planetf1.com

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.

If they've chosen him for his ability to not drive outstandingly well, then surely teams don't hire the driver with the best results, that they can afford, like you've now said they do, a hundred times.

They are paid to race. Everything else is subservient to that,

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;

The only concession to factors outside pure racing skill would be economic

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.

And Massa only got to keep his after his performance improved, so it was his driving that made the difference...

I've always maintained that teams will pick the best drivers they can afford

Not true. I suspect most believe Massa managed to save his seat because he turned his season around and managed to finally perform.

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.

Teams buy the whole package that best suits their business model.

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".

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.

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.

Well it's not a question without it.

It didn't stray from the point. The point as I take it still is Racing talent being the primo defacto reason to handle a driver. The examples being drivers who were choosen for other things rather than there driving talent first and foremost.

Nope it was Sauber as a thank you.

He maybe had talent but that wasn't what got him into F1. No F1 team before Ferrari hired him on his Talent first and foremost. again I repeat flavio didn't want him. I can read that final paragraph alright. You mentioned Merc I presumed Pre-F1 . We are talking F1. Something he did not get into on talent alone. Saying he must have had the talent to get the backing. Well plenty of drivers have had backing does that mean they all have shown they are of the top 24 in the world?

As for your question. If Driving was the primary function. Drivers wouldn't be getting seats based on other factors. Would they?

Hence why we have showed numerous examples of drivers being picked because of things like bringing cash. Their primary function is to bring money.

Lets look at some of your statements. They all seem to indicate that you think "best driver" means the one with the best results, and not that "best driver" means "fits best with what the team needs"
















And lets look at what I've said..

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.

I guess that I am "Nobody" then, as I do think that Ferrari signed Massa because of his performance. There was no obviously better choice available, and given the way he performed the last part of the season, I have no idea of who could have done any better in his seat... not perez, not hulk, or any other.

If you are referring to when Ferrari first signed Massa, I think that then too he was signed because of his performance and his potential. If you remember watching him during his Sauber time, it was obvious (at least to me) that he had potential, and... he already had experience with Ferrari as well.

sincerely,
Nobody

1. Pedantic again. I was referring to the fact that you hadn't answered the previous question and inviting you to do so now. A question mark was not needed, which you'd realise if you read the sentence properly.
2. It does stray from the point, which was what is the main function of a driver. You managed to turn that into whether money or driver skill is more important when hiring a driver. Can you not tell the difference?
3. the internet says differently:
http://www.speedmonkey.co.uk/2012/09/sc ... -sale.html
http://www.enterf1.com/the-bite-point/1 ... future.asp
http://f1insight.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08 ... track.html
4. read the above articles. His talent impressed everyone, but of course you know best
5. You can read that gibberish, which has no punctuation, correct grammar or syntax but complain when a question mark is missing. Hypocritical much?
6. That's a question, not an answer. It's clear to me that you know that driving is the primary function of an F1 driver but you are too proud to admit that you got it wrong. You're just trying to avoid the issue.

Seriously, you're contending that racing prowess isn't the primary element of the job?

No, the complete job description is to fulfil all of the team's needs for his position. The primary function is to race the car.

I guess that I am "Nobody" then, as I do think that Ferrari signed Massa because of his performance. There was no obviously better choice available, and given the way he performed the last part of the season, I have no idea of who could have done any better in his seat... not perez, not hulk, or any other.

If you are referring to when Ferrari first signed Massa, I think that then too he was signed because of his performance and his potential. If you remember watching him during his Sauber time, it was obvious (at least to me) that he had potential, and... he already had experience with Ferrari as well.

sincerely,
Nobody

If all along you've been saying they get the "best drivers" they can afford meaning "best for their needs" why did you not just agree with either Johnston or me when we said, a hundred times, that they hire the drivers that best suit their needs?

Well let me take you back to your original question I believe.



I believe this is exactly what we have pointed out many times.

As for your links, 2 written many years after the fact and one about his return to F1 with Merc. When did anyone mention his return to F1? One stats he impressed in the test, but Sauber (The article is wrong Peter kept it secret until fairly recently) still had to pay money. Would he have gotten the drive with out the money? Probably not. so which was the primary factor? The driving or the money? If someone offered Eddie 300K who do you think would have gotten the seat for Spa? especially considering Jordan was so tight for funds he didn't want to change clutch in the car pre-race.

The stuff with Bernie is well documented. Including that Schui thought he didn't have the seat and Bernie said something in the lines of "Go to bed and when you wake up it will be yours"

As for avoiding the issue? I have given umpteen examples of drivers being picked when driving talent was a lesser needed quality. That's hardly avoiding the issue.

When you can't do one without the other, or even get the job without ticking ALL of the boxes, that means they are ALL the primary function. You can't go out and drive the wheels off the car and flip off the media every time they ask you a question, and you can't be the darling of the media and put the car in the wall every week. They go hand in hand.

When things beyond driving talent are considered in choosing a driver, it means those things are just as important for those teams. As we've proven, its even MORE important for some, in the case of cash.

But as I've shown with your quotes, many times you have defined the term "best driver" as the one with the most driving prowess, skill, and likelihood to score points. So why now do you change your tune to what we have been saying all along, that the "best driver" is the one that fits all the needs of the team, even if that means not having the best scoring record?

Its funny that you bring up the young drivers tests as some of the teams use them solely as a revenue generating opportunity In addition, those tests are as much about testing their own development parts as they are to have a look at the kids. And the things they look at are far deeper than who puts in the best lap times.

All the links mentioned Merc paying for MSC's initial drive back in 1991, which you'd know if you read them through. Sorry, but I'm more inclined to take their word over yours. Why don't you provide some evidence of your claim?

I don't know if you're being deliberately obtuse or just genuinely misreading every time. You have NOT answered the question, which is about what the prime function of the job is. You keep bringing it back to hiring preferences, which are not the same thing. Why is that so hard to understand? For example, you think money is the main reason in hiring someone. I disagree, but even if money were the main reason someone was hired, it would not be the main function of their job. How can you not tell the difference?

Life in the fast lane: Lewis Hamilton's schedule

June 26 European Grand Prix at Valencia.
June 27 Vodafone sponsorship appearance at Estoril in Portugal taking competition winners on hot laps.
June 28 British GP preview media day. Jet-ski feature with BBC, followed by sessions with Fleet St aboard a boat on Thames, then sponsorship appearance for Santander at an art gallery in London. Stay in London.

June 30 Simulator work at McLaren Technology Centre in Woking, FOTA Fans’ Forum appearance at MTC, charity appearance for the Make A Wish Foundation.

July 3 Driving the MP4-23 (his 2008 world championship-winning car) at Goodwood Festival of Speed.
July 4 PR appearance for Mercedes-Benz at Brooklands.

July 6 PR appearance for Santander in London. Q & A with university students.
July 7 PR appearance for Vodafone at Tower Bridge, then drive up to Silverstone for FIA press conference at 3pm. Arrive with minutes to spare. Then all the usual media work
.July 8 Practice for British Grand Prix. The debrief and engineering meetings.
July 9 Practice and qualifying for British Grand Prix, then PR appearance for Mobil 1 at Blenheim Palace.
July 10 British Grand Prix followed by media work.

I haven't changed my tune at all. I've said all along that driving ability is the main factor when considering a driver for a seat, not the ability to shake hands or appease the fans, as I believe you mentioned in one of your posts. Other factors may come into play but the initial consideration will be how well the driver could perform.

With regards to the Young Drivers, I don't recall ever saying it's about lap times. That's not the first time that you've attempted to put words into my mouth - what is it with you? I'm aware that there a number of things that take place but there's no denying drivers are being evaluated too.

And if driving ability was so immaterial then why would McLaren get rid of Heikki?

The red is actual race weekends .

To me that says that driving as in racing is a very small part of their workload. When you think that that will be replicated depending on the country they are in AND they continue working during the off season AND even on the tests they do PR work.

So isn't PR the Main function of their job? It's what they do most of.

So isn't PR the Main function of their job? It's what they do most of.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/93894


Okay I'll take your question from a different tact. Taking out how a driver gets into F1 in the first place and look at it from a top team hiring drivers. Going back to the lines of the OP and "Mclaren Driver PR work.."

Look at this list from the link in the OP



The red is actual race weekends .

To me that says that driving as in racing is a very small part of their workload. When you think that that will be replicated depending on the country they are in AND they continue working during the off season AND even on the tests they do PR work.

So isn't PR the Main function of their job? It's what they do most of.

You HAVE changed your tune. See my last post above.

You've defined driver skill as the primary role, so drivers in a test would then logically be evaluated by their performance - lap time, for example. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm using your standard, as established by your previous comments.

I haven't seen anyone say that driving ability is immaterial. I have seen many quotes in this thread from myself and Johnston that say driving skill is not of paramount experience to every team, all of the time.

You HAVE changed your tune. See my last post above.

You've defined driver skill as the primary role, so drivers in a test would then logically be evaluated by their performance - lap time, for example. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm using your standard, as established by your previous comments.

I haven't seen anyone say that driving ability is immaterial. I have seen many quotes in this thread from myself and Johnston that say driving skill is not of paramount experience to every team, all of the time.

They are paid to race. Everything else is subservient to that, but if you want to get all literal then yes, they are paid to race and all the associated duties that may or not be required. Satisfied? Just like a salesperson who's primary job is to sell their product/services, but their job may also involve PR work, admin etc etc. It doesn't change the core purpose of their role. But make no mistake, the driver's primary function is to race, and that is what they are primarily paid to do. If they can't do that then it doesn't matter how good at PR they might be - they will be out of a job.

If the racing were the primary element of the job, then drivers with huge dowries and little in the way of results wouldn't be in the sport. Whitmarsh wouldn't take the nationality of his drivers into consideration. Personal endorsement rights wouldn't be sticking points of contracts. Teams buy more than racing skills.

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

My position at the start of this conversation:


Nothing I've written since has changed from that, ergo I haven't changed my tune.

Now one of your opening statements:

Nothing you have said since has proven any of this, despite your claims to the contrary. You are also attempting to link the first sentence with all the subsequent ones when in reality there is no connection between the two. E.g. Whitmarsh can, if he chooses, look at driver nationality while still ensuring that the driver he eventually selects is a good enough racer. Personal endorsement issues are irrelevant to the quality of driving; it's a contractual issue, so there is no connection there. And your last point, about teams buying more than racing skills, doesn't preclude the fact that racing skills will be the primary reason.

Now one of my follow up posts:

Again, nothing has changed. I acknowledged right from the beginning that drivers have other duties, but maintained that driving is the main point.

As for Johnston, he keeps claiming that money and sponsorship, not driving, are the primary elements when considering a driver, despite the fact that he agreed with me that Grosjean and Massa would be out of a seat if their performances didn't improve. Somewhat of a contradiction there but no surprise.

I did point out to you earlier that Johnston keeps saying that money is the prime factor but once again you ignored that, like anything which shows you have been wrong. At least you are consistent.

We've shown you that many drivers have been considered for and got a seat based on things other than their performance. If someone is chosen for a quality OTHER than racing skill, that quality has been deemed more important than racing skill, thus making racing skill NOT the primary element.

Did I ?

I can't remember if it was thread. Pretty sure it was but just incase.

Ro Go is managed by a company that is owned by GENII. Coincidently the same company that owns the team he currently races for. Boullier is also a part of a "Task Force" to get the French GP back (Not sure if that is part of his GENII business or extra curricular) . To get this they want support from the French people so they can spend the public money without too much complaint. To get the support they decided the best way was to have a French driver succeeding in F1.

Now Ro Go I believe is Swiss or something but flies under a French flag on race day.

Now you tell me would Ro Go be in the seat if he was managed by someone else and wasn't flying under a French flag? I don't think so TBH .

As for Massa I don't think I commented.

As for the money I have used that as one example (Well many examples) Because that is probably the most likely cause of drivers getting hired over talent.

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?

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

Well there you go my mistake.

I'll asky you this.

A job comes up in the paper .

Job entails.

On average 4 days a week stores duty, 1 day welding.

Which is the primary factor of the job?

Who is going to get the job?

The world class welder who is dyslexic and can't read Stock No.s Or the Satisfactory welder with loads of stores experience?

and the relevance of that is?

Good things come to those who wait

And answer.

I'm hoping the final comment is tongue in cheek as it took me god knows how many requests before you answered my question.

But I'll give it a shot.

I'm assuming you are not concerned with the (illegal) discriminatory factor when considering one candidate's dyslexia?

the information you have provided isn't enough to provide the answers to your questions. For instance, are you looking for a welder with stores experience, or vice versa? Which part of the job is more demanding and requires more expertise? What kind of welding would have to be done and how good a job (i.e. is it for "behind the scenes" stuff or will the results be in plain view? What assistance will be provided for the potential applicant's dyslexia? Etc etc.

I know you've weighted this (highly improbable) job advert to make out that time spent on one aspect means that that particular aspect is more important, but that's not always the case. Let me give you a counter argument:

I need a salesman for my company, to develop new business for the company. He/she will be spending most of the time initially on the telephone trying to drum up business and make appointments and sales, with a further chunk of the day involved in the inevitable admin and computer skills to record all his/her interactions. On average the day breaks down into 55% phone calls, 35% admin / computer work and 10% visiting clients. Now what would you consider the prime factor of the job, and should I be looking for a telephonist, administrator or salesperson?

What kind of welding would have to be done and how good a job (i.e. is it for "behind the scenes" stuff or will the results be in plain view?

One it's not illegal. It's not discrimination.

But no you haven't answered the questions.

It's easy, the options are

Part a) Which is the primary factor?

Welding 1 day a week

Or

Stores 4 days a week

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part b) Who gets the job?

The guy who is better at stores and a satisfactory welder for the job.

OR

The guy who is a better welder but totally useless at stores.


----------------------------------------------------------

As for Welding and





There is only one type of good weld. Whether it's in view or not. A peaky looking weld is a peaky weld. However a good looking one doesn't always stick. You need both to do a good weld.