Were Red Bull right to drop De Vries from his AlphaTauri race seat?

Debates and Polls

Posted on

| Written by

For the first time since Jolyon Palmer in 2017, a Formula 1 driver who began a season has been dropped by his team without reaching the final race for performance reasons.

While the fact Nyck de Vries was under pressure due to his underwhelming start to his first full season in Formula 1 was well known, Red Bull’s decision to pull the trigger to replace him at their AlphaTauri junior team with third driver Daniel Ricciardo less than half way into the season caught many by surprise.

It’s by no means the first time that Red Bull have made a bold move to replace a driver in the middle of a season – just ask Daniil Kvyat and Pierre Gasly. But while Kvyat had 21 races at Red Bull and Gasly 12 before being moved aside for their replacements, De Vries has had fewer grands prix than both of them.

Unlike Kvyat or Gasly, De Vries was not a Red Bull prospect, having never been a member of the Red Bull junior driver programme during his junior career. But the 2019 F2 champion had strong Mercedes connections, having been Mercedes’ reserve driver for a number of years and impressed by stepping in for Alexander Albon at Williams during last year’s Italian Grand Prix.

So have Red Bull cast aside De Vries too hastily in his rookie season, or did he fail to show that he had the ability to compete at a high enough level to deserve his place as one of the 20 drivers with the privilege of a seat on the Formula 1 grid?

Team mate comparison: De Vries vs Tsunoda


The most obvious evidence of why De Vries deserved to lose his place in F1 is to simply look at the championship standings. Despite the AlphaTauri being regularly near the back of the field over the start of the season, Tsunoda has taken two points finishes so far this season, while De Vries was one of only two drivers to leave Silverstone still without any points from the first ten rounds.

There’s also the fact De Vries was soundly beaten by the younger Tsunoda in every representative statistic. Tsunoda out-qualified De Vries 8-2 in the first ten rounds, spending almost 400 more laps ahead of De Vries than he spent behind him. De Vries also failed to reach Q3 once, something Tsunoda managed in both Baku and Monaco.

Finally, there were the errors. In Baku, De Vries managed to crash out of qualifying on Friday, clash with Tsunoda in the sprint race in Baku on Saturday, before crashing out of the grand prix on Sunday. His clash with Kevin Magnussen in Canada was clumsy, then he pushed him off in Austria to earn a penalty. It all made him look like an F2 driver, not an experienced multiple single-seater champion.


When looking over the first half of the season, it’s hard to find a satisfying body of evidence to suggest that De Vries deserved to be unceremoniously jettisoned from the F1 grid during the summer break, let alone two rounds before it.

His performance relative to team mate Tsunoda over their races together was clearly inferior, with Tsunoda being ahead of him in every possible metric, but Tsunoda had the advantage of being in his third full season in Formula 1, with that extra experience counting for a lot. After all, Tsunoda himself was largely unable to match his more experienced team mate Gasly during his first two seasons.

De Vries was also disadvantaged by how the AlphaTauri was clearly falling further down the order as the season went on. While Williams improved with their upgrades and have become regular points scorers, the AlphaTauri has become one of the slower cars on the grid, with their major upgrades for Silverstone having minimal impact on their performance and limiting De Vries’ opportunities to impress.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

I say

Nyck de Vries deserved more then just ten grands prix in an AlphaTauri to show he was deserving of a place on the F1 grid beyond 2023. Especially compared to some other drivers who have been given the opportunity to compete in full seasons over the last decade.

Nikita Mazepin, Haas, Losail International Circuit, 2021
Mazepin got twice the number of races De Vries had
Yes, his Baku weekend was one of the worst performances of the season to date. But if a certain former Haas driver got a full year in Formula 1 – and was supposed to have a second – than De Vries more than deserved a full season to show he could learn from his early mistakes, find some form and make his case to stay on in 2024. Even if Red Bull would decide to replace him at the end of the year with a rookie the liked of Liam Lawson or Ayumu Iwasa, at least De Vries would have had just over 20 weekends of opportunity – a much harder situation to complain about.

Ultimately, it feels like De Vries being dropped is a lot less about the driver himself and his performances than it is about who he is being replaced with. A driver who has far more experience and success than De Vries as well as being far more marketable than him. It’s difficult to see how De Vries will end up back on the grid as a full time driver in future. But while he finally got his chance in F1 at the age of 28, he deserved more races than he eventually got.

You say

Do you agree with Red Bull's decision to drop Nyck de Vries from his AlphaTauri race seat?

  • Strongly disagree (19%)
  • Slightly disagree (18%)
  • Neither agree nor disagree (10%)
  • Slightly agree (29%)
  • Strongly agree (24%)

Total Voters: 178

Loading ... Loading ...

A RaceFans account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here. When this poll is closed the result will be displayed instead of the voting form.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

Author information

Will Wood
Will has been a RaceFans contributor since 2012 during which time he has covered F1 test sessions, launch events and interviewed drivers. He mainly...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

69 comments on “Were Red Bull right to drop De Vries from his AlphaTauri race seat?”

  1. Are ten races enough? I don’t know, but I feel like in ten go’s there has to be at least a performance in there that makes you go “yeah, see, he does deserve to be in F1” and I don’t think De Vries showed that. Even worse, he had a number of really foolish incidents that made you go the opposite way of wondering why he had a seat in the first place.

    While I agree there’s drivers that gotten way more of a chance they didn’t deserve, like Mazepin, I’m not convinced that means De Vries deserved more rather than those drivers deserving less.

    End of day, F1 should be the pinnacle of Motorsport and host the top 20 ( hopefully 24 in the near future) drivers at any given time. The business should be cutthroat, rather than pampering. And honestly, if you were halfway through this season and got a choice between De Vries and Ricciardo, would you not make the same choice Red Bull just did? I would.

    1. Not so sure. At some point, it looked like Dan had what it takes to become WDC (with the right car and team). But it his last seasons he seemed to have totally lost it. We’ll see if he has got it back.

      1. He won a race during one of those seasons, couldn’t have been all that bad.

        1. McLaren won that race – if Danny wasn’t there, Lando would be a GP winner.

          Lets not make out like he battled the Red Bull and Ferrari’s for a race-long battle for victory.

          1. Exactly. Plus, his team mate who was clearly faster was not allowed to attack. Highly doubt RIC would have won that race otherwise.

            Remember how I found it a bit premature when RIC was like „For all of you who thought I had left…“ on the radio after crossing the line. He simply did not win it on merit.

          2. NOR was not clearly faster. RIC was clearly faster all weekend and won on merit.

            When RIC got into the lead he did what any experienced driver would do, he drove the slowest possible race that allowed him to win. NOR also showed his experience when he asked that he should just hold his place now, which he did. RIC set the fastest lap of the race on the last lap showing that he could easily had gone faster if he wanted to. But doing so earlier would have put more strain on the tires, engine, suspension, … and would not have benefited him or the team in any way.

            Clearly over their stint at McLaren NOR was easily the faster driver, but that race RIC was faster all throughout the weekend and won on merit.

          3. @pweb87

            He won that race on merit. He was leading the race, and if Max and Lewis took each other out, that shouldn’t take the shine away from his performance that weekend. Norris would have most likely caught Ricciardo, but doubtful that he would pass him easily.

            The statement made by Ricciardo was premature.. especially since he wasn’t even in Lando’ league all season.

        2. The car was there to do the job. And yeah, Ricciardo did show he knows how to win when presented with the opportunity there in Monza @sjaakfoo.

          I agree with @todfod that he won on merit that day. Sure, had Norris been ahead after the sprint and after the start, it might have been him, there was little between them and at times it looked Norris was the faster one on track (but then, we hardly ever know how much either are saving the tyres, car etc).

          But the call by the team was right, because there never was such a clear pace difference between them that it made sense to risk the win by having them fight over it and possibly lose that 1-2 in the process. I am sure it did boost Daniels confidence that he was able to perform that weekend. But reality caught up with him and the fans soon after.

    2. It hard to judge from our position as we should know why did he got his seat. I know Nick technical feed back was desavating for the developers and While they tought not the car is terrible that even Fransz said they did a terrible job.
      Nick is always a constant driver but slower to adjust i think the swap of the Mercedes to Honda engine was harder then he thought i.c.w. bad car And Williams was a very simple car (no downforce high topspeed) compaired with the Alfa Tauri.

    3. @sjaakfoo Yeah i agree with this. I voted slightly agree, because it is harsh to not give a rookie a full season at least to show what they can do. But with his experience you would have expected him to get up to speed faster than most rookies, not slower. Not only that, it’s that he never showed any flashes of pace. If he had shown some pace but was error prone, then i think he would justify more time to see if he could iron out the mistakes, but with neither pace nor consistency, then i think RB had little reason to delay the inevitable.

      1. @keithedin I agree with this analysis. Pretty much what I was going to say. I think AT might have expected Nick to be quicker at picking things up with the experience he has. He has made some poor mistakes as well. In the poll I voted slightly agree as I think it is on the harsh side to drop him now but understandable.

        1. While i would personally disagree that they should do this, It rather shows one of the reasons why I am not a manager of a succesful F1 team.

          I think it was really harsh on De Vries, probably not fair on him (I voted slightly disagree with the team dropping him). But it was pretty much par for the course for Red Bull (i am still surprised they gave Yuki a second season after his first season being about as bad as what Nyck was showing so far). The situation was different though, and that is where I have to agree with Red Bulls choice:

          They had Daniel on the books, who showed them that all parameters show he should be able to still do the job. And they had Perez who was not performing as needed right now. So what is more logical than to put Daniel in to give him the chance to prove he still has it (auditioning for RB for next year) and at the same time ramp up the pressure on Perez to step up and defend his drive.

          Ruthless. But that is Red Bull/Marko. Doesn’t always work. But it’s been their approach and they are getting results often enough to be the winners they are.

  2. If you look at their decision very black and white, they’re not wrong. And in hindsight you can ofcourse analyze why every problem occured the way it did, but in the end all matters is beating your teammate. Especially when you are driving in a backmarker team and fighting for your drive. It was the right decision made by the team, bit soon-ish, but it would be just postponing the inevitable.

    1. If you look at their decision very black and white, they’re not wrong. And in hindsight you can ofcourse analyze why every problem occured the way it did, but in the end all matters is beating your teammate.

      Actually, not black and white, most definitely shades of grey.

      If beating your teammate is a requirement for all newcomers, there are afair few drivers sitting second place in the team to their more long-standing teammate that need to develop a new career away from their current team.
      How many of the current top drivers failed to beat their teammate in their first season?

  3. Although it looks brutal but don’t forget that we are comparing his performance to tsunoda. Tsunoda has not established himself as consistent or great driver. So comparing to an average driver, De Vries failed to show any signs of greatness. Simply, he didn’t perform well even against a very low benchmark.

    1. I agree with this. Tsunoda being around is merely political I feel. Based on performance he is a questionable participant as well.

  4. I’ll share this again:

    In qualifying Perez performed worse versus Verstappen, than De Vries against Tsunoda.
    The median (not mean) difference is:
    – De Vries slower than Tsunoda by 0.3-0.4%;
    – Perez slower than Verstappen by 0.6-0.8%.

    I’m sure there will be others where the gap is bigger than between De Vries and his teammate.

    I’m not defending Nyck’s seat, but want to point out that he’s probably not the worst performer out there if looking beyond points scored.

    1. Perez’s poor performance is exactly the reason De Vries is out. You’re right – they need a new driver at Red Bull and they are now actively assessing whether that is Ricciardo, Yuki or neither of them. De Vries has already shown them that he’s not the answer so they have put someone else in to see how Yuki compares.

    2. The easy way to explain this is that perez had good performances too early season, de vries never really had any good race, even accounting for the car.

      So they know perez is capable of performing with their car, they don’t about de vries.

    3. Yeah, but one is slower than Verstappen, the other is slower than Tsunoda. Verstappen is exceptional, Tsunoda is rather average looking.

      1. Agree. We need to estimate how much Tsonuda would be off from Max’s times. A common benchmark to make that comparison.

  5. Yes and no. I agree that “ Nyck de Vries deserved more then just ten grands prix in an AlphaTauri to show he was deserving of a place on the F1 grid beyond 2023.” That much is true.

    Trouble is, AlphaTauri exists solely to find a driver for the Red Bull team and he was never going to be that. A settled lineup of Max and Perez meant there wasn’t much purpose for AlphaTauri this year so they put De Vries in the seat as they didn’t feel any of the RB young drivers were ready.

    Perez’s major loss of form meant a seat potentially opened up at Red Bull and that’s kicked AlphaTauri back into life – therefore the seat is now required for its original purpose and that means De Vries is out.

    “Tough but fair” in my opinion.

  6. De Vries never had a fair chance with the threatening management style of Marko and Horner. They seem to think pressure through intimidation is the best policy for a tyro. It isn’t. Williams are showing the way with Sargeant. Mentor, encourage, train, reward, push always for more performance through better understanding.

    The RedBull way is wasteful as we can see from the litter of suddenly discarded drivers left behind of which some have become better drivers elsewhere and some just left the scene altogether.

    1. Well said, this is what I always thought of the RB program.

      1. The simple fact is the red bull program brought a lot of talent in F1. Drivers who probably never would have find a spot. Even now almost half of the drivers on the grid have a rbr connection.
        Now most teams followed the juniors or academy approach and it’s hard to find talent left behind.

  7. Whilst I agree that this has more to do with Ricciardo than Nyck. Nyck has been around a while, he’ll be familiar with people in half of the teams on the grid. And yet nobody ever really chased or jumped after him?

    I remember watching him in F2 qualifying around Monaco, and he looked head and shoulders above the rest.

    He’s clearly talented, and the motorsport ladder can be cruel and doesn’t necessarily reward talent. But I think his career thus far, moving around disciplines, both speaks for him and against him.

    That he got to 27yrs old before anyone locked him into a race seat. He was almost set up to fail in a sense. At least Hartley had Red Bull history, but again I kind of feel like they were never meant to be anything than something Marko was looking into the distance behind them.

  8. Nyck de Vries seems to be a victim of circumstances, so analyzing the results only gets one so far. What makes the situation almost comical is that Red Bull has spent the better part of the last three years defending the poor performances of their “Japanese driver” because there’s clearly a Honda-related obligation to run him. They came up with all kinds of fun stories, and even had Tost declare with a straight face that you need three seasons to get to grips with F1.

    But anyway; either Ricciardo did so well in the sim that they just had to have him race, or they felt that neither Tsunoda nor De Vries gave Pérez the proverbial kick in the behind to shape up and put that Red Bull on the podium and front row where it belongs. I guess we’ll see how credible a Ricciardo-threat to Pérez really is, because Ricciardo definitely didn’t impress in recent years. And that was in a car that could, as evidenced by his teammate, compete for good positions behind the top teams. This year’s second Red Bull is arguably the worst car on the grid.

    1. I’m surprised people still think Red Bull would take or keep drivers for external factors, i.e., anything other than performance.

      1. Normally I wouldn’t think that, but the tsunoda case is way too obvious.

    2. Yes, this is a good complaint, for tsunoda they’re using a different yardstick just because of the nationality.

      1. @esploratore1 Honda & or his nationality as external factors are as secondary as sponsor money from drivers has always been to Red Bull.
        The true reason he got more slack in his rookie season relative to De Vries is his minimal previous single-seater racing, not to mention zero professional racing experience & since that season, he’s improved generally, which has only given less reason for sacking.
        However, the situation would change if Ricciardo totally out-performs him despite a considerable difference in car familiarity.

        1. I think that they needed a driver to push Tsunoda, and they hoped Nyck could do that. Ricciardo found his mojo back in the sim and impressed with the tyre test. In part this whole affair is about Tsunoda, if he can improve, then he gets another year, else they put Lawson in. Danny is there for the baseline, and with his experience he can help AT developing the car. I don’t think they want to replace Perez (yet), but a little extra pressure may help. Danny is also good PR, and RB like him.

        2. That’s not what Tsunoda’s career was actually like, though.

          Tsunoda is a Honda protege, got pushed into the Red Bull program upon winning the national F4 title (in quite a dominant fashion), was fast tracked into F3 where he didn’t get great results but impressed enough to get pushed into F2 the following year, where he was quickly on the pace and came 3rd, winning multiple races in the process.

          1. Yes, exactly this. Tsunoda, as much as I like him, has actually achieved nothing of note, almost as inexperienced as Kimi was when he came in and took so many seasons to get up to speed in F1. Without the backing of Honda, he would’ve been removed after the 2nd season and that’s stretching it.

            Nyck is an F2 champion. Formula E champion. Test and reserve driver for Williams, AMR, Mercedes. Dragged a Williams to 9th with very little time to prepare. Has at least the basics of F1.

            With this resume coming in, even if it’s your rookie season, to be outperformed so massively by Yuki is very embarrassing. AT took a calculated gamble to bring him in because at the time, Nyck is a known quantity and quality. I was hoping he’d in the very least push Yuki hard enough to buck up and get better but it’s Yuki that’s carrying the team race after race.

            With the appeal of Danny Ric and even though he’s not been performing before rejoining the RB fold again, he’s a much more enticing prospect.

            10 races in? It’s almost half the season. AT is going to die if they don’t make the change now. It’s a business decision pure and simple.

  9. Joe Cointreau
    16th July 2023, 17:07

    The problem I have with this is that it is well known and documented that DeVries has taken two years to get fully up to speed in each of the series he has competed in. He became F2 and FE champion but not in his first year, right? Humans are not robots and they should not all be expected to have the same learning curve.

  10. I strongly agree about the driver change decision itself, but I also agree that he probably deserved more time & GPs before making that change, at least until the summer break, if not season-end.

    1. Only agree if he showed a upward trajectory somewhere in his AT career. He did not

  11. I think these voting options are not very suited to the case here, to put it simply, I’d have given him a bit more races, not sure if the full season, so I was slightly surprised they dropped him this early.

  12. I’ve always felt that, as he entered F1 with far more titles and experience than any other rookie in recent memory, De Vries should have hit the ground running and shown immediate pace. He didn’t and that’s why I’d agree with his sacking.

    However I’d be more critical of Red Bull’s young driver program than anything Nyck has done. To disregard their young talent like Lawson and Iwasa, and take on a driver outside the program after a single successful race (Monza 2022), suggests a lack of confidence and direction. What was their plan exactly? If De Vries succeeded in Alpha Tauri, were they going to throw out Perez at Red Bull, and ignore Tsunoda’s potential future promotion? And what of the investment in so many of their F2 and F3 drivers? It’s unfortunate that De Vries got caught up in this mess.

    1. They have Verstappen for the long term. They do not need a big talent for the next 3 years. They rather need a solid 2nd driver. They keep their youth program because in a few years they’ll need a new talent again. Also they have involvements in many other series where they make good use of their talents.

      1. @f1mre Agreed with what you’ve said, though it’s entirely contingent on Verstappen staying put. They were caught out when Ricciardo left in 2018, and it’d be a total disaster if something happened to Verstappen… or he just got bored!

  13. I disagree with the argument made by Will’s statement.
    Mazepin was a paydriver, he got his seat and a continuation of it because he tremendous amounts of money, at a team that seems to be always short on cash.

    On top of that De Vries is in his late 20s and has won multiple different championships.
    The demands and expectations of De Vries are always going to be different than that of a paydriver.

    It’s incorrect to compare De Vries with Mazepin and therefore base any argument on it.

    Another question that can be asked is whether De Vries had the required skill to begin with, his former teams, Mclaren and Mercedes, where he was a junior, 3rd or reserve driver never gave him the opportunity to proof his merit in F1.
    Maybe he just lucked into the seat on the basis of a flattered and circumstantial performance at Monza.

    All of these things mentioned above mean you aren’t going to have a lot of credit as a driver, making circumstances alot harder for a driver than that of rookies or paydrivers.

  14. Red Bull dumps drivers too early. It’s just what they do.

    The reference to Mazepin getting double the starts isn’t a good comparison. He was an extreme example of a pay driver and actually would have had more starts if Russia hadn’t invaded Ukraine. Haas and AT/RB shouldn’t be compared in this way. Red Bull wants perfection, Haas needed cash and a heartbeat.

  15. The bar was set high for him after his performance in Monza and his experience (outside F1, but experience). He has not jumped that bar and did not show much promise. He was going to be the next Perez for Red Bull at best. There are many drivers who could fill that role. So Red Bull chose marketing money and a slight chance of a Perez replacement over nothing with Ricciardo.

  16. He wasn’t performing well, but Red Bull’s reasons for changing drivers are always fishy. It’s rarely about performance.
    They simply don’t have any use for him and will use his car to assess Ricciardo.

    This team doesn’t have any other purpose than to act as an extension of the main one.

    1. Rarely about performance? Are we watching the same series?

      1. If it was about performance this team would’ve went under a long ago.
        Red Bull sees a driver doing a good job at STR / AT? They take the guy for their big team and bring to this team the guy who was underdelivering on the big team. They also used this team to test and develop the then underdeveloped Honda engines before bringing them to the main team the next season.

        So yeah, in regarding AT, it’s not about performance. They can finish a season with 0 points, it won’t matter.

        What matters is that they act as a supporting part to the main team.

  17. Red Bull is always criticized for these “early” moves, but none of the drivers that they’ve fired have ever amounted to anything after that. They made no mistakes. Why wouldn’t they try someone else when they have a top driver for the next few years locked down? It always seems the best F1 drivers get it right away. Devries got his chance. More than most drivers coming up get.

    1. That’s my thinking, too. What’s the point investing more time, money and resources into someone when (as an organization) they clearly have a pretty good idea of where their ceiling is.

      Nyck didn’t have a good enough junior career to warrant hanging it out and hoping year will be better (like Vandoorne).

      My bigger worry is, if Daniel struggles as much with the Alpha as he did the McLaren (which is ENTIRELY possible) – how embarrassing is it going to be for all parties??

    2. That’s a bit too negative, Gasly is doing quite well for himself at Alpine. He’s no top tier driver, but more than quick enough for a competitive midfield seat at another team. Vergne went on to win two Formula E championships, and Buemi and Hartley both have multiple WEC championships and overall Le Mans wins to their name. Yes, Toyota… but still. They picked those guys for a reason.

      1. Of course Gasly is fine, but that is my point. There are no real replacements to Verstappen or anyone that can get close. You could switch Gasly back into Red Bull and you’d have another guy that is like Perez, Tsunoda, or Riccardo. Mid pack competent drivers that aren’t going to bin it like Schumacher or go straight to last place like Hulkenberg.

  18. Neil (@neilosjames)
    16th July 2023, 19:07

    I’ll start by saying I don’t like anyone who got in due to talent being dropped so quickly, but… putting that aside, I have to agree with the decision.

    If he was being shown up by Verstappen, or Hamilton or Alonso, I’d have thought it very harsh. But he’s being made to look bad by Tsunoda. And while he doesn’t have experience of driving F1 machinery, he’s been a racing driver for a lot longer than most rookies and could perhaps have been expected to be on it by now.

    He’s been unlucky that Red Bull had a highly regarded sub to replace him with, and I do think 10 races is too soon, but with a cold heart the decision to drop him doesn’t seem unreasonable.

  19. Hopefully the driver gets a shot at redemption. Albon was also sent packing too early.

  20. He had the worst luck. 3 times pitted right before a Safety car. Logan took him out once.

    He would have had the Alfa Romeo seat if Zhou didn’t buy it with Wrong Chinese money. So yeah the worst luck.

  21. I don’t agree with AlphaTauri terminating Nyck’s contract. This is all about seeing if Daniel should be promoted to Red Bull and Sergio being demoted to AT or having his contract terminated. AT could have made some excuse and put Nyck onto the reserve bench and put Daniel into that car for several races to see how he performed. Instead AT chose to terminate his contract. At least Nyck won’t feel guilty knocking on the Team Principal’s door at the other teams. I do hope he gets a seat at another team.
    I went back and looked at Daniel’s racing record and in his first 11 races he didn’t score any points, which is exactly the same as what Nyck did in his 10 races.

    1. It’s not really a fair comparison though. HRT were always so far off the pace, no one expected Ricciardo to score points in 2011. It was purely an exercise in getting him used to F1 before getting properly stuck in in 2012 a season which was comparably much better than de Vries has been this year.

  22. It’s always felt a bit wrong to me that drivers today are given less time with no testing compared to drivers of the past who had unrestricted testing.

    If drivers of the past only had 10 races then i think we’d have seen half the grid been changed several times a year as driver performances could be all over the place with mistakes more prevalent more often even from top drivers.

    I go back to Gilles Villeneuve who became one of the most beloved drivers on his era despite been off the track almost as much as he was on it and who Also wasn’t exactly setting the world on fire his rookie season in terms of results or even speed moat the time. Yet he improved, Especially after he got that first win late in the year and gained more confidence.

    Sometimes all it takes it 1 good weekend and result to build confidence and momentum and turn things around.

    Or James Hunt, I wonder how the modern fans would have felt about him coming to F1 with his junior category reputation.

  23. After his performance at Monza last year, Nyck had a vibe about him. He looked like he didn’t need three years in an F1 car to get up to speed. He was going to be a steady mature driver who had done his deveopment in other formulas and could bring in some points while the precocious talent of Tsunoda was nurtured.

    For my money, it all started to unravel at Baku. When he clipped the wall on the left hander, and took a wheel off, he looked out of his depth. By Silverstone, it looked like he will need development time in the car. He’s 28. Max is 25.

    Something else occurs to me. There have been rumours Red Bull might sell AT, maybe to some of those Americans looking to get into F1. Is a team with points in the bank worth more?

    1. The selling story is already debunked.

  24. José Lopes da Silva
    16th July 2023, 23:03

    There are dozens of drivers that never get a chance at F1.
    People like Raffaele Marciello, Antonio Felix da Costa or Emmanuel Collard.
    They never get a line of piety in F1 comments sections.

    There are 8 F1 teams that could have already hired De Vries, and could yet hire him now. All of them are well aware that De Vries’ 10 races (in the 90’s, seasons included 16 Grand Prix and 0 Sprint Races) are not enough to do a proper assessment. What’s keeping them?

  25. Nick = F1 Career over.
    The remainder of the season will end either Yuki’s or Daniel’s F1 career.

    1. If Yuki comes out on top:
      1. Yuki stays, they replace Daniel with other & Daniel has nowhere to go.
      2. Yuki moves to RB to replace Sergio (Very unlikely).
      If Daniel comes out on top:
      1. Daniel stays with AT and they replace Yuki with other.
      2. Daniel goes back to RB, Sergio goes to AT and he and Yuki fight it out.
      2. Daniel goes back to RB, Sergio goes to AT and they replace Yuki with other.
      3. Daniel goes back to RB, Sergio and Yuki loose their seats, AT look for completely new options.

  26. An F2 champion should be better than this. Piastri shows that time out isn’t a reason for poor performance and if he’s not part of the Red Bull junior program, is there any point holding onto him? In the ruthless world of Red Bull it’s almost surprising he lasted this long. The way I see it is Red Bull would only hold onto de Vries if he was a realistic prospect to replace Perez. 10 races is more than enough to show he isn’t so best not waste any more time.

  27. De Vries should had more time to try to show his skills. Short time for Red Bull to fire their choice of the rookie driver.

  28. It’s Red Bull… anyone surprised by this doesn’t understand a few things… RB culture, Helmut Marko, Austrians, and Danny Rick being brought back… DeVries was a dead man walking the moment Ricardo was signed… only consistently outperforming Tsunoda and scoring points would have saved him… FOR this year… he was gone in 2024 in any event… when Horner speaks up and says “I didn’t want to sign him…” you’re days are numbered.

  29. RedBull has the right to replace Nick, even if this is early. It is not very fair to Nick, but with his pedigree he should have had a better start. However I think that the fact that Daniel was available played a huge role. Any unproven reserve driver or any other available driver (only MS, who else?) would not have resulted in pushing Nick aside. But Ricciardo part of the team already made the decision (too) easy for RB/AT. Despite acting surprised I believe that Daniel missed racing more than he told the public and expressed his desire to race again internally? AT not too happy with Nick progress, DR available and expressing desire to race; combine these two and you get what happened.
    I am not a fan of DR, and I don’t believe he will get a lot better results in the AT, and for sure he will not show to be any better than Checo.
    So I voted in the middle: not agree not disagree.
    Disappointed: yes. Expecting much better results: no

  30. I don’t think it was much to do with Devries’ actual driving, but more with Danny Ric’s ability to improve the car.

    The Alpha Tauri situation was getting pretty bad: the car is not great at all, the starting drivers still pretty inexperienced and probably not great at working with the engineers for improving the car. Yuki couldn’t be fired due to Honda ties, so it was Devries who needed to go.

  31. He showed in his runs in the various cars he drove last year that he has good speed which is something he’s also shown in other categories.

    He’s struggled this year but I think that is perhaps down to simply struggling to figure out the Alpha Tauri in a similar way to how his replacement Daniel Ricciardo struggled to figure out the McLaren. You can tell watching the onboard camera that he just didn’t seem to have the confidence to lean on the car in the way he did when you watch him in the various Mercedes powered F1 cars he drove last year with the Williams at Monza been the obvious point of comparison.

    Some drivers, Even some of the very best can just struggle to figure out the characteristics of a specific car as some teams just have certain design traits that produce more unique handling characteristics. Again Ricciardo himself recently showed us this with his McLaren stint.

    In the past when testing was allowed in this sort of scenario you could just spend days doing hundreds maybe even thousands km of testing to try different things to not just alter your driving style but also alter the car to bring it more towards you. But with no testing other than a day & a half per driver pre-season as well as budget caps, development freezes etc.. now there’s simply no time or opportunity to really do this. If your having a really difficult time early on it’s hard to get on top of it & the team has limited opportunities to develop the car to help you.

    20 years ago I think De Vries would have had more opportunities to get on top of things & been given more time to do so. Modern budget F1 doesn’t allow that anymore sadly.

  32. Def could use more time, and surprising to see, given his other performances in the Williams. Probably a result of the AT being sub-par. Regardless, Ricciardo is a known qty for better or worse, and I can’t blame RedBull wanting to get something more out of that car.

Comments are closed.