FIA confirms new F1 superlicence points system

[mario]

I'm very curious to see how the FIA structure this new Formula 2 championship. The biggest problem with GP2 is that its ranks are full of pay drivers to the point where Formula 1 teams are recruiting drivers like Kvyat and Bottas straight out of GP3. If the trend continues, the GP2 is just going to become a dumping ground for drivers who never quite made it to Formula 1.

Yes, there are accusations that the FIA is trying to marginalise the likes of Formula Renault, and to a certain extent they are. But championships like Formula Renault and GP2 are run by commercial entities outside the FIA. They're free to run their championships how they choose. But by keeping the premier series under their own control, the FIA will have full control over the costs of those series. Not only will Formula 2/3/4 be cheaper, but the bias in earning superlicence points will require more talented drivers. I suspect the FIA is trying to create a situation where there are a whole lot of talented drivers with no financial strings attached, putting pressure on Formula 1 teams to cut costs.

I am not entirely sure if bringing the series under their control would actually reduce costs in GP2 - one of the main complaints about cost inflation in GP2 is the fact that the component suppliers have a monopoly on the series and can therefore charge more or less what they want for spare parts, and there are no signs that the FIA are willing to address that issue. One of the reasons why Formula Renault 3.5 is relatively cheap by comparison is because independent component suppliers can supply parts to the teams, and that competitive edge in the supply train means that some components are substantially cheaper than the equivalent part would cost in GP2.

[tBone]

Lucas di Grassi 100

Is this a proof that Lucas di Grassi had the potential to be a ten-times world champion?

Refixed.

[Captain Hammer]

I am not entirely sure if bringing the series under their control would actually reduce costs in GP2 - one of the main complaints about cost inflation in GP2 is the fact that the component suppliers have a monopoly on the series and can therefore charge more or less what they want for spare parts, and there are no signs that the FIA are willing to address that issue. One of the reasons why Formula Renault 3.5 is relatively cheap by comparison is because independent component suppliers can supply parts to the teams, and that competitive edge in the supply train means that some components are substantially cheaper than the equivalent part would cost in GP2.

I'm not talking about cutting costs in GP2. I'm talking about cutting costs in Formula 1. By controlling the costs in Formula 2/3/4, the FIA can take the financial burden off drivers, and by stacking superlicence points in favour of those championships, they create a path of least resistance to Formula 1. In theory, this could mean that there is a glut of high quality drivers with little to no sponsor obligations. And the teams won't be able to ignore those drivers, so they will have to either find the money elsewhere or cut costs.

[wsrgo]

I'm actually reasonably happy with system. Yes, there are some talented drivers who do/would have missed out based on this system, but what I like is that there is a clearer career ladder for a young driver and key markers which drivers must prove themselves against. It places emphasis on results rather than having the proverbial silver spoon of sponsorship cash or the backing of a driver programme. It penalises Formula Renault for sure, but Formula Renault shouldn't even have to exist in the first place as for me there should be a logical ladder of FFord/F4 -> National F3 -> International F3 -> F2/GP2 -> F1. GP2 (and to a lesser extent, Indycar) should just be the series that has the best young drivers outside of F1 plain and simple; I'm not a fan of having the waters muddied by multiple series.

One thing I would change is to have a minimum championship finishing requirement for each series, e.g. you can't get into F1 by finishing 7th in GP2 for 3 seasons running and collecting the license points, instead you'd need to finish in the top 5 in GP2 at least once in that string of seasons. That would hinder any pay drivers who quite happily sit in GP2 for 4 or 5 seasons who clearly don't have the talent for F1.

Am I going against the reject spirit? Probably, but we're not in the 90s any more where there are an abundance of seats available. Competition is high and for every seat taken by a pay driver, a good driver is clearly missing out. Furthermore, since the demise of Caterham, Marussia and HRT there are no obvious backmarker teams (okay, arguably Sauber) whose performance would be negligibly affected by having a pay driver over a talent (hence, why I'm fine with Ericsson being at Caterham, but not so much him higher up the grid).

Having a single ladder will put sites like paddockscout, which exclusively cover junior formulae, out of business.

[tBone]

I am not entirely sure if bringing the series under their control would actually reduce costs in GP2 - one of the main complaints about cost inflation in GP2 is the fact that the component suppliers have a monopoly on the series and can therefore charge more or less what they want for spare parts, and there are no signs that the FIA are willing to address that issue. One of the reasons why Formula Renault 3.5 is relatively cheap by comparison is because independent component suppliers can supply parts to the teams, and that competitive edge in the supply train means that some components are substantially cheaper than the equivalent part would cost in GP2.

I'm not talking about cutting costs in GP2. I'm talking about cutting costs in Formula 1. By controlling the costs in Formula 2/3/4, the FIA can take the financial burden off drivers, and by stacking superlicence points in favour of those championships, they create a path of least resistance to Formula 1. In theory, this could mean that there is a glut of high quality drivers with little to no sponsor obligations. And the teams won't be able to ignore those drivers, so they will have to either find the money elsewhere or cut costs.

If you put it that way, could this mean the end for GP2?

[Captain Hammer]

I imagine that it would be sustained by second-tier drivers who could potentially make it in Formula 1, but wouldn't necessarily be the first choice for a drive.

[DanielPT]

I imagine that it would be sustained by second-tier drivers who could potentially make it in Formula 1, but wouldn't necessarily be the first choice for a drive.

I think it is a bit premature to rule out pay-drivers. Sure, third-tier drivers will surely be out. Max Chilton, Van der Garde and Ericsson would not be able to enter the sport. But there is still many who could. And from those, some are considered pay-drivers. Guys like Maldonado, Perez, Esteban*2, Bruno Senna and Petrov. Maybe they are better than regular pay-drivers but they rode with that tag anyway. Call them elite pay-drivers. Besides, this will only mean that those not first-tier but that can trundle along in respectable positions making the most of experience in championships like GP2. I mean, Luis Razia can still make it next year...

[Fetzie]

The whole thing is a big "f*** you" to Renault and it's championships, and basically forces drivers into the FOM-run feeder series of GP3 and GP2, or even more biased, the FIA's own series, of which the top one doesn't even exist yet. I'm certain these values will be tweaked, it's like they've not even tried to hide their biases.

This.

Here's a list of drivers eligible for a superlicence next year under the new points system. Guess who has the most points.

So Nick Heidfeld's numerous seasons in F1 don't count for anything? He would have 5 points. Or can't they take away an already earned superlicence?

[tBone]

The whole thing is a big "f*** you" to Renault and it's championships, and basically forces drivers into the FOM-run feeder series of GP3 and GP2, or even more biased, the FIA's own series, of which the top one doesn't even exist yet. I'm certain these values will be tweaked, it's like they've not even tried to hide their biases.

This.

Here's a list of drivers eligible for a superlicence next year under the new points system. Guess who has the most points.

So Nick Heidfeld's numerous seasons in F1 don't count for anything? He would have 5 points. Or can't they take away an already earned superlicence?

I believe that a super license is valid for one or two years, if I remember correctly.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

It's just been reported that Domenicali will be responsible for the new F2 series: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117322

Audi to F1 confirmed?

[Frogfoot9013]

It's just been reported that Domenicali will be responsible for the new F2 series: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117322

Audi to F1 confirmed?

Does that mean the series will have no idea what it is meant to be doing?

[Backmarker]

It's just been reported that Domenicali will be responsible for the new F2 series: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117322

Audi to F1 confirmed?

Audi supplying the engines for the new F2 series wouldn't be too much of a stretch, given they supplied the engines for the 2009-2012 series.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

And would you believe it, Renault are not impressed with the FIA's treatment of their series: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/117326

[Bleu]

Basically I like that this kind of system is in place, however the weighing of each series needs a lot to fix.

[Captain Hammer]

And would you believe it, Renault are not impressed with the FIA's treatment of their series:

Well, Renault did manage to force through the recognition of the homologation loophole. By limiting the points on offer in their series, the FIA is effectively minimising their future influence.

To me, it sounds like Renault are trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

[mario]

And would you believe it, Renault are not impressed with the FIA's treatment of their series:

Well, Renault did manage to force through the recognition of the homologation loophole. By limiting the points on offer in their series, the FIA is effectively minimising their future influence.

To me, it sounds like Renault are trying to have their cake and eat it, too.

Except Autosport claimed that it was Ferrari, not Renault, who raised and drove through the reinterpretation of the engine regulations - they quite specifically named Allison as the key figure who first brought up the lack of a homologation date within a Technical Working Group meeting - mainly because they were thought to have the weakest engine by the end of the 2014 season.

[Backmarker]

The announcement of the new super licensing rules (requiring drivers to receive 300km testing in a Formula One car built after 2011) has led to Perrinn and a European constructor to pursue building their own chassis that conform to the 2016 regulations, in order to allow drivers a chance to accumulate testing mileage in a current-regulation chassis powered by a current-regulation engine, without using up valuable testing time that the big teams can't afford to give to rookies, at a fraction of the cost.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/two-new-constructors-developing-2016-f1-cars/

I think the concept is a decent one: however, my main doubt is the engines. The F1 manufacturers (Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault, Honda) are unlikely to provide their engines for cheap enough to make this a viable project. IIRC Cosworth (and maybe Zytek) had a 2014 regulation engine ready to go, but lacked the teams to make it viable. Perrinn and the other manufacturer would then have to foot the entire bill, which starts pushing up the costs.

[TomWazzleshaw]

I think the concept is a decent one: however, my main doubt is the engines. The F1 manufacturers (Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault, Honda) are unlikely to provide their engines for cheap enough to make this a viable project. IIRC Cosworth (and maybe Zytek) had a 2014 regulation engine ready to go, but lacked the teams to make it viable. Perrinn and the other manufacturer would then have to foot the entire bill, which starts pushing up the costs.

PURE to the rescue, maybe?

[mario]

I think the concept is a decent one: however, my main doubt is the engines. The F1 manufacturers (Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault, Honda) are unlikely to provide their engines for cheap enough to make this a viable project. IIRC Cosworth (and maybe Zytek) had a 2014 regulation engine ready to go, but lacked the teams to make it viable. Perrinn and the other manufacturer would then have to foot the entire bill, which starts pushing up the costs.

PURE to the rescue, maybe?

On a serious note, Cosworth did produce a conceptual design for an F1 spec V6 engine, but have not moved much beyond that due to a lack of manufacturer support to underwrite development (the talk is that they're now using it as a basis for a new sportscar engine for Nissan instead). I think that they would probably be the only independent supplier that would be able to produce an F1 spec engine for somebody like Perrinn.

The other question that remains, though, is whether the FIA would agree to letting prospective drivers carry out tests in a car that was built to the current regulations, but was not being operated by one of the current manufacturers or taking part in an official sessions supervised by the FIA.

[CoopsII]

Whilst making it harder to get into F1 is a good idea there's no hiding from the fact that the cars these days are, relatively speaking, so easy to drive that these inexperienced kids seem to manage just fine regardless.

[SuzukiSwift]

I'm not really against younger drivers provided their talented enough. Under-20 drivers are still something of a rarity anyway...

[RonDenisDeletraz]

Looks like Gazza still has hope that he will be a F1 driver one day

[Bobby Doorknobs]

Looks like Gazza still has hope that he will be a F1 driver one day

And he is right to do so, look at André Lotterer.

[dr-baker]

Looks like Gazza still has hope that he will be a F1 driver one day

I really thought you meant Paul Gasgoine at first, and I was all confused until I clicked on the link to find out who you meant.

[mario]

Looks like Gazza still has hope that he will be a F1 driver one day

And he is right to do so, look at André Lotterer.

Under the current regulations, Lotterer qualified for a superlicence because he has finished in the top three of the Formula Nippon series within the last two years, which is one of the routes which the FIA has permitted for a number of years.

That said, I find Paffett's complaints about DTM being excluded from the FIA's planned revamp of the superlicence regulations a little odd. Under the current regulations, which have been in force for several years now, the DTM series was not included in the list of series eligible for a superlicence, so it would be surprising if the FIA were to suddenly change their stance.
If you look at di Resta, for example, he gained his superlicence through undertaking test sessions for Force India, thereby qualifying under the clause that allowed drivers to gain a licence by demonstrating they have completed at least 300km at racing speed in a current F1 car - his results in DTM were not taken into consideration when the FIA awarded his licence.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

Looks like Gazza still has hope that he will be a F1 driver one day

And he is right to do so, look at André Lotterer.

Under the current regulations, Lotterer qualified for a superlicence because he has finished in the top three of the Formula Nippon series within the last two years, which is one of the routes which the FIA has permitted for a number of years.

That said, I find Paffett's complaints about DTM being excluded from the FIA's planned revamp of the superlicence regulations a little odd. Under the current regulations, which have been in force for several years now, the DTM series was not included in the list of series eligible for a superlicence, so it would be surprising if the FIA were to suddenly change their stance.
If you look at di Resta, for example, he gained his superlicence through undertaking test sessions for Force India, thereby qualifying under the clause that allowed drivers to gain a licence by demonstrating they have completed at least 300km at racing speed in a current F1 car - his results in DTM were not taken into consideration when the FIA awarded his licence.

I will confess that I was thinking more of Paffett's age when making the Lotterer comparison than actual superlicence credentials. In all seriousness I do agree that his comments on the eligibility of the DTM are a tad strange given how different the series is to F1 compared to all the single seater series that are. Even LMP1 is closer to F1. And besides, if such a concession was granted for the DTM, it would logically have to also be granted to other series such as the WTCC, BTCC, V8 Supercars etc.

[Frogfoot9013]

I will confess that I was thinking more of Paffett's age when making the Lotterer comparison than actual superlicence credentials. In all seriousness I do agree that his comments on the eligibility of the DTM are a tad strange given how different the series is to F1 compared to all the single seater series that are. Even LMP1 is closer to F1. And besides, if such a concession was granted for the DTM, it would logically have to also be granted to other series such as the WTCC, BTCC, V8 Supercars etc.

And the FIA would probably to have to grant a concession for NASCAR if they granted a concession for the DTM, BTCC, etc.

[Klon]

In all seriousness I do agree that his comments on the eligibility of the DTM are a tad strange given how different the series is to F1 compared to all the single seater series that are. Even LMP1 is closer to F1.

Except it's not. Or to better phrase it was not. Right now it's hard to tell, given as we have no idea how the two-race system is to work for DTM this year, however before that, DTM was as close to F1 as one was ever going to get in closed-wheel racing: same weekend and race structure (if shorter), whereas WEC is, as the name implies, an actual endurance racing series. The crux of the matter is that if WEC is on the list, DTM (and the series that follow as consequence of adding it) should be too. If the FIA want to say "open-wheel or bust", then that's fair enough, but there's got to be a consistency about it.

[Bobby Doorknobs]

In all seriousness I do agree that his comments on the eligibility of the DTM are a tad strange given how different the series is to F1 compared to all the single seater series that are. Even LMP1 is closer to F1.

Except it's not. Or to better phrase it was not. Right now it's hard to tell, given as we have no idea how the two-race system is to work for DTM this year, however before that, DTM was as close to F1 as one was ever going to get in closed-wheel racing: same weekend and race structure (if shorter), whereas WEC is, as the name implies, an actual endurance racing series. The crux of the matter is that if WEC is on the list, DTM (and the series that follow as consequence of adding it) should be too. If the FIA want to say "open-wheel or bust", then that's fair enough, but there's got to be a consistency about it.

I was referring more to the nature of the cars than the race format as LMP1s have hybrid and energy recovery systems (well, the frontrunning ones do). But as you said, it was not like that before.

[Klon]

I was referring more to the nature of the cars than the race format as LMP1s have hybrid and energy recovery systems (well, the frontrunning ones do). But as you said, it was not like that before.

That is true, from a merely technological standpoint your argument is valid.