2018 FIA Superlicence rules

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Max wouldn't and there was a fuss kicked up when he joined so we now have these rules. Now there is a fuss because we have them.

Max just proves that it is talent that is important and the stupid points system is a total waste of everyone's time, in my book.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

I think that you have to separate the current Max with the one who stRted his first F1 weekend.

Was Max really ready, sure he is talented, but was he really ready?

I'd say no, he was missing some of the "etiquette" of racing that can only come from experience gained climbing up through the classes. For me he was allowed to jump too many, and the fact that the FIA decided to review the superlicence procedures was an admission that it shouldn't have happened, and needed to make sure that it couldn't happen again.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

I think that you have to separate the current Max with the one who stRted his first F1 weekend.

Was Max really ready, sure he is talented, but was he really ready?

I'd say no, he was missing some of the "etiquette" of racing that can only come from experience gained climbing up through the classes. For me he was allowed to jump too many, and the fact that the FIA decided to review the superlicence procedures was an admission that it shouldn't have happened, and needed to make sure that it couldn't happen again.

Max is the 2014 Formula Renault 3.5 champion.

In my book that qualifies him on any level.

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by wnut

Max is the 2014 Formula Renault 3.5 champion.

In my book that qualifies him on any level.

No, he was the 2014 FIA Formula 3 champion.

Driving a 200hp car is very different from driving a 700hp car.

[chillibowl]

question then...are superlicence points only there just to determine eligibility for F1?

rather, if a driver wants to move from F3 to say NASCAR nothing prevents them (other then being able to find/afford a ride) from changing series...so why does F1 deserve the special treatment?

[NSX_LeMans]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

No, he was the 2014 FIA Formula 3 champion.

That was Ocon. Max was 3rd.

[NaBUru38]

Wow, that's some collective intelligence!

[el_cat]

So I think if these current rules had been in play historically Kimi wouldn't have been able to start his debut, nor Massa. Alonso I think would have been cutting it a little fine (4th in F3000 and FNissan champion?). They all turned out OK.

I don't like the rules, as they are trying to make it too black and white. I think a great example is Kobayashi - wouldn't have got near a superlicence with his junior formulae results but proved to be more than capable in F1.

I'd prefer to see some kind of waivers, allowing for a minimum number of starts in F2/F3 and having demonstrated suitable pace in testing/FP1 for a set number of KM - about like the old rule.

[BSchneiderFan]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

Yes, and I disagree with that. F1 drivers should be experienced and successful in junior formula racing.



I think that F1 should forbid under-21 drivers.

Why?

[loon]

I don't see why there should be any rules just let the teams pick who they wish, a bit of variety would be welcome as everything is so prescriptive.

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by wnut

Max just proves that it is talent that is important and the stupid points system is a total waste of everyone's time, in my book.

Yes.

This is just another one of those things that makes me think that the FIA should stop listening to others.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Yes.

This is just another one of those things that makes me think that the FIA should stop listening to others.

It seems like the teams are children, they don't want the others to have it but can't stop themselves. Or kids and candy, need a rule to stop them or they'll eat it all and regret it later.

I can see the rule for making a driver 'qualify' for a license, we can all agree there have been a few TERRIBLE F1 drivers in the past and not so distant past. But in terms of teams selecting drivers, the FIA ended up doing what is a fool's errand; writing a rule for the exception. And because the teams want now, not that I blame them but now often bites later on the ass.

[Adam43]

By others I meant the media and fan bleating at the time.

FWIW (i.e. Should be ignored by the FIA) I don't think there should be a rule on championship positions of other series. I'd have the minimum criteria that the FIA has the right to grant or deny a superlicence after judgement.

I'm probably for experience guidelines rather than results. With maybe a stipulation of testing mileage. The issue shouldn't be whether the driver has won stuff as the better driver, or one with most promise, becomes attractive anyway. They can be judged on this by those who would employ the; who raced what, when, against who, in which team, etc...

However some experience is good whatever. The issue is being used to the cars and also track awareness for safety and not to get in the way. It's a little like a super-ARDS. You don't get a racing licence by setting quick times, you get it by showing you can drive sensibly, smoothly and pay attention to instruction, others around you and showing you can be in control. The quick times can come later after you've shown your not a liability.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by Adam43

However some experience is good whatever. The issue is being used to the cars and also track awareness for safety and not to get in the way. It's a little like a super-ARDS. You don't get a racing licence by setting quick times, you get it by showing you can drive sensibly, smoothly and pay attention to instruction, others around you and showing you can be in control. The quick times can come later after you've shown your not a liability.

And that is exactly what I meant when I used the phrase " racing etiquette" in my earlier post.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Adam43

By others I meant the media and fan bleating at the time.

FWIW (i.e. Should be ignored by the FIA) I don't think there should be a rule on championship positions of other series. I'd have the minimum criteria that the FIA has the right to grant or deny a superlicence after judgement.

I'm probably for experience guidelines rather than results. With maybe a stipulation of testing mileage. The issue shouldn't be whether the driver has won stuff as the better driver, or one with most promise, becomes attractive anyway. They can be judged on this by those who would employ the; who raced what, when, against who, in which team, etc...

However some experience is good whatever. The issue is being used to the cars and also track awareness for safety and not to get in the way. It's a little like a super-ARDS. You don't get a racing licence by setting quick times, you get it by showing you can drive sensibly, smoothly and pay attention to instruction, others around you and showing you can be in control. The quick times can come later after you've shown your not a liability.

Perfect sense Adam.

[S griffin]

It's a hard one when you consider Kimi came from F.Renault UK and did ok

[BSchneiderFan]

Wouldn't it be simpler if you just applied to the FIA for a superlicence and they said yes or no?

[loon]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

Wouldn't it be simpler if you just applied to the FIA for a superlicence and they said yes or no?

By far the best response!!

[ScotsBrutesFan]

Originally Posted by BSchneiderFan

Wouldn't it be simpler if you just applied to the FIA for a superlicence and they said yes or no?

Yes but under what criteria does the FIA grant the super licence, 2 examples.

Mr "My Daddy is loaded" who is buying his drives in the best teams of that category, but is average at best when the race starts.
A smaller team is interested in Mr "My Daddy is loaded" as selling their 2nd seat would help their budget massively.

Or Mr "Natural Talent" who has worked damn hard finding my own sponsors get this far. He doesn't have a lot of backing, but the bigger teams are interested in seeing if he has what it takes. The chances are however that he may only get a few tests and possibly be farmed out as a third driver as part of an engine deal and get an FP1 or two if he's very lucky.

[wnut]

Given these "stupid" rules, neither Mr DiResta or Mr Kubica should have been / should be allowed to drive in F1.

Still there is the special exception clause.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

Yes but under what criteria does the FIA grant the super licence, 2 examples.

Mr "My Daddy is loaded" who is buying his drives in the best teams of that category, but is average at best when the race starts.
A smaller team is interested in Mr "My Daddy is loaded" as selling their 2nd seat would help their budget massively.

Or Mr "Natural Talent" who has worked damn hard finding my own sponsors get this far. He doesn't have a lot of backing, but the bigger teams are interested in seeing if he has what it takes. The chances are however that he may only get a few tests and possibly be farmed out as a third driver as part of an engine deal and get an FP1 or two if he's very lucky.

Damon Hill would not have made F1 under these rules, just did not have the money.


Perhaps if the rules were fairer, and the cars had a better chance of scoring points for money, then driver talent would become more important in the equation.

Not too many pay riders in MotoGP.

[ScotsBrutesFan]

My point is that in order to have a simple apply and be told yes or no, there has to be some sort of criteria to judge who get a yes and who gets a no.

With the points system they have tried to introduce a level of competitiveness into the criteria - I'm not sure that it should be the only criteria or that the points awards are correct but at least there is something published.

It's not a brown envelope being handed over in an e-cigaratte vapour filled private club somewhere to assist an FIA delegate with the word yes, when one driver's application is looked at.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan

My point is that in order to have a simple apply and be told yes or no, there has to be some sort of criteria to judge who get a yes and who gets a no.

With the points system they have tried to introduce a level of competitiveness into the criteria - I'm not sure that it should be the only criteria or that the points awards are correct but at least there is something published.

It's not a brown envelope being handed over in an e-cigaratte vapour filled private club somewhere to assist an FIA delegate with the word yes, when one driver's application is looked at.

The problem is the FIA have tried to create a "path" to F1 and all they have actually done is ended up looking small and manipulative.

For instance Jimmy Johnson's NASCARresults over the last 3 years would not have qualified for a super licence at the beginning of this year.

2014 11th
2015 10th
2016 1st

There are 50 chartered (works) drivers in the Nascar series who run about 36 races in a year. To say someone finishing 10th against the talent NASCAR contains is unfit to race in F1 is just a bad joke. To say someone who has participated in 36 NASCAR races is unfit for F1 is a joke.

To exclude Johnson who has participated in 571 races with 83 wins over 17 years and has won 7 titles is not qualified for F1 just shows the points system is utter rubbish!

A simple letter from any of the sanctioning bodies should be more than enough.

[Adam43]

Having a quick look I think there are some caveats to the rules

Drivers who qualify for a superlicence but are then unable to secure an F1 racing seat get a three-year grace period in which their points are valid.
https://www.formula1.com/en/champion...l_drivers.html

... in exceptional circumstances, those who have not met those criteria but have demonstrated "outstanding ability in single-seater formula cars" and achieved 300 kilometres (190 miles) of running in a Formula One car.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIA_Super_Licence

I tried to find the actual regulation on the FIA website, but couldn't. The sporting regs talk about super licences a lot, but couldn't find the actual application bit. I've now decided to do something else..

If that is he case then it's a bit more along the lines what some were saying.

It's alright though as there is still plenty to moan about

[S griffin]

I remember Perry McCarthy pointing out the flaws of the superlicence rules at the time in his book. He said Gilles Villeneuve wouldn't have been able to race.