The 2018 F1 driver transfer discussion/speculation threadFormula 1

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Toto Wolff just has to put Ocon in Bottas' seat. He complains that the young guys do not have their chances but what did he and Merc when Nico Rosberg retired? They bought a river from Williams + Bottas isn't even a young driver anymore. They could have chosen Ocon or Wehrlein.

No cause Bottas was proven, Ocon had drove for half a season, and the end of the season at that, he didn't light the back ablaze against Pascal. And in reality due to that he was a risky pick up. Pascal hadn't done much to prove his worth either and even at Sauber against Ericsson that showed which is why he wasn't picked up. And when Ocon squared off with Perez, it was Perez who won though it wasn't easy. So clearly Mercedes see the Ocon option as equal and possibly better at times than Bottas but not enough to drop one for the other.

I think people want Ocon because of his personality and tenacity, where Bottas seems to be anonymous and willing to be a "rear gunner". But I haven't seen anything that proves Ocon is better so much so that Bottas should be dropped.

But the team is built around Hamilton and Bottas was the safest choice in that respect?

So a team supposedly built around said guy allowed his team mate to constantly race him and win the championship one year even...K

 

[adb]

As for @adb I've seen this talk of "Manor" this and that and I'm curious cause it reads like one or two people on f1 websites like racefans. So how exactly and why exactly should Merc have bought Manor? It seems many still are sore about this because Manor was that underdog working person's team among other reasons. Aside from those feelings of emotion and not logic what else would Merc gain that they don't by helping FI?

Me mentioning Manor was just saying what could be an option, which is of course easier to say with hindsight. I’m not really sore about Manor closing, I mean it’s a shame they did end up like this, but I mentioned it more in the context of making it a Merc junior team rather than a failure to save a team.

What I meant was that Mercedes should really figure something out with junior drivers. RBR obviously has STR, Ferrari has one seat at Sauber (and just made a very ballsy move with Charles), while Mercedes had three F1 material drivers (now two) and most likely none of them will be in F1 next year.

If they are serious about their junior program, they need something sorted out, whether it’s by the way of B team (vide Red Bull) or acquire a seat via an engine/parts/money deal (vide Ferrari/Sauber).

I know it will sound arrogant, because they invested big money in those guys, made it possible for some of them to race, but hanging on to them is just bad, I mean as long as you can provide them a seat (if they deserve so) then yeah, drivers are basically their property, but if they fail to provide that seat, they should let them go. Both George and Esteban would be snatched up in matter of days.

It’s Merc’s choice, they decide not to upset their no. 1, so they hire a wingman, ok I get it, but then make sure you have a plan for those young guys.

I just wonder if Lewis would really be that upset with Esteban, because otherwise it was just an absolute failure by Toto to sign Bottas that early.

 

[twitcher]

I don’t quite get Toto’s outburst aimed at other managers. It’s not their job to sign your young drivers, verbal agreement or not. Horner’s response was appropriate - RB invested in a second team to developer their young drivers, why can’t Merc do the same.

Earlier this year, Toto rejected the idea of Merc aquiring a second team, saying it wasn’t financially possible. Yet just this week, he’s suggesting running a 3rd car. So Mercedes aren’t willing to spend the big bucks on their own to have a place to put their young drivers, no no, but they want every other team on the grid to have an extra car so that they have more places to put their young drivers.

I’m all for having more cars on the grid, more spots for more drivers. However, the hypocrisy and selfishness of what Toto has presented is pretty astounding in my opinion. Not that anything else should be expected in F1 I suppose.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I don’t quite get Toto’s outburst aimed at other managers. It’s not their job to sign your young drivers, verbal agreement or not.

Quite - but you're not in a position to know how much the team bosses value each other's word at any given time. Toto doesn't strike me as an eejit so I suspect he felt that the agreement was stronger than it evidently was.

Horner’s response was appropriate - RB invested in a second team to developer their young drivers, why can’t Merc do the same.

Or Ferrari, for that matter. It probably comes down to the gain in advertising exposure versus the cost of a second team. Mercedes do have a young driver programme, incidentally.

Earlier this year, Toto rejected the idea of Merc aquiring a second team, saying it wasn’t financially possible.

Ah, you see. You answered your own question just a few words later.

Yet just this week, he’s suggesting running a 3rd car. So Mercedes aren’t willing to spend the big bucks on their own to have a place to put their young drivers, no no, but they want every other team on the grid to have an extra car so that they have more places to put their young drivers.

The cost of running an extra car is far far smaller than the cost of building another car (that most teams already have the parts for, engines aside). The benefits in terms of spectacle and a 50% increase in sponsor exposure are very good. The idea of a third car has come up every so often for years. Ferrari have suggested it, Red Bull have suggested it, Manor, Caterham, Jordan, the list goes on. I don't think we'll see a return to three car teams but suggesting that it's Toto's idea is a little disingenuous. You also missed out the detail of his suggestion - "young" (read rookie) drivers only, no constructor points, a separate sub-championship... and he actually talks about putting a young Mercedes driver in the third Mercedes, not farming them out to Ferrari, Red Bull and so on.

I’m all for having more cars on the grid, more spots for more drivers.

Oh, right, it didn't seem like it.

However, the hypocrisy and selfishness of what Toto has presented is pretty astounding in my opinion.

What seems more astounding is that you think he's the first to suggest it or that he's suggested it so that all the other teams run the Mercedes Young Driver Programme. Why is that?

Not that anything else should be expected in F1 I suppose.

Ah.

 

[twitcher]

Quite - but you're not in a position to know how much the team bosses value each other's word at any given time. Toto doesn't strike me as an eejit so I suspect he felt that the agreement was stronger than it evidently was.



Or Ferrari, for that matter. It probably comes down to the gain in advertising exposure versus the cost of a second team. Mercedes do have a young driver programme, incidentally.



Ah, you see. You answered your own question just a few words later.



The cost of running an extra car is far far smaller than the cost of building another car (that most teams already have the parts for, engines aside). The benefits in terms of spectacle and a 50% increase in sponsor exposure are very good. The idea of a third car has come up every so often for years. Ferrari have suggested it, Red Bull have suggested it, Manor, Caterham, Jordan, the list goes on. I don't think we'll see a return to three car teams but suggesting that it's Toto's idea is a little disingenuous. You also missed out the detail of his suggestion - "young" (read rookie) drivers only, no constructor points, a separate sub-championship... and he actually talks about putting a young Mercedes driver in the third Mercedes, not farming them out to Ferrari, Red Bull and so on.



Oh, right, it didn't seem like it.



What seems more astounding is that you think he's the first to suggest it or that he's suggested it so that all the other teams run the Mercedes Young Driver Programme. Why is that?



Ah.

Feel

Free

To

Dissect

This

Post

Word

For

Word

As

Well.


You missed the point. Merc won’t spend more money on a second team to find a spot for their young drivers. I’m fully aware that a 3rd car is cheaper than a second team, thanks tips. The point is though, Merc won’t spend their money to solve their problems, but they expect other teams to pony up the cash for a third car. You think Haas and Force India can afford to run a third car? The financial hurdle for haas to run a third car is the equivalent hurdle as Merc purchasing a second team. Hence the hypocrisy.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Me mentioning Manor was just saying what could be an option, which is of course easier to say with hindsight. I’m not really sore about Manor closing, I mean it’s a shame they did end up like this, but I mentioned it more in the context of making it a Merc junior team rather than a failure to save a team.

What I meant was that Mercedes should really figure something out with junior drivers. RBR obviously has STR, Ferrari has one seat at Sauber (and just made a very ballsy move with Charles), while Mercedes had three F1 material drivers (now two) and most likely none of them will be in F1 next year.

If they are serious about their junior program, they need something sorted out, whether it’s by the way of B team (vide Red Bull) or acquire a seat via an engine/parts/money deal (vide Ferrari/Sauber).

I know it will sound arrogant, because they invested big money in those guys, made it possible for some of them to race, but hanging on to them is just bad, I mean as long as you can provide them a seat (if they deserve so) then yeah, drivers are basically their property, but if they fail to provide that seat, they should let them go. Both George and Esteban would be snatched up in matter of days.

It’s Merc’s choice, they decide not to upset their no. 1, so they hire a wingman, ok I get it, but then make sure you have a plan for those young guys.

I just wonder if Lewis would really be that upset with Esteban, because otherwise it was just an absolute failure by Toto to sign Bottas that early.

Yes but even with those teams look at how RBR is struggling to actually have drivers to put there because of the accordion effect, where once they had too many drivers and not enough seats (mercedes of now). Now they have too many seats not enough drivers. Ferrari on the other hand have never had either problem because they've never had anyone really make it from the drivers academy to become a F1 caliber driver in their eyes.

So to me Junior programs are difficult all around, you could be like Ferrari and make it to where it's next to impossible to get to F1 (supposedly a reason Stroll left them), or you could be like RBR and Merc where you have too many good drivers are too little depending on the season. There is no magical fix. And in reality it is all teams best interest to control the drivers as much as possible so they don't get caught up with a rival team later on. What may seem bad to normal people/fans is wise business for them. And respectively speaking that's all they should care about not what the fans want.

Also Bottas was/is doing his job, the only shortcoming of late has been quali, where it seems a third of the year he was many times on par with Lewis and now not even close. However, the same could be said for Daniel too in respect to Max. the claim could always be made that resources have shifted or that the season has taken its toll on some more than others.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Feel

Free

To

Dissect

This

Post

Word

For

Word

As

Well.

Perhaps you're not used to seeing posts answered point by point?

You missed the point. Merc won’t spend more money on a second team to find a spot for their young drivers.

We're agreed on that - but you asked "why?" then actually answered yourself.

You missed the point. Merc won’t spend more money on a second team to find a spot for their young drivers. I’m fully aware that a 3rd car is cheaper than a second team, thanks tips.

I don't understand the (presumed) colloquialism?

The point is though, Merc won’t spend their money to solve their problems, but they expect other teams to pony up the cash for a third car.

This is where you seem a little unclear on the whole history of the "third car" argument. Teams built (or were prepared to build) three cars for each race weekend until not so long ago. Three cars running today would generate another 50% of sponsorship, TV exposure money and (depending on the implementation) points. Mercedes aren't asking other teams to spend on a third Mercedes any more than Red Bull, Ferrari or the other teams I'd listed were asking teams to spend money on theirs.

The financial hurdle for haas to run a third car is the equivalent hurdle as Merc purchasing a second team. Hence the hypocrisy.

Figures?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Figures?

I'd be interested in that too, but I'm going to guess it's another of his off the cuff analysis. Because to draw parallels (as you're aware) between the money it takes for operating a team (80-100 million USD on the low end) and that of a additional car which is about 6-10 million USD...it's pretty obvious what is more manageable.

Now if the argument is can a team like Haas manage to do this in the budget they wish to adhere to rather than what he said, the answer is more simple. Nope.

 

[twitcher]

I'd be interested in that too, but I'm going to guess it's another of his off the cuff analysis. Because to draw parallels (as you're aware) between the money it takes for operating a team (80-100 million USD on the low end) and that of a additional car which is about 6-10 million USD...it's pretty obvious what is more manageable.

Now if the argument is can a team like Haas manage to do this in the budget they wish to adhere to rather than what he said, the answer is more simple. Nope.

It is off the cuff...you yourself demonstrate that it’s pretty obvious a third car is cheaper than a whole team. We need “figures” to be clear on that? Of course it’s obvious which is more manageable, which is why it wasn’t necessary for Ten to make that point to begin with, hence the “thanks tips”.

What do you mean “rather than what he said”. I’m saying Haas can’t afford a third car, what are you saying?

Perhaps you're not used to seeing posts answered point by point?



We're agreed on that - but you asked "why?" then actually answered yourself.



A colloquialism?



I don't understand the (presumed) colloquialism?



This is where you seem a little unclear on the whole history of the "third car" argument. Teams built (or were prepared to build) three cars for each race weekend until not so long ago. Three cars running today would generate another 50% of sponsorship, TV exposure money and (depending on the implementation) points. Mercedes aren't asking other teams to spend on a third Mercedes any more than Red Bull, Ferrari or the other teams I'd listed were asking teams to spend money on theirs.



Figures?

i am used to seeing posts answered point by point, I just think you’re being a goof and picking apart my post which was mostly rhetorical thinking out loud, for no other reason than you want to have a go.

I’m aware that teams built three cars until not long ago. What does that have to do with how much it costs to field 2 cars today?

Anyways, keep telling me more about how little I know 👍

 

[baldgye]

Three cars is never going to happen

Toto needs to accept the fact that unless he’s willing to put a young driver in his team, Mercedes need a proper Jr squad or to properly help fund a mid-tier team.

Can’t have it both ways

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It is off the cuff...you yourself demonstrate that it’s pretty obvious a third car is cheaper than a whole team. We need “figures” to be clear on that? Of course it’s obvious which is more manageable, which is why it wasn’t necessary for Ten to make that point to begin with, hence the “thanks tips”.

What do you mean “rather than what he said”. I’m saying Haas can’t afford a third car, what are you saying?

No you're saying more than just Haas can't afford a third car, you're saying that Haas trying to afford a third car is on level with Mercedes trying to afford another team. You were trying to show a financial parallel that didn't exist.

 

[twitcher]

No you're saying more than just Haas can't afford a third car, you're saying that Haas trying to afford a third car is on level with Mercedes trying to afford another team. You were trying to show a financial parallel that didn't exist.

Do you have any figures to demonstrate the parallel doesn’t exist?

You yourself said another team is roughly 80-100 mil, while another car is roughly 6-10 mil. That’s a difference of a factor of ten. Completely off the cough, but you think Merc’e budget isn’t at least 10x as big as Haas?

 

[mustafur]

I doubt it would be 1/3rd cost to have another car, the majority of money spent by teams is in designing not making/sourcing parts.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I doubt it would be 1/3rd cost to have another car, the majority of money spent by teams is in designing not making/sourcing parts.

Agreed.

Completely off the cough, but you think Merc’e budget isn’t at least 10x as big as Haas?

Yes, I think it isn't. The Haas budget is $116m. The Mercedes budget (Daimler AG actually put very little in due to sponsorship and prize value) is about $450 million. Mercedes are paying their drivers a lot more, of course, so you can knock some of that off, and Haas isn't doing anywhere near as much R&D thanks to their (very successful) strategy of purchasing as many off-the-peg Ferrari parts as possible. And not designing their own engine either. If you take those things into account then Mercedes' like-for-like budget is probably twice that of Haas.

The only cost in running an extra car (driver pay aside, but if we're talking juniors then they'll pay to play) is in the extra crew, probably an extra $500,000 per year. Which your driver is paying for anyway. I really don't see the equivalence that you're claiming.

Do you have any figures to demonstrate the parallel doesn’t exist?

See above... but you made the claim, the onus is on you to back it up.

 

[DesertPenguin]

See above... but you made the claim, the onus is on you to back it up.

I learned a new word today!

 

[twitcher]

Agreed.



Yes, I think it isn't. The Haas budget is $116m. The Mercedes budget (Daimler AG actually put very little in due to sponsorship and prize value) is about $450 million. Mercedes are paying their drivers a lot more, of course, so you can knock some of that off, and Haas isn't doing anywhere near as much R&D thanks to their (very successful) strategy of purchasing as many off-the-peg Ferrari parts as possible. And not designing their own engine either. If you take those things into account then Mercedes' like-for-like budget is probably twice that of Haas.

The only cost in running an extra car (driver pay aside, but if we're talking juniors then they'll pay to play) is in the extra crew, probably an extra $500,000 per year. Which your driver is paying for anyway. I really don't see the equivalence that you're claiming.



See above... but you made the claim, the onus is on you to back it up.

Mercedes the car company’s budget (Daimler AG) vs Haas’s budget, not the Merc F1 team’s budget vs Haas’s F1 team budget.


Again, my original point was that Toto doesn’t want Merc to spend money on their own to find seats for their young drivers, instead they want everyone to spend more money to have seats for their young drivers, and I find that hypocritical. I get it that you disagree with that, but I’m not sure why we’ve had to go on this tangent.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Mercedes the car company’s budget (Daimler AG) vs Haas’s budget, not the Merc F1 team’s budget vs Haas’s F1 team budget.


Again, my original point was that Toto doesn’t want Merc to spend money on their own to find seats for their young drivers, instead they want everyone to spend more money to have seats for their young drivers, and I find that hypocritical. I get it that you disagree with that, but I’m not sure why we’ve had to go on this tangent.

The smaller teams don't want Mercedes to have a junior team.

There are no down sides at all to three car teams. It gives the teams at the top an extra seat for their junior drivers and it gives the small teams 50% extra revenue selling the seat.... It will never happen though.

 

[baldgye]

There are no down sides at all to three car teams. It gives the teams at the top an extra seat for their junior drivers and it gives the small teams 50% extra revenue selling the seat.... It will never happen though.

The problem with this is that it essentially gives the top teams (see Merc, Red Bull and Ferrari) with a extra 3 test sessions as they use the third car to help them set up their main two (or even one) cars.
This then sets the gap between the front teams and the rest even greater. This season has seen the worst and most apparent gap in performance in a long time, with Alonso at Singapore's result being called a Class Victory. And the idea of a Haas, Renault, Force India or Sauber getting a podium or a win is about a likely as winning the lottery.

Three car teams also raises costs, so if you wanted to get into the sport and be successful (Porsche or BMW for example), the money needed to invest would be higher, which is the antithesis of what the FIA and Liberty have been trying to do

 

[Jimlaad43]

Another problem with 3 car teams is that if we have a race like Singapore where only one driver retires, it means the top teams will likely take the top 9 positions, leaving the midfield to fight over one point. You can't also restrict teams to only score points with 2 cars because then it becomes pointless having the third car.

 

[Greycap]

The only cost in running an extra car (driver pay aside, but if we're talking juniors then they'll pay to play) is in the extra crew, probably an extra $500,000 per year. Which your driver is paying for anyway. I really don't see the equivalence that you're claiming.

Err, what? The third car doesn't appear from thin air, it costs something closer to ten million dollars to build it in the first place. On top of that it needs tyres, fuel, spare parts, all the running costs.

 

[Famine]

And the idea of a Haas, Renault, Force India or Sauber getting a podium or a win being about a likely as winning the lottery.

That's why FACC is so awesome. Force India has two seconds and three thirds, Renault has a third, Haas has one second and three thirds and Sauber has two thirds. Even McLaren has two seconds, and Williams and Toro Rosso are... there.

The gap from Sauber in 8th to Red Bull in 3rd is less than two races (46pt), rather than ten (253pt)* in the current real format.


*Well, six. A 1-2 in the real format is worth 43pt, so 5.88 races. Either way, Sauber would need snookers.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Another problem with 3 car teams is that if we have a race like Singapore where only one driver retires, it means the top teams will likely take the top 9 positions, leaving the midfield to fight over one point. You can't also restrict teams to only score points with 2 cars because then it becomes pointless having the third car.

Some proponents of the 3-car scheme have suggested that the third car wouldn't score Constructor points and the driver would score in a Rookie championship. I can still see that causing a mess at Singapore though.

Mercedes the car company’s budget (Daimler AG) vs Haas’s budget, not the Merc F1 team’s budget vs Haas’s F1 team budget.

That seems like a shifted goalpost - you kept saying "Mercedes". Daimler's budget to the F1 team is about $45m, a third of what Haas spend. I still don't see the equivalency you're claiming?

Err, what? The third car doesn't appear from thin air, it costs something closer to ten million dollars to build it in the first place. On top of that it needs tyres, fuel, spare parts, all the running costs.

About $1.8. But these are all pay drivers, remember?

 

[baldgye]

Another problem with 3 car teams is that if we have a race like Singapore where only one driver retires, it means the top teams will likely take the top 9 positions, leaving the midfield to fight over one point. You can't also restrict teams to only score points with 2 cars because then it becomes pointless having the third car.

Indeed, and this is why the other teams also don't want Merc to have a Toro Rosso type of team. The problem stems from the fact that the top teams get mad bank and the middle of the road teams don't and so struggle like mad.

Look at Williams, Force India... not so long ago they were (and kinda are) really strong teams, but FI almost left the sport completely and Williams might have well have, such is their performance. If the balance of money was better and more fair, F1 would have more teams and the likes of Ocon getting a seat wouldn't be an issue as he'd pay for his entry with his results.

That's why FACC is so awesome. Force India has two seconds and three thirds, Renault has a third, Haas has one second and three thirds and Sauber has two thirds. Even McLaren has two seconds, and Williams and Toro Rosso are... there.

The gap from Sauber in 8th to Red Bull in 3rd is less than two races (46pt), rather than ten (253pt)* in the current real format.


*Well, six. A 1-2 in the real format is worth 43pt, so 5.88 races. Either way, Sauber would need snookers.

FACC?

 

[mustafur]

What if they had it where each team gets a round or two where they can have the 3rd car, it gives a chance for young drivers to have a go so that it doesn't effect the order of things that much. Also making sure the 3rd car is ineligible for constructor points.

Say you have a maximum of 2 wildcards at one race they both share a pit garage so it doesn't get in the way of the main drivers in the Pitstop.

 

[Jimlaad43]

FACC?

Famine's Adjusted Constructors Championship.

Yeah, @Famine talks about it like everyone knows what it is
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/famines-adjusted-constructors-championship.132489/

 

[Famine]

Yeah, @Famine talks about it like everyone knows what it is

Well... everyone should!

 

[Jimlaad43]

Well... everyone should!

Maybe everyone would if you kept it updated after each round so it stayed on the front page of the forum

But nah seriously, it's an awesome idea

 

[Tired Tyres]

Err, what? The third car doesn't appear from thin air, it costs something closer to ten million dollars to build it in the first place. On top of that it needs tyres, fuel, spare parts, all the running costs.

So when teams took a third car to every race and TWO fully built up cars to every race before that, I doubt it costs anything like that.

 

[baldgye]

What if they had it where each team gets a round or two where they can have the 3rd car, it gives a chance for young drivers to have a go so that it doesn't effect the order of things that much. Also making sure the 3rd car is ineligible for constructor points.

Say you have a maximum of 2 wildcards at one race they both share a pit garage so it doesn't get in the way of the main drivers in the Pitstop.

Why don't we just make F1 economically viable and fair so that competition is closer across more teams and cars?

 

[mustafur]

Why don't we just make F1 economically viable and fair so that competition is closer across more teams and cars?

They have been ''trying'' for over 10 years and I haven't seen jack all progress.

Untill the payment structure changes It's not going to change.