Red Bull's flawed approach has emptied its talent pool

That Daniil Kvyat was eventually released from his Red Bull contract following the United States Grand Prix after a more than competent drive to 10th despite his understandably fragile state of mind was both surprising - he'd been called up for Austin's round after being unceremoniously benched for two grands prix - and unexpected. But expecting the unexpected seems to have become the Red Bull way in matters of driver treatment.

Consider the manner in which Kvyat has been treated over the years. With Red Bull support he successfully combined GP3 and Formula 3 in 2013, winning the Formula 1 support series but being ineligible for European F3 points due to late registration. The then-19-year-old was promoted to Red Bull's F1 junior squad Toro Rosso for 2014, where he performed competently to finish 15th in the championship with eight points.

At season's end he was promoted to the main squad as replacement for Red Bull Racing's departing four-time champion Sebastian Vettel - of whom more anon - who had discovered an 'out' clause in his contract.

Fifteen months later Kvyat was relegated to Toro Rosso to make way for 'wonderkind' Max Verstappen, who had come up through the ranks and joined Toro Rosso despite not having been a Red Bull development driver.

Indeed, this point seemed to have worked in his favour - although the team planned to pair Carlos Sainz Jr with Kvyat at Toro Rosso in 2015, Verstappen got the nod because his independent status provided options elsewhere that Red Bull wanted to fend off.

Sainz was, though, locked into Red Bull, and so dropped out of Toro Rosso contention. Only after Vettel's departure did the domino effect provide a lifeline for Sainz, who then proceeded to run Verstappen (too?) close.

Somewhat ironically it was Sainz, transferred into a Renault seat by Toro Rosso in a settlement for the early termination of its Renault engine supply, who Kvyat replaced at Austin, having previously been dropped to make way for Red Bull junior driver Pierre Gasly in Malaysia and Japan.

The Sainz/engine deal swap was due to come into effect for the 2018 season, Toro Rosso and Renault insisted in September. But in Japan in October, Toro Rosso announced a US GP line-up of Kvyat/Gasly after it emerged Sainz would transfer to Renault with immediate effect despite previous denials that the swap would occur before 2018. Almost immediately Toro Rosso announced that Gasly would be absent from Austin, Red Bull (and Honda?) having decided he should contest the final round of Japan's Super Formula.

Red Bull has spent nearly half a billion bucks, yet when it needed a driver or two the system was found wanting

True, Gasly, racing for a Honda-powered team lay second, half a point adrift of leader Hiroaki Ishiura, and could conceivably have clinched the title at Suzuka during the US GP weekend. This factor was, though, known by everyone who follows the Japanese series, but seemingly not within Red Bull's structures. Why else was an announcement made, then almost immediately annulled?

Confused? It gets more convoluted: Kvyat was 'unrested' for Austin, with the second seat going to Brendon Hartley - dropped by Red Bull as a test and development driver in 2010! In the interim Harley, a winner in his domestic New Zealand Formula Ford series at 13, had switched to LMP2 sportscars and then been recruited by Porsche - with which he won Le Mans and the World Endurance Championship. One wonders what Red Bull failed to see in him back then.

There is no doubt that Hartley did a sterling job in America and thoroughly deserved to retain the seat for Mexico, but Kvyat put in arguably his best race of the season, and then found himself called in and given marching orders by Helmut Marko, the Austrian former F1 driver and 1971 Le Mans winner who oversees Red Bull's F1 activities on behalf of compatriot Dietrich Mateschitz, the energy drink company's founder.

Another driver in the frame for Kvyat's Toro Rosso seat was Sebastien Buemi, the former STR driver - and ex-Red Bull Racing third driver - who currently drives for e.dams (Renault/Nissan) in Formula E and Toyota in the WEC. Buemi went as far as requesting permission from Renault motorsport consultant Alain Prost to drive for his former F1 team, so must surely have had an approach.

Buemi, too, experienced Red Bull's mercurial approach to driver management at close quarters: In 2009 he was paired with four-time Champ Car champion Sebastien Bourdais, who was dropped in July and replaced by Jaime Alguersuari. At the end of 2011 both Alguersuari and Buemi were dropped by Toro Rosso in favour of Jean-Eric Vergne and Daniel Ricciardo, although Buemi was retained as Red Bull development driver.

Deja vu or what?

Ricciardo made it to the main team while Vergne was paired with Kvyat for 2014, but that pairing lasted just a year: Vergne was soon dropped and Kvyat elevated to the senior team as per above, with Verstappen and Sainz brought in at Toro Rosso. After Verstappen's management threatened to cut deals elsewhere - which they could, given that no long-term contract was in place - Verstappen was promoted and Kvyat relegated.

At Austin it emerged that Verstappen had committed to Red Bull Racing until the end of 2020, hoping to, as suggested by team principal Christian Horner, "build the team around himself" - which must have left Ricciardo, out of contract at the end of 2018, wondering where he fitted into all this. Although Horner maintains Red Bull is committed to extending Ricciardo's contract, Sainz is slated to step in should he sign elsewhere.

All well and good, but what happens to Sainz, one of the most exciting talents to hit F1 in recent times, should Ricciardo extend his Red Bull deal? Consider the precedents: Benched? Relegated to Toro Rosso? Unceremoniously dropped? Cut loose after a relationship lasting 10 years? Find himself swapped for a spark plug contract?

Now consider that since 2001 over 60 drivers have passed through Red Bull and/or its young driver programme - and that number excludes folk such as Enrique Bernoldi, whom Marko (in)famously rated as a better than Kimi Raikkonen, precipitating Red Bull's split with Sauber, and Bourdais, plus established Red Bull drivers such as Mark Webber and David Coulthard.

Yet, when the chips were down after Renault 'borrowed' Sainz and Gasly could not be expected to do another season in a feeder series, Marko and co were forced to look outside the ranks to fill two Toro Rosso seats. Forget not the team exists as a driver development operation, one that costs Mateschitz around £40million per year, yet its original 2017 line-up consisted of drivers in (at least) their third season with the team, with Sainz looking set for a fourth season with a 'young driver' team before the Renault deal intervened.

Consider, too, that Red Bull Racing, which, as a winning team with eight titles (four each drivers' and constructors') to its name, has an immeasurably higher profile than the junior team, costs the drinks company just £55m each year. True, both teams carry Red Bull livery, but that hardly translates into double the number of cans sold by their combined F1 presence.

Given that Toro Rosso has been owned by Red Bull for over 10 years - the team was previously known as Minardi - even at £30m per annum that translates to over £300m in total, a number further inflated by the cost of schooling 60 youngsters for numerous years each. That leaves little change from half a billion bucks - yet when the company needed a driver or two, the system was found wanting.

With Kubica and Vettel, BMW may well have remained in F1 for the long haul

Clearly something is amiss with Red Bull's shotgun approach to driver development, an approach in which it targets numerous young talents of both genders and various nationalities, then promotes them to their highest level of incompetence. Yes, you read that correctly: The concept is known as the Peter Principle, named after educator Dr Laurence J Peter, whose theory reads:

"The selection of a candidate for a position is based on the candidate's performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role. Thus, employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and [people] rise to the level of their incompetence."

Expressed differently, in order to remain members of the programme, Red Bull drivers need to win races and championship, and are promoted accordingly. Yet, a winning GP3 performance may not necessarily make an F1 champion, and vice versa. Indeed, the only F1 world champion ever to don a Red Bull cap is Vettel, and he had his early support reduced after failing to win sufficiently. That is when BMW picked him up.

Peter noted that "The [driver] has no chance of further promotion, thus reaching a career ceiling in an organisation" - whereafter the only way is down, which describes the fate of the vast majority of the 60 young drivers to have passed through Red Bull's system. Check out the list here.

Yet, after Vettel proved he had what it takes to master F1, Red Bull came running and a messy tug-of-love ensued with BMW, then running its own team. According to a source who was at the centre of negotiations, the release eventually came after Vettel pleaded with BMW, tearfully it is said, to not hold him back in the face of a firm 2007/8 race deal from Toro Rosso, whereas BMW could only offer a testing role.

True, Vettel won at Monza in 2008, later scoring Red Bull Racing's first race win before collecting four championships on the bounce for the team, but consider a parallel universe: Robert Kubica and Vettel at BMW in 2009. With that line-up it is doubtful the company would have exited F1 with but one win to its name in its own right. Indeed, it may well have remained in the championship for the long haul.

Put these comments to Marko, and he pointedly asks how many champions Mercedes has bred. Setting aside the fact that Vettel was picked up by BMW before being retrieved by Red Bull, and can therefore arguably be considered as not being a fully-fledged Red Bull champion - just as Verstappen cannot truly be tagged homegrown - Marko seems to have overlooked that McLaren and Mercedes jointly developed Lewis Hamilton.

The Briton was picked up as karter by McLaren - then owned 40% by Mercedes as part of a true commercial and technical partnership - at the age of 13, and guided through the ranks until he reached F1. He scored his first grand prix win with McLaren-Mercedes in 2007, taking his maiden title a year later. He scored his fourth career championship (and third with Mercedes) last Sunday in Mexico.

Every one of Hamilton's 62 grand prix victories came courtesy of either McLaren or Mercedes chassis, while his F1 overalls have sported the Three Pointed Star throughout.

By way of comparison, Red Bull Racing won 54 grands prix via Vettel, Webber, Ricciardo and Verstappen - a 'home-grown' driver strike rate of 50%. Toro Rosso has won but one grand prix - courtesy of Vettel - bringing the Red Bull tally to 55 via two teams.

On that basis the Mercedes sniper approach beats Red Bull's shotgun hands down - and Mercedes still has its young driver Esteban Ocon waiting in the wings.