i would think that constructor championship is more important to Ferrari than driver's championship. so in that case, they would want both their drivers to get maximum points available, and not use one driver as sacrificial lamb.

 

Only one of them can finish first at each race though, which gives your team a huge amount of points. A 1st and 5th from your two drivers, for example, gets you more points than a 2nd AND 3rd combined from a competitor, so there's a definite advantage to maximizing the number of races won, even if it means keeping your 2nd best driver off of the podium. Renault did that quite successfully for both of Alonso's championships. Remember how Trulli used to whine and cry about how much preferential treatment Alonso was getting there over him?!

In all honesty, I think having two extremely competitive drivers on the same team has been a detriment when you look at recent history. Look at Lewis's first year at McLaren, and how that completely unraveled. Then an even better comparison are the last two years at RBR. When Webber was on par with Vettel in 2010 with a nearly equally dominant car as what they had last year, the two of them were practically playing Nascar, and knocking one or the other out of half of the races they were in, which kept both championships in question down to the wire. Then the following year Vettel owns Webber, neither of them hindering each other's race finishes, and Vettel claims the championship with something like 4 races to spare. Therefore, seems pretty clear to me that having a true #1 driver, and somewhat sacrificing your #2 for the greater good, helps everyone involved.

 

^U make a good point but it is flawed...specifically, the second driver is a race driver and wants to, at least on paper and more importantly in his head, to have a chance of demonstrating his skills with the hope that he may be equal if not better than the supposed #1 driver...this expectation provides maximum motivation for him in every race... let us assume the Brazilian correspondent's (see earlier post) claim is correct for Massa, or any other designated second driver on other team, finds out that he (#2) is basically a test driver for #1 and that the components put on his car have unknown performance value, since testing time is so limited...However, #1 has, by contrast, previously proven performance parts on his car...Do U think #2 is going to B motivated to bust a***ss and drive to his limit NO'ing he has no chance of equaling much less bettering #1?

No, I think both cars on all teams should have all the latest mods installed and tell them both to go out and win...as proof of the consequences of a different strategy of, all for #1, let's look at RB last year to which U refered...Weber won a race sometime in 10 or 11 and said: "Not bad for a #2!" and subsequently went ballistic after trailing Vettel in future races when he felt that Vettel was getting different upgrades than he...whether Weber's allegations were true or not is irrelevant, he was very upset, to say the least and his racing results got worse and worse bringing it down to the wire in 2010.

Later, Ken

 

That just proves my point for any team with the car and driver talent to potentially compete and win one or both of the championships. Webber got worse in the last half of 2010 after the whole preferential treatment thing came up, and carried that through to pretty much all of last year, resulting in RBR winning both driver and constructor championships each year because of it. What's fair and what results in championships with these two driver teams are almost always going to be at odds. Another great, and still somewhat recent example, is all of those championships won by Schumacher AND Ferrari. I would contend that Kimi would have won at least one driver's championship at McLaren if it wasn't for Rubens helping Schumacher win a lot of races by getting up to P2, and then holding up the pack by slowing the pace down behind Schumacher.

Finally, I will counter your point about each driver needing the chance to be successful with Button's performance last year. You know that Lewis was "the guy" at McLaren going into last year, but with Lewis's performance, or lack thereof, and Jenson's intelligent, composed, and controlled performances that resulted in a few wins, more points than Lewis, and 2nd overall in the championship last year, he(Jenson) has since earned lead guy status at that team, and you can see it.....at least until Lewis gets his head on straight. In other words, each guy has a chance to be #1, it's up to them to seize the opportunity though. Hell, Massa did that to Kimi when he got disinterested after winning his championship there.

Call it flawed all you want, but the results, i.e. championships, speak for themselves.

 

After reading UR above post and UR previous one, I am now totally confused! UR words in the previous post: "...Therefore, seems pretty clear to me that having a true #1 driver, and somewhat sacrificing your #2 for the greater good, helps everyone involved." Now in this post above U mention McLaren with Hami and Button and say:"...each guy has a chance to be #1, its up to them to seize the opportunity though..." So which is it? Support the #1 only at expense of #2 or both #'s 1 and 2 have equal status/cars to win? My post, following UR first, was for the latter but now U have apparently changed UR position from the former to now the latter Taking the McLaren example, team principle, Whitmarsh has bent over backwards to show that their cars R equal, baring each drivers set up preferences, while Ferrari this year, if not others as well, appear to be using Massa as a test driver to optimize Alonso's car...I think this is the wrong strategy for winning championships.

Later,Ken

 

No, and I really don't understand the confusion. My point was that even though the #1 driver has preferential treatment, such as Hamilton DID entering last season, that doesn't necessarily mean that that person will remain the #1. I hope you're not naive enough to think that Button was getting the same treatment as Hamilton before he stepped up and outperformed Hamilton last year during his mental breakdown. Regardless, if you disagree with having a true #1, and at least a somewhat sacrificial #2, name the last time where having equal cars and equal driver treatment has resulted in a championship winning season.

 

I think using the metric of a winning season under either strategy is not appropriate since the car's speed and handling plays such a vital determinant of the final conclusion...Let's take Ferrari this year, for instance, U have a loosing proposition with UR approach/strategy...while McLaren with equally matched cars for both drivers will B more successful over the season...in short, the total team points, a la Constructors points, is a better measure of each strategy...That said, to really make an analysis of this would take some effort and consensus (impossible for us) as to the strategy each team was implimenting...for example, Ferrari is #1 over #2 but is Lotus the same? Lotus is offering equal cars to each driver even though one of them is Kimi...McLaren obviously has #1=#2 in terms of car performance and RB same...and so on...therefore, we leave this like most of these discussions herein with opinions and as everyone NO's...opinions R like a***s holes, everyone has one.

Later, Ken

 

We all NO that finger that Vettel raised last year after each win in all our faces became rather tedious and annoying. Well this year, becasue he is not winning, the finger, while still there, has changed from the index to the middle: http://www.yallaf1.com/2012/03/28/ve...-malaysian-gp/ ...Somebody has got to talk to this kid

Later, Ken

 

^ lol, i think he fells entitled since he had fastest car and won championship last two year. he expects everyone just to pull over for him as he was lapping them previous years. and now he expects the same even when they're fighting for position.

 

Nice. How can you discount my position on the matter as opinion when you still haven't come up with one real life example that suggests I'm wrong? Nobody cares about the strategy of a struggling Ferrari, or a Lotus Renault with no realistic chance at the championship either. First and foremost you need to have a car capable of winning the championship, and then of course at least one driver capable of winning races too. Every championship winner in recent history fits that, AND they've also all had a clear #2 driver receiving at the very least, less attention and focus on their needs to maximize their results compared to the #1 driver, and in many cases lesser equipment to some degree. So....for the third time, give me an example where equal cars and equal drivers has resulted in a championship. Until then, opinions are like A-holes only applies to YOU.

 

Agreed!

Agreed! Dang I agree with honda-guy a lot

Sorry, I disagree with your drive of the day selection. I think Alonso takes drive of the day over Perez easy. Perez clearly had the faster car but couldn't pass Alonso and made mistakes. Alonso had a slower car, he didn't have any room for error but he consistently pushed the car lap after lap to hold on to 1st place. That position was well deserved.

Australia & Malaysia were 2 totally different scenarios. In Australia it was Maldonado's fault. He should've held his inside line, instead of going wide and taking Grosjean out. In Malaysia, it was Grosjean's fault, Micheal was far enough ahead that Grosjean should've lifted and given the position.

That was funny ... I was like "What chu talkin' about Grosjean?!?" (Gary Coleman voice).

 

I also gotta give the drive of the day to Alonso... it is so obvious that the Ferrari is not what it should be... during qualifying and practice you could see the car constantly unbalanced and the rear continuously trying to come around. I was really surprised he was able to keep the car at the front.

I think what's most impressive for Perez was that he's such a new driver and was able to challenge for the win. But because of how bad the Ferrari car is... I think I still need to give the best drive to Alonso. Want a comparison? Look at how bad Massa did in the same car... he came in 15th!

 

I don't know if Vettel is doing bad as much as the current Red Bull car is just not relatively as good as the other cars. This sport is about both the car and driver... just look at Schumacher. When he had the best car he won a million championships in a row... when he came back and his Mercedes was "meh"... he also did "meh". Now Mercedes has an advantage... and he's near the front again.

Put Vettel in the McLaren... and I bet he'd be at the front again.

 

The F1 website put up posting about the Mercedes front wing... even after reading it tho... I still don't understand exactly how their W-Duct system works... lol

http://www.formula1.com/news/technic...2/865/949.html

 

dat caus i always rite!