The result in Baku could have some pretty interesting knock-on effects if one listens to the rumours about Red Bull Racing’s driver contracts. These, by the way, have been denied by the team although no-one seems to believe that there are no get-out clauses because of what happened a few years ago with Sebastian Vettel. At the time Red Bull said there were no get-out clauses and one suddenly popped up and Vettel exited to Ferrari.
The rumours suggest that the two Red Bull drivers have performance clauses in favour of the drivers – if two of three conditions are met. The first is rumoured to be that the team must provide ‘a winning car’. The second that the team must finish in the top three in the Constructors’ Championship (which is virtually a given) and the third that the driver must finish in the top five in the Drivers’ Championship. Thus, up until Baku, there was a reasonable chance that either Daniel or Max would be outside the top five because the two Mercedes and two Ferrari drivers would be ahead of them. However, the team did not have a winning car, so two of the three conditions had not been met.
Daniel’s victory in Azerbaijan changes that because the team has won a race – and hence has a winning car. There is an argument, I suppose, that the car is not a winning car because it fluked a win in Baku, but going legal with that argument would be a waste of time and energy. The fact is that one cannot make a driver drive for a team if he does not want to do so. However, the Contract Recognition Board exists to resolve disputes between teams who are fighting over a driver so if Max were to leave Red Bull and try to join Ferrari, then the CRB would have to rule on the matter, unless the contract had been terminated by one or the other party and a settlement found between them.
Similarly, courts cannot force teams to accept a driver they do not want. All they can do is order a settlement, as happened in the Giedo Van der Garde case. In that case Sauber terminated the contract with Van der Garde on the grounds that he had breached a confidentiality clause and a settlement was duly found. The theatrics that went on in Melbourne served only to force the settlement to take place there and then.
joeblogsf1 
Loyalty – it is spelled L O Y A L T Y.
Remember, anyone?
Worth nothing these days…?
If you don’t like it, don’t sign it!
My two cents as a loyal follower…
I have always found that loyalty is strictly a one way thing. Employees may be loyal to their companies for many years, putting in tens of unpaid extra hours a week for the sake of the company, but when market conditions become adverse all that employee loyalty means nothing. Loyalty only works one way! I have seen this in companies ranging from multi-nationals to small family owned enterprises.
Have no faith, read your contract!
Bruno,
Whilst I do very much agree with your sentiment, circumstances change in an unforeseen manner, and so, the agreement made in good faith at a point in time is always open for review later. Most commercial contracts included provisions for that; such as termination for convenience clauses and defined change control procedures. I don’t think it’s much different to drivers contracts. An individual and an organisation enter into an agreement in good faith, whereby both parties expect certain levels of performance from one another. Break clauses are written in to handle the unexpected and certainly unwanted circumstance of below par performance.
Loyalty is admirable, but there will always be a limit to how far anyone is willing to go for loyalty.
Yup, I learnt this one the hard way.
Here is another thought. Carlos Sainz is more than a match to Max Verstappen given a competitive car, would it not be easier for Ferrari to get him out of his Toro Rosso contract?
That is obviously a matter of opinion
Sainz is a fine young driver but not in the same league as Max
I’d like to point out that this is the first year since Mercedes returned in 2010 that one of their seats hasn’t been filled by a German, and that exactly wasn’t by design.
Of the 16 seats available since 2010, ten of them have been filled by Germans (3 Schumacher, 7 Rosberg). This is a German race team that sells Germans cars after all.
Putting my Eddie Jordan hat on – I’m picking Vettel to Mercedes, Hamilton to try win three WDC with three different teams by going to Ferrari, with the other Mercedes seat going to Alonso, and Ricciardo or Verstappen taking the other Ferrari seat.
Does it matter who drives?
Does a bear defecate in the woods?
Of course it matters. Feel free to get behind Roborace if you disagree.
What I meant was who cares whether it is a German if they are winning?
While I understand your view, given every Le Mans entered (1952, 1955, 1998, 1999) by Mercedes and every F1 season entered (1954, 1955, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016) by Mercedes all have a common theme I am going to answer that question with Mercedes.
I think you have missed quite a bit of deep background here, and plumped for a simplistic interpretation as a consequence. Being snarky hardly helps your cause either.
Polar bears don’t 😉
The history of our sport suggests that patriotism has mattered to team managers and drivers. Remember Stirling Moss and his track test of three British GP cars? Eventually Moss bought a Maserati to put up results which would impress Mercedes-Benz. Mercedes-Benz put German drivers in their cars in 1954/55 alongside Fangio, a known race winner. The need for success trumped driver nationality.
Look at all those French drivers backed by Renault and Elf in the 1970s. Or at nationalised industries in France lending a hand to Guy Ligier.
I don’t have a problem with patriotism or nationalism if it is without hate or contempt for others. If there were no competitive German drivers, would M-B’s commitment to F1 be different?
Phil,
Is it really patriotism, or is a focus on marketing to one’s chosen geography?
Sponsorship $$’s are key and an American driver in an American car (for example) stands more chance of attracting a big brand USA sponsor than non-Americans in an American car
Hamilton was paid vastly more than Rosberg. If MB really cared that much about the drivers’ nationalities, they wouldn’t have hired Hamilton in the first place, given how expensive he is.
@f1yarn – if any team were to wave their countries flag, it would be Ferrari and they’ve long since given up on wanting Italian drivers in their cars. Has it affected their sales? Of course not.
@Phil Beesley – Stirling Moss – eh, that was over 60 years ago, when teams drove in national colours and some drivers were still fighting WW2 on the track.
It’s bad enough that good drivers miss out because they can’t get funding, to lose a seat because a driver comes from the wrong country is beyond belief.
Red Bull Racing Ltd is a UK registered company but the F1 team professes to be Austrian. The redeveloped Osterreichring has a capacity of 40,000 and as the Red Bull Ring now hosts an F1 GP and a MotoGP. Noting that Red Bull receives a lot of publicity for these businesses, I can still imagine tax officials scratching their chins and asking questions about motivation — vanity or patriotism — for the sponsorships.
A more recent example of a patriotic F1 team? Not the most recent but a good example: Prost Grand Prix. Peugeot engines for three out of five years and a French driver every year. Notable team sponsors were Gauloises, Bic, Total, Canal+ and Alcatel.
What is the paddock hum on Giovinazzi this year? Any fallout for him with the Sauber implosion? He would be a nice new arrival somewhere: Max to Scuderia, Sainz to RB and Antonio to TR maybe. Williams next year maybe the key? Kimi and Massa to retire? Give us a hyptothetical Chinese puzzle for driver moves!
It all depends on Raikkonen
Where would Ferrari place junior drivers in the future assuming Ferrari engines have the same team allocations (Sauber becomes Honda)? I’m wondering if they’re a bit stuck getting junior driver race time unless they manage to get another customer team?
haas?
Max won’t join Ferrari next year Vettel will veto it. Please can this silly rumour go away. Stop taking Joe as if Ferrari will move for Max if Kimi retires cos it won’t happen .If Kimi retires they will choose Sergio as a safe pair of hands and solid number 2 . Sergio will more likely pander to way Ferrari has always preferred to operate with a clear number 1 and 2 drivers .
Why would Ferrari allow Vettel a veto?
They would allow Vettel a veto because there is is risk the team will be less harmonious with Seb and Max and I think the team would prefer a completely harmonious line up -one that’s easy to manage not one with aggro . The only way for Max to join Ferrari is if he signs a clear number 2 contract which states he must defer to Seb and he won’t do that Certainly if Seb becomes WDC this year would probably give Ferrari a strong case for awarding a veto.
Cos he’s number uno driver?
I don’t think they do that
Don’t do what ? Have number 1 and number 2 driver -Ferrari have done that for years-certainly most of my lifetime and particular when they have a star driver . That team is being built around Vettel and it would destroy Max’s confidence and his F1 career if he went to Ferrari alongside Vettel. Kimi should along with Marko, Jos and others should advise against a Ferrari move while SV is there. I’m not saying Max should never drive for Ferrari i’m saying is not the time and he should wait until SV has left Maranello. Look what happened to Max’s dad up against Michael at Benetton. Max should not take the same risk with Seb at Ferrari.
That was a long time ago. Things change.
Not from what i’ve seen -look how Kimi’s been thumped by Alonso then Seb since he went back to Ferrari. Ferrari is Seb’s team pretty much. Ferrari may say things that suggest otherwise publicly but in reality their no1/2 policy hasn’t really changed.
I disagree
I think Kimi has been thumped by Alonso and Vettel because he isn’t as quick, not because he’s number 2. To be honest I don’t think he has been really quick since he came back, yeah he won at Lotus but he wasn’t far ahead of his less experienced team-mate. I think Vettel may try and veto Max but I don’t think they would listen and even if Max was number 2 to Vettel he’d end up out qualifying him putting his number 2 status in question…
Don’t be so sure Sergio will pander to anyone if he gets the call. Bottas has no option because he knows all the top drivers want his seat and Hamilton doesn’t want one of them alongside him in the garage. Hence all the praise for Bottas.
Looking at Ferrari’s junior line up I’d say Le Clerc is the most promising, he’s standing out in very strong crowds. Giovanazzi did well in F3 and GP2 but didn’t really stand out miles ahead of the competition.
I agree re Le Clerc but Gio is just so ON IT in an entertaining way 100% of the time. Family motto: “let’s have it!!” Excited to see him in F1.
Max is clearly the most exciting raw talent that I have seen enter F1 for a generation. I was personally against him being allowed to join F1 at such a young age, the rules have since been changed but we are where we are.
I think he needs another year before considering moving on, he still makes too many mistakes, exciting though it is to watch. His domination at Baku practice until Mercedes and Ferrari turned up their engines in Q3 (something Renault is unable to do) just confirmed his potential.
I imagine his father is getting frustrated at his son obviously suffering such an obvious power disadvantage but I think time is on his side, no need to rush and Renault may well solve the Q3 problem soon.
John Galpin,
had they actually been adhered to, the licence rules of the day would have delayed Max from reaching F1 for a year or two, but those rules were ignored for Max as they were for others before him.
Max was (as, for example, was Kimi) either:
* given an International Grade A licence despite having zero experience or results in a Grade B championship [contravening App.L Ch.I Art.4.3]; or else
* given a Super Licence without holding an International Grade A licence [contravening Art.5.1.1]
The former Appendix L Chapter I Article 4.3 remained the same verbatim since before Max was born until last year — Lance Stroll would not have qualified without the mid-2016 addition of options 2) or 3) in that Article. Article 5.1.1 is also older than Max. [was 5.1.ii until mid-2008 when also reworded for emphasis].
Curiously, the fiddling with Article 4.3 for Lance, and the contravening of same for Max, would not have been necessary had the FIA not downgraded international Formula 3 championships from Int.Grade B, to being for Int.Grade C drivers, for 2013 onwards — the 2016 bodge-job on the rules leaves European F3 with Grade C drivers earning privileges as if they were already driving in a Grade B championship. Now European F3 can not be a driver’s first single-seater championship, the FIA might arguably have made it Grade B again instead.
It is just a matter of luck (or infallible inside knowledge) knowing when a team will be transformed into a winner.
Suppose for instance Sauber, despite it’s management, has a coincidence of aero good fortune coupled with Honda becoming the most desired engine next season. The Honda suddenly has power to spare, enabling more downforce to be applied, more weight to be positioned to move the centre of mass, different springing allowing better tyre compatibility/switch on. Suddenly we see McLaren wishing they had stuck with Honda, Red Bull wondering if Renault will reach their former engine glory. Merc considering an engine re-design.
So this is serious then – that Max wants to get out of RBR as he must be deeply unhappy with the car reliability this year?
In light of this information, I’m now wondering about Max’s quoted reaction after the race. Yes, he was downcast because of another failure, but he didn’t sound the tiniest bit happy that his team had actually won the race. There wasn’t the hint of a congratulation for his team or his teammate. Maybe in light of this ‘race winning car’ clause, he’d just seen his chances of a move for next year effectively evaporate? Or maybe I’m reading too much into it!
Hi Joe
Is it not slightly the other way round in that if Redbull failed to produce 2 of 1) a winning car, 2) a top three finish Constructors finish and 3) a top 5 driver finish then one driver or other could activiate a release clause and go elsewhere? As they now have two of the three the drivers now have no ability to rely on a possible clause.
Thanks
Rob
It is as I wrote it
So “for the avoidance of doubt” as we say down at the mill, if two of the three conditions are met, the driver can activate the break clause — but if zero, one, or all three of the conditions are met, then the driver is locked in?
Actually, that makes sense if it is in fact the case — all three conditions met means the team and the driver are competitive (and so the team wants to hold on to the driver). Zero or one condition met means some (theoretically) temporary aberration resulting in a lousy year (so the team wants to hold on to the driver until things improve). But two out of the three means that the driver is being somehow held back in an otherwise competitive car, and so might be entitled to walk away if he wants to…
I wonder if this is the reason for Danny Ric’s comments on the win, squarely pitching it as a surprise & a fluke…
I’m more inclined to believe he pitched it as a surprise and a fluke because it was a surprise and a fluke.
Fascinating question – noting that in 2014, Vettel was 5th in the driver championship, the team was 2nd in the constructors, and Vettel’s teammate had a Winning Car 3 times…yet Vettel left Red Bull at year end. If there are out-clauses, perhaps they are slightly different than rumored…?
It’s a bit off-topic but here goes: there’s a constant matter being raised when comparing drivers: If “A was given the chance to drive the X car he would be better than the X car’s current driver B”, etc. usually phrased in terms like “Dude, the Ham in a Manor and would still kick everyone’s butt” or
“I wonder if that promising young chap, [insert name of an adolescent here] would be a good investment for [insert top of the grid formula 1 team]”
This type of discussion crops up eventually during the driver mercato season.
I know that third drivers, test drivers, Formula 2 provide regular benchmarks for future contract decisions to be made, BUT, here’s a small idea:
Organise ONE race during the year, off the championship points, after the last race (in a sunny venue) where drivers of the current F1 grid are given a car from the previous year (or two years before) from a different team than their current one. Add additional sub-rules for the choice of the seats, such as random pick / switches between two main rivals/ based on fan surveys / different engine provider / whatever… and have a race day (quali + 2 hour race).
It would be at least a lot of fun for the fans and a laboratory for new marketing/PR/show gimmicks before the new season.
AND
provide some additional comparison data for teams when they look into their options for the years to come.
No?
well, from Max’ side – it’s no wonder if the yeast goes out of the bowl – he even doesn’t have to blow any more pu’s to stay out of top5, so . . .
as for Daniel – if he did want to get out, he wouldn’t have taking three Williamses at one corner to win the race, morever Valtteri now is there for being eaten and if those two at the front keep pinching each other, then who knows . . .
The notion of Max moving to Ferrari was the bit that kept from the page for me there.
With an Itallian sounding name, I would have thought that Danny would have been the shoe-in for them. Except that Seb may have a veto in his contract. I doubt he would welcome constant pressure from Max either.
The change that I feel might happen is Max ro Mercedes. Lewis won’t stay forever and Max has youth on his side, so it’s good succession planning. Valteri accepts that his position is under constant review and therefore pressure.
Max is letting his views about RB known, his dad is in touch with Toto all the time. The pressure is really on RB to perform and retain him. His entertaining talents seem wasted at the moment.