法拉利可借鉴迈凯伦与梅赛德斯车手管理经验
法拉利正面临勒克莱尔与汉密尔顿之间的车手关系问题，Jon Noble撰文指出，法拉利可以从迈凯伦和梅赛德斯处理车手关系的政策中汲取经验。
毫无疑问，法拉利现在需要就如何最好地处理其F1车手关系做出决定。
蒙扎第一个减速弯发生的事件所错失的机会，加上刘易斯·汉密尔顿对缺乏比赛规则和团队配合的沮丧，意味着领队弗雷德·瓦塞尔并非看不到采取行动的必要性。
正如瓦塞尔在意大利大奖赛周日晚间所确认的，回应即将到来。
“按理说，你必须在某个阶段做出决定，”他说。“每支车队都不同。但你必须做出决定，我们[将]决定。”
瓦塞尔选择走哪条路尚不清楚——因为摆在桌面上的选项很多。
一个极端是把一切资源都押在汉密尔顿身上，让他作为积分榜上的领头车手，以尽量最大化法拉利正在消退的争冠机会。
这是最不可能的选择，因为这不是汉密尔顿明确要求的事情。
在勒克莱尔从数学上尚未退出争冠的时候，强行这样做对他也是一颗难以下咽的苦药。
其他选择包括商定明确的交战规则，甚至干脆选择让事情照旧进行，信任车手们自己处理好。
但如果从法拉利的对手如何处理类似情况中可以明确一件事，那就是这里没有能让所有人都满意的简单解决方案。
正如迈凯伦领队安德烈亚·斯特拉多次提到处理车手关系时所说的，不可能制定出一个既符合车手个人利益又符合车队利益的框架。
“我总是和车手们讨论，这是我们职业生涯中将要面对的最困难的事情，”他几年前告诉我。
“这是唯一一件我们无法通过让利益完全一致来面对的事情。”
近年来，迈凯伦在管理兰多·诺里斯和奥斯卡·皮亚斯特里方面遇到了不少头疼问题，著名的“木瓜规则”多次被推到极限。
允许两位车手竞争但严格禁止接触的简单立场看似足够直接，但仍不足以避免所有争议。
2024年匈牙利和蒙扎的糟糕下午，以及去年的意大利大奖赛，暴露了当维修墙对车手的期望与车手个人意愿从未完美契合时所面临的挑战规模。
此外，协议会被推到极限，车队随后有义务对违规行为施加回应——正如去年新加坡大奖赛轮对轮碰撞后诺里斯短暂面临后果那样。
虽然迈凯伦有时受到批评——尤其是在2024年蒙扎之后——因为在本可以更好地全力支持一位车手的时候仍坚持“木瓜规则”，但瓦塞尔在蒙扎之后指出，平等对待对他的对手的争冠目标比早早选择一号车手更有利。
“去年，皮亚斯特里在这个阶段领先迈凯伦，”瓦塞尔在蒙扎之后谈到走支持其中一位车手的路线时说。
“如果迈凯伦把一切押在皮亚斯特里身上，马克斯·维斯塔潘就会成为冠军。”
不过，瓦塞尔关于不支持皮亚斯特里是迈凯伦（与诺里斯）夺冠关键的观点值得商榷，因为如果那样做，后续事件会以不同方式展开。
全力支持皮亚斯特里很可能会改变其他比赛的结果，尤其是避免导致皮亚斯特里巴库困境的意外，以及新加坡和奥斯汀冲刺赛中影响最终积分的碰撞。
不过，“木瓜规则”做了一件事，就是作为一个锚点，保持了一定的团结。
即使在去年那样激烈的冠军争夺之后，两位车手都没有因为处理方式而留下挥之不去的紧张情绪——这让迈凯伦得以在没有任何恶化问题的情况下进入2026年。
但这并不意味着，即使像这样稳固的框架也是避免赛道上紧张的梦想门票。
上周末在意大利，比赛的自由为诺里斯晚些时候在无线电中的一些抱怨打开了大门，他觉得自己在与皮亚斯特里争夺时被挤上了草地。
斯特拉表示，即使在达成一致框架多年之后，情况也会不断产生审查的需要。
“即使我们在2025年以基于平等、让他们比赛、公平等重要原则的竞赛方式赢得了两个冠军，但在现实中，将这些原则转化为真正的比赛总是很困难，”他说。
“就像你[在意大利]看到的，我们再次采取了一种偏冒险的方式。我们让他们比赛，结果一辆车的轮子上了草地。这是我们必须审查的事情。
“如果你让他们不要互相竞争，那么兰多会获得第五名，他可能会说，‘但为了公平，我本希望有机会。’所以，这是一个棘手的问题。”
在最好地管理车队利益与每位车手想要的东西之间的冲突方面，似乎核心在于至少每个人都认同所商定的内容。
“我们与车手团结一致很重要，”斯特拉补充道。“我认为一支车队很难说‘这是我们强加的，现在你们适应’。
“你总是希望确保从各方获得贡献。
“但一旦你看到车队利益受到攻击或处于危险之中，那么你可能必须提升博弈水平，从车队角度开始严格起来。这些就是我们处理方式的基础。”
汉密尔顿在意大利大奖赛后最引人注目的言论之一，是关于他和勒克莱尔在比赛时根本“没有规则”。
“我认为这归结为交战规则，”当被问及他希望看到什么时，他说。
“我在梅赛德斯时，我们有书面的交战规则……这里没有规则。我认为这是需要解决的问题，以尝试修复它。”
梅赛德斯的框架是对汉密尔顿和前队友尼科·罗斯伯格之间激烈竞争的回应，他们的竞争有时在赛道上碰撞时爆发。
车队领队托托·沃尔夫此后将框架改进为更关于“比赛意图”，其愿望与迈凯伦的规则类似，即只要不接触，两位车手都可以激烈竞争。
还有一个元素是，如果维修墙觉得车队利益受到损害，他们不怕介入。
英文原文
There is little doubt that Ferrari needs to make a call now about how best to handle its Formula 1 drivers going forward.
The lost opportunity of what happened at the first chicane at Monza, plus Lewis Hamilton's frustrations at a lack of racing rules and team work, means boss Fred Vasseur is not blind to the need for action.
As Vasseur confirmed on Sunday night at the Italian Grand Prix, a response is coming.
"By reason, you have to take a decision at one stage," he said. "Each team is different. But you have to make a decision, and we [will] decide."
What path Vasseur chooses to go down is unclear – because the options on the table are plenty.
At one extreme is throwing everything behind Hamilton as the lead driver in the standings to try to maximise Ferrari's fading title chances.
This is the most unlikely option because it's not something Hamilton has explicitly called for.
Imposing it would also be a bitter pill for Charles Leclerc to swallow at a time when he is not mathematically out of title contention.
Other choices include agreeing clear rules of engagement, or even electing simply to let things carry on as they are and trusting the drivers to get on with it themselves.
But if there is one thing that is crystal clear from how Ferrari's rivals have dealt with similar situations themselves, there is no easy solution here that will keep everyone happy.
As McLaren chief Andrea Stella has referenced many, many times about the handling of drivers, it is impossible to come up with a framework that fits both their own personal interests and that of the team.
"I always discuss with the drivers that this is the most difficult thing we are going to face in our career," he told me several years ago.
"This is the only thing that we cannot face by having our interests exactly matching."
McLaren has faced plenty of headaches in the management of Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri over recent years, with the famed 'Papaya Rules' being tested to the limit on many occasions.
The simple stance of allowing both drivers to race but with a strict no contact mandate seemed straightforward enough but still was not enough to avoid all controversy.
Troubled afternoons like Hungary and Monza in 2024, and last year's Italian Grand Prix, exposed the scale of challenges that come when what the pitwall wants and expects from the drivers never lines up perfectly with their own individual desires.
Plus, agreements get tested to the max and the team then has a duty to impose responses to breaches – as happened after the Singapore GP wheel banging last year when Norris briefly faced repercussions.
While McLaren faced criticisms at times – especially after Monza 2024 – for keeping 'Papaya Rules' in place on occasions when it could have been better to throw everything behind one driver, Vasseur noted after Monza that equality proved better for his rival's title aspirations than having swooped early to choose a number one.
"Last year, Piastri was leading McLaren at this stage of the season," said Vasseur after Monza about going down a route that would back one of his drivers.
"If McLaren put everything on Piastri, Max Verstappen would have been champion."
Vasseur's point about not backing Piastri being key to McLaren winning the title (with Norris) is debatable though, as subsequent events would have played out differently had it done so.
Throwing its weight behind Piastri would likely have changed results at other races, and in particular avoided the upset that caused Piastri's Baku troubles, and collisions in Singapore and the Austin sprint that impacted the final points tally.
'Papaya Rules' has done one thing though in acting as an anchor point in keeping some unity in play.
Even after an intense title fight like last year, there have been no lingering tensions from either driver over how things were handled – which has allowed McLaren to roll into 2026 without any festering troubles.
But this does not mean that even a solid framework like that is a dream ticket to avoid tension on track.
In Italy last weekend, the freedom to race opened the door for some Norris radio complaints late on after he felt he had been pushed onto the grass as he battled with Piastri.
Stella said even after many years of an agreed framework, circumstances throw up the need for constant review.
"Even if in 2025 we achieved both championships with an approach to racing which was based on some important principles of equality, let them race, fairness, in reality, it's always difficult to translate these principles into real racing," he said.
"Like if you see [in Italy], we took again an approach which is on the risky side. We let them race, and we ended up with one car having the wheels on the grass. Something that we will have to review.
"If you ask them not to race each other, then Lando finishes fifth, and he may say, 'But for fairness, I would have liked to have my opportunities.' So, it's a tricky matter."
What seems central to best managing the conflict between team interest and what each driver wants is at least everyone buying into what is agreed.
"It's important that we go united with the drivers," added Stella. "I think it's difficult for a team to say 'this is what we impose, now you guys adapt'.
"You always want to make sure that you get a contribution from all the parties.
"But as soon as you see that the team interest is under attack or is in danger, then you might have to elevate the game and start to be strict from a team point of view. These are the foundation of how we approach it."
One of Hamilton's most striking remarks after the Italian GP was about there being 'no rules' in play at all between himself and Leclerc when it came to racing.
"I think it comes down to rules of engagement," he said when asked about what he wanted to see.
"When I was at Mercedes, we had a written rule of engagement… here there are no rules. I think that's something that needs to be addressed to try and fix that."
The Mercedes framework was a response to the intense rivalry between Hamilton and former team-mate Nico Rosberg that boiled over at times when they collided on track.
Team boss Toto Wolff has since refined the framework to be more about 'racing intent', where the desire is like McLaren's rules in that both drivers can battle hard as long as they don't make contact.
There is also an element of the pitwall not being afraid to intervene if it feels that the team interests are being hurt.
The Race ·
内容来自公开信源，聚合内容版权归原作者与来源所有。