planetf1.com

I feel that there was some misunderstanding of what "team comes first" policy is to mean when "#1" driver policy was brought in to object such. And as you indicated here, it is not the particular driver who would impose that policy on the team and designate himself. But the team, picking out the one who is impressing more and is the front horse to put into the race against the concurrence horse. It is the team's policy, the team managing it... because that is in the team's interest (and they sacrifice one of the drivers for that, just see).

How so? One of the drivers needs to set the direction of setup and development for the car, and it makes sense to prioritize (although not to the exclusion of all else) the strategy of the quicker driver.

When I see things like 'that would be a mindless decision to make one of them be No2 to another one', I think people are really fundamentally overstating what a #2 driver is. Just because one driver is lower in priority than the other does not mean he's 'not allowed to beat the #1' or any of that hyperbole. It just means they're focusing on the other driver.

Case in point: Alonso is obviously the #1 driver at McLaren. Is Stoffel allowed to beat him? Of course, if he can. But Alonso is the one they look to primarily for input and feedback, and if they have to choose between the two in a race (assuming all else being equal) they'll choose in favor of Alonso. But that doesn't mean they're somehow crippling Vandoorne, it just means they're prioritizing the quicker driver.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017

Well, then that is your view of what "No1 and No2" driver policy means. The forum's general understanding, as far as I know it, it means in the first hand that indeed no free racing between the two takes place, no competition allowed, and TOs are in place that favour No1 against No2, and indeed crippling the other driver's fight for WDC points in the favour of the designated No1 driver.

IMO, F1 fans do not really bother about whom the team values more and pays more money for and looks primarily for input and feedback, when they debate "No1 - No2" policies. But what happens there out on the track on the racing day and whether both drivers are fairly treated and allowed to race each other for the position and points, or not.

When Eddie Irvine joined Ferrari he out qualified Schumacher at the first race, in response to this Schumacher prevented Irvine from testing for the rest of the season, this is when F1 had unlimited testing, these are the words of Irvine himself.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

Read my post above.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

And the relevance to what I wrote above?

I have attempted to find collaboration for this claim, and the only site that I found that backed it up was anti-michael-schumacher.com. If you have a better source that confirm's Irvine claim that he was not allowed to practice because he beat Schumi in qualifying at the first race, I would love to see them. Funny that there are not dozens of articles on-line about it if it came down the way that you say it did, wouldn't you say?

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

The links below would suggest that Irvine did do some testing:

http://www.atlasf1.com/news/1996/154.htm

http://www.atlasf1.com/news/1996/155.htm

edit: and then there's this:

“When I was at Ferrari with Michael, I did the majority of the testing, the tyre work and the chassis work. But Michael could just get in the car and go fast immediately.

http://www.speedcafe.com/2010/01/05/irvine-schumacher-will-have-number-one-status/

Well, pokerman's Deep Throat is just about to clear his/her throat...

So we Irvine supposedly saying he wasn't able to test AND
also saying he did the majority of the testing, tyre work, and chassis work.... hmmmmmmmmm. Sounds like someone(s) are a bit confused.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

A bit pedantic, but I kind of disagree with this. Montezemolo brought Schumacher-Todt-Brawn-etc. to Ferrari in order to bring the crown back to Maranello. But he then spent the last few years scheming how to overthrow them when they became the dream team and "stole the glory". We all know how Monti effectively forced Schumacher's retirement. True, it wasn't exactly team above all and driver be damned; it was more like an ego power trip. But the team didn't have a problem to sacrifice their nr.1 star when they felt he was becoming bigger than the team.

Well, you're obviously right that that's how people use the terms here. I just think that's only one possible form of a #1 / #2 system, and you can have a #1 driver without imposing any such draconian measures.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017

The term "#1 / #2 system" itself does not mean just anything but that what people attribute to it. Sure, it can have different kinds of possible forms, as you say, but if to have a discussion then people have to agree what particular form that is. Merc signed Bottas, with no single win in his F1 career, on a 1-year trial, solving their emergency situation of having to fill in that other vacant seat. There is no discussion of who and what Bottas is in the team compared to Hamilton. But then you go out and state that Mercedes got #1 / #2 drivers policy from day 1 and that Hamilton is, of course, the #1 driver... without explaining what you mean with it... good luck.

I'm calling bullsh*t on this one seeing as in Sky's legends of F1 series Irvine was very critical of Michael's ability to develop a car.

I looked back through the thread to see if I could find where I said Bottas was a #2 from day one, and I can't. So I don't think I actually said that.

But if you think Mercedes was considering a driver who is a 3-time WDC and already an all-time great to be at the same level as a midfielder who'd never won a race or set a pole position, I have my doubts. I don't believe Mercedes has what you're referring to as a #1 / #2 policy, because you seem to think it refers exclusively to an arrangement where the #2 is not allowed to challenge the #1. But I do very much believe Hamilton is considered the lead driver at Mercedes, and if there is any question of strategy, development path, etc. it will be decided in his favor.

Lewis is the more experienced, more marketable, more successful, faster and better-placed driver. Why on earth wouldn't he be #1?

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017

Oh, this "but then you go out and state..." was hypothetical, I thought it should had been obvious from its ending "good luck" (with it)... if you go out and state Lewis is No1 (which makes Bottas No2 by default, no?) but you don't clarify your understanding of the term to people. To them, it perhaps means something else (as we agreed on already?).

We are actually not disagreeing, just trying to get on the same page with the meanings of terms. In this very post you are interchangeably using 2 terms for Lewis in Mercedes: the lead driver, the #1 driver. It may not mean the same to many people, indeed.

I am fine with it. Yes, Alonso was #1 driver in Alonso - Kimi, like Hamilton is #1 driver in Hamilton - Bottas, like Vettel is #1 in Vettel - Kimi. Gotcha.

Yeap. You can almost change the bold sentence into "these are the writings of pokerman himself"!

I will endeavor to find the interview, it was a series of interviews he did with I believe an Austrian company, there's about 22 of them so it may take some time.

Edit: I found the interviews, they are called a drink with Eddie Irvine.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

I'm familiar with the series, having watched all of them myself. Do you remember which episode he says that in? I'm not going to re-watch them all looking for a quote on testing.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017

I found it on episode 16 so you can imagine how long it took, go to 10:15, just before that it mentions the games Schumacher played with Rosberg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Psa8wO8OTGI&t=634

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

OK... so Irvine said it, however, is there any colaboration of his comment. As I said earlier... if it were true, how is that the only time we hear about it is so much later and from only one source (perhaps 1.5 if you want to accept anti.michael.schumacher.com's implication of something unfair by Schumi. Would it not make sense that among all of these knowledgeable fans in this forum, no one apparently than you and an anti-Schumi site knew about it? Why wouldn't there be hell raised to high heaven over it, and what changed and when to the point that Irvine later says the did most of the testing? Which story, if either, are we to believe?

Personally, I have very serious doubts that a Michael Schumacher, who had yet to even win one WDC for Ferrari after several years, would have the power to prevent Irvine from testing the car for a whole year just because he got beat in the first qualifying? Seriously, do we believe that Schumi was that lacking in confidence? That afraid of a journeyman driver named Irvine? It is a lot to be asked to believe.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

Why would an Austrian (Germanic) site be anti-Schumacher, also so what Irvine said has to be collaborated by Ferrari otherwise it isn't true?

Seems you don't hear a lot of things and when you hear them they automatically get dismissed as lies if it first concerns Ferrari and secondly it seems when it concerns Schumacher.

You dismiss Irvine as a journeyman driver but would Schumacher have initially seen him like that after being out qualified by him first time out?

If Schumacher was so confident why the games with Rosberg, we all know the number game he played with Rosberg from day 1, and then another journeyman driver Johnny Herbert claimed that after his first test with Schumacher he was 0.5s quicker so Schumacher banned him for seeing his telemetry whilst he still looked at Herbert's telemetry, another lie I guess?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

Ok, but there he is simply confirming that MS was not a fairest kind of a sportsman, as response to what Rosberg said about him that MS was playing games all over in Mercedes. But at the same time he is also giving his understanding why such would take place - "In the motor racing your teammate is your biggest enemy." Nothing new either about that or about MS.

What this has to do with anything beyond that?

Appreciated, even though I don't agree with it. At least you claimed something and did back it up, it is something that people omit often.

There's some unfortunate silliness going on in this thread. The arguments have been endlessly labyrinthine and circular. I've been watching it and it's now time to put it to rest.

Michael WAS favoured by Ferrari. If you or anyone finds that difficult to understand or accept, perhaps you might look at page 37 of TOTAL COMPETITION by Ross Brawn and Adam Parr. Ross would know, possibly even more so than some of the armchair experts here.

Secondly, Ross's philosophy was always to favour the faster driver, so the rusted on Schumacher disciples need no take umbrage; he WAS a fast driver.

Unfortunately, your post doesn't put it to rest because the current discussion is about a claim that Schumacher prevented Irvine from doing any testing. Whether he was favoured or not may be germane, but certainly not conclusive.

I can't in fact see any relevance between your post and the one you were replying to?

It's just a back ground to things that Schumacher was prepared to do to gain any kind of superiority over his teammates.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

Well I must admit there are quite a few things I say I can't back up, I simply can't find the source, but everything I say is simply things I've read or seen, sometimes it's quite frustrating.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

Regarding Brawn it was obvious that he targeted Hamilton as the team leader at Mercedes from day 1, hence the team order against Rosberg in Malaysia, however the Mercedes hierarchy soon put an end to that.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

I think people may want to see the source for themselves at least in part to exclude the possibility that you may be inferring things from articles you've read. It's at least a possibility, isn't it?

Thanks for finally jumping in and putting this discussion "to rest". It is so nice to to have that kind of firm leadership here.


Perhaps you have missed the context of the discussion in your push to "end" the discussion... and that is not whether or not Schumi or the "faster driver" was favored, but as to whether Michael Schumacher had the power within the Ferrari organization to prevent Irvine from being able to practice for the entire year because he got beat in the first qualifying test of the season. It is one thing to be favored, it is yet another to basically run the team. Oh, BTW, it may have been Ross' philosophy to favor the faster driver, but Ross did not run the Ferrari team, I believe that di Montezemolo and Todt did that.

I think you will find few of here who are saying that Schumi was not favored, show me the still extremely fast, multiple WDC who is not at least to some degree favored on his team. However, that does not mean that they are contracted #1 (and or #2) drivers, nor does it mean that they can shut down their teammate from testing for an entire season.

And yes, I think most "rusted on Schumacher disciples", as you describe them, realize that "he WAS a fast driver." without your use of the caps, I have yet to see anyone here say that he IS a fast driver.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

I'm not one for making countless negative posts about Schumacher, you made a statement about Schumacher not being favoured at Ferrari from day 1 and I remembered an interview with Irvine that said differently, simple as that.

I happened to catch a lot of flack for what I said but fortunately I managed to find the interview to back up what I said.

Regarding comparisons you want to make between Schumacher and Hamilton I don't really want to take that any further in a thread that is about Vettel.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

Yes I know that but it's simply not possible to find certain things, at the end of the day what do I personally know from my armchair, if I say a certain person said this in that case that wouldn't be me trying to put a spin on it, it would be a direct quote.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

Indeed, I did make the following statement:



To your credit, you did find a statement by Irvine that would challenge that thinking. However, I still have a very tough time believing that being out-qualified at the first race would result in Schmacher not only trying to, but having the power to stop Irvine from practicing for the rest of the year, and to be honest, I have seen nothing other than that anti-michael-schumacher.com site to suggest it did happen. Do you not find it odd that after Irvine made that comment, we did not see every F1 media source raising a huge stink over their Schumi/Ferrari's actions. How could Ferrari have swept it all under the rug so completely that it is most difficult to not be able to find collaboration of Irvine's claim in a google search?

As far as the Lewis mention in this thread about Vettel... Hamilton had been discussed earlier and not just by me. A thread titled "Vettel & Number 2s" was bound to bring in references to other drivers less it appear that Vettel is the only driver to have "2s".

One more question for you, poker. Do YOU really believe that Michael Schumacher had Irvine blocked from testing for the entire year because he was bested in qualifying in the first race of the season? Serious question.

and if you do, how does that explain Irvine's comments about he (Irvine) having been done most of the testing, tire testing, and chassis testing. Admittedly, it could have been in different years, but wouldn't that be a rather dramatic turn around?

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

Obviously I'm going from what Irvine said but at some point Schumacher had to realise that Irvine was no threat to him so subsequently he would have no trouble in Irvine testing in particular again if you believe Irvine, that he was better in testing than Schumacher so was able to better improve the car.

Did Schumacher have that kind of power why not?

Was there not talk of some kind of power struggle in 2005 between LDM and Schumacher were LDM believed that he had too much influence within the team which partly resulted in the signing of Kimi?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place
2019: Currently 21st

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (8)

You are going with what Irvine says. So why do you think that there were not tons of media outrage over this? This would have been like cake and the icing too for the media, yet finding supporting articles og what i would call a rather dispicable action on the part of both Schumi and Ferrari is very difficult. If it is true, I'd be very disappointed in both...unless there were some reasoning we are not seeing.

To answer you other question, I can think of NO reason Schumi, or any other drjver would have that kind of power unless, like Dan Gurney, they owned the team and even the they would be dumb to use it that way.

Lastly, if there were concens about a power struggle between Luca & Schumi, you'd have to admit that the situation was quite a bit different in 2005 than in 1997.... Schumi coming off 5 consecutive WDCs in Ferraris. That could embolden a person if that were the cause of any rift.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

I don't think it would have been a big story at the time. That kind of behaviour was not unusual back then when being number 1 bought you a hell of a lot more benefit than being number 1 now.

People miss use the term "number 2" IMO. Nobody on the current grid is a Number 2 in the same way that Herbert, Barrichello or Irvine were to Schumacher or Berger was to Senna or Patrese was to Mansell.

It wasn't unusual for the No.1 to pick and chose their testing programs.

That being said I doubt this actually happened. I think Irvine is exaggerating.

In this article

http://www.grandprix.com/ft/ft00244.html it states Eddie didn't get many testing miles but does not state why.

I think not a lot is much more likely than none at all.

I would agree with most of that, Mikey. I just have a very difficult time with NEVER testing after race 1 quallies. There is no way that benefits Ferrari even if Schumi might have wished it.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

Or maybe there can be degrees of #2, and it doesn't have to be all or nothing?

Personally, I feel calling a driver a #2 is valid any time there's a clear divide in priority between the drivers. If it can only apply to a useless peon who's not allowed to make any impact on his teammate, I really think there should be a clearer term for that.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 15 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017