Quote:
Originally Posted by MJE60
A serious question.. do you genuinely think RBR are pulling nonsense with drivers?
|
As I noted earlier
it seems like Red Bull have been trying to emulate (in part) the successful Schumacher Ferrari years.
The key element of which was focussing all their energy and resources on their #1 driver while (in Ferraris case) their #2 drivers actually did get screwed.
The principle target for Red Bull's F1 program is not exactly the same as Ferraris but rather to generate maximum media coverage.
As part of that, Red Bull have tried to create a narrative where Verstappen is the best driver in F1 (who would beat Hamilton in the same car) and "destroys" his team mates.
Its interesting that Red Bull/Verstappen are now trying to rewrite history to suit the narrative, claiming that Verstappen beat Ricciardo (in the end) when that is clearly not the case.
The excuse for not winning championships is because Mercedes have this massive performance advantage.
Dropping in the occasional suggestion that the Merc car is maybe not completely legal..the Dutch fans love that.
Prize money and position/points in the constructors championship while not incidental are not primary goals.
So back to the question...do [I] genuinely think RBR are pulling nonsense with drivers?
Sometimes they have...certainly in the past.
With Albon (hired under pressure from the Thai shareholders), at best they were just indifferent to his success. He was useful for testing parts and for playing his role in making Verstappen look good otherwise that was about it.
At worst, giving Albon a (sub optimal) contrary set up to Verstappen at nearly every race was a conscious strategy...maybe Red Bull didn't take well to having shareholders pick their drivers for them.
The next season with Perez should be interesting...with everything equal I don't think there should be that much between them...but I doubt it will play out like that.