One wonders if Ferrari has made the mistake of thinking that it is a statutory requirement to run either Felipe Massa or Kimi Raikkonen as part of their driver line-up in perpetuity.
Certainly, many fans and paddock sages would argue that Ferrari have spent the past decade renewing their commitment to these drivers in blissful ignorance of the more competitive candidates queuing up to replace them.
And yet, Raikkonen has not performed poorly in 2017, arguably it has been the finest season of the Finn’s return to the Scuderia (not that that is an especially prestigious accolade), but given the calibre at the head of the field a consistent string of errors from Kimi in the high-pressure moments of the weekend, be it off the line or in the final seconds of qualifying, has markedly hampered Ferrari’s points tally.
The Finn’s disappointing Sunday in Monaco can serve as a metaphor for his entire season, when it is was unclear whether Kimi lost the chance to win of the team’s volition, or from the fact that he simply lacked the pace through the all-important in and out-laps. One thing is clear: had Raikkonen been faster in the Monaco Grand Prix, no amount of team interference could have denied him victory.
Of course, Ferrari would point to the Monaco weekend and argue that Kimi performed well enough to pick up the baton when their star driver failed to connect the dots in qualifying, or when he had a subpar weekend in Silverstone.
The team would argue that the congenial atmosphere shared by the badminton partners is central to the team’s broader wellbeing, and that this fraternal understanding between team-mates has allowed the Scuderia to throw its weight behind Vettel’s title challenge without creating tensions. Raikkonen’s role as an attendant to Vettel’s title bid was most graphically apparent in Hungary, where Kimi was not allowed to run long in his stint to jump his hamstrung team-mate, as Vettel had done to him in Monaco.
And yet, in as much as this amiably one-sided team environment has been beneficial to Vettel’s title challenge, Raikkonen’s support act has not been as robust as his Finnish counterpart at Mercedes, and as a result Ferrari trail Mercedes by 39 points in the constructors’ standings.
Ferrari has not won the constructors’ crown since 2008; in that time, similarly well-resourced teams Red Bull and Mercedes have collected seven constructors’ titles between them. Group CEO and overlord Sergio Marchionne is clearly vociferously, ferociously motivated to bring an end to the Scuderia’s title drought, and the end goal is unquestionably the collective significance of the constructors’ crown.
However, it is clear that this target cannot be achieved with Raikkonen so routinely inclined to scuppering points-scoring opportunities. Indeed, with the SF70H proving to be the class of field on high-downforce circuits, the Scuderia could be challenging for the constructors’ title this year, and arguably would be, were it not for that familiar pang of disappointment felt when reflecting on Raikkonen’s weekend.
With Sergio Perez, Ferrari could have had capable, versatile pair of hands as a safety net in case their lead man had an off-colour weekend, safe in the knowledge that Checo would have little in his arsenal to ultimately frighten Vettel.
However, the broader philosophy of unofficially designating #1 and #2 drivers could be called into question by the dynamic duo of Ricciardo and Verstappen, of whose mutual rivalry has proven a springboard for the team’s collective performance.
Lewis Hamilton has produced some of his finest ever laps with a fired up Nico Rosberg snapping at his heels. For all that he might protest, might Vettel benefit from a more ardent challenge from his team-mate? From Sainz, perhaps?
It is not so much the disappointing nature of Raikkonen’s performances that queries Ferrari’s decision to extend his stay, but rather the calibre of the candidates to replace him. In Sainz, Ferrari could have fielded a driver who, on many occasions, was plain faster than Max Verstappen – the fact that the paddock believes the Scuderia is willing to enter a bidding war in 2018 for the Dutchman’s services, but apparently isn’t interested in his deeply impressive former team-mate is deeply baffling.
A continuity stopgap contingent in a broader restructuring of the team is perhaps the only lens through which Ferrari’s outwardly blinkered decision makes any sense. Mattia Binotto’s squad has defied paddock pessimism following the exit of James Allison and has produced a car that could win Vettel his first title in scarlet overalls – maintaining the technical team’s new upward trajectory can be the only goal that matters.
Arguably dropping Raikkonen, and breaking up a duo that crucially have similar stylistic requirements from a car jeopardises that focused technical path.
And yet, Formula 1 has a pleasingly good record in repaying bold driver decisions. Putting a rookie in the McLaren in 2007 inadvertently created one of the finest driver pairings the sport had ever seen, and whilst relegating Kvyat to Toro Rosso mid-season last year put freshly inflicted wounds on public display in the press conference, it was a move that Verstappen repaid from the first race.
Ferrari’s rumoured fixation on ultimately bartering the services of Max Verstappen are arguably blinding it both to the quality of the other candidates vying for the seat, but also to the consequences of their inaction on Raikkonen’s part.
Ferrari’s inexplicable suspicion of unfamiliar drivers lives on, and just as its peculiarly phobic disdain of drivers outside the Ferrari family (for which the nonsensical decision install Luca Badoer in the seat of the injured Felipe Massa will serve as an eternal reminder) saw it choose to abandon a deal with Hulkenberg in 2013 at the last minute in Kimi’s favour, that same eccentricity sees it unable to break a cycle of single season contract extensions and finally wave adieu to F1’s Finnish barnacle.
