85 replies to this topic

[goldenboy]

I think Perez would be a hilarious number two. Not at all a bad chance he comes out on top.

[taran]

Yeah, but in both cases they had dominant cars which made things easier and anyway, in both cases one of the drivers had to ultimately leave the team because the internal tensions were unbearable. Then, both reverted to classic 1st driver & 2nd driver lineups.

 

Did they?

If you look at McLaren:

in 1983 they have Lauda and Watson.No team tensions there. Yet they immediately dump Watson when Prost becomes available. When Lauda retires, they snatch up WDC Rosberg. When he retires, they take a Ferrari driver (Johansson) and a year later take Senna to partner Prost. When Prost leaves, they take Berger, a respected driver and former team leader at Ferrari. Berger will ultimately be regarded as tier 2 but at the time McLaren clearly weren't settling for a #2.

And the list goes on....McLaren puts Hakkinen in the seat over Andretti because the American isn't good enough.

They then fight Williams for Coulthard.After Hakkinen retires, they opt for Raikkonen. Coulthard is replaced by Montoya who is replaced by Alonso. Etc. etc. etc.

 

At no point did they really opt for a #2. Some drivers became functional #2's because their team mates were simply better but they usually went for the best driver they could get. Even the Perez, Magnussen,Vandoorne carousel was an attempt to find the next superstar. The only questionable choices in recent times would be Lando Norris and Carlos Sainz.

Norris benefited unduly from a shitty F2 car with unacceptable reliability while Sainz was considered good but not exceptional before this break-out year.

[DeKnyff]

Did they?

If you look at McLaren:

in 1983 they have Lauda and Watson.No team tensions there. Yet they immediately dump Watson when Prost becomes available. When Lauda retires, they snatch up WDC Rosberg. When he retires, they take a Ferrari driver (Johansson) and a year later take Senna to partner Prost. When Prost leaves, they take Berger, a respected driver and former team leader at Ferrari. Berger will ultimately be regarded as tier 2 but at the time McLaren clearly weren't settling for a #2.

And the list goes on....McLaren puts Hakkinen in the seat over Andretti because the American isn't good enough.

They then fight Williams for Coulthard.After Hakkinen retires, they opt for Raikkonen. Coulthard is replaced by Montoya who is replaced by Alonso. Etc. etc. etc.

 

At no point did they really opt for a #2. Some drivers became functional #2's because their team mates were simply better but they usually went for the best driver they could get. Even the Perez, Magnussen,Vandoorne carousel was an attempt to find the next superstar. The only questionable choices in recent times would be Lando Norris and Carlos Sainz.

Norris benefited unduly from a shitty F2 car with unacceptable reliability while Sainz was considered good but not exceptional before this break-out year.

 

I was referring to not having two absolute star drivers on the same team, most of the examples you provide are about one star driver and a reasonably good one, but not a "superstar". Not what a Hamilton-Verstappen lineup would be today. Watson, Berger, Coulthard were fine drivers, but by no means top tier. Pérez, Magnussen, Vandoorne, Sainz, Norris, were/are all good prospects, but not obvious WDC contenders. Rosberg Sr. was a (unexpected) World Champion, but when he joined McLaren, it was clear that Prost was above him (a bit like Räikkönen rejoining Ferrari in 2014). Even when McLaren hired Button in 2010, most fans (including many in this forum) believed he was no threat for Lewis.

 

The only time McLaren has had two drivers directly fighting for Championships inside the team were Prost-Senna in 1988 and 1989 and Alonso-Hamilton in 2007. In both cases, it didn't end well. And in both cases, the incoming driver (Senna and Hamilton) was not supposed to be a real threat to the de facto number one.

[taran]

I may not have expressed my point clearly. IMO, while McLaren may have had functional #1 and #2 setups, they didn't hire drivers on that basis.

Hakkinen and Coulthard is a good example. Hakkinen was the team leader when they fought Williams for Coulthard. You don't do that for a #2 driver.

Same with Gerhard Berger. He was hired as the best driver they could get. Not as the fast #2 he became next to Senna.

[Sterzo]

Fangio/Farina; Fangio/Moss; Clark/Hill; Fittipaldi/Peterson; Lauda/Prost; Prost/Senna... and so on. Those boys done well, didn't they?

 

Yes, we know what the risks are, and there's a case against having two top dogs in one team. But there's an incredibly attractive case in favour too, especially if one is nearer to the end than the beginning of his career.

[Henri Greuter]

Fangio/Farina; Fangio/Moss; Clark/Hill; Fittipaldi/Peterson; Lauda/Prost; Prost/Senna... and so on. Those boys done well, didn't they?
 
Yes, we know what the risks are, and there's a case against having two top dogs in one team. But there's an incredibly attractive case in favour too, especially if one is nearer to the end than the beginning of his career.

There is at least one of those combo's of which I think they didn't do well, but that's my personal opinion.

Most of the combo's you listed drove in the past wen motor racing was far more dangerous business than nowadays, fatalities are rare nowadays, back then they were more frequent. The increased sturdyness and safety rules had as an effect that drivers were prepared to take more risks, not only with themselves but with others in combat too. And in a few cases dared to trust on the common sense of the other driver with who they were in battle to trust on his instincts of survival and thus him giving in in time to prevent an accident.

Besides that, compared with, say, some 20 and more years ago, people were different, less selfish and in a lot of things, later generations which provide the drivers of today have a different stance on life and react accordingly.
Lots of things that current generations take for granted or thinks to be acceptable was not looked on that way in the past.
Add to that the fact that there is so much more at stake with teams&sponsors having invested so many millions $$$, it explains why drivers of today reacts way different to competitive team mates as they did in the past.


But now I'm drifting off into matters like morals etc, probably not the points to deal with over here (anymore)

Edited by Henri Greuter, 13 December 2019 - 15:57.

[Dolph]

To achieve the best race results:

 

Max and Lewis.

 

 

To achieve the best marketing:

 

Max and Fernando.

[HeadFirst]

Assuming a top car ...

To win the WDC - Hamilton/Bottas

To win the WCC - Hamilton/Bottas

 

 

To save Renault from oblivion - Alonso/Gasly with Grosjean as 3rd driver

 

 

To sell oceans of  an undrinkable beverage, win the hearts of millions of young ladies, and to re-ignite the passion of fans on the edge of switching to MotoGP (with the possibility of not winning either crown) - Verstappen/Leclerc

[PlayboyRacer]

To sell oceans of an undrinkable beverage, win the hearts of millions of young ladies, and to re-ignite the passion of fans on the edge of switching to MotoGP (with the possibility of not winning either crown) - Verstappen/Leclerc

Question is though - which one of the two is capturing the most hearts of the ladies!? Haha

Seriously though - I hope one day a team boss has the balls to put these two together. Instant box office.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 14 December 2019 - 03:05.

[Dhillon]

Hamilton and Bottas for good balance and harmony in team.

[Grayson]

As a few others have mentioned, it depends a bit on which team I'm running.

 

There's no point signing Max Verstappen for Williams. Unless you think he's the greatest car developer in the sport, all I'd be doing is spending too much money on a driver who will be miserable, 15th and outspokenly critical of the team which can't give him a good enough car.

 

So with that said... Assuming that any driver would want to drive for me, that their wage demands are reasonable and given my bias for wanting the two best drivers in the car...

 

Mercedes - Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen

Ferrari - Charles Leclerc and Lewis Hamilton

Red Bull - Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton

 

The three front-runners are pretty easy. In each case, keep hold of our proven, secured superstar and get the best driver on the market to join him. The only one I might slightly reconsider is Leclerc at Ferrari as he's only really proven himself over one season, but with Lewis Hamilton in the other seat I'm happy to take that risk!

 

Renault - Daniel Ricciardo and Valtteri Bottas

McLaren - Carlos Sainz and Lando Norris

 

Renault and McLaren's lineup depends on what we're trying to do in 2020.

 

There's no question that I'm holding onto Ricciardo at Renault and Sainz at McLaren, but the second seat depends on what our realistic ambitions are this season. Are we in a position to start fighting for wins? Then I need to get Hamilton in (or get Hamilton home if I'm running McLaren).

 

But I don't think that's going to happen. At Renault, I think we're still going to be behind the top three, hopefully getting closer and ready to fight for wins in a couple of years. That means I want a driver like Bottas, Sainz or Perez to bank the points, develop the car and get us ready for the step up. I'll pick Bottas, comfortable that both he and Ricciardo are comfortable fighting at the very front if we get there in 2021!

 

At McLaren, I don't think we'll be fighting at the front yet, but we've already got two spectacular drivers who'll be ready if we are. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

Racing Point - Sergio Perez and Valtteri Bottas

 

Perez has been doing a terrific job, there's no question I'd retain him. The second seat is trickier. Sainz has proven that he's capable of the job at multiple teams, especially McLaren in 2019. Russel might be a better option for the future, but we probably won't be able to keep hold of him if he proves what he's made of with us in 2020. If I thought that Alonso was interested in coming back to the sport and knuckling down, he'd also be an option. Ultimately Bottas will score us more points, so long as he can remain motivated.

 

Of course, this is all a fantasy scenario where I actually have the choice of drivers. In reality, my boss is going to tell me to stick his son in the car!

 

Alfa Romeo - Lando Norris and George Russell

Alpha Tauri - Lando Norris and George Russell

 

What are Alfa and Alpha actually for? Are they teams in their own right or are they there to train up the next great drivers for their parent teams?

 

If it's the former, I'd probably get Vettel in (or keep Kimi) at Alfa and keep at least one of Alpha's current lineup.

 

But I don't think that's what they're really for - I think they're there to get drivers ready to take over at Ferrari and Red Bull respectively. So assuming I can convince them to come to my team, I'm snapping up the two best young drivers who haven't already got seats at the top three teams.

 

Williams - George Russell and Nicholas Latifi

 

I think my predecessor at Williams signed the right drivers before I got here. Russell is a superb talent, a future star and someone who'll get the best out of the car. If we've got him as a reference point, we need money to develop the car (and keep the team alive) more than we need another driver to almost match Russell - so a deal where Nicholas Latifi brings money seems like our best option.

 

It's not like Latifi is a terrible driver either. He's quite similar to his countryman Lance Stroll - he's quick and he'd get a lot more positive attention if it wasn't for his money and the fact that he was moved up to various series a year or two too early!

 

Haas - my resignation

 

I'm not sure I quite see what the point of Haas is (especially now that Alfa Romeo have taken over the role of the Ferrari junior team) and I don't want to work for a team who behaved the way that Haas did around the Force India/Racing Point survival bid.

 

And that's to say nothing of the way they brought the sport into disrepute with the Rich Energy debacle!

[shure]

As a fan I'd love to see Hamilton-Verstappen, just to see the epic fireworks and also to see who really is the fastest.

 

As a TP, and assuming I have a front running team, budgets aren't a concern and I only have to focus on points, I'd have Max as my main driver and then pair him with Vettel.  I think they'd be a very, very hard team to beat.  If for some reason I couldn't get Vettel I'd go for Ricciardo, then maybe Sainz.

 

Unintentionally, I appear to have gone for the Red Bull junior program!

[apoka]

Schumacher - Senna

[Silberpfeil]

If I was given the time to develop a team...

 

George Russell and Rene Rast.

 

If I had to get immediate results:

 

Hamilton and Leclerc.

 

If I was a sleeper agent sent from a rival team:

 

Alonso and Verstappen.

[F1 Mike]

Leclerc & Hamilton

[YoungGun]

Gilles Villeneuve and Nigel Mansel ... no one on the current grid ignites my imagination

[H0R]

Tony Kanaan and Kimi Raikkonen.

No driver worries until early fourth millenium.

[Branislav]

As a few others have mentioned, it depends a bit on which team I'm running.

 

 

Your own ;)

[Sterzo]

Your own ;)

Oh well, if I'd known that I would have chosen Wallace and Grommit.

[Branislav]

Oh well, if I'd known that I would have chosen Wallace and Grommit.

 

Really, if'd you have money and your own team which two you'd pick. As simple as that.

[A.Fant]

Yeah, but in both cases they had dominant cars which made things easier and anyway, in both cases one of the drivers had to ultimately leave the team because the internal tensions were unbearable. Then, both reverted to classic 1st driver & 2nd driver lineups.

Williams' most successful era (1991-1997) had little strife between teammates and clear 1/2 driver pairings every season, they did have massive friction between #1 driver and management though. An era of unprecedented #1 driver churn with three reigning WDCs being shown the door in favor of the new hot commodity.

[PlayboyRacer]

Williams never fired their World Champions in the 1990s. That really has grown legs over time hasn't it, amazing what people believe when something is constantly repeated.

Hill was the only one that wasn't kept on, that decision made as early as 1995. Mansell left because he didn't want to be paired with Prost, Prost left because he didn't want to be paired with Senna.

They never had #1 and #2 drivers.

[garoidb]

Williams never fired their World Champions in the 1990s. That really has grown legs over time hasn't it, amazing what people believe when something is constantly repeated.

Hill was the only one that wasn't kept on, that decision made as early as 1995. Mansell left because he didn't want to be paired with Prost, Prost left because he didn't want to be paired with Senna.

They never had #1 and #2 drivers.

 

They hired Prost knowing what Mansell's reaction would be, and they then hired Senna knowing that Prost would react badly.

[PlayboyRacer]

They hired Prost knowing what Mansell's reaction would be, and they then hired Senna knowing that Prost would react badly.

What does that change? Both drivers could have stayed.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 16 December 2019 - 20:16.

[garoidb]

What does that change? Both drivers could have stayed.

 

Williams knew they wouldn't. It sounds like you know that. It makes a difference because you are advancing the hypothesis that there is no responsibility on the team for the fact that a series of newly crowned world champions left in that decade. 

[PayasYouRace]

They hired Prost knowing what Mansell's reaction would be, and they then hired Senna knowing that Prost would react badly.

That can happen when you’re trying to get the two best possible drivers and they don’t get along. But they didn’t sack either of them. They were welcome to stay, and were expected to. To the point that it was a problem to replace Mansell for 93. 94 wasn’t as much of a problem because Damon was a known quantity by then.

[garoidb]

That can happen when you’re trying to get the two best possible drivers and they don’t get along. But they didn’t sack either of them. They were welcome to stay, and were expected to. To the point that it was a problem to replace Mansell for 93. 94 wasn’t as much of a problem because Damon was a known quantity by then.

 

In both cases, it was known that they didn't get along because they had been team-mates before. It's not something that just happened. Williams (or Renault, really) wanted Prost despite knowing that Mansell would probably leave. He announced his retirement before rather than stay in a team with Prost. Equally there can be no doubt that Prost was not going to stay around with Senna arriving. Didn't he have a clause in his contract to that effect? These departures are being made sound like accidental fallout when they were fairly inevitable consequences of decisions freely taken (not necessarily wanted ones, I do agree on that).

[PayasYouRace]

In both cases, it was known that they didn't get along because they had been team-mates before. It's not something that just happened. Williams (or Renault, really) wanted Prost despite knowing that Mansell would probably leave. He announced his retirement before rather than stay in a team with Prost. Equally there can be no doubt that Prost was not going to stay around with Senna arriving. Didn't he have a clause in his contract to that effect? These departures are being made sound like accidental fallout when they were fairly inevitable consequences of decisions freely taken (not necessarily wanted ones, I do agree on that).

 

The point is that Williams was trying to have both drivers. The outgoing champions left of their own volition.

[garoidb]

The point is that Williams was trying to have both drivers. The outgoing champions left of their own volition.

 

That misses the point IMO. Circumstances were created under which neither driver could reasonably be expected to stay. If you are arguing that Frank Williams, having done this, did then expect them to stay then I think that reveals a lot. 

Edited by garoidb, 16 December 2019 - 22:36.

[PayasYouRace]

That misses the point IMO. Circumstances were created under which neither driver could reasonably be expected to stay. If you are arguing that Frank Williams, having done this, did then expect them to stay then I think that reveals a lot. 

 

It only reveals that Mansell and Prost didn't want a fair fight.

[garoidb]

It only reveals that Mansell and Prost didn't want a fair fight.

 

They would put it differently, but I'm not here to argue on that. My comments relate to Frank Williams (and/or Patrick Head), and his/their taking decisions which inevitably caused newly minted World Champions to leave. If he or they thought those driver combinations could happen, then they were obviously deluded (and I don't think that's the case).

[PlayboyRacer]

Maybe it was Renault that was deluded. Because no doubt they were spending big to hire Prost and then Senna, it wasn't solely the decisions of Frank and Patrick.

I have no doubt their intentions was to have two of the three best drivers in the world at that time. One driver can't bear to live with that - catch you later. They still had one world champion driver regardless to lead the team as they well knew.

None of that speaks of 'sacking champion drivers'. Which is all we hear about when it comes to 90s Williams.

[PlatenGlass]

Was Prost definitely the reason Mansell left? I've seen a few interviews with Mansell from the time and he said nothing specific but seemed to imply that Williams was screwing him over in some way.

[PayasYouRace]

I also wonder how committed Prost was to staying in F1 or racing at all, as he didn't take up the offer of the McLaren seat for 94.

[Myrvold]

If I were a team principal I would not feature in the sister thread "best team principal"...

Leclerc and Norris.

[shure]

It only reveals that Mansell and Prost didn't want a fair fight.

To be fair both had been in situations where a very strong team mate had led to issues within the team.  I'm sure neither wanted to relive those experiences.