262 replies to this topic

[fastlegs]

Just read a very interesting article from James Allen regarding F1 driver's salaries that he is preparing for Sports Illustrated.

I was very surprised by the way RedBull operates their salary structure compared to the other teams.

Here is part of his article.

"As a rule, F1 drivers’ income is 70% retainer and 30% bonus, based on podiums, wins and championship position. Apparently Red Bull is the exception with 40% retainer and 60% bonus, which might partly explain why the driver who doesn’t win looks pretty down!

When it comes to money, it seems that like everything else, the team strives to give Sebastian Vettel and Mark Webber equal treatment – they get around €3.5 million each in retainer and so could more than double that on current trends of results this season. Webber has won four races and leads the championship, while Vettel has won twice and is well within striking distance in the title race. But from my experience of the pair, I don’t think money is that strong a motivation. I think they are both highly motivated to win races and clinch the title with this exceptional car. "

Full Article: http://www.jamesalle...f1-driver-earn/

[arknor]

Just read a very interesting article from James Allen regarding F1 driver's salaries that he is preparing for Sports Illustrated.

I was very surprised by the way RedBull operates their salary structure compared to the other teams.

Here is part of his article.

"As a rule, F1 drivers’ income is 70% retainer and 30% bonus, based on podiums, wins and championship position. Apparently Red Bull is the exception with 40% retainer and 60% bonus, which might partly explain why the driver who doesn’t win looks pretty down!

When it comes to money, it seems that like everything else, the team strives to give Sebastian Vettel and Mark Webber equal treatment – they get around €3.5 million each in retainer and so could more than double that on current trends of results this season. Webber has won four races and leads the championship, while Vettel has won twice and is well within striking distance in the title race. But from my experience of the pair, I don’t think money is that strong a motivation. I think they are both highly motivated to win races and clinch the title with this exceptional car. "

Full Article: http://www.jamesalle...f1-driver-earn/

poor article based of agents guesswork mostly and rumoured salaries based on more guesswork

[BullHead]

Indeed. I don't beleive it works like that, not for the top team drivers anyway.

[slideways]

poor article based of agents guesswork mostly and rumoured salaries based on more guesswork

James is usually pretty reliable but I have to agree.

[f1driversworldchampion]

I wander if drivers like Chandok even get paid? The only reason Chandok, in particular, got to race an f1 car was because of the money he essentially paid the team - through sponsors etc. In turn, Chandok got the chance to race f1 cars and try impress (which he has not at all done, to me anyways). At the other end of the scale you have drivers earning 10Mil+... goes to show these F1 drivers are Outrageously Overpaid Brats.

[Henrytheeigth]

goes to show these F1 drivers are Outrageously Overpaid Brats.

You just figured that out mate? And of course with easy drives compared to the past. Why do they have power steering is beyond me. Safety some say huh? lol k...

[BennyJohnson]

You just figured that out mate? And of course with easy drives compared to the past. Why do they have power steering is beyond me. Safety some say huh? lol k...

You try holding a car at 300km/h with 5G's of force pulling you against the corner.

Hmmmm, Maybe until you actually know what it's like to drive one of these car's, you shouldn't comment on how hard/easy they are to drive.

[George Costanza]

You try holding a car at 300km/h with 5G's of force pulling you against the corner.

Hmmmm, Maybe until you actually know what it's like to drive one of these car's, you shouldn't comment on how hard/easy they are to drive.

While this is true, I agree, but it can't compare to the days where Ayrton Senna was using 1000 plus horsepower Honda V6 with a fully manual gearbox....

That was tougher to drive than today, I am sure Michael Schumacher would agree.

[Supersleeper]

You try holding a car at 300km/h with 5G's of force pulling you against the corner.

Hmmmm, Maybe until you actually know what it's like to drive one of these car's, you shouldn't comment on how hard/easy they are to drive.

Henry obviously wasn't being sarcastic enough....

[lbennie]

While this is true, I agree, but it can't compare to the days where Ayrton Senna was using 1000 plus horsepower Honda V6 with a fully manual gearbox....

That was tougher to drive than today, I am sure Michael Schumacher would agree.

its apples and oranges though innit
the downforce/cornering speeds today create a much more physically demanding cockpit than back in that era. (outside of stick shifting/power steering).

drivers have to be super fit triathlete types to survive a race distance these days, where as back in the day you could get away with a weekly jog.

[arknor]

its apples and oranges though innit
the downforce/cornering speeds today create a much more physically demanding cockpit than back in that era. (outside of stick shifting/power steering).

drivers have to be super fit triathlete types to survive a race distance these days, where as back in the day you could get away with a weekly jog.

you act like cars in the early 90's didnt have insane mechanical grip, how different are the lap times compared to 20 years ago?

[lbennie]

you act like cars in the early 90's didnt have insane mechanical grip, how different are the lap times compared to 20 years ago?

not mechanical - aerodynamic grip.

and 1990 monaco pole: 1:21.314 (senna), this years pole: 1:13.826

might be a bad example but the only track off the top of my head with a comparable layout to compare, although dosnt help my aero grip arguement.

Edited by lbennie, 13 August 2010 - 04:15.

[V8 Fireworks]

you act like cars in the early 90's didnt have insane mechanical grip, how different are the lap times compared to 20 years ago?

I would think that old F1 cars like that would be (much) slower than modern GP2 or IRL cars.

It is not only the downforce but the tyres too. Today's "spec" slicks are still far stickier than the ultra-soft qually tyres of the 80s...

So the modern cars have more aero AND mechanical grip. Grip is grip and is all generated at the tyres whether by downforce pushing on them, or by the tyre itself, regardless anyhow...

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 13 August 2010 - 04:59.

[Pampalini]

poor article based of agents guesswork mostly and rumoured salaries based on more guesswork

How do you know that? I mean almost everything written in this article sounds like normal salary policy in business life... Only the little snippet about the equality in RB sounds a bit off.

[Jimisgod]

I doubt a bonus will be any more encouragement, if you're in a top team your sole aim is to win, if you aren't aiming for that what are you doing in the sport?

[Pampalini]

I doubt a bonus will be any more encouragement, if you're in a top team your sole aim is to win, if you aren't aiming for that what are you doing in the sport?

Of course you are right. But in a top team salary policies are created by professional Human Resource experts and it is their job to try to make the salary somehow even more motivating. And it's in the team interest to pay the driver only when he does everything to achieve wins. So if it is only up to the HR experts the team pays only bonus... But of course drivers prefer normal monthly salary to bonus because they say: Hey, what if my car broke down... etc. So here they start the negotiations.

BTW 30-70 or 60-40 are quite good percents I think. For example insurance agents have more difficult life with salary systems.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Not really, because a driver isn't a normal employee so doesn't come under HR.

[primer]

I wander if drivers like Chandok even get paid?

No drivers like Chandok, Senna and Yamamoto are paying the team, not vice-versa.

[Pampalini]

Not really, because a driver isn't a normal employee so doesn't come under HR.

Everyone who gets some salary come under HR. The article is speaking about the money a driver receives from his team (not the sponsorship payments).

Why do you think a driver is not a normal employee? They are contracted to a company, they have a boss, they have a job...

[Ross Stonefeld]

Because it's an individual contract. It's very very different from being a normal employee.

[Pampalini]

Because it's an individual contract. It's very very different from being a normal employee.

In smaller companies every contract is individual. I think at F1 teams most of the engineers have individual contracts. BTW our company has more than 30000 employee and it has also a dedicated HR department working with individual contracts (CEOs, top managemet).

[Mika Mika]

Everyone who gets some salary come under HR. The article is speaking about the money a driver receives from his team (not the sponsorship payments).

Why do you think a driver is not a normal employee? They are contracted to a company, they have a boss, they have a job...

Do they have to fill in a sick form and get a Dr note?

Do you theink they get holiday cards too??

:D

[robefc]

Of course you are right. But in a top team salary policies are created by professional Human Resource experts and it is their job to try to make the salary somehow even more motivating. And it's in the team interest to pay the driver only when he does everything to achieve wins. So if it is only up to the HR experts the team pays only bonus... But of course drivers prefer normal monthly salary to bonus because they say: Hey, what if my car broke down... etc. So here they start the negotiations.

BTW 30-70 or 60-40 are quite good percents I think. For example insurance agents have more difficult life with salary systems.

It's not just about motivation though is it.

My company's bonus scheme is based on individual and company performance. If we all do better the company makes more money, therefore a) those that contributed are rewarded and b) there is more money to reward them with.

So if the driver performs well the team earns more money and therefore the driver gets his cut of that through bonus, vice versa if they perform badly.

Edited by robefc, 13 August 2010 - 07:17.

[Pampalini]

Do they have to fill in a sick form and get a Dr note?

Do you theink they get holiday cards too??

:D

Of course! I think for most of them the manager will fill the sick form or the manager's secretary. Dr. note- absolutely- it must be one of the most important part of their contract.

Holiday cards- I'm not sure because the schedule of the season is fix, but must be some way to do it.

We are speaking about millions of dollars/ euros etc- someone MUST look at it, must administrate it! Just think about it- for example Driver X decides that after the evening party he feels sick and cannot go to a test drive... Well...

[Rybo]

Not really, because a driver isn't a normal employee so doesn't come under HR.

Their sponsors are paying the team and the drivers. The sponsors pay to get there name out there and to that they have to pay the drivers(to get there name there) and team(which puts the name out there). Everyone is getting paid in some way or the other. No one does anything for free.

[Melbourne Park]

I would think that old F1 cars like that would be (much) slower than modern GP2 or IRL cars.

It is not only the downforce but the tyres too. Today's "spec" slicks are still far stickier than the ultra-soft qually tyres of the 80s...

So the modern cars have more aero AND mechanical grip. Grip is grip and is all generated at the tyres whether by downforce pushing on them, or by the tyre itself, regardless anyhow...

for years the game has been trying to slow the cars down. The story goes, that Williams had a radio setup on one of their active cars, it must have had an auto type of box, and it ran the track much faster than any human. About that time, the active car was stupendous on the fast corners. With ground effect as well, it was said a car might loose grip at middle speeds on a corner and go off; but take the corner at higher speeds, and the car would have more grip due to the ground effects efficient downforce, and the car would take the corner easily at the higher speeds. From that time on, the cars were approaching human survival G forces. So they have been trying to slow the cars down ever since.

Its pretty funny to read how people think todays drivers are tougher. That's false, because not so long ago, the cars killed people, and maimed and injured them, all very easily.

Secondly, a car like the BMW turbo, was generating over 1,400 hp in qualifying ... plus the drivers had a stick in the car, and an extra pedal, and they had to use those to make the car accelerate. Now, they sit in real time real G force simulators, they know the track before they've even driven on it. And if they crash, they loose some points, but there's little danger. The lack of danger makes a **** load of difference. People here don't comprehend how different it is when you're a touch away from physical catastrophy.

But what is so ridiculous about the claim of driver's doing it tough these days, is that for almost all the race, today's drivers just sit there, tooling around the track, because they cannot pass the car in front. For most of the race, most drivers only have a few laps of actual competitive driving. Which is bloody easy.

Edited by Melbourne Park, 13 August 2010 - 07:27.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Their sponsors are paying the team and the drivers. The sponsors pay to get there name out there and to that they have to pay the drivers(to get there name there) and team(which puts the name out there). Everyone is getting paid in some way or the other. No one does anything for free.

That still doesn't change my point. If a driver curses at his engineer he's harly going to be called in for a disciplinary hearing.

[The July Plot]

It would be interesting to see how much salary pay drivers take out of their budget? I would guess it would be no more then 20-30K pa.

[Ross Stonefeld]

You're missing at least one zero.


Part of the flap over Verstappen's 2004(?) fall-out with either Minardi or Jordan was him and his management wanting something like 1/3 of the sponsorship they'd either be bringing directly or attracting to the team.

[Lifew12]

not mechanical - aerodynamic grip.

and 1990 monaco pole: 1:21.314 (senna), this years pole: 1:13.826

might be a bad example but the only track off the top of my head with a comparable layout to compare, although dosnt help my aero grip arguement.

try Monza.

[Ross Stonefeld]

The only corners at Monza that are still the same are Ascari and Parabolica.

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

The only corners at Monza that are still the same are Ascari and Parabolica.

I'm fairly sure Suzuka remains unchanged too....

[Ross Stonefeld]

Yeah it should be pretty close. The chicane is in a slightly different place but the speed through it isn't dramatically different.

[Craven Morehead]

for years the game has been trying to slow the cars down. The story goes, that Williams had a radio setup on one of their active cars, it must have had an auto type of box, and it ran the track much faster than any human. About that time, the active car was stupendous on the fast corners. With ground effect as well, it was said a car might loose grip at middle speeds on a corner and go off; but take the corner at higher speeds, and the car would have more grip due to the ground effects efficient downforce, and the car would take the corner easily at the higher speeds. From that time on, the cars were approaching human survival G forces. So they have been trying to slow the cars down ever since.

Its pretty funny to read how people think todays drivers are tougher. That's false, because not so long ago, the cars killed people, and maimed and injured them, all very easily.

Secondly, a car like the BMW turbo, was generating over 1,400 hp in qualifying ... plus the drivers had a stick in the car, and an extra pedal, and they had to use those to make the car accelerate. Now, they sit in real time real G force simulators, they know the track before they've even driven on it. And if they crash, they loose some points, but there's little danger. The lack of danger makes a **** load of difference. People here don't comprehend how different it is when you're a touch away from physical catastrophy.

But what is so ridiculous about the claim of driver's doing it tough these days, is that for almost all the race, today's drivers just sit there, tooling around the track, because they cannot pass the car in front. For most of the race, most drivers only have a few laps of actual competitive driving. Which is bloody easy.

There's a clip on Youtube where Lewis gets to drive Senna's turbo McLaren. He talks about how much respect he has for those drivers and what they did.

[flyer121]

I wander if drivers like Chandok even get paid? The only reason Chandok, in particular, got to race an f1 car was because of the money he essentially paid the team - through sponsors etc. In turn, Chandok got the chance to race f1 cars and try impress (which he has not at all done, to me anyways). At the other end of the scale you have drivers earning 10Mil+... goes to show these F1 drivers are Outrageously Overpaid Brats.

I think you have wandered off a bit too much though ..

Chandok is earning next to nothing and sponsors are paying HRT for him to keep driving.
Drivers are not brats because they are paid highly, it is simply demand and supply for the top F1 drivers.
One's price is what someone (anyone) is willing to pay.

Edited by flyer121, 13 August 2010 - 10:35.

[Alexis*27]

poor article based of agents guesswork mostly and rumoured salaries based on more guesswork

Since no driver submitted their accounts for the last tax year to Allen, I'm not sure what else you'd expect.

Geez.

[Tenmantaylor]

I'm fairly sure Suzuka remains unchanged too....

Didn't use to have 'the triangle' final chicane without which the top speed at the end of the pit straight would probably match Monza or old hockenheim. The setup approach would be very different with the lower downforce. All the rest is the same as Hugenholtz' original design IIRC.

[flyer121]

Of course you are right. But in a top team salary policies are created by professional Human Resource experts and it is their job to try to make the salary somehow even more motivating. And it's in the team interest to pay the driver only when he does everything to achieve wins. So if it is only up to the HR experts the team pays only bonus... But of course drivers prefer normal monthly salary to bonus because they say: Hey, what if my car broke down... etc. So here they start the negotiations.

BTW 30-70 or 60-40 are quite good percents I think. For example insurance agents have more difficult life with salary systems.

LOL

Looks like Ferrari not only have bad strategists but also dumb HR experts..
If only Ferrari had structured Kimi's salary that way, he probably would still be driving today. ;-)

[screamingV16]

There's a clip on Youtube where Lewis gets to drive Senna's turbo McLaren. He talks about how much respect he has for those drivers and what they did.

Also Schumacher drove a 1983 Ferrari years ago and admitted he would have been scared had he have to race the machine! Saying todays cars would not be drievable without power setting sounds a bit far fetched. They do get driven without power steering (i.e when it fails!) obviously you loose a small amount of performance. The cars of the 80's might have not had the aero, but they had massive grip, massive HP and drivers often had to corner one handed when changing gear.

Probabaly evryone has seen this vid, but interesting

Pole in 1989 = Ayrton Senna - 1:38.041
Pole in 1999 = Michael Schumacher - 1:37.470

[wingwalker]

Didn't use to have 'the triangle' final chicane without which the top speed at the end of the pit straight would probably match Monza or old hockenheim. The setup approach would be very different with the lower downforce. All the rest is the same as Hugenholtz' original design IIRC.

The chicane was definitely there 20 years ago, 130R was reprofiled at the same time they moved the chicane a bit closer, but It shouldn't change lap times dramatically. I think Interlagos remain's unchanged since the early 90's, too.

[jez33]

for years the game has been trying to slow the cars down. The story goes, that Williams had a radio setup on one of their active cars, it must have had an auto type of box, and it ran the track much faster than any human. About that time, the active car was stupendous on the fast corners. With ground effect as well, it was said a car might loose grip at middle speeds on a corner and go off; but take the corner at higher speeds, and the car would have more grip due to the ground effects efficient downforce, and the car would take the corner easily at the higher speeds. From that time on, the cars were approaching human survival G forces. So they have been trying to slow the cars down ever since.

Its pretty funny to read how people think todays drivers are tougher. That's false, because not so long ago, the cars killed people, and maimed and injured them, all very easily.

Secondly, a car like the BMW turbo, was generating over 1,400 hp in qualifying ... plus the drivers had a stick in the car, and an extra pedal, and they had to use those to make the car accelerate. Now, they sit in real time real G force simulators, they know the track before they've even driven on it. And if they crash, they loose some points, but there's little danger. The lack of danger makes a **** load of difference. People here don't comprehend how different it is when you're a touch away from physical catastrophy.

But what is so ridiculous about the claim of driver's doing it tough these days, is that for almost all the race, today's drivers just sit there, tooling around the track, because they cannot pass the car in front. For most of the race, most drivers only have a few laps of actual competitive driving. Which is bloody easy.

I actually think its works in the opposite way. Driving the moderns is doubtless safer but not necessarily easier.

With the life-threatening danger of the older cars its difficult to get to (for arguments sake) >95% of the car's abilities. Now there is a lower risk with safety improvements drivers easily get to say >98-99% of the car's abilities therefore with diminishing returns and running so close to the car's inherent limits I think it is actually more difficult, relatively, to find time and not make mistakes, even if the mistakes themselves are not punishable by death.

[V8 Fireworks]

But what is so ridiculous about the claim of driver's doing it tough these days, is that for almost all the race, today's drivers just sit there, tooling around the track, because they cannot pass the car in front. For most of the race, most drivers only have a few laps of actual competitive driving. Which is bloody easy.

Excellent points.

Ground effects aside, the cars have much more advanced tyres and aerodynamics than earlier, however sure they are being reigned in. Sure, ground effects and turbos cars were pretty mean.

I think the cars from the mid-90s with banned active suspension, early 3.0L engines (650 hp?) more primitive tyres and already with semi-auto, would have had less "oomph" in the corner than the modern cars IMO. Not too say, they didn't handle worse than modern cars, but they would be closer to modern GP2 in performance I would have thought.

By definition, F1 car have most always been at the cutting edge of performance for the era or close to. Very impressive

The added dangers of very basic barriers in the 60s or earlier... Then to race on such a track flat out in a highly strung prototype machine, with the classic formula car "whine" blasting at full song

[metz]

I actually think its works in the opposite way. Driving the moderns is doubtless safer but not necessarily easier.

With the life-threatening danger of the older cars its difficult to get to (for arguments sake) >95% of the car's abilities. Now there is a lower risk with safety improvements drivers easily get to say >98-99% of the car's abilities therefore with diminishing returns and running so close to the car's inherent limits I think it is actually more difficult, relatively, to find time and not make mistakes, even if the mistakes themselves are not punishable by death.

I agree.
Just have a look at the evolution of what is on the steering wheel.
Today's machines are much more complex and more prone to errors.
With all the electronics, even a slight error today has devastating effect on the outcome.

[Spoofski]

[quote name='Melbourne Park' date='Aug 13 2010, 08:24' post='4539677']
The story goes, that Williams had a radio setup on one of their active cars, it must have had an auto type of box, and it ran the track much faster than any human.
Nonsense

Secondly, a car like the BMW turbo, was generating over 1,400 hp in qualifying ...
No


Now, they sit in real time real G force simulators,
Nope

[Lifew12]

Secondly, a car like the BMW turbo, was generating over 1,400 hp in qualifying ...
No

Somewhere around there was indeed being achieved. Berger, in the Bennetton, reported a 5.5 bar reading at Monza, estimated - variously - to have given 'over 1300bhp' or 'over 1400bhp'. Even the former figure is quite substantial. (see Ian Bamsey's excellent 'The 1000bhp Grand Prix Cars' for detailed information.)

[Spoofski]

Somewhere around there was indeed being achieved. Berger, in the Bennetton, reported a 5.5 bar reading at Monza, estimated - variously - to have given 'over 1300bhp' or 'over 1400bhp'. Even the former figure is quite substantial. (see Ian Bamsey's excellent 'The 1000bhp Grand Prix Cars' for detailed information.)

I don't want to derail the topic (tooo far ) but there is and always has been a huge amount of BS surrounding engine power claims (understandable of course: BMW, Honda, Renault etc were in the game for publicity then as now) and few were more outrageous than during this period. These power figures were never measured, not even close, and hence were, as you say, estimates. Back-calculating BMEP for these values gives values which are......improbable.

[Rybo]

No drivers like Chandok, Senna and Yamamoto are paying the team, not vice-versa.

That still doesn't change my point. If a driver curses at his engineer he's harly going to be called in for a disciplinary hearing.

Sorry was trying to quote the post ahead of yours. And I agree with respect to drivers as they are subject to any rules and regs regarding employees. The only special treatment they might get would be some leeway here and there (Lewis in Melbourne this year).

[Henrytheeigth]

You try holding a car at 300km/h with 5G's of force pulling you against the corner.

Hmmmm, Maybe until you actually know what it's like to drive one of these car's, you shouldn't comment on how hard/easy they are to drive.

For the amount of money they get I would, and with my active conscience, I'd feel I had earnt the money!

[George Costanza]

Also Schumacher drove a 1983 Ferrari years ago and admitted he would have been scared had he have to race the machine! Saying todays cars would not be drievable without power setting sounds a bit far fetched. They do get driven without power steering (i.e when it fails!) obviously you loose a small amount of performance. The cars of the 80's might have not had the aero, but they had massive grip, massive HP and drivers often had to corner one handed when changing gear.

Probabaly evryone has seen this vid, but interesting

Pole in 1989 = Ayrton Senna - 1:38.041
Pole in 1999 = Michael Schumacher - 1:37.470

Senna was much better at pure speed than Michael Schumacher, and that is time alone to show how great Ayrton was!

Put Senna in Schu's Ferrari, it would be a qute a difference, IMO.

[Lifew12]

I don't want to derail the topic (tooo far ) but there is and always has been a huge amount of BS surrounding engine power claims (understandable of course: BMW, Honda, Renault etc were in the game for publicity then as now) and few were more outrageous than during this period. These power figures were never measured, not even close, and hence were, as you say, estimates. Back-calculating BMEP for these values gives values which are......improbable.

On the contrary; Heine Mader calculated the claims for the BMW engine according to the standard boost for races. 3.7 bar represented 850bhp - a measured output - and there is no doubt at all that 5.5bar would easily measure over 1300bhp, possibly over 1400bhp. Given that at 5.3bar - the regular pressure for qualifying in 1986 - 1200bhp was the norm it's not 'improbable' at all.