planetf1.com

you're splitting hairs here. The primary element of the job is racing skill. If they don't have it, they won't be hired, period. That's not the same as saying that every team will only hire the best driver available, as economics invariably play a part, but they will hire the best available driver they can afford. Ultimately, the teams are on the grid to race and they will hire whoever will get them the best possible chance for points at a price they will be able to meet; whether that's through paying for the driver themselves, or with the sponsorship dowry the driver may bring. But they want racers.

And there are probably a hundred or more people qualified in terms of racing skill to fill seats. But they don't all get a chance. So that means they are ranked in terms of desirability on factors beyond those skills. If your employment depends on having those skills AND the other factors, that means you are paid to do more than race. Its foolish to think teams simply hire "drivers" in this day and age (and really, in days past) - they hire personalities. They hire personalities who contribute to their bottom line, that means their results on the track, their marketability, their public personas, their mental toughness, ability to work within a team, etc.

_________________

I truly don't understand how anyone can believe that driving/racing skill is not the primary factor when considering an individual for a race seat. They are not looking for a personality, or else they'd hire a professional entertainer. The only concession to factors outside pure racing skill would be economic, which is an inevitable fact of life in virtually everything these days, and how prominent the economic factor is depends to a great extent on how financially secure the team is. But even with that, the teams will always get the best racing driver they an afford, not the one with the best personality.

To try and drag this back to the OT, which was about McLaren driver PR work, do you imagine for one second that McLaren would sign a driver unless they were confident he could deliver the results they wanted on track? Look what happened with Heikki - he underperformed so they fired him. Button and Hamilton kept winning races and getting the best out of the car so the team kept them on (or tried to in the case of Lewis), irrespective of the fact that both were Brits. McLaren exist to race and race to win. If their driver doesn't deliver then no amount of PR prowess or "personality" will tempt them to keep him.

Drivers do have to do other things and again that's driven by economics: there's no testing any more so if they only drove then they would effectively employ them for only 60 days per year, which is not the best return for their considerable outlay. So having signed them the teams try to get the best value out of them: that's just common business sense, but in no way indicates that the main reason for hiring them is so that they can put them in front of a camera or have them attend some function or other. No matter what other duties they have to perform in the course of their work they will always be incidental to the central duty of racing. I don't understand how that can even be in dispute

Formula 1 drivers ARE professional entertainers.

_________________

nope, they're professional drivers

Zoue if PR etc didn't come into it. Why did Macca loose Lewis partly over PR duties?

Why not just agree to let him do fewer days?

It's all just a big trade off. The best driver who sponsors hate will find it harder to get a top drive over a slightly lesser driver the sponsors love.

Look at Mansell as a case. In '94 he got the drives in the Williams because Renault wanted a WDC in the car. Same reason he was signed up in '95 to McLaren. By that stage there was younger better talent coming through. But the sponsors didn't want them. They wanted the token that was a WDC. He wasn't hired because of his driving in either case.

Edit, even for '91 he wasn't signed for his driving he was signed because Mrs Williams liked him

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

er, I never said PR didn't come into it. If you're referring to the discussion above I'm saying teams choose drivers based primarily on their racing skills, with economics dictating which drivers they can afford.

Macca might want Lewis (and any driver) to carry out PR duties as part of their contract, but that's not the same as saying that the PR duties will take precedence over driving ability. They will always choose the latter first.

With regard to Lewis, no-one knows for sure exactly why Lewis chose to leave, apart from Lewis of course. Some say trophies, some PR, some that he wanted the financial advantages that personal sponsorship offered. That's a whole other can of worms. Personally I'm not convinced in any way that just offering fewer PR days would have changed his mind in the slightest, but until he writes his memoirs we'll never know

As for Mansell, I'm not really sure what your point is there. The team may have wanted a WDC but surely a WDC has demonstrated in the best possible way that he is already a very good driver? So therefore his driving skills made them want him? And he was no slouch even then, since he won the last race in 1994.

I'll let you take over from here, I'm tired.

_________________

It wasn't his skills by '95 he was off the boil . It's no secret Ron didn't want him in the team it was pressure from the sponsors.

If it was all driving surely Ron would have welcomed him with open arms rather than being forced into it. The same for '94 it was pressure from Renault who paid his wage . If he hadn't have won the WDC in '92 chances are he wouldn't have gotten either drive. Neither case was driving the issue it was the kudos of having a WDC behind him.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

Can't argue with you there. I'm sure Ron "welcomed" Mansell through gritted teeth

And I do think Mansell's situation was unique in '94 for obvious reasons, necessity being the mother of invention and all that.

But look, before we go off on another tangent I'll just remind you of a quote at the beginning of my discussion with ashley313:


The implication is that the main element of the job is not racing, and I just can't agree with that. Teams will try to sign drivers who can perform on track. If no-one is head and shoulders above another driver then they may look at other considerations to get the best bang for their buck, as it were, but they will never lose sight of the fact that they want drivers to get their car as high up the points as possible. All else is secondary.

Ferrari looked like they might evict Massa until he turned his results around towards the end of his season. Grosjean's future is hanging in the balance because of his crash-happy performances on track. If the teams didn't believe they could get the right results then both would be out of their seats. Or do you disagree?

One of the reasons RoGro might KEEP his seat is that Total is considering paying more money for him.

Replacing Massa upsets the good balance they've already got going in Ferrari for Fernando. Its in their best interests not to hire the "best driver".

_________________

Of Course both would be out of their seats but neither bring a big lot else to the plate.

Look at it this way GP2 winner and runner up 2012
Davide Valsecchi
Luiz Razia

Confirmed seat 3rd place man Esteban Gutiérrez

Rumoured, 4th place man Max Chilton

I've heard more talk of the 6th place man getting a seat (Van Der Garde Caterham) Than I have of the championship winner. If the other factors only come in as a tiebreaker as it were why is their even consideration of the 4th and 6th place guys over the guy who won the feeder series? Why has the third place man got a seat before the guy who truly beat him and by some margin. Surely if driving was the #1 factor Chilton or Gutiérrez wouldn't be getting talked about before Valsecchi.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

But the very fact that their seats are up for discussion is because of their performance on track. If not then they would both have been extended long ago, wouldn't they. And Massa only got to keep his after his performance improved, so it was his driving that made the difference...

Don't forget that RoGo is also managed by a company GENII own and Boullier is part of a thing to get the French GP back (Not sure if GENII is involved) and they want a French driver to be successful in F1.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

Nobody thinks Ferrari re signed Felipe because of his performance. He is there because he works well with their #1.

RoGro was casting doubt on his ability to even drive the car safely, nevermind drive it quickly.

_________________

So he is there for purely performance, however unfortunate it is for Felipe that it is not his own.

Because as pointed out earlier teams will take on the best driver they can afford, which includes sponsorship etc. If Valsecchi has no sponsorship then the teams cannot afford him, therefore they will move onto the next best driver. But that doesn't take away from the fact that the prime role they want the drivers to perform is to race. All the drivers who are being considered for F1 have won races in GP2. Put another way, nobody who failed to win a race is being considered. Does that not tell you something?

It also shows that driving is not the prime reason for handing out the car keys and as you point out sponsorship comes into the equation when it comes to picking drivers. If a driver has been picked for his sponsorship over driving then sponsorship has become the prime reason. And as you say yourself the sponsorship comes first.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

er, nooo, that's not what I said at all. I've always maintained that teams will pick the best drivers they can afford. And that the prime element of the role is racing. Nothing I have said above contradicts that.

nice try, though

I'm off now as I need my beauty sleep. Happy to pick this up with you tomorrow.

one quick final one:

Not true. I suspect most believe Massa managed to save his seat because he turned his season around and managed to finally perform. there is little doubt that if he had ended his season as he started he would not be in a Ferrari next year, irrespective of how well he works with Alonso

It does contradict it.

If money comes before talent then Money is the prime factor not talent.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

His performance didn't turn around until he signed the contract. He said so himself in Valencia over the weekend.



The fastest, most talented racing driver won't always produce the best result for a team. The fastest guy might be an asshole that the fans don't like, he might not get on with the crew well enough to get their best work, he might be completely unwilling to do what sponsors want, he might have a horrible habit off track that gets a lot of negative attention, he might not be able to compartmentalize his life enough to keep his head in the game. There are many, many people in the world who could drive an F1 car around a circuit as quickly as the bulk of the grid after a bit of practice. The few that get the chance to do it have MORE to offer than just those skills. Teams buy the whole package that best suits their business model. For some, experience is more important than speed. For others, money is. Then there are teams who want a really likeable guy to keep the fans happy, or a guy from a certain country to appeal to fans and sponsors from that area. There really are only a couple of people whose physical driving skill level is above the rest, and teams don't even pander to THEM.

_________________

It doesn't contradict it at all. Try reading the earlier posts instead of jumping on the bandwagon at the end.

If money was the prime factor they'd just go for the cheapest driver possible, but that doesn't happen. They look at proven winners and then decide which one they can afford to get. Therefore driving ability is the prime factor, followed by affordability.

And I'm not sure why you and ashley313 keep trying to move the goalposts. The debate started when ashley313 claimed that racing was not the prime element of the job, which is nonsense. The drivers are hired to race, not to turn up and wave to the crowds. Their main role is to race the car, with everything else being secondary. How you two can even attempt to argue otherwise is beyond me.

I'm sorry, but what you are describing here is pretty much the same for almost every walk of life. When people are hired to join an organisation they are judged as much for their ability to work with the people around around them as they are for their ability to do the job. But that doesn't mean that the main motivator for bringing them aboard is not the skill needed to do the main job itself, nor that once on board the main job that the individual will have to perform will be to have a happy time with his or her colleagues. In any team you look for a team player, but one who has a specific ability within that team. We are talking about racing drivers and their primary role is to race the car. While other aspects may be considered they are all secondary to the main function of racing.

And Massa was re-signed in October after his performances improved:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/19962209

so what was the prime factor in Marussia taking Chilton over Valsechhi ? Or Sauber taking Esteban over Kamuai?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

These drivers are not complaining due to their inherent dislike of being forced to involve themselves in public relations. Lewis and Button are complaining because excessive PR work keeps them from focusing on and preparing for the upcoming races. They won't be 100% fit for racing if the days leading up to a grand prix are filled with unending, headache-inducing sessions with corporate sponsors. It's the team that ultimately suffers if drivers are not given enough time to energize before going through the physically and mentally taxing experience of a grand prix weekend.

_________________
KOBAYASHI & KUBICA

And days of yore the days running up to events were spent hammering laps in around a track somewhere.

These days they are doing PR before a race. In the old days they hammered around the track in the warm up session.

as a comparison of the two eras




So before at the track by 6.30 now be at the track by 2. Which one had it hardest?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

I believe I've already answered that above. Not sure how else you want me to put it, but here goes:

Almost every hiring decision in every walk of life has a budget attached to it. That doesn't mean that money is the main motivator for the hire, but it does mean that it needs to be taken into account. I don't know of any successful business that doesn't have some kind of budgetary limit.

I occasionally need sales people for my company. In making my shortlist I look at the applicants' CVs and track record in selling, as well as recommendations from clients and other sources. A broad outline of potential remuneration will usually be communicated to the candidates prior to setting up any meetings. If some withdraw as a result, I will usually focus my attention on the remaining candidates and start the interview process with them. Various discussions will take place, covering the core functions of the role and also ascertaining whether the individual is the right fit for the rest of the team and/or company. At the end of the process I will make an offer to the candidate who I feel will be best able to fulfil the demands of the role. Money plays an important part, but I will not take a cheaper candidate if I feel that another affordable one is better suited to the job, even if they cost slightly more. On the other hand, I won't mortgage the company just to bring on the best salesperson around. I want the best salesperson for the role, at the right price.

At every stage of the process the main attributes I am looking for are those that will allow the salesperson to bring in the best business for my company. As important as money is, it's a secondary consideration. And once aboard, as much as I want a team player I want above all else someone who goes out there and generates business. If he/she spends all day near the coffee machine talking to colleagues then they wouldn't be doing the job I hired them to do. Equally, once on board money tends to fade in the background as it has all been agreed up front. They should then focus on the job at hand, which is selling.

Now substitute selling for racing above and you should get the general gist. I hope this covers things for you. Now perhaps you can answer why you feel that the primary function of a racing driver is not to race, instead of digressing into hiring attributes.

If money and Sponsorship are not primary factors. How come Slim was able to call the shots at Sauber.

McLaren deliberately went for a more international line up to keep sponsors happy?

You can't say someone was taken on because of sponsorship or money and then say in the same sentence it wasn't the primary factor. In the case of guiterrez, chilton and Valsechhi, if talent was the primary factor Valsechhi would get the seat before the tie breaker of sponsorship or money came into the equation. Fact is Money decided first, talent becomes the tie breaker.

F1 is littered with examples of how the seats have gone to the driver with the highest offer. If driving was the primary factor money wouldn't be an issue, talent would be.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

Part of an F1 driver is not just driving, amongst other things they are fully trained professional PR machines.

_________________
Driver Instructor & Test Driver

still avoiding the question I see. Is that because you don't actually have an answer?

I don't see a question in your quoted post.


If talent were the paramount factor, teams would choose the most talent available regardless of what budget they bring. Lots of teams can afford to do what they need to for a season, but choose a driver who can bring extra cash ON TOP of that. That means they can afford a driver with better racing results, but choose to go another route.

_________________

I think someone is deliberately missing the point.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

the question was in the post Johnston was responding to (he just edited it out) and had been repeated earlier. I can't get a straight answer for some reason despite the fact that I answer all the questions directed at me.

In response to your post above, we seem to be going around in circles. And it's nonsense to suggest teams would bring people in regardless of budget. Where are the funds magically going to appear from? Everything has a value and everybody has a maximum. The money has to come from somewhere. You can't just hire someone and say "hang the cost"

If money was the primary factor then why don't the smaller teams scour the local Who's Who or the latest Oligarch's directory to see who might be available and then find out whether they can drive? Instead of looking at drivers first and then determining which ones they can afford? It's because they want drivers who can perform on the race track, that's why. That's why all the GP2 contenders for seats this year are all race winners - there are none of the also rans. Money IS important but means nothing if they can't drive.

And, as I keep pointing out, all this digresses from the original point which is your claim that racing is not a primary element of the racing drivers' job. Neither you nor Johnston seem to be able to back this up and every time I ask the question I get more waffle on hiring practices.

seriously? You're the one missing the point. But you've already shown you know you're wrong by repeatedly avoiding answering the question put to you. Shame you're not man enough to admit it...

I don't see the question even in the bits I edited out.

As for why don't they scour the who's who. You are forgetting of course that the driver needs to be eligible for a super licence.

As for the GP2 and none of the also rans, they are also not the championship leaders.

As for waffle, we have backed it up, I could go back to Pedro Diniz who got his seat because he brought enough funding for D Hills wages. To Kamui who got a drive because he was associated with Toyota. To Vernge being picked because he had links to Red Bull over Wickens who beat him.

Or to go to extremes Schui is a classic example. He only got his Debut because Peter Sauber paid, without that money he wouldn't have gotten the seat. Flavio didn't want him at Benetton. He only got the seat there because of Bernie. Now surely if driving is the paramount thing schui would have been straight into a race seat and flavio wouldn't have needed Bernie to twist his arm?

Surely if driving was paramount the skills of a future 7 x WDC should have been enough to get him into F1 without needing cash the the ring masters influence?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

There are teams that have an adequate operating budget regardless of what their drivers can bring. If results were the absolute paramount concern, they'd hire the driver with the best records, that fits in that budget. But they don't always do that. Often times they choose a driver that brings additional money. Its not that they can't afford the one with the better results, its that they want the one with extra cash more. Similarly, a team may be able to afford a young kid with a great record but choose an experienced veteran with a bit less pace, sometimes even with less money, because the experience is of greater value to them for development than sheer speed. All of the teams value different parts of the equation above others.

Look at Red Bull for example. Most people think they can afford just about anything they want right? Well, Mark's contract was up this year, and Lewis was available. Lewis has much more impressive records, including a WDC title. But RBR didn't go after Lewis did they? We can come up with a few possible reasons...RBR thinks keeping an established member of the team with okay results is more important than bringing in someone who could possibly outperform him, their sponsors are happy with Mark's image, Mark is willing to do the commitments requested by said sponsors, perhaps Lewis' perceived ego doesn't mesh with their strong team methodology, etc. No matter how you look at, they chose a driver with weaker on track results because the equation they use to determine who is best for them values other factors more than records on the driver's wikipedia page, even though they could afford either one.

_________________

Convenient that that's the only bit you appear not to be able to see. Might I suggest a trip to Specsavers?

To refresh:


And it's waffle because it wasn't the original point, which was the question above which I have been trying to get answered for what seems like an eternity.

You haven't backed anything up except to confirm that drivers need funding. I've checked a few online dictionaries just in case the definitions had changed since the last time I looked but I can't see anywhere that suggests that "primary" is synonymous with "exclusively." Yet you seem to think that just because a driver brings money to the table that that is more important than the fact that they can drive. It comes back to my consistent point that teams will take the best drivers they can afford. What you seem to fail to understand is that budget is important in any hiring scenario but that doesn't mean that it's the main thing people look for when searching for someone to fill a role. It's ever present, but if the driver is not capable then the funding is meaningless.

As for the MSC example, it's a circuitous argument. Do you think Mercedes would have paid for him if he hadn't shown the talent in the first place? They don't just shell out for anybody. Therefore it's his talent that got him the drive, aided by the funding to make it happen

But in that instance Mark is the best driver for Red Bull. He's strong enough to get consistent points without being good enough to challenge Seb, so he's perfect for what they want. So they have chosen him for his driving ability, not what money he can bring to the table, which is exactly the point I was making

Well ever tried to use a ? to mark a question?

And again it's not waffle, we have provided examples to back up our statements where other things have been the primary factor.

As for Schui who mentioned Merc?

As for Merc he drove for Before F1 we are talking about getting into F1 something that did not happen on driving talent for Schui. He still needed someone to pay or else he wouldn't have gotten the Jordan drive, he then needed Bernie to get him into Beneton. Driving was not the primary factor for either seat.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."