I dont care about the well known economics of racing driver's paying. Sunday has zero to do with that. As an active participant he is failing. And its only money and familial ties that keep him in the seat. He is by exception not accountable until said funding/support is withdrawn and he is out of the seat. 8km long financial disseratations do not justify his ridiculous behavior and DANGER to other drivers. With not as safe cars he would have injured more than 1 driver potentially and cost the victim teams substantial money in repairs. Needless this. Aston is not a team its a family funded adventure. Nothing else. That was proven this week by the words of the team priniciple.
That's precisely the problem, he's son dream of being anf.1 driver while driving on a track surrounded by real f.1 drivers, and when he opens his eyes he crashes against them!
Generally agree with your post, except this statement, above. I have personally represented two F1 drivers (each of whom you have heard of). Neither of them came from wealth, and in fact, they came from modest means. Their talent was recognized and they were able to gain experience and some sponsors, but it was talent that got them there, not money. Many drivers were raised modestly and someone recognized (and developed) their talent. When I was active in my representation, Pedro Diniz famously brought $20 million per year to the table as a pay driver. There have been dozens, but not really that many. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I would have to assume that the drivers you represented were some years back. The lower formula landscape has changed tremendously in the last 10 years or less. Drivers are now being groomed at a much earlier age and are being funneled through programs that are overflowing with wealthy participants. It is a totally different game than say the 90's or 2000's where there are examples of less wealthy drivers making it through. Today it has just gotten exponentially more expensive.
Sponsors' money, family money, it boils down to the same. It's better if you can use the family bank rather than beg a sponsor, but you must still be good enough to progress. Case in point: Lauda who took a bank loan to kickstart his career because his rich grandfather refused to help him. Sponsors finance promising drivers from lower categories (karting), on their way to F1. Some F1 drivers still keep with them their personal sponsor all through their career. Sponsors are often the key to progression to F1, NOT the teams. They are also major players in transfers. In the 80s, Brazilian banks sponsored many nationals, that's how we had in influx of Brazilian drivers in F1 and Indy. Perez brought Carlos Sims money at McLaren, Force India, Racing Point, and maybe still at Red Bull. Santander has supported Carlos Sainz Jr for a long time. Even Ericsson, the ex-Sauber driver who moved to Indy had Tetra-Pak as sponsor all his life, even if he isn't that famous. Those are just examples. I have said it many times on this forum, do not ignore the power of sponsors; they have often more weight in drivers choices than the team themselves !! Sponsors are the lifeline for many teams; in fact, several OWN the teams !
They must have attracted the attention of sponsors early on, from their karting days. The Leclerc brothers were in Jules Bianchi's orbit from early on. Bianchi's father was an ex-Alpine employee, probably with connections with sponsors and racing circles in France.
True, but at least one of the drivers he talks about is from the 90s, and by then, it was already a very expensive buisness, but of course not even close to what is now.
Yap, i believe that Ocon's family had even less money than Charles....not to say Charles was poor, but for sure not a rich guy. sometimes talent and money get together, like in Lando's case, some others they're very far apart, like in Stroll's case...
Drivers are historically absolute masters of hiding their wealth and playing poor. This helps gain sympathy and opportunities and is an age old tactic. As of late there is an influx of drivers where there is no hiding their backgrounds and they make no secret of it either. Stroll, Latifi, Mazepin, and Sargent are examples of the latter while LeClerc and Ocon are examples of the former. If you believe they are from a genuine working class middle level income family then they have succeed in the charade. While they may not have the money of Stroll they are certainly from much greater means than they ever let on. Again we have to look at current / recent F1 drivers. Telling tales of drivers from the 70's and 80's is a totally different landscape
Changing direction just a little I always found it interesting that some drivers absolutely DOMINATE lower categories yet flounder in F1 while others that were not all that special before F1 do much better. There is something about that last step that requires a very different mindset and an ability to filter out a constant onslaught of distractions. Some off the top of my head examples would be Jan Magnussen who was dynamite before F1 and lasted very little at the top. More recently Nyck DeVries and Stoffel Vandoorne who you would have bet would be F1 frontrunners never found their feet. Prior results are an indication but not a guarantee of how a driver will fare at the top level in the public eye. It is apparent that the talent needed to be a top flight F1 driver goes much further than the ability to drive fast and win races.
Nigel Mansell sold his house, and his wife worked an extra job as cashier in a supermarket to support his career. Ronnie Peterson was a lift engineer who scrounged drives by offering his services as racing mechanic. Graham Hill was quality controler at Smith Instruments; he didn't have a car or a driving license before he was 24 ! James Hunt recalled that, going from circuit to circuit on the Continent in his F3 days, he used to sleep in his car, and steal petrol from parked cars at night !
Jan Magnussen and Stoffel Vandoorne were 2 drivers who didn't impress much Ron Dennis, who sacked them after a year. Himself suffereing from accute OCD, Dennis claimed that J Magnussen was the most desorganised individual he even met: He was apparently never ready, had poor timekeeping, failed to pack his complete kit when going racing, missed flights, etc ... I think Dennis tried to make him do too many things like testing F1 and Indycar, and not giving him much notice of his intentions. Heralded as a talented young man, Stoffel Vandoorne came to McLaren at the wrong time (the begining of the hybrid era, I think) and suffered from the chaos that ensued. He finished one GP 2nd, if my memory is correct, but Ron Dennis had already made up his mind to replace him. Another example was Dave Walker in England. Chapman used to swear by him after he won several F3 championships with Lotus. Chapman put him in a 72, and it was catastrophic: he couldn't handle the power and kept going off in practice. Chapman came to understand that Walker had no sensitivity with the throttle, and used it like an on-and-off switch, which you could handle with a 150hp car, but not with a Cosworth DFV at the back !! Another one was Bruno Giacomelli, F2 Europen Champion with March. He used to blitz the field, and there was no one to catch him. He had several tests in F1, even with Ferrari I believe, Alfa Romeo, Tecno, and all were catastrophic. Unable to find a good drive, Giacomelli faded in oblivion.
Giacomelli drove for Alfa for a bit. He was on pole for the last F1 race at Watkins Glen and was leading until his car failed.
Damon Hill on the other hand did next to nothing in his junior formula career but really took to F1. Yes not a generational talent destined for tons of F1 championships but he certainly did miles better than his tutelage would have assumed.
Damon Hill was penniless in his youth; his family was ruined when his father crashed his aircraft in the fog in North London, killing all 6 occupants. It was found that the aircraft wasn't insured. Damon started work as a dispatch rider in London, and tried racing motorbikes at club level. He moved to junior formula, and proved to be rather good at setting up his rivals' cars. Moderately successful at racing, he slowly climbed the ladder until Frank Williams needed a tester. At Williams, he impressed by his feedback and lack of pretention; he was was given a permanent seat alongside Prost. The death of Senna the following year promoted him as #1. The rest is history. Like his father Graham, Damon Hill wasn't a natural talent, which makes him more deserving to me than many. Niki Lauda was another one who didn't look too promising in junior categories. He was recruited at Ferrari on the recommendation of Clay Reggazonni who drove with him for one season at BRM (Lauda was a pay driver until then).
There are a LOT of politics in F1 which filters down to the junior ranks and can heavy influence on a driver's career. Damon Hill is a great example. Wasn't particularly impressive at all in his jr career but the British driver got a test role with the British team Williams, who was a top team at the time. 1992 in his first F1 race he was dead last in quali, 0.9 seconds off his nobody teammate. In fact he was regularly beat by Belgian Van de Poele, often by 1 second or more. Yet in 93 Hill gets the call to drive the dominant Williams. Prost took 13 poles to Damon's 2 that year. Even with by far the fastest car, Hill was only able to finish 3rd in the WDC, of course in just his rookie year. In 94 he was getting properly thumped by Senna until his tragic death. The team went full on pro Damon Hill only to have him lose back to back championships against Schumacher despite being in the best car. In 96 he was again in a dominant car to claim his F1 championship against rookie JV, who is arguably worse than Hill. Point being, an unimpressive driver gets privileged into a string of dominant cars. Was it because of where he was born, some great connections, money? Who knows for sure. But it certainly wasn't from talent. His good fortunes in F1 got him a championship and that can't be taken away. Like you have been saying. There is a long history of drivers getting into F1 because of wealth (or connections, power, or politics). Typically, most do not survive without putting up some reasonable level of success.
At the time, I remember reading in The Telegraph, the result of the enquiry after the tragedy. It was found that the importation of Graham's aircraft hadn't been finalised (the aircraft had still US registration), the insurance had lapsed, and Graham's licence didn't cover him flying in those conditions. To parly cover the liabilities, his widow, Bette Hill, had to sell the North London family mansion, plus other family assets, and the racing team equipment was auctionned. It was a real blow, and a tragic end to a solid marriage. Unable to finance higher education as intended, Damon Hill took a job as dispatch rider to help his family.
All very true however one must not forget the amazing way Hill led the team when Senna died. Insiders at Williams were shocked with how he rose to that challenge and managed (yes with some help by the FIA) to take the championship down to the last race. The way he trounced Schumacher at Suzuka and drove away from the field at Adelaide cannot be forgotten. Hill was a fine driver just not as hard and ruthless as say Schumacher. That said he was very sensitive and excellent at developing and setting up a car. His talent was much more subtle and Williams having the best car had a LOT to do with the work he put in behind the scenes. Again not a generational talent but a solid F1 driver.
