90 replies to this topic

[shure]

All true, but I just can't see them giving him a Merc seat after another season like this where he doesn't actually race against the rest of the field. I think they would love to see him one season in RP like Ocon to see more.

If they think he's good then I don't see why not.  McLaren did it with Hamilton in 2007 and look how that panned out.

 

I think this whole "apprenticeship in a lower team" thing is well overdone.  If a driver is good he should be able to adapt.  If he's not then no amount of learning years will make him good enough

[hansmann]

If they think he's good then I don't see why not.  McLaren did it with Hamilton in 2007 and look how that panned out.

 

I think this whole "apprenticeship in a lower team" thing is well overdone.  If a driver is good he should be able to adapt.  If he's not then no amount of learning years will make him good enough

 

But look at Hamilton's F1 career , it wasn't as smooth as it might look like today .

There have been ups and downs, entire seasons not going well .

Comparatively speaking, of course he always was up there or there abouts, but only now do we know that he is arguably the best driver on the grid .

 

Vettel is another example, brilliant to this day, but could easily have lost at least on of his WDCs , and faced serious challenges by Ric and now LeClerc . Even by Webber in one season .

 

LeClerc himself looks like a hero on some occassions, but like a rookie on many others .

Same with Verstappen; super fast and steady, until he completely messes things up at times .

 

A driver can adapt to a degree, but the ability to develop experience and maturity - apart from the raw skills - of a Lewis Hamilton will only be fully known after years of racing at the top .

 

Becoming a truely great driver takes a lot of time, and flashes of brilliance early on might be just that .

[shure]

But look at Hamilton's F1 career , it wasn't as smooth as it might look like today .

There have been ups and downs, entire seasons not going well .

Comparatively speaking, of course he always was up there or there abouts, but only now do we know that he is arguably the best driver on the grid .

 

Vettel is another example, brilliant to this day, but could easily have lost at least on of his WDCs , and faced serious challenges by Ric and now LeClerc . Even by Webber in one season .

 

LeClerc himself looks like a hero on some occassions, but like a rookie on many others .

Same with Verstappen; super fast and steady, until he completely messes things up at times .

 

A driver can adapt to a degree, but the ability to develop experience and maturity - apart from the raw skills - of a Lewis Hamilton will only be fully known after years of racing at the top .

 

Becoming a truely great driver takes a lot of time, and flashes of brilliance early on might be just that .

Most drivers have had ups and downs, to be fair.  The point is that Hamilton very nearly (and should have) won in 2007 and him being a rookie didn't do McLaren any harm at all (well I guess it did indirectly, but only because of very specific circumstances).  He didn't need an apprenticeship.

 

It's a pretty recent thing tbh:  Senna was competitive from his very first season; Piquet partnered Lauda from the very beginning; Prost did the same with John Watson at McLaren; Schumacher had a tug of war over his services from his very first race; Kimi joined McLaren in his second season etc.  It's only comparatively recently that this idea of a long apprenticeship at a junior team has taken hold and now it seems to be the established practice as teams are far too conservative to take a chance.  It's a by product of how corporate and risk averse everything has become

[Clatter]

Most drivers have had ups and downs, to be fair. The point is that Hamilton very nearly (and should have) won in 2007 and him being a rookie didn't do McLaren any harm at all (well I guess it did indirectly, but only because of very specific circumstances). He didn't need an apprenticeship.

It's a pretty recent thing tbh: Senna was competitive from his very first season; Piquet partnered Lauda from the very beginning; Prost did the same with John Watson at McLaren; Schumacher had a tug of war over his services from his very first race; Kimi joined McLaren in his second season etc. It's only comparatively recently that this idea of a long apprenticeship at a junior team has taken hold and now it seems to be the established practice as teams are far too conservative to take a chance. It's a by product of how corporate and risk averse everything has become

The only reason the apprenticeship at a junior team seems new is because testing is limited. Prior to that most new drivers would spend longer in junior series, and not get to F1 until later in their career. They could also usually expect to spend a season or 2 as a test driver. Hamilton was originally scheduled to do a season as test driver at McLaren, but had the good fortune of Montoya departing. Schumacher wasn't on anyone's radar until Jordan had their driver arrested and needed to find a replacement quickly. Seems like even the best sometimes need a stroke of luck to get going.

[hansmann]

Most drivers have had ups and downs, to be fair.  The point is that Hamilton very nearly (and should have) won in 2007 and him being a rookie didn't do McLaren any harm at all (well I guess it did indirectly, but only because of very specific circumstances).  He didn't need an apprenticeship.

 

It's a pretty recent thing tbh:  Senna was competitive from his very first season; Piquet partnered Lauda from the very beginning; Prost did the same with John Watson at McLaren; Schumacher had a tug of war over his services from his very first race; Kimi joined McLaren in his second season etc.  It's only comparatively recently that this idea of a long apprenticeship at a junior team has taken hold and now it seems to be the established practice as teams are far too conservative to take a chance.  It's a by product of how corporate and risk averse everything has become

 

I agree Hamilton was brilliant from the start, and still is .

But he is an exception , as is Vettel .

The margins are too close these days , the skills of all current drivers on such a high level that it's a lot harder to tell if a rookie will go beyond a few remarkable performances .

Only time will tell, and of course whether or not a driver will land a seat in a top team .

 

In the 80s to early 2000s, the cars were a lot harder to drive, the drivers didn't go through elaborate training and career building programs - also safety and rules weren't as big a concern .

Of the drivers you mentioned, only Schumacher was a 'modern' driver type who could still be successful today .

A Senna - I believe he was the dirtiest driver in F1 history - wouldn't be able to win anything in modern racing , even if he wasn't banned after a few races .

 

As for teams not taking chances anymore ; I think it depends . 

Merc should look beyond Bottas, Red Bull beyond the Marko squad . 

Maybe more importantly , the pay driver issue should be addressed - drivers like Stroll or Kubica , maybe Latifi, should not be able to get a seat in an F1 team .

[shure]

I agree Hamilton was brilliant from the start, and still is .

But he is an exception , as is Vettel .

The margins are too close these days , the skills of all current drivers on such a high level that it's a lot harder to tell if a rookie will go beyond a few remarkable performances .

Only time will tell, and of course whether or not a driver will land a seat in a top team .

 

In the 80s to early 2000s, the cars were a lot harder to drive, the drivers didn't go through elaborate training and career building programs - also safety and rules weren't as big a concern .

Of the drivers you mentioned, only Schumacher was a 'modern' driver type who could still be successful today .

A Senna - I believe he was the dirtiest driver in F1 history - wouldn't be able to win anything in modern racing , even if he wasn't banned after a few races .

 

As for teams not taking chances anymore ; I think it depends . 

Merc should look beyond Bottas, Red Bull beyond the Marko squad . 

Maybe more importantly , the pay driver issue should be addressed - drivers like Stroll or Kubica , maybe Latifi, should not be able to get a seat in an F1 team .

Agree with you on the career building programs but it's my view that at a certain point they are unnecessary.  Once a driver has reached F1 I don't see the value of serving an apprenticeship in a lower team.  Can anyone honestly say that Leclerc shouldn't have been at Ferrari this year?  Sure he's made a couple of mistakes but so has Vettel and it's not like he's inexperienced.

 

I think you're letting your personal view of Senna's personality colour your judgement on his driving ability.  He raced with Schumacher don't forget and was competitive against him.  If Schumacher would be competitive today, then so would Senna.

[Clatter]

Agree with you on the career building programs but it's my view that at a certain point they are unnecessary. Once a driver has reached F1 I don't see the value of serving an apprenticeship in a lower team. Can anyone honestly say that Leclerc shouldn't have been at Ferrari this year? Sure he's made a couple of mistakes but so has Vettel and it's not like he's inexperienced.

I think you're letting your personal view of Senna's personality colour your judgement on his driving ability. He raced with Schumacher don't forget and was competitive against him. If Schumacher would be competitive today, then so would Senna.

If there is no seat available in the main team, then it makes perfect sense to farm them out to a lower team. Far more experience to be gained there than sitting on the sidelines.

[shure]

If there is no seat available in the main team, then it makes perfect sense to farm them out to a lower team. Far more experience to be gained there than sitting on the sidelines.

Yes I agree that makes sense for them, although it does present other complications overall.  But my main point was on the practice of having to run an apprenticeship first before a driver is ready for a big team and the reluctance to take a risk on a (relative) newcomer.  I think if a driver is ready for F1 then he should be ready for any team

[taran]

If they think he's good then I don't see why not.  McLaren did it with Hamilton in 2007 and look how that panned out.

 

I think this whole "apprenticeship in a lower team" thing is well overdone.  If a driver is good he should be able to adapt.  If he's not then no amount of learning years will make him good enough

 

It depends on what you mean with adapt. A fast rookie will do well but also make mistakes. Leclerc is a good example. As good as he is, another year at Sauber would have done him good I think. And most people believe Kvyat, Gasly and now Albon have been promoted too soon.

 

If you look at all the great drivers of the recent past...

 

Hamilton: the best prepared rookie ever.

Rosberg: had several years at Williams.

Vettel: raced for Toro Rosso.

Button: needed several years before maturing at BAR.

Raikkonen: had a season at Sauber.

Alonso: had a season at Minardi and a testing year with Renault.

Hakkinen: had a couple of seasons in a Lotus before slowly becoming competitive with McLaren.

Schumacher: was a Mercedes junior in WEC and had several years with Benetton before they cheated themselves to a title.

Hill: was a Brabham driver and Williams test driver before getting the Williams drive.

Villeneuve: was a successful F1 rookie but had CART experience and a decent Williams test programme.

Prost: had a year with McLaren.

Senna: had a year with Toleman.

Mansell: had multiple years with Lotus as #2 before stepping in a Williams in 1985.

Lauda: had his learning years with BRM.

Piquet: was the #2 to Lauda at Brabham before (unexpectedly) become #1 in 1980.

 

The point is that while all of them showed their potential, practically all had some time in a mid-grid or backmarker team where they could learn F1 without pressure. And arguably, they all were the better for it.

Hamilton is perhaps the greatest exception and he was fully embedded at McLaren and had more testing miles than any other rookie. And even he needed a few years to reach his full potential. 

[Clatter]

Yes I agree that makes sense for them, although it does present other complications overall. But my main point was on the practice of having to run an apprenticeship first before a driver is ready for a big team and the reluctance to take a risk on a (relative) newcomer. I think if a driver is ready for F1 then he should be ready for any team

I agree if they are ready, but that has to be for the teams to judge. I still think you should bear in mind that the apprenticeship is not a new thing, it's just the method that has changed. Prior to the testing ban drivers would often do one or two years as a test driver (when it involved actual driving) before moving to the main team.

[PayasYouRace]

It depends on what you mean with adapt. A fast rookie will do well but also make mistakes. Leclerc is a good example. As good as he is, another year at Sauber would have done him good I think. And most people believe Kvyat, Gasly and now Albon have been promoted too soon.

 

 

 

Most people believe? Do you have some polls or something to back that up, or is it just that you believe?

 

Kvyat outsored Ricciardo in their full season together. Red Bull did that 2016 because they thought Verstappen was ready and didn't want to lose him, using a Kvyat's Russian GP start chaos as an excuse. I'll agree with out on Gasly but Albon has been doing a great job, and has already outscored Gasly despite spending half the number of races in the top team.

 

As for your list, most of those drivers had one season or two in a small team, but the big difference was that they weren't already part of a driver programme from a big team. So they had to get the attention of the big teams in some way. Drivers like Russell have already got the big team's attention, so they don't necessarily need to prove themselves elsewhere.

Oh, and Lewis Hamilton had a typical preparation for F1 for the time. He was in no way the best prepared rookie ever. Someone actually recently posted comparative testing mileage from the time, and Hamilton wasn't even top of the list.

[taran]

Most people believe? Do you have some polls or something to back that up, or is it just that you believe?

 

Kvyat outsored Ricciardo in their full season together. Red Bull did that 2016 because they thought Verstappen was ready and didn't want to lose him, using a Kvyat's Russian GP start chaos as an excuse. I'll agree with out on Gasly but Albon has been doing a great job, and has already outscored Gasly despite spending half the number of races in the top team.

 

As for your list, most of those drivers had one season or two in a small team, but the big difference was that they weren't already part of a driver programme from a big team. So they had to get the attention of the big teams in some way. Drivers like Russell have already got the big team's attention, so they don't necessarily need to prove themselves elsewhere.

Oh, and Lewis Hamilton had a typical preparation for F1 for the time. He was in no way the best prepared rookie ever. Someone actually recently posted comparative testing mileage from the time, and Hamilton wasn't even top of the list.

 

It's been argued to death, I'd say. By F1 commentators, fans on this forum and even by their own team boss...

 

https://www.gpfans.c...rly-toro-rosso/

[shure]

It depends on what you mean with adapt. A fast rookie will do well but also make mistakes. Leclerc is a good example. As good as he is, another year at Sauber would have done him good I think. And most people believe Kvyat, Gasly and now Albon have been promoted too soon.

 

If you look at all the great drivers of the recent past...

 

Hamilton: the best prepared rookie ever.

Rosberg: had several years at Williams.

Vettel: raced for Toro Rosso.

Button: needed several years before maturing at BAR.

Raikkonen: had a season at Sauber.

Alonso: had a season at Minardi and a testing year with Renault.

Hakkinen: had a couple of seasons in a Lotus before slowly becoming competitive with McLaren.

Schumacher: was a Mercedes junior in WEC and had several years with Benetton before they cheated themselves to a title.

Hill: was a Brabham driver and Williams test driver before getting the Williams drive.

Villeneuve: was a successful F1 rookie but had CART experience and a decent Williams test programme.

Prost: had a year with McLaren.

Senna: had a year with Toleman.

Mansell: had multiple years with Lotus as #2 before stepping in a Williams in 1985.

Lauda: had his learning years with BRM.

Piquet: was the #2 to Lauda at Brabham before (unexpectedly) become #1 in 1980.

 

The point is that while all of them showed their potential, practically all had some time in a mid-grid or backmarker team where they could learn F1 without pressure. And arguably, they all were the better for it.

Hamilton is perhaps the greatest exception and he was fully embedded at McLaren and had more testing miles than any other rookie. And even he needed a few years to reach his full potential. 

If I'm looking at that list I'd say the time spent in a midfield or backmarker was pretty minimal for the most part.  I wouldn't call McLaren a midfield team for Prost even then and Piquet partnering with Lauda, a two-times WDC, carried it's own pressures.

 

All of the above show drivers serving the minimum possible outside a top team, and in some cases no time at all.  Hamilton's was one of the most extreme, but the point is that generally the best drivers cope with being thrown into the deep end.  The examples of Gasly etc just reinforce that they are not top drivers, not that they didn't have enough time to bed in.  Serving longer apprenticeships is more for the teams' benefit than it is for the drivers but the bottom line is that if a driver is good enough then he will make it work

[Steve99]

"I wouldn't call McLaren a midfield team for Prost even then.."

 

No, it was barely a midfield team in 1980. The car was awful, a truly horrible thing.

Edited by Steve99, 08 November 2019 - 12:57.

[shure]

"I wouldn't call McLaren a midfield team for Prost even then.."

 

No, it was barely a midfield team in 1980. The car was awful, a truly horrible thing.

It was still one of the bigger teams, performance blip notwithstanding.

[hansmann]

If I'm looking at that list I'd say the time spent in a midfield or backmarker was pretty minimal for the most part.  I wouldn't call McLaren a midfield team for Prost even then and Piquet partnering with Lauda, a two-times WDC, carried it's own pressures.

 

All of the above show drivers serving the minimum possible outside a top team, and in some cases no time at all.  Hamilton's was one of the most extreme, but the point is that generally the best drivers cope with being thrown into the deep end.  The examples of Gasly etc just reinforce that they are not top drivers, not that they didn't have enough time to bed in.  Serving longer apprenticeships is more for the teams' benefit than it is for the drivers but the bottom line is that if a driver is good enough then he will make it work

 

I just think you can't compare current F1 with the F1 of 20-30 years ago .

Drivers today need to be well groomed to succeed , whereas back in the day raw talent and steely determination could get you on the top step . 

Lauda, one of my F1 heros, might get stuck in some junior program nowadays ...

A James Hunt wouldn't make it past the first urine sample .

 

I don't mean to take anything away from the current drivers , though, I think we have a whole bunch of great youngsters coming through .

Leclerc, Albon, Norris, Verstappen of course, a lot to look forward to .

[shure]

I just think you can't compare current F1 with the F1 of 20-30 years ago .

Drivers today need to be well groomed to succeed , whereas back in the day raw talent and steely determination could get you on the top step . 

Lauda, one of my F1 heros, might get stuck in some junior program nowadays ...

A James Hunt wouldn't make it past the first urine sample .

 

I don't mean to take anything away from the current drivers , though, I think we have a whole bunch of great youngsters coming through .

Leclerc, Albon, Norris, Verstappen of course, a lot to look forward to .

Do they, though?  That's the perception I'm questioning.  Max had barely any experience before being thrust into the main Red Bull team, while Leclerc just had a year.  Max won his very first race after moving.  So I question why the likes of Russell and Norris need more bedding in before getting a top seat.  A year learning the ropes in F1 is plenty IMO and I don't see an proper justification to wait longer than that.

[PayasYouRace]

Split from Williams topic.

[PlatenGlass]

So the opening post is about George Russell?

[Nathan]

 

Becoming a truely great driver takes a lot of time, and flashes of brilliance early on might be just that .

 

Judging who is truly great takes a lot of time, becoming great not near as much.

[ceesvdelst]

This was an issue in MotoGP until the SPanish run series (no link honest guv) changed the rules to allow Marquez to ride for the factory team when he made his debut. That decision was proven to be right. 

 

It was never really done to be fair in the past, but Marco Simoncelli was made to ride a semi factory bike for a bit when he made his debut for Honda before Marquez, so there was a change.

[danmills]

The only reason the apprenticeship at a junior team seems new is because testing is limited. Prior to that most new drivers would spend longer in junior series, and not get to F1 until later in their career. They could also usually expect to spend a season or 2 as a test driver. Hamilton was originally scheduled to do a season as test driver at McLaren, but had the good fortune of Montoya departing. Schumacher wasn't on anyone's radar until Jordan had their driver arrested and needed to find a replacement quickly. Seems like even the best sometimes need a stroke of luck to get going.

 

Wrong. Schumacher was very much on the F1 radar and was part of the Mercedes plan with Sauber that got delayed. He was shoehorned into that Jordan seat with a Sauber deal already signed. The trio of contracts he later had is ab

another fiasco altogether. But he was by no means a nobody.

[SonGoku]

For some reason top teams don't want to do it. Hamilton only got that McLaren seat because Mercedes-Benz pushed McLaren to do it.

[PlayboyRacer]

It's generally to do with the weight and pressure of expectation imo. In a top seat, expected to regularly fight for wins and championships, there simply is no hiding. And we've seen time and again good drivers - not even rookies or inexperienced - make the step to a top team and they underperform. Yet in a poor car they showed well, punching above it's weight from time to time.

Hamilton really was a 'once in a generation' talent. And that was evident the moment he stepped into F1, clearly he's an exception. JV had taken CART IndyCar by storm, in his early 20s, at a time when it was a real threat to Formula 1 as the premier open wheel category and the talent ran deep. But even he's said himself, it was the manner in which he won the Indy 500 which led Sir Frank to test him. Williams could see mentally he was a very tough character and that factor was important.

But these have always been exceptions to the rule. Leclerc isn't even a rookie but clearly very talented, very fast and mentally strong. Yet even he's found Ferrari and fighting at the front another world compared to '18 and racing in the midfield and, at times, he's made a couple of silly mistakes. And he's not even fighting for the WDC.

[noikeee]

I think drivers 100% benefit from growing for a bit without the weight of expectation that comes with a top team. Could be a season, two, three, or some testing when there's some actual testing, etc, etc.

But I don't quite follow the idea that you need to "prove yourself" or a top seat isn't deserved. I mean maybe in a perfect world, yeah, but in the great scale of motorsport injustices, a talented junior series star getting his chance right at the very top instead of a lower midfield team, ranks very low as an injustice.

[PlayboyRacer]

Do they, though? That's the perception I'm questioning. Max had barely any experience before being thrust into the main Red Bull team, while Leclerc just had a year. Max won his very first race after moving. So I question why the likes of Russell and Norris need more bedding in before getting a top seat. A year learning the ropes in F1 is plenty IMO and I don't see an proper justification to wait longer than that.

Max is an exceptional talent though, perhaps in the mould of Hamilton. Remains to be seen if Charles is right with them but he's also clearly very talented from his generation and already proven his credentials in only two seasons.

Are Norris and Russell cut from the same cloth? Hard to say. Worth remembering a guy by the name of Mika Hakkinen though. Turned out he was a great driver, double WDC and all. Look past the overrated 'outqualified Senna once' nonsense though and he was very raw, a little flawed and even unconvincing at times in his first few seasons.

Not everyone is the same nor do they all evolve to the same degree.

[Atreiu]

Yeps. Let the teams take whichever risks they feel like.

[HeadFirst]

Some young drivers may be ready for a top team, but are there top teams ready for them to go to? If you look at the top teams being Mercedes, Ferrari, and Red Bull, which of those teams actually need someone to fill out their line-up? Mercedes and Ferrari certainly don't. You could argue that RB might, but they already have 1 of the rookies in place. The problem is simply a lack of competitive teams, and until that situation is resolved, the question of whether or not drivers should go to top teams is moot. 

[gillesfan76]

But look at Hamilton's F1 career , it wasn't as smooth as it might look like today .

There have been ups and downs, entire seasons not going well .

Comparatively speaking, of course he always was up there or there abouts, but only now do we know that he is arguably the best driver on the grid .

 

Vettel is another example, brilliant to this day, but could easily have lost at least on of his WDCs , and faced serious challenges by Ric and now LeClerc . Even by Webber in one season .

 

LeClerc himself looks like a hero on some occassions, but like a rookie on many others .

Same with Verstappen; super fast and steady, until he completely messes things up at times .

 

A driver can adapt to a degree, but the ability to develop experience and maturity - apart from the raw skills - of a Lewis Hamilton will only be fully known after years of racing at the top .

 

Becoming a truely great driver takes a lot of time, and flashes of brilliance early on might be just that .

 

This is a great post. However I think these are two different topics. I agree with Shure that if a driver is good enough, they should be able to drive for a top team, but it can definitely work against them too if they don't deliver immediately.

 

I also agree with your point that until you see a driver over a number of years and against different team mates, it's very difficult to get a true picture. The great drivers can adapt and while they may not be the very best if the regulation, car, tyres, whatever doesn't suit them well, they'll still be right up there. For the great drivers, while their highs are very high, their lows are few and far between, and their average is at a high level.

 

There are many other drivers, like Webber who are unbeatable on their day, but their lows are often and very low and their overall average performances aren't at a consistently high level.

[CoolBreeze]

Nope. What's the rush? 

[alainsfoot]

Do they, though?  That's the perception I'm questioning.  Max had barely any experience before being thrust into the main Red Bull team, while Leclerc just had a year.  Max won his very first race after moving.  So I question why the likes of Russell and Norris need more bedding in before getting a top seat.  A year learning the ropes in F1 is plenty IMO and I don't see an proper justification to wait longer than that.

not wishing to downplay max's achievements (which are obvious), but his first race victory was a clear stitch up.  ric was leading the race and was pitted in highly dubious circumstances, which gave rb and max their headline public relations victory.

Edited by alainsfoot, 09 November 2019 - 09:54.

[pacificquay]

To answer thread title, they should go into whichever team wants to employ them

[Fatgadget]

For some reason top teams don't want to do it. Hamilton only got that McLaren seat because Mercedes-Benz pushed McLaren to do it.

I thought it was Ron's decision him being Lewis's mentor from an early age and all.

[Requiem84]

I doubt Leclerc would have survived against Vettel had he joined Ferrari as a rookie.

He had troubles with Ericsson first few races. Verstappen too had issues with Sainz first few races, especially in qualifying.

[Steve99]

It was still one of the bigger teams, performance blip notwithstanding.

 

Blip? Following '77 McLaren was a team in rapid decline. 78, 79 and 80, they were awful. Three dire years is not a blip! 

[noikeee]

Prost getting his chance with Mclaren in the state they were in 1980, is pretty much equivalent to Norris getting his chance with Mclaren this season.

[Steve99]

Prost getting his chance with Mclaren in the state they were in 1980, is pretty much equivalent to Norris getting his chance with Mclaren this season.

 

I'd put it more akin to Giovinazzi and Alfa.

[Yamamoto]

This was an issue in MotoGP until the SPanish run series (no link honest guv) changed the rules to allow Marquez to ride for the factory team when he made his debut. That decision was proven to be right. 

 

It was never really done to be fair in the past, but Marco Simoncelli was made to ride a semi factory bike for a bit when he made his debut for Honda before Marquez, so there was a change.

 

They were essentially just reversing the rookie rule they had introduced. I'm not sure that short-lived regulation ever actually affected anyone - I'm not sure Simoncelli would have been on full-factory machinery anyway. Just a few years previously, Lorenzo and Pedrosa had both gone straight into factory teams and won within their first four races.

[AmonGods]

In today's F1, Lewis was already 'old' at the age of 22 when he joined Mclaren.

I think nowadays drivers need a year in a lesser team because they join F1 at a really young age.

[Clatter]

For some reason top teams don't want to do it. Hamilton only got that McLaren seat because Mercedes-Benz pushed McLaren to do it.

He was due to do a year as test driver. He got the seat early because Montoya left.

[tourister46a]

It depends on what you mean with adapt. A fast rookie will do well but also make mistakes. Leclerc is a good example. As good as he is, another year at Sauber would have done him good I think. And most people believe Kvyat, Gasly and now Albon have been promoted too soon.

 

If you look at all the great drivers of the recent past...

 

Hamilton: the best prepared rookie ever.

Rosberg: had several years at Williams.

Vettel: raced for Toro Rosso.

Button: needed several years before maturing at BAR.

Raikkonen: had a season at Sauber.

Alonso: had a season at Minardi and a testing year with Renault.

Hakkinen: had a couple of seasons in a Lotus before slowly becoming competitive with McLaren.

Schumacher: was a Mercedes junior in WEC and had several years with Benetton before they cheated themselves to a title.

Hill: was a Brabham driver and Williams test driver before getting the Williams drive.

Villeneuve: was a successful F1 rookie but had CART experience and a decent Williams test programme.

Prost: had a year with McLaren.

Senna: had a year with Toleman.

Mansell: had multiple years with Lotus as #2 before stepping in a Williams in 1985.

Lauda: had his learning years with BRM.

Piquet: was the #2 to Lauda at Brabham before (unexpectedly) become #1 in 1980.

 

The point is that while all of them showed their potential, practically all had some time in a mid-grid or backmarker team where they could learn F1 without pressure. And arguably, they all were the better for it.

Hamilton is perhaps the greatest exception and he was fully embedded at McLaren and had more testing miles than any other rookie. And even he needed a few years to reach his full potential. 

Thanks for your research. What about the other kind of drivers, you know, the ones who made their debut with top teams, but couldn't cope? In the 20 odd years of watching F1, I only know of a few drivers who walked straight into a big team - JV, JPM and LH. You already (conveniently?) brushed aside two of them as special cases. Was a JPM a success or no?

 

To answer the thread title, SHOULD drivers go straight to top teams? It is up to the teams, obviously. My view is that it doesn't hurt to spend a year or two learning the ropes, regardless of the team. As a rookie in a top team, it is unlikely you are expected to win the WDC, so best to focus on your yourself and learn as much as you can. Would Leclerc have beaten Vettel in his first year? Maybe not. Would Leclerc have been damaged beyond repair if he had been pitted against Sebastian last year? Unlikely.

[Marklar]

It depends on what you mean with adapt. A fast rookie will do well but also make mistakes. Leclerc is a good example. As good as he is, another year at Sauber would have done him good I think. And most people believe Kvyat, Gasly and now Albon have been promoted too soon.

If you look at all the great drivers of the recent past...

Hamilton: the best prepared rookie ever.
Rosberg: had several years at Williams.
Vettel: raced for Toro Rosso.
Button: needed several years before maturing at BAR.
Raikkonen: had a season at Sauber.
Alonso: had a season at Minardi and a testing year with Renault.
Hakkinen: had a couple of seasons in a Lotus before slowly becoming competitive with McLaren.
Schumacher: was a Mercedes junior in WEC and had several years with Benetton before they cheated themselves to a title.
Hill: was a Brabham driver and Williams test driver before getting the Williams drive.
Villeneuve: was a successful F1 rookie but had CART experience and a decent Williams test programme.
Prost: had a year with McLaren.
Senna: had a year with Toleman.
Mansell: had multiple years with Lotus as #2 before stepping in a Williams in 1985.
Lauda: had his learning years with BRM.
Piquet: was the #2 to Lauda at Brabham before (unexpectedly) become #1 in 1980.

The point is that while all of them showed their potential, practically all had some time in a mid-grid or backmarker team where they could learn F1 without pressure. And arguably, they all were the better for it.
Hamilton is perhaps the greatest exception and he was fully embedded at McLaren and had more testing miles than any other rookie. And even he needed a few years to reach his full potential.

The Hamilton thing is a myth. Other drivers had way more testing mileage at the time than he had. Less than Alonso in the car too. The factors that helped him was a good simulator (nowadays they are MUCH better btw) and that Michelin left, which robbed Alonso from one of his advantages.

As for Kimi: he had a year in Sauber, but before that he only had one year in cars, that's pretty bad preparation overall, same for Max.

The answer is simple: It depends. Some drivers can immediately adapt, some not. And sometimes it depends on the circumstances.

As for your point about Leclerc: a year without a championship at stake at Ferrari is a much better way to learn than another year at Sauber. He is already learning the ropes, which could come in handy if a title is at stake next year. If he only had been promoted next year he would have had to learn this potentially during a championship fight, which ofc is possible, but not optimal.

Timing matters a lot.

Edited by Marklar, 09 November 2019 - 19:58.

[PlatenGlass]

Thanks for your research. What about the other kind of drivers, you know, the ones who made their debut with top teams, but couldn't cope? In the 20 odd years of watching F1, I only know of a few drivers who walked straight into a big team - JV, JPM and LH. You already (conveniently?) brushed aside two of them as special cases.

Hamilton and Villeneuve were, in reality, in very different situations and one was in a much harder situation than the other.

Hamilton had Alonso to contend with in the same team and also the Ferraris.

Villeneuve had Hill in the same team, and no other team except in the odd race.

Many very good drivers could have ended up looking bad in Hamilton's situation.

[pingu666]

its also the culture shock i guess, going from junior formula where basically no one cares very much about you, to being in the media ALL the time.

and the increased workload and more travel, dealing with a evolving car too

 

and some rise when at the front (mika) and some fall (gasly?)

 

theres a shock too for most rookies in smaller teams, they are used to being at the front and now suddenly they are midpack, week in, week out

[PlayboyRacer]

Hamilton and Villeneuve were, in reality, in very different situations and one was in a much harder situation than the other.

Hamilton had Alonso to contend with in the same team and also the Ferraris.

Villeneuve had Hill in the same team, and no other team except in the odd race.

Many very good drivers could have ended up looking bad in Hamilton's situation.

Villeneuve had to contend with not knowing many of the tracks in '96 and coming up through a quite different path of open wheel racing (Japanese F3, F.Atlantics and CART IndyCar).

JV's situation and Lewis Hamiltons were both very unique and had their own difficulties/pitfalls. A simple look at how many genuine U.S open wheel products rose to F1 success shows this. I count one other - Mario Andretti.

Additionally - Villeneuve never karted as a kid and didn't start racing cars period till 18 years of age iirc. Let that sink in.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 09 November 2019 - 22:05.

[Fatgadget]

It depends on what you mean with adapt. A fast rookie will do well but also make mistakes. Leclerc is a good example. As good as he is, another year at Sauber would have done him good I think. And most people believe Kvyat, Gasly and now Albon have been promoted too soon.

 

If you look at all the great drivers of the recent past...

 

Hamilton: the best prepared rookie ever.

Rosberg: had several years at Williams.

Vettel: raced for Toro Rosso.

Button: needed several years before maturing at BAR.

Raikkonen: had a season at Sauber.

Alonso: had a season at Minardi and a testing year with Renault.

Hakkinen: had a couple of seasons in a Lotus before slowly becoming competitive with McLaren.

Schumacher: was a Mercedes junior in WEC and had several years with Benetton before they cheated themselves to a title.

Hill: was a Brabham driver and Williams test driver before getting the Williams drive.

Villeneuve: was a successful F1 rookie but had CART experience and a decent Williams test programme.

Prost: had a year with McLaren.

Senna: had a year with Toleman.

Mansell: had multiple years with Lotus as #2 before stepping in a Williams in 1985.

Lauda: had his learning years with BRM.

Piquet: was the #2 to Lauda at Brabham before (unexpectedly) become #1 in 1980.

 

The point is that while all of them showed their potential, practically all had some time in a mid-grid or backmarker team where they could learn F1 without pressure. And arguably, they all were the better for it.

Hamilton is perhaps the greatest exception and he was fully embedded at McLaren and had more testing miles than any other rookie. And even he needed a few years to reach his full potential. 

Almost winnning the championship as a rookie AND getting the job done in your second year is not not showing ones true pontential? Eish!

[Tsarwash]

I'm really not sure if Jacques Villeneuve should be counted as a rookie in the same way as many of the others are counted as rookies. Otherwise, you can happily call Nigel Mansell a Rookie when he joined Indy in '93. (And yes, I know he was classified as a rookie, but it just seems a bit silly to me.)

[Kalmake]

I'm really not sure if Jacques Villeneuve should be counted as a rookie in the same way as many of the others are counted as rookies. Otherwise, you can happily call Nigel Mansell a Rookie when he joined Indy in '93. (And yes, I know he was classified as a rookie, but it just seems a bit silly to me.)

Coming from F3000 would have given JV more of relevant experience than Indy racing.

[hansmann]

Do they, though?  That's the perception I'm questioning.  Max had barely any experience before being thrust into the main Red Bull team, while Leclerc just had a year.  Max won his very first race after moving.  So I question why the likes of Russell and Norris need more bedding in before getting a top seat.  A year learning the ropes in F1 is plenty IMO and I don't see an proper justification to wait longer than that.

 

Good points .

Both Max and Charles come from families with racing backgrounds though - for what it's worth - and did spend time in the lower formulas and of course in carting from an early age .

They had been groomed for a carreer in racing for many years - and then they had the skills and luck to get picked up by top F1 teams early .

 

Many of the greats of the past came from a background not leading them on a path to possibly race professionally ever, let alone in F1 ; or in their day the talent hunting sytems we now have simply didn't exist .

[PayasYouRace]

I'm really not sure if Jacques Villeneuve should be counted as a rookie in the same way as many of the others are counted as rookies. Otherwise, you can happily call Nigel Mansell a Rookie when he joined Indy in '93. (And yes, I know he was classified as a rookie, but it just seems a bit silly to me.)

A rookie is a rookie, no ifs or buts.