never know what the outcome in 2010 would have been if Massa had been allowed to race, possibly Fernando would have pushed harder to stay in front of Massa, who would have pushed harder to try to beat Alonso. Who can say. All we know is that Massa is just doing enough to earn his pay, what else does he have to drive for?


#43 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:28

McLaren in 2007 had team management issues which we are all very aware of and in 2008 Macca did definitely not have equal driver status, further supporting my argument. In
.
.
having any chance of winning the WDC, no matter how slim, the WCC is not an option and the #1 driver is not going to be pushed by his team mate, nor helped in his WDC by that team mate taking points off his rivals from other teams. If Ferrari do get rid of Massa, then how are they going to attract a talented driver when they know what their role will be? At best it will be like for like, at worst it will be a journeyman and they will do even worse.


In 2009 neither of the 2 teams with the fastest cars had a No.1 driver policy. The next team with a clear No.1 was far away from winning the title anyway.
In 2010 there was the front wing episode. So I might say that RBR allowed their No.1 driver to race their No.2, whiole the No.2 had to step back for the No1.
In 2011 everything was clear.

The Ferrari seat is probably attractive to most drivers in the F1. You get a top team seat and after Massa it will hard to dissapoint. I mean end up 0,2 secs behind Alonso and it will be seen as a good job. It is only a dead end, if you are totally destroyed by the No.1 driver. If I look at Rubens in 2009 it were the same things that made him lose to Button, that made him the No.2 at Ferrari. Yet he was no longer with Ferrari, so how did that happen?

And if Massa feels demotivated for 2 seasons by the need to keep the teams WDC chances alive, then he should have been sacked long ago.

Edited by seahawk, 14 August 2012 - 13:29.


#44 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,475 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:33

1. No 1/No 2 status can manifest itself in more ways than just "if No. 2 driver is ahead, order him to let the No. 1 driver by".

2. Team orders were illegal in 2010. The risk/reward of issuing that kind of order in the first race of the season (ie Australia) vs later in the season (ie Hockenheim) definitely changes. You think the FIA would have given the same (lenient) penalty if "Alonso is faster than you" had occurred in Australia? You think the potential rewards are of taking that risk are as aparent to Ferrari in race 1 (when they don't know if they will challenge for the title or if they may dominate for the title) vs Hockenheim (where they know they are challenging but that it will be tight)?

I don't think that what happened in Australia 2010 at all "destroys" the notion that Ferrari have a No. 1/No/2 policy. In contrast, we have Domenicalli confirming that this is the team's general philosophy recently.

I would also say that Alonso has clearly earned that status within the team with his performances both pre-Ferrari days and since arriving with the team. It's thoroughly deserved. IMO, it enhances his reputation rather than detracts from it. I am also sure that even without that aproach within Ferrari, he would be dominating Massa - maybe by a slightly smaller amount, but still by a significant margin.

I think Ferrari go into a season now with expectations that Alonso will do better, but I dont really see any signs that they're hindering Massa in any way. He's getting his fair crack at it, which is what I think some here are saying isn't the case. Its just that there's not really much they need to do in regards to Massa to ensure that Alonso's results are maximized nowadays. Its not really ever something they have to deliberate about I dont think(not since 2010 at least). I think Massa could come to the conclusion himself this year that he's got to play a supporting role, even if his job wasn't up on the chopping block, but yea, I wouldn't be surprised if Ferrari talked about it with him just to make sure there were no misunderstandings.

With the team orders thing in 2010, Massa seemed completely oblivious to the fact that he had to move over in Hockenheim, which tells me that no one told him that Alonso was no.1 from the start. And yes, using team orders earlier on would draw the FIA's attention more but there's more ways of getting a driver ahead of another than just letting them past like they did in Hockenheim.

#45 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,298 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:36

:lol: Of course. And his sulk got worse at the start of this season and lasted a few races, until he came a bit (but not fully) out of his sulk a couple of races ago. McLaren were also pretty upset that Massa got Button to join him in his sulk for a period too. Some said this may be down to the tyres this year and setup, but they do not understand the power of the fluctuating sulk.


:lol: Brilliant term! :up:


#46 DrF

DrF
  • Member

  • 1,450 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:36

Explain this: Ferrari has had one of the fastest drivers of all time since 2010 and has not won the WCC since 2008. They've had Massa since 2007. Alonso won the WDC in 2005 and 2006 yet Ferrari, with their #1 policy has been unable to win the WCC or the WDC since he joined them. How can this be?



#47 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,298 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:42

Asking a driver not to risk an accident trying to overtake his team mate is not the same as telling him to get out the way.

We'll never know what the outcome in 2010 would have been if Massa had been allowed to race, possibly Fernando would have pushed harder to stay in front of Massa, who would have pushed harder to try to beat Alonso. Who can say. All we know is that Massa is just doing enough to earn his pay, what else does he have to drive for?


If that would be really Massa's toughts (which I have some tiny doubts about), then in a nice circular way, he would deserve every bit of no.2 treatment he gets and then some.

Oh, and if Webber wouldn't have to watch out for pieces of his car appearing suddenly on Vettels, or the team engineering for Vettel to pass him from the pitwall, possibly he would have been able to concentrate on his WDC bid better and not make costly mistakes like Korea 2010. Who can say? :D

Edited by as65p, 14 August 2012 - 13:47.


#48 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,298 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:43

Explain this: Ferrari has had one of the fastest drivers of all time since 2010 and has not won the WCC since 2008. They've had Massa since 2007. Alonso won the WDC in 2005 and 2006 yet Ferrari, with their #1 policy has been unable to win the WCC or the WDC since he joined them. How can this be?


You'll have to figure yourself, then come back. :wave:

#49 Konsta

Konsta
  • Member

  • 1,749 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:46

Which doesn't describe what Ferrari have for 3 years now at all.

You are right - they have a champ and then that other guy driving around the track often finishing the race - but quite often ending up in tears.

#50 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,475 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 14 August 2012 - 13:46

Explain this: Ferrari has had one of the fastest drivers of all time since 2010 and has not won the WCC since 2008. They've had Massa since 2007. Alonso won the WDC in 2005 and 2006 yet Ferrari, with their #1 policy has been unable to win the WCC or the WDC since he joined them. How can this be?

Because thats how those seasons played out. Schumacher could easily have won the championship in 2006 and Raikkonen could have won it in 2005. I dont think this is a good argument to show whether a #1 policy is better or worse. In any case, things just aren't this simple. There's lots of variables that go into who does what during a season beyond whether or not there's a #1 policy involved with any of the teams. Its not the game-changer that some think it is.