Great expose` on F1 mechanics

It's because no one knows the name of the guy that made the wheel bolts, or the paint job, or whatever. The drivers are the face of the team, the ones everyone wants to be, wants to emulate, hence, the ones that draw the crowds and therefore potential customers to the team. Ferrari is a bit of a strange one as they are probably the only team in F1 that is bigger than the sport itself, but with mclaren, Williams, or whatever, they need sponsors to recognise them and see the markets they can open up, so they do need drivers that are preceptably the better ones to represent their brands. I mean, you don't see manor or sauber with massive sponsorships do you, and as a result, they languish at the back, and have to get in pay drivers. The worse they then perform, the less valuable the real estate on their moving billboard becomes. If they suddenly managed to get a Vettel, or a Kimi , to drive for them, the drivers personal reputation for success would attract sponsors with money to burn, and they would happily pay more to associate with the team, and hence, the team would have money to invest in the hardware

 

Don't disagree, really, with what you're saying, but how much of those sponsorship dollars are actually going to the team as opposed to into the driver's pocket? Money's fungible, I suppose, so if the team doesn't have to pay the driver, they can spend their money on other things.

And, I agree that from the top teams down to the back-markers there's a big difference in the dollars and economics.

Still, we're talking about guys (who win championships) who probably barely see their families, get sacked if they screw up their job, get paid minimally to do it, and have little to show for it at the end of it all. It's nice to have a $5K watch as a gift from a driver, but I'd wager that the crew guys would rather have $5K in cash. Or, better yet, pay them all $10K more a season (and a driver a couple of hundred K less).

But, again, it's a free market. And, if you don't want to do it any longer, there's a guy ready to step forward in line. There's also a pile of drivers who want to make it to F1 who would gladly take the job for FAR less than what these guys are getting paid. Heck, I'd do it for FREE, if they'd let me!

CW

 

A lot of the time, the sponsors directly cover the drivers salaries of those they want, such as Phillip Morris paying the Ferrari drivers, Santander used to pay for Alonso, and now Honda cover him, Venezuela used to cover crashonaldo etc. Therefore, the sponsors are asking teams to buy the best, it's not the teams necessarily demanding it

 

Which is what I remembered. But, and you probably well know this, letting a sponsor make the driver pick is probably a poor decision on the part of the team. I'm sure there's a lot of discussion and negotiation, but I'd want the freedom to pick my drivers. Sponsor money may come with the driver (and, that's a nice thing), but I'd be careful about letting the tail wag the dog.

CW

 

Absolutely, look at poor Mercedes, having to put up with those two losers !!

 

I don't know if you could pay me enough to take LH. I'd have the entire team wearing tin foil hats from all of his conspiracy theory suggestions. Such a peach, that one.

More like look at SpA: spending $50MM in driver's salaries to contest being the third best constructor. <shakes head>

CW

 

Certainly. Paying him 50m a year only for him to insult every single hardworking person in their 1500 strong work force.

There are guys out there that are just as good without the baggage. I'd have sacked him on the spot, teach him some humility. Button is a free man.

 

Or Massa! That would be a peach, drop Elton and bring massa in ..... He'd be spitting feathers

 

Very true.

Often the sponsors insist on highly paid drivers.

A price tag on a driver is what gives him recognition.

 

+1000 !!!!

 

+1

Often a sponsor will impose a driver it has supported from the lower categories to F1.

"Who pays the piper, calls the tune "

I don't think Manor, Sauber, Williams, and others complain too much about sponsors telling them who to recruit.

 

No, it's pragmatism, and realism at work.

 

To a degree it is, but it would appear to be a 3-party (at a minimum) negotiation, which is more complex than a 2-party one. Not to mention, the three parties all may have different goals and incentives. Maybe it's possible to align all the parties, but these things have a way of going south, quickly, when one of the parties isn't pleased.

CW

 

Take a national company that has sponsored a local driver through the ranks for years (FF, GP3, GP2, etc...) where he has already obtained some good results and been part of their promotional campaigns at home.

If they want to enter F1 and contact a team, it's with the intention to obtain exposure and maintain the working relation they have with their driver.

If the team shows interest, but insists in choosing a driver, from an other country and completely alien to their marketing strategy, how do you think the sponsor is going to react?

 

Yes, I understand, but what happens when the driver's not performing? Or, his style doesn't suit the car? Or, his attitude turns to garbage? You might want to find someone better, maybe?

Some problems just aren't worth the hassle (say, a whiny diva of a driver), in the first place, but let's say you still went ahead and took the deal (and the money). Let's say you want to replace the driver. Now what? Not so easy to do when there's a mega-millions sponsorship deal in place. Can it be re-negotiated? Maybe. And, maybe that's what's in the best interests of all parties. BUT, there's a lot of money at stake and commitments based on that money have been made (and embarked upon). So, it takes time to unwind.

A team might want to make a change immediately, if necessary. I think it just complicates things to the point that may create too much difficulty. Still, I understand they do it to get the sponsor money. Because the teams are part of the process in paying these drivers big sums, they cannot be absolved of some responsibility, though, and the buck cannot just be passed to sponsors.

CW

 

For small teams, they often lose the driver and the sponsor at the same time. That's why most of them are permanently looking for new sponsors for years ahead.

I suspect if Sauber wants to get rid of Nasr, they will lose Banco do Brazil, and if they sack Ericson, the NOKIA money will go too, just like DVSA stopped sponsoring Williams and Lotus when Maldonado was pushed aside from those teams.

Drivers like Fittipaldi, Piquet, Senna were sponsored from the outset by Brazilian companies that followed them through the ranks, and kept backing them up even when they had made the grade to F1 on their own merits. Brazilian sponsors support their nationals. Something French companies used to also do before; Cevert, Beltoise, Pescarolo, Arnoux, Lafitte, Pironi, Jabouille, Prost made it to F1 with the support of state-owned companies.

 

None of which I doubt, and I know that big money sponsors have become patrons of many successful F1 careers. But, this quote makes my point for me...

If the teams want to get rid of the driver, it will cause them to lose their financial support. That's a real problem when you have a driver who's under-performing and needs to go. In other words, until the team can find replacement money, they can't replace the driver.

Thus, the market's not exactly free to work its' magic. And, that's the problem with joined-at-the-hip drivers and sponsors. It would be easier and better (for the team) if the teams can find the sponsorship dollars themselves and then pick and choose (and the pay) the drivers they want.

CW

 

Not in detail no : ) Wasn't there a thread on it here? High level I would say I find it very suspicious that it ended up being Ferrari and Ford (GTE Pro) in the race. I think BoP is very difficult to do fairly...even if you have genuine intentions. The whole way Ford won based on a penalty for a leader light was also anticlimactic and silly....and the other odd penalties for Ford. Not to mention the apparent spat between Ford and Risi leading to the protest for the light. Just a crap way to end 24 hours of racing...at least to me. Cross the line, then start throwing penalties around and doing math to see who won a race. Bleh.

 

Yes it would. Team principals usually know what they are doing, and would select their drivers according to previous performance, track tests, practice sessions, simulators, etc... But in reality, only the big teams have enough authority to ignore the sponsors, or accept only sponsors that give them freedom of choice in selecting the drivers.

I doubt if a sponsor could impose a driver at Ferrari, Mercedes, or McLaren, but it looks like Force India, Sauber, or Manor do what they are told if they want to survive.

 

I had already forgotten about these silly post-race penalties.

Myself, I was disgusted that the Ford GT was allowed to participate in WEC at all, never mind Le Mans.
That car doesn't respect the FIA rules, and the WEC regulations concerning GTE cars, yet, the ACO allows it to run in that championship.
The Ford GT was, at the time of Le Mans, not commercialised to the public, not available in street form, not marketed and homologated in at least 3 countries, and not produced in the minimum required number. As it is, the Ford GT is just a prototype.
It shouldn't be allowed to race against real GTs like the Ferraris, Porsches Astons and Corvettes until these requirements are fulfilled.

 

I agree, but, interestingly, it's arguably exactly these teams that are grossly over-paying for its' driver talent.

Coming full circle: if the Scuderia's cars are 2 seconds a lap off the MB's pace, is having drivers like SV or KR (both WDCs) who can find a couple of tenths even useful? It feels like a misallocation of resources, because they can't get the car to the front no matter how good they might be.

And, ironically, you don't need to pay $20MM or $30MM to have an LH (WDC) in your car when the car can win with maybe anyone sitting in the seat.

McL? What is there to say but Good Lord!? Paying FA a ton of money to be struggling with the engine for successive seasons? It's painful to watch, and the results don't justify it. But, that's exactly what happened with the Scuderia for FA. Had it not been for Renault's dominance, he'd have no WDCs to his credit.

I get it. These teams are hiring multiple WDC winners. So, they're going to have to pay up. And, they justify it to themselves by saying, "We're giving ourselves the best chance we can." Okay. Fine. BUT, it just goes to show that even with the BEST talent behind the wheel, the car matters more (What could LH do with the McL?). I could understand the Scuderia saying, "We're a half a second behind, so let's find a driver who can make that a non-issue." But, they've proven to be SECONDS off the pace and at the end of these races they're so far out you need a sun dial to measure the differential (okay, maybe I overstate it a little on that). No driver can find that kind of time at this level.

CW

 

Vettel, ricciardo, and Alonso have won races by being in the right place at the right time, and being able to make the most of those situations. Arguably, it's more important to have a top line driver for a top line team that is struggling, as when the chances come along rarely, they want to take every one they can.

Santander paid alonsos wages while he was at Ferrari.

Every team wants to have a line up that will maximise their package, that's why we have the drivers we do. Even manor want to have a decent line up, otherwise, since they are always a long way off the pace, why don't they ask you or I to drive for them, Im sure I could run around a few seconds off the pace quite happily. Sponsors - pure and simple. Drivers make exposure, make branding, bring money. Some bring lots, some pay their own way, either way the team wins

 

Sure, although most drivers only become top-tier by winning in the best cars.
Vettel with RB, Hamilton with McL, Hamilton with MB.

There are very few drivers who can hustle an average or poor car to victory. Senna and Schumacher are two exceptions that immediately spring to mind.

 

Agree, but the only time any of these "fluke" victories happen is when MB stumbles somehow. It's optimizing/capitalizing on the goofs of others, and I get that you want to be positioned to do that. But, do you pay a guy $40MM a year for that?

But, there, again, it's sounding like the teams aren't even involved in determining compensation. And, it's no skin off the Scuderia's nose if Santander paid FA $100MM a season. It's as if there's no pay for performance based on the results. So, the compensation system for a few drivers isn't based on measurable criteria.

A decent line-up may just be settling, based on who's bringing the most money.

CW

 

I'd throw Alonso in there as well. He's hustled poor cars to wins quite a few times.