So Mercedes are in a situation in which their drivers are trying to beat the other one into the ground; and they refuse to hand out any team orders. This stance continues into the rest of the season, and once again raises the question of whether having two number one drivers is a good idea for teams such as Mercedes.
On the one hand, it looks the obvious solution. The periods of dominance enjoyed by Red Bull and Ferrari were characterised by one of their drivers being much the stronger, either contractually guaranteed as a number 1 or just more proficient at using the contemporary regulations. Both of these teams guaranteed both titles with ease for a number of consecutive years, even when their advantage was narrowed. Ferrari at their most dominant even secured second in the championship. The perfect situation?
But does a tree in a forest make a noise if no-one is hearing it? Put yourself in the position of Petronas, or Monster, or Blackberry; paying to be on the side of a Formula One car. They will want the attention of the globe to be on their logos during F1 races, watched by as many people as possible. Mercedes' policy seems to give them a better chance of achieving this than does the Red Bull policy.
Because the squabble between Hamilton and Rosberg means that Mercedes in 2014 are on the screen quite often, either battling at the front or fighting through the field. And the whole fight is generating headlines (with more pictures of the two drivers in sponsored race suits) and presumably interest. Red Bull have had races where their self-sponsor was barely seen because the FOM understandably never showed Vettel; admittedly, the choice of a suitably dead beat team-mate planted him into midfield battles the car shouldn't have been in.
So, are Mercedes playing a cleverer game than we assumed regarding sponsorship. They're getting the exposure of title fighters rather than title strollers. They're on the TV more. What's the point of being plastered on the side of a car so successful no-one sees it?
On the one hand, it looks the obvious solution. The periods of dominance enjoyed by Red Bull and Ferrari were characterised by one of their drivers being much the stronger, either contractually guaranteed as a number 1 or just more proficient at using the contemporary regulations. Both of these teams guaranteed both titles with ease for a number of consecutive years, even when their advantage was narrowed. Ferrari at their most dominant even secured second in the championship. The perfect situation?
But does a tree in a forest make a noise if no-one is hearing it? Put yourself in the position of Petronas, or Monster, or Blackberry; paying to be on the side of a Formula One car. They will want the attention of the globe to be on their logos during F1 races, watched by as many people as possible. Mercedes' policy seems to give them a better chance of achieving this than does the Red Bull policy.
Because the squabble between Hamilton and Rosberg means that Mercedes in 2014 are on the screen quite often, either battling at the front or fighting through the field. And the whole fight is generating headlines (with more pictures of the two drivers in sponsored race suits) and presumably interest. Red Bull have had races where their self-sponsor was barely seen because the FOM understandably never showed Vettel; admittedly, the choice of a suitably dead beat team-mate planted him into midfield battles the car shouldn't have been in.
So, are Mercedes playing a cleverer game than we assumed regarding sponsorship. They're getting the exposure of title fighters rather than title strollers. They're on the TV more. What's the point of being plastered on the side of a car so successful no-one sees it?
.
