[ad_1]
rewrite this content and keep HTML tags
Should Formula 1 teams field the best two drivers available to them and let them fight it out? Or hire a star and build the team around their uncompromised pursuit of the drivers’ title?
As there are two championships to win in Formula 1, teams have conflicting objectives.
Employing two ultra-competitive drivers may maximise the team’s points-scoring potential in the constructors’ championship. But if the pair keep taking points off the other it can hand an opportunity to a driver from a rival team to prevail in the drivers’ championship.
The rivalry between McLaren and Red Bull over the past three seasons has illustrated the positives and negatives of each approach.
When Red Bull dominated the 2023 championship, Max Verstappen took the drivers’ title and team mate Sergio Perez came second. The following year, with a less competitive car, Verstappen still prevailed in the drivers’ contest by 63 points.
Logically, the RB20 was therefore capable of delivering the constructors’ title, but Perez scored so poorly the team came third. Meanwhile McLaren clinched the constructors’ championship but it was clear at least one of their drivers could have been champion too.
This year McLaren hold the upper hand and have made it clear they will allow both drivers to fight for the title. The pair were neck-and-neck before Lando Norris’s retirement with a technical failure in Austria.
McLaren are poised to clinch the earliest constructors’ championship title for 37 years. The contrast to Red Bull is clear: Verstappen is third in the drivers’ standings, yet has scored 230 out of Red Bull’s 239 points.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
This is only the most extreme example of a situation seen many times before. For many years Ferrari operated a clear ‘number one’ policy. That was the case in Michael Schumacher’s time and for many years afterwards.
In 2013 Ferrari CEO Luca di Montezemolo said he preferred that arrangement because “I don’t want to have two roosters in the same hen house.” But that philosophy did not endure after he left; today Ferrari has two top-drawer drivers in Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc.
Is there a ‘best way’ to run an F1 team? Or do both approaches inevitably mean compromises? Have your say in this week’s poll.
‘Two roosters’
Picking the two best drivers available and treating them as equally as possible is the best way to ensure the maximum points haul in the constructors’ championship, which is crucial as it determines the money teams receive.
Prioritising a single driver means that if the second driver cannot get close enough to them, championship-winning chances may be lost. It also leaves a team vulnerable if their lead driver gets injured and has to miss races, as happened with Ferrari and Schumacher in 1999.
‘Number one’
Picking the single best driver available and prioritising their performance is the best way to ensure the maximum points haul in the drivers’ championship, which is the most prestigious of the two F1 titles.
Dividing resources equally between two drivers inevitably compromises a team’s efforts. For example, new parts cannot be introduced until at least two of them have been built, which can mean delays. And there is the complication of fairly managing pit strategies, as illustrated by McLaren’s recent headaches.
I say
This is an easy question to answer purely from a fan’s point of view. I want to see competition, therefore I want every team to take the best drivers they can and give them the best possible chance to succeed. Drivers should have to fight their team mates like any other rival and not expect them to always defer.
But realistically, because F1 offers two titles, teams are pulled in conflicting directions. The best approach to win the constructors’ championship is not necessarily the best approach to win the drivers’ championship.
As long as teams are trying to succeed in both championships, there is no perfect answer to this dilemma. However it seems to me that the ‘number one’ approach risks putting the goal of an individual before the team. That puts me slightly in favour of the more even-handed approach.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
You say
Should teams prioritise a single driver or split their efforts evenly between two? Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.
Should F1 teams have ‘two roosters’ or a ‘clear number one’?
Strongly prefer ‘two roosters’ (48%)
Slightly prefer ‘two roosters’ (25%)
No preference (10%)
Slightly prefer ‘clear number one’ (14%)
Strongly prefer ‘clear number one’ (3%)
Total Voters: 63
Loading …A RaceFans account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here. When this poll is closed the result will be displayed instead of the voting form.
Debates and polls
Browse all debates and polls
[ad_2]
Source link
