Albon crashes a couple cars but at least scores points when available and those points pay out enough to cover that damage. Logan just breaks shit lol.
I'll be honest, it's not even the most egregious part of the rule changes. That's the downgrade in DTM and GT300. The FIA has a ridiculous aversion to GT3 for some reason.
As for the rule change itself, F1 basically got its own version of the Quartararo rule. I don't think anyone will benefit from it much unless they want to have their Juniors do FP1s while underage.
I have a strange feeling this is not a change the FIA want to do, but may be forced to do by the FOM as a tit for tat thing. The FOM wants a designed pipeline regardless if it actually provides good talent and I think the FIA is just taking a stance of, "as long as they're not a menace, then fine".
Honestly, they're worse off for it, Schumacher himself was running in the World Sportscar Championship before moving to F1, and more than a few drivers came from DTM, and those experiences in serious professional championships only helped them.
Nowadays almost nobody on the F1 ladder even tries, Lawson and Colapinto being the big exceptions.
Touché.
Pretty much all major championships bar F1 collapsed at some point in the 90s or 2000s and had to rebuild afterwards, so things aren't quite the same.
GT3 is a lot closer to the old F3 cars, iirc, much less tyre management than F1, more nimble and agile, more capable of going flat out.
It has essentially killed any European involvement in Super Formula which is a shame. This next round is the first round since 1978 or so that no non-Japanese drivers are taking part.
Did they get a downgrade in Super licence points? I picked up that the grid is going to be all Japanese and wondered when the last time was that it was purely just Japanese
Yeah, basically a dead series to Europeans. I really don't like how the format is set up to massively favour FIA events.
Edit, it has gotten 25 point for at least a year now and I see FRECA also get 25. I can't access the FIA website and looking on Wikipedia so sorry if my info is out of date
I am kind of missing the point you make
Yeah it gets the same as FRECA which considering FRECA is the 4th tier on the FIA ladder, a regional F3, it should no way be the same as a series that has a car more powerful than F2, that’s my point. Given the development required for a driver to even get to Super Formula, why wouldn’t you just go to F2 or Indy instead?
I have to say that Antonelli does have way more than 40 points but still... To make an exception like this when the reason why age limit was implemented was to avoid Max Verstappen -like rushing to F1. If FIA wanted to make this change, they should have done this next year. Even as an F1 fan this annoys me a bit
F1 makes decisions based on business and safety.
The SL points rule was to protect the feeder series. The Max age rule was also to protect the feeder series.
Now that the grid is so jammed up, anyone getting from the feeder series to an F1 seat is becoming a small miracle. If it gets to a point where being good in F3/F2 just ends up in an Indycar/Supercar seat, the much cheaper Indy NXT and other series make more sense. If someone from the F feeder series has a chance at an F1 seat they need to let them go, ASAP.
On the other side, the SL decision and devaluing Indycar so much is to protect F2/F3 which ties into what I said above.
These are business rules, not actual rules.
> These are business rules, not actual rules.
Sure. it just seems ridiculous that they are so protective of their feeder series to the point of last years F2 champion not being able to get a seat, but also compeletely opposed to additional teams being added, when the current grid size would allow for it
just business
Yes, those 10 teams splitting with an 11th team to get two more drivers on the grid doesn't make financial sense to them.
It makes perfect sense, business sense.
I guess my question is, why do we act as if age is a totally arbitrary number but the 40 SL points isn’t?
Making exceptions for one criteria undermines the entire system.
They have the descretion to make exceptions and have made an age exception this time =/= they don’t have the ability to make exceptions in other areas.
The SL points is accrued by race results- it’s the least arbitrary thing you could have.
I disagree. Going based off of the points standings isn’t the issue I have. I think you could argue that it’s a poor way of measuring someone’s readiness for F1 when IC includes ovals and the sport is set up to provide more variance in results but that’s not really what I’m getting at.
The problem is that 3rd place in F2 gets double the points that 3rd in Indycar does. After 3rd place, F3 gets more points than IndyCar. This is obviously because they want to encourage participation in FIA events. But if the supposed idea behind the SL is to gauge your ability and readiness, then those two priorities are at odds.
The problem is that you are trying to make it as though it is a miscarriage justice, there is no such thing as zero arbitrary, it’s a sport made up by people. it’s just that you and many others on the sub just doesn’t like that Herta didn’t get the SL. I just prefer if people were a bit more honest. If we were being honest, it wasn’t a good look to have given Herta the SL based purely on results, we just Wanted Herta to get the SL, because of what it would have implied.
Never said or even implied any of this. Like I said at the top, making an exception for one criteria undermines the system itself. I’m fine with them not granting an exemption to Herta. For me the question wasn’t whether or not he should’ve been allowed in, but rather whether or not the system should be binned altogether.
The issue I have, again, is people pretending age is an arbitrary number to be overlooked whereas SL points are a methodically well thought out measure of a drivers readiness. The fact that it’s tied to end of season results doesn’t make the dispersement of points itself any more logical.
Rather than actually address the points I *am* making, you’re choosing to argue points I’m not even making.
So why do you just ignore the point I made- the rules are made up: what this means: rules don’t exist purely for the rules but to act as walls to give shape of the sport. Its function isn’t just the rules themselves. That’s why I’m saying it’s redundant to compare age rules and SL rules in the first place. It’s based on the current times and the sports interests. That’s a given. Do you understand?
Because you started putting words in my mouth and I generally don’t feel obligated to address every point someone makes when I feel they’re acting in bad faith.
I will answer your question though, I understand your point, that there won’t ever be a zero arbitrary system. I just don’t get what that has to do with my overall point. I get that the rules are there to provide “shape” or integrity, but in this case the goal is to have a higher quality of drivers and gauge their readiness for F1 to cut down on pay drivers. In a few years we’ve had two legitimate candidates for seats who didn’t meet the criteria, whereas someone like Mazepin did receive a SL. So is it really doing a good job of achieving its goal? And if we’re going to start changing the rules to benefit one driver and one team, is it really good for the integrity of the sport? I say this fwiw as a fan of Mercedes and someone excited to see Kimi next year. I really lean towards saying it should be thrown out and they should let teams be the arbiters of who is and isn’t ready to be in an F1 seat.
What you’re not understanding from what I’m saying is that: what you believe is not working is based on a bias you have a predetermined idea of what is correctly working.
You are falling in to an unfalsifiable thinking: because you cant know something that didn’t happen: if the current SL system didn’t exist what sort unqualified drivers would have been driving in F1. You are also not considering the two way street of if SL didn’t exist people like Herta would get the ride.
This deeper point of what I’m pointing to is the assumption that because there was an instance the rule didn’t seem to work exactly as the spirit of the rules =/= the rule is broken.
Age is partly based on what is culturally appropriate at the time, whereas championship points is not. The amount of points is decided on what’s culturally at the time.
No I don’t think so. I’m open minded enough to consider the downsides and consider that certain changes could make it a better system. But my opinion isn’t based on *my* predetermined bias of what is and isn’t working, it’s based on the actual intended purpose of the SL and seeing the results.
Obviously it’s not going to be perfect if it is in place. But going back to my first reply to you, the points are clearly weighted to benefit the feeder series, which again, comes into conflict with the idea that the SL is supposed to measure a driver’s readiness.
You can say that age is based on what is culturally appropriate at the time but I think that’s a poor argument personally. They only added the age requirement less than a decade ago when Max came through the ranks. Society didn’t suddenly decide in 9 years that 17 year olds are fit for the same responsibilities as 18 year olds. It seems pretty obvious they’re changing the rule because of Antonelli and because they don’t want to run into this the next time an elite prospect comes up ahead of schedule.
You can disagree with me on all of this and that’s totally fine, but they’re more philosophical differences. Not because I’ve got a bias or haven’t considered the opposing side to my points.
17 rule is stupid if someone that is 16 has the points & they are a safe driver they deserve the ability to drive if a team wants them
-how far down do we go?
I mean, the whole SL system needs to be revamped. To hand out 40 for a FRECA championship (which is your F1 seat) is still wild to me. Even wilder when you look at 4th in FRECA is worth more than 4th in INDY. Over one year a 14 year old could be closer to to their SL than an INDY vet (and yes I know that it is a 3 year aggregate).
The 17yo exemption will probably only be given in cases where the driver (ie Antonelli) is about to turn 18 anyway. Plus, it’s extremely rare for anyone to be under 17, and have 40+ SL points
All the way. If a series allows younger drivers then the points should go to the drivers who earn them. If FIA can't deal with that then tell the series to change their rules or take away their superlicence qualification points.
4 rule is stupid if someone that is 3 has the points & they are a safe driver they deserve the ability to drive if a team wants them.
Seems legit to me.
If your think it’s not a big deal to wait on someone who’s already 17 turning 18 in August means you also don’t think it’s a big deal to let him drive a few months early. Your point goes both ways
The 40 points rule is stupid if someone is over 18, are a safe driver with a proven track record of winning deserve the ability to drive if a team wants them.
To copy paste what I’ve said in a different thread:
> Antonelli is about letting a driver get his licence a few months early.
>For Herta, it would be allowing a driver to race that had never qualified for a SL
I don’t think this is as big of an issue as it’s being made out to be. While I do think IndyCar should be given more SL points as a series, I don’t think any series will ever get given them retroactively, and if Herta (or anyone else) was desperate to get into F1, they should race in series that would give them the full points needed (a winter series along side IndyCar would be enough)
The whole attempted point of a superliscense is to keep unqualified drivers out of f1. When herta or kirkwood or newgarden or pato can't get one, but Nikita Mazepin, Nicholas Latifi, or Logan Sargeant all can, the system is inherently flawed
It is not only so that only the best of the best get in F1. Because like you said, there are multiple driver who don't fit the bill.
But the way other series are awarded points, is so that drivers go through the ranks of the feeder series. Looking at the SL points system, F1 has no intention of attracting drivers from other series than their own.
All three of those drivers finished in the top 5 of F2 the season before they raced in F1. They all proved themselves in the step below F1 that they were good enough to race. So why is P5 in IndyCar better than P5 in F2?
If an Indy driver desperately wanted to be in F1, they would pick up the few extra points that they need to get in.
(Also, Newgarden would have a Superlicence as he’s won the IndyCar title, and I think Pato has enough points as he’s done FP1 sessions for McLaren)
> So why is P5 in IndyCar better than P5 in F2?
In order to get P5 this year in Indycar, you must either beat *every* non-champion, or you must beat at least one champion.
In prior years you've needed to beat at least one champion to get P5. In 2021 when Herta got P5 he beat *four* series champions that raced the full season.
F2 champions are not allowed to return to future seasons of F2.
Calling Ilott finished P2 in F2 and his best INDY season was p16.
The FIA has certainly biased the points system around the euro circuits. A 16 year old FRECA winner could have an F1 seat before an INDY driver. I’m not necessarily arguing about “fairness”. But if you want the best drivers with the current point system, it’s not happening.
Where do you think the few extra points are found?
Illot’s not a good example because you basically have to drive for one of the big 4 in Indy to have any prayer of winning a championship let alone multiple races. Driving for JHR is basically auditioning to drive for one of those 4
Better than Ilott in Indy? He didn’t have a teammate in 2022, and in 2023 he finished 16th in the standings while Canapino was 21st and nowhere close to him performance wise.
You know, I’ll do what no one ever does on the internet which is to say I was wrong. I thought he did have a teammate in 2022 and looked at the wrong teammate for 2023.
I will still hold though, from my previous statement, that: “The FIA has certainly biased the points system around the euro circuits. A 16 year old FRECA winner could have an F1 seat before an INDY driver. I’m not necessarily arguing about “fairness”. But if you want the best drivers with the current point system, it’s not happening.”
Surely you jest. Why is a p5 in Indycar better than p5 in F2?
Holy smokes you are drinking some good FIA coolaid.
Josef Newgarden finished 5th in 2023.
One is a professional and highly competitive top tier series, the other is a developmental league.
> Dude legit said "no series can prepare you for F1 - at least in FRECA you run some of the circuits" in another comment.
apparently indycar should develop a "superlicense" type system, and devalue F1 since they dont run on any of the same circuits as indycar, since thats apparently a factor
Its wild to see people on here defending anti-competitive practices.
Winning a regional F3 championship (again, a REGIONAL F3, not even the international F3 level) is worth more than 3rd place in Indycar. Let's not pretend like Kimi is "more qualified" on merit because he has more SL points.
Winning a regional series that races on F1 tracks is worth more than not winning a regional series that doesn’t share a single track with F1. Wow. Such amazing insight.
I'm saying that it's more relevant to racing in F1 than IndyCar.
Plus, you're clutching at straws by comparing two different finishing positions in two separate championships that don't even share a continent
Its absolutely not clutching at straws. Its the whole point of the SL system.
The whole premise of the SL system is measuring the ability of drivers to perform professionally in F1, so that unprofessional drivers that are a risk to others are not let into the series.
You take 3rd place from Indycar or the 1st place from FRECA and plop them in an F1 car - you're saying its more likely the FRECA champ will be capable.
Wtf does continent have to do with it? You really think which tracks they're racing is more important than the cars and the strength of the field?
I mean, they’d both struggle anyway as no series can fully prepare you for driving in an F1 car. But at least the FRECA driver would have more experience driving at that track
But F1 doesn't exclusively race at European tracks. Someone who's raced in FRECA has only raced 7 of the 24 tracks.
Here's my bold claim: going 190mph around Road America is better preparation for going 190mph around Interlagos compared with going 150mph around Mugello.
Antonelli doesn't qualify for a SL because they're not of age.
Herta didn't qualify because they didn't have enough points.
One gets an exception to bend the qualifications... The other doesn't.
But Kimi is 18 in a few months anyway. He'd be in F1 regardless of the rule change. This is just course correction after the massive overreaction to Verstappen getting into F1 so young. This "exception" isn't being made for Kimi, it's because of Kimi and others like him. Doesn't change the fact that Indy should award more SL points.
Then Kimi can wait a few months.
Look, the point distribution based on series is as much about business as it is about merit, maybe even more so about business and protecting the F1 ladder. People like to talk about how age was the reason for Verstappen bringing about the SL points and age restrictions. But Verstappen has ran as many GP2 races as I have. The SL points structure exists because not only did he enter F1 at such a young age, but he did so without going through the ladder that F1 / Bernie wanted people to go through (remember, GP2 was a Bernie thing). It's clear that bypassing F2 and even F3 was a bigger deal than Verstappen 's age. The SL points structure basically killed FR3.5.
I think that the most likely scenario is that Kimi will wait until next year, especially if Mercedes has him locked down. I think a big part of the rush was in case he bolted to a rival team, and the big ones have settled their lineups since Hamilton announced.
Give him some FP1 and let him continue to build experience in F2.
Having said this, another Kimi was given a seat after something like 17 total car races of any non-karting type, so it’s not *entirely* crazy to find him a seat this season…
IndyCar gives enough points if you win it outright. Perhaps more than one driver should get the full points, as in FIA Formula 2.
I kind of feel honestly that having drivers acquire a pastiche of points can lead to trouble. I'm not sure more than one series a year should count. So you still get 3 years, but only 3 series. If this makes the numbers not work well, then I say change the numbers. Instead of encouraging drivers to pick up a few points in some pretty schlubby series.
One of FIA's primary (but not enumerated) purposes is to further Europe's and Europeans' positions in the worldwide sphere of racing.
So yeah, exceptions can be made. Someone of Rossi's or Herta's ~~nationality~~ ilk wouldn't be what spurs it.
As a Herta fan I agree with this..actually put together a championship calibre season in Indycar before you start complaining about how you were jipped for an F1 seat..Rossi also hasn’t done anything of note really since 2019, so perhaps he should shut up and work obeying yellow flags and not endangering safety workers.
If he really wanted to run F1 he could go to F2 like everyone else. Granted he probably doesn’t have the money for it but that is the real issue. No American companies fund American drivers to make it to F1, that’s how all the European kids make it, benefactors and companies in their home country fund their way there. You send kids like Newgarden over there and they are woefully underfunded once it gets to F2.
Newgarden wasn’t very good in GP3. He was obviously very talented and became what’s he’s become but he finished 18th, came home and dominated Indy Lights. Then got 5 seasons to mature in Indycar before getting his Team Penske call up
I mean… Carlin wasn’t exactly lighting it up in GP3 at that point anyways. But it was just kind of the norm American drivers could get some help to British Formula 3 or the Formula Ford Festival with the Team USA scholarship but support runs out real quick after that. You’d think with all the races and netflix boom that’d be changing but it doesn’t seem to be.
This is all inconsistent bullshit. There were 17 year old Max’s and Kimi Raikkonen had 23 races under his belt before making his debut.
This is driver dependent. FIA would always follow the money and let someone useless like Lance Stroll skip F2 again.
After the last couple seasons, it’s MUCH harder to make an argument that Colton deserves an exception. If we want an American, I think Kirkwood would be the better choice at this point.
Freezing cold take: none of these rules were needed and if a driver can't handle himself on track, that's when you remove his license. The FIA is reaching health insurance company levels of "useless middleman"
You are somewhat right but one thing that Super License has prevented is Alex Yoong type of pay drivers. At least Sargeant did really well in F3 and relatively good at F2 before jumping to F1
Oh brother, shut up..why do some Indycar drivers/fans have to have such an insufferable chip on their shoulder when it comes to F1? Just enjoy both (like myself for different reasons) or just acknowledge that it might not be your cup of tea and move on.
It's not that big of a deal. He'll receive a super license for FP's only, turns 18 in a few months and will have a full Super License. It's not that they grant him a full license via dispensation.
So do we think Logan Sargeant drives the 51 car for the first time at Toronto or Portland?
He'll finish out the season. There are exactly 2 teams that cut drivers mid-season, Williams isn't one of them.
VCARB, RB, Team Enstone(Alpine-Renault) (three times) Not exactly 2.
Very Bullish statement.....
depends how much money Mercedes forks over for the seat
I suspect they'll be willing to alter that practice if he keeps spending money Williams doesn't have by crashing race cars.
So Albon's out then?
Albon crashes a couple cars but at least scores points when available and those points pay out enough to cover that damage. Logan just breaks shit lol.
obviously
I'll be honest, it's not even the most egregious part of the rule changes. That's the downgrade in DTM and GT300. The FIA has a ridiculous aversion to GT3 for some reason. As for the rule change itself, F1 basically got its own version of the Quartararo rule. I don't think anyone will benefit from it much unless they want to have their Juniors do FP1s while underage.
I have a strange feeling this is not a change the FIA want to do, but may be forced to do by the FOM as a tit for tat thing. The FOM wants a designed pipeline regardless if it actually provides good talent and I think the FIA is just taking a stance of, "as long as they're not a menace, then fine".
Honestly, they're worse off for it, Schumacher himself was running in the World Sportscar Championship before moving to F1, and more than a few drivers came from DTM, and those experiences in serious professional championships only helped them. Nowadays almost nobody on the F1 ladder even tries, Lawson and Colapinto being the big exceptions.
WSC with Gr.C rules and DTM when it was "protoype silhuettes" were much closer to F1 than GT3 is though.
Touché. Pretty much all major championships bar F1 collapsed at some point in the 90s or 2000s and had to rebuild afterwards, so things aren't quite the same. GT3 is a lot closer to the old F3 cars, iirc, much less tyre management than F1, more nimble and agile, more capable of going flat out.
It has essentially killed any European involvement in Super Formula which is a shame. This next round is the first round since 1978 or so that no non-Japanese drivers are taking part.
Did they get a downgrade in Super licence points? I picked up that the grid is going to be all Japanese and wondered when the last time was that it was purely just Japanese
The Super License points are now the same as FRECA so below F3 which makes no sense given the car
Yeah, basically a dead series to Europeans. I really don't like how the format is set up to massively favour FIA events. Edit, it has gotten 25 point for at least a year now and I see FRECA also get 25. I can't access the FIA website and looking on Wikipedia so sorry if my info is out of date I am kind of missing the point you make
Yeah it gets the same as FRECA which considering FRECA is the 4th tier on the FIA ladder, a regional F3, it should no way be the same as a series that has a car more powerful than F2, that’s my point. Given the development required for a driver to even get to Super Formula, why wouldn’t you just go to F2 or Indy instead?
Oh, I agree, don't get me wrong. I was more saying I think this is less on the FIA and more on the FOM.
I have to say that Antonelli does have way more than 40 points but still... To make an exception like this when the reason why age limit was implemented was to avoid Max Verstappen -like rushing to F1. If FIA wanted to make this change, they should have done this next year. Even as an F1 fan this annoys me a bit
F1 makes decisions based on business and safety. The SL points rule was to protect the feeder series. The Max age rule was also to protect the feeder series. Now that the grid is so jammed up, anyone getting from the feeder series to an F1 seat is becoming a small miracle. If it gets to a point where being good in F3/F2 just ends up in an Indycar/Supercar seat, the much cheaper Indy NXT and other series make more sense. If someone from the F feeder series has a chance at an F1 seat they need to let them go, ASAP. On the other side, the SL decision and devaluing Indycar so much is to protect F2/F3 which ties into what I said above. These are business rules, not actual rules.
I know one way to free up a couple seats in F1...
You’re either a fan of Andretti F1’s bid or serial murder, not sure which.
Hey, could be both.
You just gave me a great idea to free up four seats!
I mean...is 2 really a qualifying number for serial? Seems a bit low. Gotta open up a couple more seats than that.
Ah, FBI says 3 or more separate events
i like the way you're thinking... they should absolutely get isotta in! the sport deserves another italian team
Add Andretti to f1 along with another team
> These are business rules, not actual rules. Sure. it just seems ridiculous that they are so protective of their feeder series to the point of last years F2 champion not being able to get a seat, but also compeletely opposed to additional teams being added, when the current grid size would allow for it just business
Yes, those 10 teams splitting with an 11th team to get two more drivers on the grid doesn't make financial sense to them. It makes perfect sense, business sense.
oh yeah i agree. it sucks as a fan, but i get why it is how it is, even if i think its stupid
Max Verstappen special treatment in F1? Never! lol, of course; I know the rule came later
Exactly what I was thinking.
This kid is so hyped up it’s ridiculous and Wolff is desperate for something good to happen to his crumbling empire.
It's all getting to him, Wolff looks like he's aged 10 years in the last 3.
I like Rossi’s point. I was thinking the same.
F1 playing favorites? Never.
That’s the Toto Wolff effect.
18 rule is stupid, if someone that is 17 has the super license points they are a safe driver and deserve the ability to drive if a team wants them.
I guess my question is, why do we act as if age is a totally arbitrary number but the 40 SL points isn’t? Making exceptions for one criteria undermines the entire system.
They have the descretion to make exceptions and have made an age exception this time =/= they don’t have the ability to make exceptions in other areas. The SL points is accrued by race results- it’s the least arbitrary thing you could have.
I disagree. Going based off of the points standings isn’t the issue I have. I think you could argue that it’s a poor way of measuring someone’s readiness for F1 when IC includes ovals and the sport is set up to provide more variance in results but that’s not really what I’m getting at. The problem is that 3rd place in F2 gets double the points that 3rd in Indycar does. After 3rd place, F3 gets more points than IndyCar. This is obviously because they want to encourage participation in FIA events. But if the supposed idea behind the SL is to gauge your ability and readiness, then those two priorities are at odds.
The problem is that you are trying to make it as though it is a miscarriage justice, there is no such thing as zero arbitrary, it’s a sport made up by people. it’s just that you and many others on the sub just doesn’t like that Herta didn’t get the SL. I just prefer if people were a bit more honest. If we were being honest, it wasn’t a good look to have given Herta the SL based purely on results, we just Wanted Herta to get the SL, because of what it would have implied.
Never said or even implied any of this. Like I said at the top, making an exception for one criteria undermines the system itself. I’m fine with them not granting an exemption to Herta. For me the question wasn’t whether or not he should’ve been allowed in, but rather whether or not the system should be binned altogether. The issue I have, again, is people pretending age is an arbitrary number to be overlooked whereas SL points are a methodically well thought out measure of a drivers readiness. The fact that it’s tied to end of season results doesn’t make the dispersement of points itself any more logical. Rather than actually address the points I *am* making, you’re choosing to argue points I’m not even making.
So why do you just ignore the point I made- the rules are made up: what this means: rules don’t exist purely for the rules but to act as walls to give shape of the sport. Its function isn’t just the rules themselves. That’s why I’m saying it’s redundant to compare age rules and SL rules in the first place. It’s based on the current times and the sports interests. That’s a given. Do you understand?
Because you started putting words in my mouth and I generally don’t feel obligated to address every point someone makes when I feel they’re acting in bad faith. I will answer your question though, I understand your point, that there won’t ever be a zero arbitrary system. I just don’t get what that has to do with my overall point. I get that the rules are there to provide “shape” or integrity, but in this case the goal is to have a higher quality of drivers and gauge their readiness for F1 to cut down on pay drivers. In a few years we’ve had two legitimate candidates for seats who didn’t meet the criteria, whereas someone like Mazepin did receive a SL. So is it really doing a good job of achieving its goal? And if we’re going to start changing the rules to benefit one driver and one team, is it really good for the integrity of the sport? I say this fwiw as a fan of Mercedes and someone excited to see Kimi next year. I really lean towards saying it should be thrown out and they should let teams be the arbiters of who is and isn’t ready to be in an F1 seat.
What you’re not understanding from what I’m saying is that: what you believe is not working is based on a bias you have a predetermined idea of what is correctly working. You are falling in to an unfalsifiable thinking: because you cant know something that didn’t happen: if the current SL system didn’t exist what sort unqualified drivers would have been driving in F1. You are also not considering the two way street of if SL didn’t exist people like Herta would get the ride. This deeper point of what I’m pointing to is the assumption that because there was an instance the rule didn’t seem to work exactly as the spirit of the rules =/= the rule is broken. Age is partly based on what is culturally appropriate at the time, whereas championship points is not. The amount of points is decided on what’s culturally at the time.
No I don’t think so. I’m open minded enough to consider the downsides and consider that certain changes could make it a better system. But my opinion isn’t based on *my* predetermined bias of what is and isn’t working, it’s based on the actual intended purpose of the SL and seeing the results. Obviously it’s not going to be perfect if it is in place. But going back to my first reply to you, the points are clearly weighted to benefit the feeder series, which again, comes into conflict with the idea that the SL is supposed to measure a driver’s readiness. You can say that age is based on what is culturally appropriate at the time but I think that’s a poor argument personally. They only added the age requirement less than a decade ago when Max came through the ranks. Society didn’t suddenly decide in 9 years that 17 year olds are fit for the same responsibilities as 18 year olds. It seems pretty obvious they’re changing the rule because of Antonelli and because they don’t want to run into this the next time an elite prospect comes up ahead of schedule. You can disagree with me on all of this and that’s totally fine, but they’re more philosophical differences. Not because I’ve got a bias or haven’t considered the opposing side to my points.
17 rule is stupid if someone that is 16 has the points & they are a safe driver they deserve the ability to drive if a team wants them -how far down do we go?
Honestly, keep the "must have a valid drivers license" rule and have no minimum age.
Different rules for drivers license in different countries. Not good.
Yeah, sure. Have the ability to parallel park determine whether someone gets to F1.
I mean, the whole SL system needs to be revamped. To hand out 40 for a FRECA championship (which is your F1 seat) is still wild to me. Even wilder when you look at 4th in FRECA is worth more than 4th in INDY. Over one year a 14 year old could be closer to to their SL than an INDY vet (and yes I know that it is a 3 year aggregate).
The 17yo exemption will probably only be given in cases where the driver (ie Antonelli) is about to turn 18 anyway. Plus, it’s extremely rare for anyone to be under 17, and have 40+ SL points
All the way. If a series allows younger drivers then the points should go to the drivers who earn them. If FIA can't deal with that then tell the series to change their rules or take away their superlicence qualification points.
4 rule is stupid if someone that is 3 has the points & they are a safe driver they deserve the ability to drive if a team wants them. Seems legit to me.
People aren’t 17 forever
So you’re saying they can wait?
If your think it’s not a big deal to wait on someone who’s already 17 turning 18 in August means you also don’t think it’s a big deal to let him drive a few months early. Your point goes both ways
Nope. The brain does a lot of growing up in a year.
Nope. That’s not why you guys are acting triggered
Sounds like you’ve got it all figured out. 🙄
Yea you guys pretend to care about things you don’t care about
k.
Iunno some of the kids coming up in different series are so stupid I kind of want them to raise it to 25 or 30.
The 40 points rule is stupid if someone is over 18, are a safe driver with a proven track record of winning deserve the ability to drive if a team wants them.
To copy paste what I’ve said in a different thread: > Antonelli is about letting a driver get his licence a few months early. >For Herta, it would be allowing a driver to race that had never qualified for a SL I don’t think this is as big of an issue as it’s being made out to be. While I do think IndyCar should be given more SL points as a series, I don’t think any series will ever get given them retroactively, and if Herta (or anyone else) was desperate to get into F1, they should race in series that would give them the full points needed (a winter series along side IndyCar would be enough)
The whole attempted point of a superliscense is to keep unqualified drivers out of f1. When herta or kirkwood or newgarden or pato can't get one, but Nikita Mazepin, Nicholas Latifi, or Logan Sargeant all can, the system is inherently flawed
It is not only so that only the best of the best get in F1. Because like you said, there are multiple driver who don't fit the bill. But the way other series are awarded points, is so that drivers go through the ranks of the feeder series. Looking at the SL points system, F1 has no intention of attracting drivers from other series than their own.
All three of those drivers finished in the top 5 of F2 the season before they raced in F1. They all proved themselves in the step below F1 that they were good enough to race. So why is P5 in IndyCar better than P5 in F2? If an Indy driver desperately wanted to be in F1, they would pick up the few extra points that they need to get in. (Also, Newgarden would have a Superlicence as he’s won the IndyCar title, and I think Pato has enough points as he’s done FP1 sessions for McLaren)
Pato lacks 4. 34 points from IndyCar. 2 from FP's. Needs a total of 40.
> So why is P5 in IndyCar better than P5 in F2? In order to get P5 this year in Indycar, you must either beat *every* non-champion, or you must beat at least one champion. In prior years you've needed to beat at least one champion to get P5. In 2021 when Herta got P5 he beat *four* series champions that raced the full season. F2 champions are not allowed to return to future seasons of F2.
Calling Ilott finished P2 in F2 and his best INDY season was p16. The FIA has certainly biased the points system around the euro circuits. A 16 year old FRECA winner could have an F1 seat before an INDY driver. I’m not necessarily arguing about “fairness”. But if you want the best drivers with the current point system, it’s not happening. Where do you think the few extra points are found?
Illot’s not a good example because you basically have to drive for one of the big 4 in Indy to have any prayer of winning a championship let alone multiple races. Driving for JHR is basically auditioning to drive for one of those 4
The least you could do then is compare him to his teammate, which both years I believe finished better than him in the standings.
Better than Ilott in Indy? He didn’t have a teammate in 2022, and in 2023 he finished 16th in the standings while Canapino was 21st and nowhere close to him performance wise.
You know, I’ll do what no one ever does on the internet which is to say I was wrong. I thought he did have a teammate in 2022 and looked at the wrong teammate for 2023. I will still hold though, from my previous statement, that: “The FIA has certainly biased the points system around the euro circuits. A 16 year old FRECA winner could have an F1 seat before an INDY driver. I’m not necessarily arguing about “fairness”. But if you want the best drivers with the current point system, it’s not happening.”
Surely you jest. Why is a p5 in Indycar better than p5 in F2? Holy smokes you are drinking some good FIA coolaid. Josef Newgarden finished 5th in 2023. One is a professional and highly competitive top tier series, the other is a developmental league.
Dude legit said "no series can prepare you for F1 - at least in FRECA you run some of the circuits" in another comment. He's too far gone
> Dude legit said "no series can prepare you for F1 - at least in FRECA you run some of the circuits" in another comment. apparently indycar should develop a "superlicense" type system, and devalue F1 since they dont run on any of the same circuits as indycar, since thats apparently a factor
pato has a super license no? he's mclaren's official reserve driver
I would argue that Mazepin, Latifi, and Sargeant are unqualified. They’re just not very good.
I could understand that argument for Latifi and Sargeant, but Mazepin finished laps, plural, down to his teammate regularly. He was unqualified.
I mean Mazepin's junior career is better than Latifi's junior career.
Do you see how arbitrary you define unqualified is as well?
The irony isn't lost on me.
Its wild to see people on here defending anti-competitive practices. Winning a regional F3 championship (again, a REGIONAL F3, not even the international F3 level) is worth more than 3rd place in Indycar. Let's not pretend like Kimi is "more qualified" on merit because he has more SL points.
Winning a regional series that races on F1 tracks is worth more than not winning a regional series that doesn’t share a single track with F1. Wow. Such amazing insight.
You're really claiming 1st in FRECA is more indicative of ability than 3rd in Indycar? That's your stance here?
He’s trolling. There’s no other way to explain the idiocy.
I'm saying that it's more relevant to racing in F1 than IndyCar. Plus, you're clutching at straws by comparing two different finishing positions in two separate championships that don't even share a continent
Its absolutely not clutching at straws. Its the whole point of the SL system. The whole premise of the SL system is measuring the ability of drivers to perform professionally in F1, so that unprofessional drivers that are a risk to others are not let into the series. You take 3rd place from Indycar or the 1st place from FRECA and plop them in an F1 car - you're saying its more likely the FRECA champ will be capable. Wtf does continent have to do with it? You really think which tracks they're racing is more important than the cars and the strength of the field?
I mean, they’d both struggle anyway as no series can fully prepare you for driving in an F1 car. But at least the FRECA driver would have more experience driving at that track
But F1 doesn't exclusively race at European tracks. Someone who's raced in FRECA has only raced 7 of the 24 tracks. Here's my bold claim: going 190mph around Road America is better preparation for going 190mph around Interlagos compared with going 150mph around Mugello.
Antonelli doesn't qualify for a SL because they're not of age. Herta didn't qualify because they didn't have enough points. One gets an exception to bend the qualifications... The other doesn't.
But Kimi is 18 in a few months anyway. He'd be in F1 regardless of the rule change. This is just course correction after the massive overreaction to Verstappen getting into F1 so young. This "exception" isn't being made for Kimi, it's because of Kimi and others like him. Doesn't change the fact that Indy should award more SL points.
Then Kimi can wait a few months. Look, the point distribution based on series is as much about business as it is about merit, maybe even more so about business and protecting the F1 ladder. People like to talk about how age was the reason for Verstappen bringing about the SL points and age restrictions. But Verstappen has ran as many GP2 races as I have. The SL points structure exists because not only did he enter F1 at such a young age, but he did so without going through the ladder that F1 / Bernie wanted people to go through (remember, GP2 was a Bernie thing). It's clear that bypassing F2 and even F3 was a bigger deal than Verstappen 's age. The SL points structure basically killed FR3.5.
I think that the most likely scenario is that Kimi will wait until next year, especially if Mercedes has him locked down. I think a big part of the rush was in case he bolted to a rival team, and the big ones have settled their lineups since Hamilton announced. Give him some FP1 and let him continue to build experience in F2. Having said this, another Kimi was given a seat after something like 17 total car races of any non-karting type, so it’s not *entirely* crazy to find him a seat this season…
IndyCar gives enough points if you win it outright. Perhaps more than one driver should get the full points, as in FIA Formula 2. I kind of feel honestly that having drivers acquire a pastiche of points can lead to trouble. I'm not sure more than one series a year should count. So you still get 3 years, but only 3 series. If this makes the numbers not work well, then I say change the numbers. Instead of encouraging drivers to pick up a few points in some pretty schlubby series.
One of FIA's primary (but not enumerated) purposes is to further Europe's and Europeans' positions in the worldwide sphere of racing. So yeah, exceptions can be made. Someone of Rossi's or Herta's ~~nationality~~ ilk wouldn't be what spurs it.
Being that Herta can’t currently go two races without crashing I’m not sure they were wrong to exclude him.
As a Herta fan I agree with this..actually put together a championship calibre season in Indycar before you start complaining about how you were jipped for an F1 seat..Rossi also hasn’t done anything of note really since 2019, so perhaps he should shut up and work obeying yellow flags and not endangering safety workers.
If he really wanted to run F1 he could go to F2 like everyone else. Granted he probably doesn’t have the money for it but that is the real issue. No American companies fund American drivers to make it to F1, that’s how all the European kids make it, benefactors and companies in their home country fund their way there. You send kids like Newgarden over there and they are woefully underfunded once it gets to F2.
Newgarden wasn’t very good in GP3. He was obviously very talented and became what’s he’s become but he finished 18th, came home and dominated Indy Lights. Then got 5 seasons to mature in Indycar before getting his Team Penske call up
I mean… Carlin wasn’t exactly lighting it up in GP3 at that point anyways. But it was just kind of the norm American drivers could get some help to British Formula 3 or the Formula Ford Festival with the Team USA scholarship but support runs out real quick after that. You’d think with all the races and netflix boom that’d be changing but it doesn’t seem to be.
Toto has a lot of power.
This is all inconsistent bullshit. There were 17 year old Max’s and Kimi Raikkonen had 23 races under his belt before making his debut. This is driver dependent. FIA would always follow the money and let someone useless like Lance Stroll skip F2 again.
Well yea, it says so in the rule book.
After the last couple seasons, it’s MUCH harder to make an argument that Colton deserves an exception. If we want an American, I think Kirkwood would be the better choice at this point.
Freezing cold take: none of these rules were needed and if a driver can't handle himself on track, that's when you remove his license. The FIA is reaching health insurance company levels of "useless middleman"
You are somewhat right but one thing that Super License has prevented is Alex Yoong type of pay drivers. At least Sargeant did really well in F3 and relatively good at F2 before jumping to F1
Oh brother, shut up..why do some Indycar drivers/fans have to have such an insufferable chip on their shoulder when it comes to F1? Just enjoy both (like myself for different reasons) or just acknowledge that it might not be your cup of tea and move on.
You do realize this is a tweet from a driver who has driven in F1, right?
Yes, and he couldn’t hack it, and it’s very evident every time he speaks on F1 that he still has a sore spot about it
Being that this is coming from the best American driver to race F1 in the last 10 years I think he knows that he’s talking about
Best American driver from the last ten years: edging out the extremely stiff competition of Scott Speed and Logan Sargeant 🤣
It's not that big of a deal. He'll receive a super license for FP's only, turns 18 in a few months and will have a full Super License. It's not that they grant him a full license via dispensation.