F1's Miserable Record in Driver Development

[Hugh Jarce]

Hello all!

Just watching the close season 'sillies' with the driver's seats.

Take it as read that a few chosen elite book their places with no sweat, but what about the rest.

If you look over recent seasons, there appears to be a growing trend to have (IMO) too many rapid changes. These fail to give a reasonably decent driver sufficient time to mature in an F1 competitive scenario rather than just testing (obviously a whole different game).

McNish, Salo, Wilson (?) Firman (?) Yoong (gaffawr!) etc - you could probably add others.

There is far too much 'short-term-ism' going on, compounded by being able to buy a seat.

Here's my question - how on earth are we ever going to see driver development and progression in F1 if the new guys are now given such a short space of time before being ditched?

So, how do you fix it (if you think it needs fixing)?

'Cast iron' two year contracts?

[krt917]

I agree that teams (and many people who watch too ) make their minds up too fast. If a guy doesn't set the world alight straight away then they move onto the next one. I'm sure it's got worse in recent times because of the huge costs and exposure of F1 - teams need to perform all the time or their sponsors get very unhappy etc. etc.

I'm not really sure what the solution is. Even if costs were to be drastically cut (pig flies by), I would think the mindset would be difficult to break.

[Adam43]

To a certain extent I agree, but in the examples you cite, I think that the replacement was the best choice (ignoring the two we don't know about).

For instance, Salo and McNish had a lot of testing for Toyota (and others) and plenty of chance. And there replacements Panis and Da Matta show firstly that they want experience and not just a new boy who impresses instantly and secondly a driver with who they can develop from scratch themselves.

Overall I am not sure there is so much of a problem. There is not much difference than any other era (except perhaps there is generally less seats). For the Satos, McNishes, Firmans, Wilsons, Yoongs there are also the Raikkonens, Webbers, Buttons, Alonsos, Massas, Satos.

[KC]

F1 is like any other professional sport. The sponsors and owners demand performance immediately. They do not have time to develop drivers, to coddle them and coax them along. Its a harsh business to say the least. One season you're the next best thing to sliced bread, the next your walking around the paddock with your CV in hand.

One thing I do see is how the fans and perception in general can go with or against a driver, whether it's deserved or not. During Mika Hakkinen's championship years at McLaren he thoroughly dominated David Coulthard in the points chase. It did not seem to matter that David would have six or seven major component failures during that season when Mika had maybe one. The blame fell squarely on DC's shoulders, at least as far as the press and many fans were concerned. I think that DC is still at McLaren right now because of his loyalty to the team and the fact that they know what his true performance is because they know whether it's him or the car. That does not mean I believe he was better than Mika, I think he just was hamstrung by failures that he did not cause.

How many truly great drivers have come and gone in F1, lost in th eback of the grid in a Lotus, Forti, Minardi, Simtek, et al? They never had a chance becasue of the poor nature of the car and team and got shuffled off to sportscars or CART to have successful careers. Some don't make the most of their chance, some make bad business decisions, and some get passed over by myopic team owners.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by KC
During Mika Hakkinen's championship years at McLaren he thoroughly dominated David Coulthard in the points chase. It did not seem to matter that David would have six or seven major component failures during that season when Mika had maybe one.

Frankly Mika did dominate it. Their mechanical problems were about equal. And if you consider the positions Mika was in when they happened too (never did understand the unlucky DC tag, when his team mate suffered). And also look at the relative positions of Mika and DC when the car held together for both of them! In this single case I reckon that the percieved wisdom is the correct one. I do agree that loyalty has kept DC at McLaren, but so has his skills as a driver.

Also in the context of this thread DC (and Mika) is an example of a driver that has been retained. He didn't do too well at Williams at first. One win in 24 starts, although he was a rookie and McLaren took him on and kept him for (at least) nine years. Not short-term-ism.

The main problem is all the potential drivers can't get into F1 and even less can have a significant time in a top three team. But nothing can change that.

[Korr]

Look at a few good drivers we have that started out in lesser teams that are now doing well for themselves: Raikonnen, Alfonso, Webber, and Trulli. Of course, it could be said that these drivers didn't need a lot of development in the first place.

[jhansen]

Alonso was sat down for a season for a test drive, and then came back a year later and has shown well. Button did not impress at Benneton/Renault and has managed to stick around and show some signs of life at BAR. I think there is parity here and its not a bad thing. The most seat swapping is going on at Minardi and Jordon, but Webber was able to shine and move out of Minardi. TGF was snatched up quite quickly by Benneton. Kimi was picked up by Mclaren rather quickly as well. So what's not to say that you can't see signs of brilliance in a short time, or signs of mediocrity.

[Mr V]

With the ammount of money involved in F1 it's not surprising that if a driver doesn't cut the mustard straight away he'll be out on his ear. But then, why should that driver be retained anyway? Imo, it's fair, if a driver is good enough, he'll stay in F1, the only unfair thing is, if a driver is dropped to make way for a "pay" driver, who doesn't have any decent junior formula record, but is just there because he's been sponsered heavily.

[RWC]

Originally posted by krt917
Even if costs were to be drastically cut (pig flies by), I would think the mindset would be difficult to break.

LOL.Nice funny way of putting the unsavory facts-that f1 is too intrenched in the (very bad) way they do allmost everything

[Super Tourer]

Driver development in F1 us a complex issue and one I have nearly torn my hair out in frustration at over the years!

It's always amazed me that teams have waited for drivers to financially stagger up the ladder before even giving them a second glance, making it a survival of the fittest, or richest at best.

Compare this to football. All the top teams have scouts out at minor games looking for the next Beckham or whoever - if they spot a talent they sign them and put them on an apprentice scheme, where they are funded and paid through the club's academy. It may well turn out that they do discover the next Beckham this way ( wasn't David himself brought on through a club's academy?), in which case they have both a valuable playing asset and an even more financial asset.

Finally, F1 seems to have woken up to the fact they they need to bring on talent from an early age, and I commend McLaren, Mercedes and Renault for having so many young drivers under contract, fully funded to develop their skills in the junior formulae.

Of course there will always be drivers that hit the button as soon as they sit in an F1 car, Kimi , Alonso and Massa (to a certain extent). For all those, there will be many more who show great promise until they get to F1 and somehow lose their way.

Putting ourselves into team boss mode for a sec, for a top team pro rata, each car is 'costing' $7M per race out of their total budget - so to give a driver half a season to prove themselves is costing, or wasting , around $60M to find out if they are going to cut it. This is why team bosses start to get twitchy after 2 or 3 races.

This is even more reason to spend a tiny fraction of that developing drivers from an early age and honing them, so by the time they are ready for F1 - you KNOW they really are ready.

You don't see many duff driver choices from the likes of Renault, Mercedes and McLaren - maybe more teams should follow their example.

[Snrub]

Teams should be smarter. Veterns can never be replaced. A good driver should be given every oportunity to develop. We've seen it happen a lot where an obviously skilled driver doesn't get the results they are capable of.

DC's point totals may have been effected by poor luck, but he's consistantly been slower than his teammates in ever aspect. I think McLaren are happy having someone who is merely decent to drive one of their cars. Ultimately the driver is like 20% of the equation.

[Hugh Jarce]

A few thoughts bouncing off your comments.

Isn't DC a classic example - if he came in now as a rookie and performed the way he has over the last few season in a Mac of all cars he would have be out. Mind you - looks like he is now.

Renault's Driver development programme looks good but how many of those guys will get beyond testing. Montagne has got a sniff (as a French man in a French team) and I still reckon he may be up for Trulli's seat if he has a weak season next year (I don't think he will mind).

Here's a thought - would the third car option be a way of helping newer guys. Mind you how could you legislate to get a younger guy in - rather than taking on a DC?

[ralf fan]

the induction of pay drivers has killed driver development for me. These guys come from countries that donot have many f1 drivers and get instant backing from the rich companies from that country. Hence they buy the seat in f1!! perfect eg KIESA- slow yet somehow got a seat
Baumgartner- Ditto

Where do talented guys like Justin Wilson go? out of f1 with no seat while slower guys take his place!!!

[high contrast]

Davidson...2 races in a car hed never driven before on a track hed never seen before...sets 14th quickest race lap...and is overlooked because he overdrove it and got stuck in the gravel...his only mistake of the whole weekend!...Even people here didn't give him another chance!

Yet he used to niggle JV for being faster than him in wet testing...and despite not having driven since last September was 5th fastest in Jerez testing this week in fully wet conditions on tyres (Michelins) he had never driven on before!

Next!...Hello lad that's a nice barrow full of money you've got there...your daddies who!?...come on into the motorhome my boy!

[Adam43]

Frankly F1 has always been like this. And at the moment studyign who are going through the development I am surprised there are so many, especially when you consider the limited number of seats available.

I see very few choices by teams (Minardi, Jordan and half of Jaguar excluded) that I would disagree with. And I also see a lot of off track development too. I feel that generally the right guys get there.

The main problem is that there are too many drivers out there for the seats available. So the good (but not brilliant) drivers are going to have a large turn over. The development potential is noted and exploited if need be. If all the drivers in F1 now were given two year contracts (or some other freeze) then we would complain that the latest hot shoe isn't getting a look in (or development).

H J
Renault's Driver development programme looks good but how many of those guys will get beyond testing. Montagne has got a sniff (as a French man in a French team) and I still reckon he may be up for Trulli's seat if he has a weak season next year (I don't think he will mind).

A good point. And this is surely driver development. Mantagny has a sniff and he can develop into it. He can't have a race seat at the moment otherwise we complain that another hasn't had development.
Almost all the teams have developments like this and the ones that do well get race seats - the others don't.

There are exceptions. For instance Wurz, he could probably get a lesser team race seat, but he wants a good deal because testing at McLaren is better for him generally.

H J
Here's a thought - would the third car option be a way of helping newer guys. Mind you how could you legislate to get a younger guy in - rather than taking on a DC?

I think this is an extention of the development we see now. And you don't legislate for teh younger guy. If a team wants DC then so be it, the younger guy has to show them otherwise (like Raikkonen?).