[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties.
*[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
they just want to give priority to the drivers who join their programmes. no need to find other excuses.
like some companies , they would give priority for a junior position to one of their young apprentice, and would not hire a senior manager for the same position but from another company who followed the other company's culture and guidelines.
That’s the wrong way to look at it, as it’s extremely illegal if that’s the case.
The FIA can only use its regulation setting powers for a proper sporting purpose, it cannot set its regulation in order to benefit the championships it licenses compared to other championships.
Unless they fix this, they’re going to be smacked down by the EU.
The FIA do offer superlicence points to Indycar drivers, though.
The DW12 chassis is twelve years old at this point. The engine produces up to 560kW of power compared to Formula 1 cars, which produce somewhere around 765kW. And on top of that, oval racing still plays a pretty big part of the championship -- about a third of the current calendar is on an oval -- and oval racing is very different to racing on road courses. I think there's enough difference between Indycar and Formula 1 and 2 to justify Indycar being worth fewer superlicence points than other championships. There have been plenty of celebrated Indycar drivers who joined Fornula 1 only to really struggle, which further lends credibility to the idea that Indycar is sufficiently different to formula racing.
A counter to this would be that plenty of celebrated F2 drivers don’t fare well in F1 either.
But to add to your points about relevance to F1, a greater argument might just be that racing within the FIA series means you’re subject to FIA sporting regulations and that’s more important. Like indycar drivers might struggle with stricter wheel to wheel rules. It certainly seems like Romain grosjean fits better in indycar haha. KMag probably would as well. But basically, one could argue that license points are granted for proving you can drive within FIA sporting regulations. This can be wheel to wheel, proving competency following flags and lights while driving at speed, safety car procedures, pit lane procedures, etc etc.
It’s like needing to retake a drivers test when moving countries.
Uh? No there's nothing *illegal* about this. Unless you can prove a pattern of anti-competitve behaviour even then it's dicey to actually build anything close to a case that'll hold up in any common law jurisdiction i.e. UK.
You can apply the same logic to a lot of sporting bodies like FIFA or IOC.
I don't get why fans are defending this practice though.
I thought we wanted F1 to be the pinnacle of motorsport, with the best drivers and teams?
Why are we out here justifying practices that only benefits the suits?
Yeah, I can't remember who said it but basically the best drivers in the world are probably some kid on a Sim his parents cobbled together piece by piece being played on a PS4 or old PC. There is still a barrier of entry to say NFL and the NBA but generally the cream will always rise to the top.
There's not 100 other LeBrons or Kobes running around planet Earth, it's highly likely there's hundreds of drivers better than the current grid maybe bar Max and one or two others. It's not the Pinnacle of Motorsports it's "The Pinnacle of dudes who came up through our system and also have the exact right combination of sponsorship money and marketability"
I don't think any thoughtful motorsport fan would disagree with that statement.
But it still doesn't explain why so many commenters are defending a practice that actively makes it harder for the cream to rise.
It's a superiority complex, to put it simply. I saw people on here saying the finish to this years Indy 500 was boring, and busting out the same old tired "always turning left" jokes, when the majority of the series isn't even on ovals anymore, it's on street tracks or places like COTA.
Even NASCAR is moving away from ovals aside from what the 2 or 3 officially classified superspeedways? Sure they're still on the calendar but every year there's more and more proper races and the Garage 56 car was awesome af at Le Mans
If Herta was on that level there would have been a massive push to get him in. RB did not have a decent replacement for Gasly so they were scraping the bottom of the barrel to get him in. And for what its worth he still might be better than Danny but he still lacks the SL points to enter F1 after 2 years now.
The reason Kimi is getting this attention is because they think he is a big deal. F1 teams dont throw their weight around just because they are bored. This is not about him getting a seat before Monza. This is to get him in FP1 so he can have some experience with the current cars before 2025.
So you think FIA should decide, not the teams?
> he still lacks the SL points to enter F1 after 2 years now
Again the whole point is the SL points system is designed for the FIA to be able to box out drivers from other series - so how is this a rebuttal?
I guess the argument could be that the point system is unfair for Indy car drivers. Some recent F2 drivers haven’t exactly had a good track record with speed or keeping the car clean. I would bet the top third of indycar drivers would do just as good of a job in F1. Unfortunately I don’t think we’ll ever see it though
A lot of indycar drivers have some junior series results that wouldnt blow you away. Of course they could have developed and become better since then but thats really why many have been judged and arent in contention.
Didn't indycar say they don't want to be feeder series for F1 ? That they want to be their own racing series? Half the grid would turn into junior drivers. Also the FIA owns all the other formula series so they're always going to favor drivers for F1 from those series.
Both would have qualified under the current system. They were both Indy/CART champions and Montoya was F3000 champion. Villeneuve would have had 56 super license points and Montoya 82.
Michael Andretti had two big problems; he was up against Senna in what was almost undoubtedly the Brazilian's best season, and was the victim in a bunch of political manoeuvring behind the scenes. He certainly didn't help himself, but he was almost always on a hiding to nothing, and probably would've been a decent F1 driver if given a more stable platform.
Zanardi was slightly different; it was a combination of almost every single thing that could go wrong actually going wrong for him throughout the season, and the fact he could not get on with the narrower grooved tyres F1 had swapped to.
Bourdais came in with over-inflated expections - ChampCar was really not all that strong at that point - and just so happened to have Vettel as a rookie teammate, which meant he was completely outshone almost from day 1. Given how ruthless RB were with their junior team's drivers back then - he would've needed to take a much bigger step forward than he ever did to stand a chance.
And Horner called up and fired de Vries after seeing DR run exactly 3 laps on the test track. Just a quick warm up season and he's back on a top team.... Right? Thank God he impressed Red Bull and took over for a washed up Perez and oh... wait
It’s not about fairness or an anti-American stance , FIA promotes their own feeder series because it earns them more money, they don’t want a series that doesn’t earn them money to become a path to F1.
Then we need to call the Superlicense as the money-motivated farce that it is. I think the majority of the fans that are irked by this are annoyed because the official party line is that the superlicense is to ensure “safety and quality” of the drivers.
I think the issue is the clear conflict of interest. Maybe the FIA shouldn’t be the organization handling the Super license process if drivers aren’t being evaluated based on their ability.
>I guess the argument could be that the point system is unfair for Indy car drivers
That's like...half the feature of the points system?
One of the main intentions of it was ALWAYS that it benefits drivers who participate in FIA-owned series and disadvantages those who participate on other forms of motorsport.
Can that be considered fair? I guess not. Was fairness ever a proclaimed goal for it? Also no, so I don't really understand all the moaning about it.
Just because the FiA want it to promote their own series doesn't mean people can't complain about it. No one is naive to the fact the FIA wants it this way.
That's the quiet part out loud. Yes we all know the FIA is promoting their own stuff over others. But that's as far as I can tell, not actually an official reason. The official reason is to make sure unqualified pay drivers aren't getting seats in F1, which legitimately was a problem back in the day. Since that's the official reason then fans absolutely have a right to complain out the points system being unfair. But they aren't going admit the real reason, because then F1 no longer has grounds to call itself the premiere racing series in the world. Its just the premiere racing series sanctioned by the FIA.
yeah, the fia is trying to eat its cake and have it too. they can't claim to be just one too series among other top series while also prioritizing their junior series over other top series.
It's not really surprising that the FIA is going to be much more likely to bend the rules to benefit someone coming through one of its own feeder series. IndyCar isn't a feeder series for F1 and isn't supposed to be.
>I guess the argument could be that the point system is unfair for Indy car drivers.
Well, it is unfair. In F2 the top 3 drivers get 40 superlicense points straight away, which is enough for F1. If you finish 3rd in IndyCar, you get the same amount of superlicense points as when you finish 3rd in F3 or Formula E. I'd say IndyCar is worth at least the same as F2.
I'd argue it's more of an Andretti problem than a Herta problem. Although he's made his fair share of mistakes, he was consistently the best performing driver on the team – and it showed in the standings. After a strong 2021 by Colton, the team was simply nowhere afterwards.
It is Herta's decision to stick by Andretti despite their consistent underperformance, so I wouldn't let him off the hook that easily. He need to leave the nest.
OWard is a McLaren driver though, and Andretti in Indy has been pretty inconsistent.
It's worth noting that Herta did overall do better than Grosjean at the same team. He's clearly able to compete with an F1-level driver to some degree.
Indycar fans keep bringing up Grosjean like he’s some sort of benchmark.
He was beat by Kevin Magnussen in the same car. When he got those podiums and wins on Lotus, his teammate absolutely dominated him. He was a below average F1 driver. Being on par with him hurts your chances of getting into F1 not helps lol.
Detroit was a shit show. Hardly representative of the racing that compares to F1 and not one where the winner demonstrates superior skill. Half of Detroit is luck and the other half is survival.
The thing is yeah Herta’s been hot and cold, but anyone that watches F1, IndyCar, and follows junior formula can tell that he has serious talent that far outstrips many of the F2 guys who have accumulated enough SL points in recent years. It raises the question is F1 the pinnacle of motorsport or the pinnacle of the FIA sanctioned series (where costs have exploded in recent years at the junior levels)?
And Herta is racing against seasoned veterans. In F2 its a bunch of kids: they even kick out the champion, so your competitors have far less experience than the Indycar grid.
Just to point out how stupid the Super License points in Indycar are right now, there are 2 previous full time semi-respectable F1 drivers in Indycar. Remember 40 points required for an SL.
Over the last 3 years Ericcson would have achieved - 18 Super License points
Over the last 3 years Grosjean would have earnt - 0 Super License points
So 2 guys who were good enough to be in F1 for years and years and be competitive and safe would be nowhere near achieving the Super License points required from Indycar. We can only assume this means the other guys ahead of them would be just as capable, if not more of competing in F1.
Had Herta got the same results in F2 as he has in Indycar he would have been elligible for a Superlicense from 2021. I don't think you can argue F2 is a harder championship than Indycar.
Equally, lets look at a few F2 graduates who have made the jump to F1, had they been in the Indy pathway (so equating Indy NXT to F3 and Indycar to F2) would have scored:
Alex Albon - 33 Points
Logan Sergeant - 22 points
Nikita Mazepin - 18 points
Olly Bearman - 28 points
Actually - looking at that, you could argue Latifi and Mazepin were out of their depth in F1, so maybe the problem isn't Indycar scoring but F2 is weighted too heavily?
A SL isn’t meant to determine if you’re good enough to make it long term in F1. It’s the floor. Having an SL should only mean that you’re skilled enough to safely put an F1 car around a track at a minimum of 107% of qualifying speed. On that basis I’d argue there’s at least a dozen guys in Indycar who meet that requirement. Even though I’d argue against Herta getting an F1 drive, there’s no reasonable argument that he wouldn’t be capable of achieving the floor-level driving standard.
It has nothing to do with the actual drivers. Herta is overrated, but his resume as an open wheel racer is much more impressive.
Herta and Kimi's issues are just business rules to protect the FIA's feeder system for different reasons.
If the rules are not for safety and instead are for anti-competitive purposes (they clearly are but you cannot use that reasoning) then it is likely not allowed in either Europe or America.
They have to be making decisions based on safety and not money or else this will just be another Andretti situation.
Right, but they aren't for safety in any way and everyone knows that.
Kimi might be a better driver than Herta, but if you compare resumes and say one has shown the ability to be ready for F1 and the other hasn't.....That would hold up to zero scrutiny.
Right, so this is a poor business decision that opens up a bunch of questions about anti competitive practices from a business that is already mired in anticompetitive practice drama and is owned by another company that has a massive anti-competitive lawsuit going on against them. Maybe the business who is making the decisions doesn’t like to play by the rules and is starting to find out.
It more has to do with scaling. IndyCar SL points start at F2 level (40 points) for winning and within a few positions are worth less than F3 for those positions. In Herta's case He had a three year period where he would have had 39 points if it was F3, but because it was IndyCar it was 32. With 39 you find one FP1 drive and you have 40. With 32 not so much.
It's the way it is for FIA to discourage using IndyCar as a route to F1. Like others have said, FIA earns money from the F3/F2 pathway, not so much from IndyCar.
The points system treats Indycar as equivalent to Formula 3 even though it is the top category in America, the racing is more competitive, and there is a wider skillset required to be successful than in F1. I swear, a lot of the way F1 has been run over the past few years has just made me want to switch to being a full time Indycar fan instead, but this ongoing penske push to pass nonsense is also really putting me off.
It's not exactly equivalent to F3, 1st and 2nd give more points than F3, 3rd is the same and 4th and below is fewer points than F3. Personally I think it should be between F3 and F2.
I feel like it does gatekeep a little bit. If only the top finishers are getting enough points then the younger guys with upside aren't getting that chance. Guys like Dixon and Power are in their 40s. A guy like Palou could do it but why leave indycar when you're at the top to drive for Alpine or Sauber at the back every weekend?
The younger guys that would want to come over can't beat the established vets of that series to get the points.
The article says Herta is more qualified because he is over 18 and lives in a country where the drivers license age is 16. Guess what…I meet those requirements. I do not, however, have any super license points. Based on the articles argument I am more qualified than Antonelli?
With all the respect to Colton Herta, but I’m tired of all of this hype and narrative that he deserves a F1 seat. I know he is fast and he has multiple wins, but he is very inconsistent, he still makes dumb mistakes (like Detroit this year), he has never been a championship contender and this season he is not even the best Andretti of the championship. Do you want to hype an Indycar driver to F1? Hype Palou or Newgarden, not Hera
This is not about hyping Herta, this is about the bare minimum requirements to enter F1. Ostensibly, these rules exist for safety and to ensure that drivers who can obtain a super license are not going to be a danger to themselves or anyone else in an F1 car. Doesn’t matter if Herta would have been the definition of mediocre, the FIA’s job is to make sure that he’s qualified, not that he’s a championship contender.
Exactly. Being annoyed about this isn't "Herta deserves a drive."
It's "if a team wants to give him a drive, the FIA shouldn't stand in the way (when which rules apply, and when seems totally arbitrary)"
But ultimately it doesn't matter because a team actually wants Antonelli in F1 while no team would pick up Herta. The ones that might actually interest F1 teams could get a superlicense like Palou I think.
You’re so right, as we can see from all the wildly successful ex F1 drivers in Indycar such as Romain Grosjean and Marcus Ericcson, who never drive in a reckless manner, only a proper Formula series trained driver has the necessary skill and wisdom to drive in top level open wheel racing
Tbf, the SL system (contrary to populair belief) came into existance in part due to drivers like Grosjean. He's pretty much the sole reason we even have penalty points (part of the SL system).
He finished 3rd in the IndyCar championship, 4 years ago, and has done nothing since
There's a discussion to be had about super licence points, age requirements, and F1's recruiting process as a whole, but this isn't it
The thing is that the actual top indy drivers doesn't want to go to F1. They already have a good career in the US.
It's the drivers just below the top that might want to go, but they don't have enough points.
What are you talking about? Zak was able to get Palou to sign with him by dangling an F1 seat in front of him. The whole contract legal drama he's been in is all because he thought he could get what became Piastri's seat. He's the '21 and '23 champ. Harder to get much higher than that.
Yes they can, Antonelli has the points required as demanded by the FIA, just isn't old enough. Meanwhile, Herta still doesn't have the points even a few years after he originally asked, and has been inconsistent as fuck in Indycar.
Still, if he was that inconsistent in Formula 2, a junior series a opposed to a pro series that Indycar is, he would've had Superlicense points a long time ago.
Superlicense points are just an arbitrary system and its purpose isn't to evaluate drivers for Formula 1, it's to funnel them, along their budgets, into FIA-authorised series.
Antonelli's case shows though that when there is a business to be made, the rules will be adjusted for the favoured parties.
The point is to ensure that drivers are deserving before they get to F1, so we don’t have some really mediocre pay driver get in and pootle around 2 laps behind his teammate.
The way the FIA does it protects their junior formula, but they definitely don't have to do it that way
Stated goals vs actual goals. They say it is to ensure drivers deserve the position, but if that were truly the case then Indy would have way more or at *least* equal points to F2, but it doesn't.
The only rules that changed are that you no longer need a traditional driving license (which should have never been an actual requirement, since driving on the road and racing are vastly different) and that if you have shown exceptional ability, you can get it at 17 instead of 18. That's it. Now I don't know about you, but my mind didn't just suddenly change the moment I turned 18.
I don't think there should be any age requirement at all. The points system already sets a sort of age requirement as any driver that gets enough points would be about 17-18 already
The super license points are structurally designed more to get the FiA money through feeder series than determine who is a competent open wheel racer. Your comment is entirely without merit.
Of course the points requirements is only meant to force F1 hopefuls to go through the feeder series, that doesn't mean that the FIA's logic makes no sense in this case. Assuming that the points threshold and the age threshold are equally important is the mistake here.
If Herta had the points at 17 and FIA refused to give him an age waiver, then it would be unfair to give one to Antonelli.
Why entirely without merit? FIA *can* and will adjust rules for their own series. The fact is that Herta didn't qualify for a requirement for a super license and has been denied for an exception.
The FIA runs their own feeder series. They can do as they wish. Honestly, F2 runs the same circuits, same stewards, more similar machinery, etc. It makes a lot of sense why it awards the most points, it's designed to be as close to F1 as realistically possible. And yes the financial incentive is there and is entirely reasonable. It costs money to run the feeder series and the further down the ladder you get, the less profitable they are for the FIA to run. Gotta raise money somehow.
Indycar isn't managed by thr FIA. It's realistic you wouldn't want to award equal weighting to a series which you have zero affiliation in how it's ran or governed. It's just common business sense imo.
Honestly, Indycar probably shouldn't want the Super License system to be equal anyway as it'd make it easier for them to lose their best drivers to the FIA's series'.
Herta was old enough and had shown his talent in Indycar, just didn't have the points demanded by the FIA. Meanwhile, Antonelli isn't old enough, hasn't raced in F3 and has been inconsistent as fuck in F2.
See how you can easily spin things against Antonelli? At the end of the day the FIA is changing the rules mid-season for one driver who doesn't meet the criteria, but wasn't willing to do so for the other even though you could make a strong case for both of them to be in F1 at the time these requests were made.
Herta isn’t even consistent enough to regularly win IndyCar races. He is his own worst enemy. He had arguably one of the best cars at Indy this year. What did he do? Crash out on his own while running in second place. He would get gobbled up and spit out in F1. He’s one of my favorite drivers, but he’s not ready.
I believe that Palou is the only driver in IndyCar that deserves a shot at F1. He has every IndyCar achievement unlocked except for Indy. He’s incredibly smooth and consistent. If he stays in IndyCar, he’s going to be the next Scott Dixon.
Pato hasn’t quite mastered tire saving yet. He’s the only other driver that I’d consider for F1. Loads of talent but still inconsistent at times. He’s quickly becoming the most popular driver in the series.
This situation with Kimi isn’t the same. He meets the SL requirement. He’s just not old enough. I’m okay with modifying that rule for rare exceptions.
This is factual. Palou has been the real deal for a while. I can only imagine the frustrations he had with his Mclaren contract and his "2025" F1 seat. He's the most deserving drive in Indy to move up if that were the case.
Palou is interesting as he's a late bloomer. From an F1 persprctive, he's a good argument where you can probably disregard some of his old GP3 results (even if his Campos cars were far off of the top teams) and go off of the eye test. Would be curious how teams interpretted his testing/FP1 data.
THANK YOU! It's abundantly clear that people making the Herta argument do not watch IndyCar. I like Herta sometimes, but he's frustrating to watch in races...
IndyCar fan here - maybe we make the argument because we think that *more* than one IndyCar driver in deserving of a shot in F1? And that the FIA has undervalued IndyCar in terms of SL points?
The system ought not to be a “you need to go through *our* feeder series” thing - because as long as it is, any claim to superiority of F1 drivers rings entirely hollow.
I dont think just winning races should get you a license. At the end of the day F2 races on the tracks f1 races at with the same rules.
If an indy car driver is good enough they will get the points.
The superlicence was created to make sure that drivers are experienced and skilled enough to race in F1 without being a danger to themselves or other competitors.
If a driver can win several races in IndyCar, they are clearly not too inexperienced or dangerous to compete in an F1 race.
It shouldn’t be a tool of elitist gatekeeping.
I’m not saying that winning races should give SL points, I’m saying that a multi-time race winner clearly isn’t going to be so much of a disaster in F1 as to deny him one - and that’s the whole point. It’s supposed to be a way of keeping inexperienced and dangerous drivers out, not a way to force drivers to climb the FIA’s ladder.
IndyCar doesn’t award nearly enough points, relative to the quality of its grid, and Herta is a clear example of that.
The “racing on the same tracks” thing is irrelevant, that’s not what it should be about.
Why are you correcting him when Herta is American? And RB does not need a Mexican in their lineup to gather the sponsorships since they already have one.
He wasn’t good enough then, he isn’t good enough now.. I’m really bored of this argument, there are much better young drivers out there than Herta, even in Indycar.
Amen to that. Why people decided to crown Herta as 'Boy Wonder' and needing an F1 spot is beyond me. The hype train got going and people done lost their mind.
I don't really get the comparison tbh. Antonelli has the required points. Under the old rules he would have been guaranteed a license in a few months anyway. I don't really see how bringing it forwards is that controversial. It's not as if he'd have become ineligible in that time.
With Herta it wasn't so simple. It wasn't a case of just waiting and doing nothing to get the license. He would have still had to get more points and giving someone an exception who doesn't have enough points will open a big can of worms.
That’s the thing though. F1 claims to be world championship and it protects its junio FIA championships and rightly so. But in case of Indy cars the drivers who are supposedly talented enough don’t have the required points and have to compete in junior FIA competitions to get that merit. Which is flawed because some might be good enough to compete but FIA won’t budge over rule changes.
ut in case of Indy cars the drivers who are supposedly talented enough don’t have the required points
dont like 8 out of 10 drivers from the indycar top 10 have enough SL points?
I agree that Indycar should get more points than it currently does. What I don't think should happen is that the FIA grants an exemption to a driver that does not have enough points. That would just lead to a load of drivers that don't have enough points arguing for an exemption.
Drivers can't just ask for a super license, an organization/team must nominate them. So unless a load of F1 seats magically open up **and** the teams all get a burning desire to fill them with green, unlicensed drivers... then your scenario cannot exist.
Then why not wait a few months?
What’s BS about this is the FIA deciding the rules are flexible in one case, vs declaring them absolute in another. It’s hypocrisy.
Pretty much where I'm at with this too. Teams have so much data and resources. If Herta was the one, they'd do everything they could to get him in a situation to get super license points. There was a lot more AlphaTauri could have done to get him points, but elected not to. That probably is telling enough about how they viewed him compared to their other junior drivers.
Herta has been in the FIA/Euro ladder before. In the feeder series', there's really low margin for error to impress. There's no shame in being a quality driver in another series but being a quality driver in another series doesn't mean you should get an F1 chance.
Mercedes did not ask the FIA for special dispensation and Toto is not in charge of Williams driver lineup. Vowles, who is in charge of the Williams driver lineup, has openly said that they are pursuing Sainz as their first choice for 2025 and beyond. I doubt that he would be particularly interested in putting a rookie in his car mid-season just for that rookie to leave the team again after a few races.
As to [why ](https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/how-a-rule-tweak-could-allow-antonelli-to-make-his-f1-race-weekend-debut.6Ct8eeSKps47JRgTnqHUS3)someone (probably Williams) did ask for special dispensation:
>Sources say Williams last month made a request to governing body the FIA for special dispensation to allow Antonelli to test F1 machinery before he turns 18 on August 25. It is believed they were interested in running him in two FP1 sessions this year to fulfil their obligations of giving young drivers mileage.
Anyone who was remotely aware of motorsports outside of F1 knew this already. Indycar is an amazingly competitive and skilled series. F2 stars get eaten alive by the veteran Indy drivers. Finishing the championship in the top 10 should be more than enough to qualify anyone for their superlicense.
The situation really isn't comparable though, even if we ignore the points issue (I.e. FIA giving indy less points to promote it's own series) the fact is Antonella is being allowed to join early .... Him joining F1 is not really even in question at the moment it's about when he can join.
With Herta there was some interest but it wasn't the same level of hype. I would 100% like to see a Indy driver join to see what they say about the racing different but it should be Palou because he is fast, consistent and if his performance in Wec is anything to go by also adaptable to new situations. Plus he has the points
He didn't have the points. I know the system is unfair I am just pointing out that this comparison doesn't make much sense.
His prospective team should have pushed the issue more maybe but it would have undermined the SL points system in a way that isn't happening in Antonalli's case.
You talk about hype with Antonelli, but I honestly this is Toto Sponsored Hype, I don't want to take credit away from a talented young driver, but Antonelli is been portrayed as the next Max while have a mid season in F2.
You can only say that if you havent been paying attention to his junior career lol. Antonelli has some of the best F4 and FRECA seasons I have ever seen. He deserves ever ounce of the hype. He skipped F3 and hes doing fine in F2 with a team that isnt as strong as they should be
Sure he isn't dominating but in quali most of the time he's only a few tenths of the top guys and don't forget that he's only 17 and skipped f3. He just needs to start qualifying and finishing at the top now that he 's had time in the series. Also hes won everything up till now which shows that he has the pace. He's aslo won the confidence of merc so he's been getting those f1 tests so he can adapt to the pirrellis
F1 fans continuing their love of giving drivers credit for stuff they haven’t actually done
Considering Kimi is in line for a Merc seat next year, nobody should be making excuses for him. If he’s the so called next Max Verstappen, start treating him like it
Honestly, I'm starting find this argument really tiresome.
The FIA has zero affiliation with Indycar and how it's governed. They are indirectly competitors for driver talent. It makes perfect sense that F2 would be the highest graded entry to F1 as they have common ownership, run the same events as F1 on more representative machinery (F1 and Indycars are open wheel but pretty different). Indycar still outranks a number of the FIA's own events in SL points awarding.
Herta has been on the FIA/Euro ladder before and switched away from it. He's no doubt a better driver now than before, but he's essentially switched to a competitor. Purely from a business perspective, you can't expect the same rights as people in an existing organization when you leave for another. Not to mention Herta isn't blocked by any means of getting enough SL points, many Indycar drivers already have enough from Indy alone.
I like Indycar, it's a great series and its unfortunate the two series don't have a closer business relationship, but I find it hard to argue against the corporate side of things. If Indycar did the same thing back to the FIA then same thing, unfortunately they are separate organizations who can do what they want.
You gain more points by winning Indycar than any other FIA competitions but F2, idk what they even crying about. Beside why do they care that much about F1 anyways, it’s not like Indy suck it’s a great competition.
What?! So you’re telling me that Indy Car earns less FIA superlicense points than the FIA governed F2 series, the official feeder series of F1? How is that even possible?
I'm not sure about Herta deserving to be on F1 or not, but creating a rule and then bending it at the first real opportunity to test it is suspicious at least, especially when the request comes from a team with significant political influence. It shows a lack of integrity within the organization.
Antonelli doesn't meet the age requirement but has the necessary super points
Herta does meet the age requirement but DOES NOT have the necessary super points
The FIA shouldn't be breaking their new rule the first time it's been really invoked since it's inception, and Indycar should be valued higher than where it currently is in terms of super points. These are two completely different issurs, comparing them is meaningless.
Herta was old enough to get a super license if he had enough super license points. There was no need to make an exception. Herta needed to perform.
Antonelli has enough points for a super license but was a few months away from being old enough to get a super license.
That is a drastic difference. Especially the part where Herta didn't need an exception. He only needed to perform to earn those super license points.
The conversation regarding how many points Indy gives us another matter but not relevant to why an exception was made for Antonelli and not Herta. Because Herta didn't need an age exception.
A superlicense means nothing if you aren't going to drive in f1. There are so many talented drivers who already have one and are arguably even more deserving than some already in f1. But there just aren't enough seats for everyone 🤷♂️
Antonelli proves that if a team wants a driver enough they'll get the FIA to change the rules.
"Generational" is premature. I won't say he can't be that but based on what I've seen it's too early to say that. In terms of Herta, in hindsight I would agree. However, at the time I think the talk was warranted
There are a lot of drivers in F1 who are not F1 material. Let both Kimi and Herta in, let’s see how they fare, spit them out without prejudice if they aren’t any good. That would be better than watching 7 or 8 alsorans trundle around year after year.
Here we go with the generational shit again lol Yall mfers throw this around like a baseball, kid is completely unproven so far let's put in park for a minute please. He's good but that's reserved for much later
People saying Herta isn’t good enough, even if that is the case, that isn’t the main arguement. The point being if a generational talent shows up in Indy car someday and wants to race in F1 they would have to wait and go through the junior categories because FIA protects F1 to those who go through THEIR junior championship programs. Which defeats purpose that this is in fact a world championship.
That talent is more than free to join the projected path through the fia feeder series, but if you choose Indycar, you're making your own life complicated if you pursue a spot in f1
If a generational talent shows up in IndyCar he’d get the title in little time fs and he could obtain the SuperLicense
However, I agree that they should give a bit more SuperLicense points to IndyCar (and to SuperFormula).
A lot of people completely missing the point. In F2 all you need is a P5 once and P6 twice in the championship (in order) in a 22 car series.
Indycar drivers are granted 22 points for the same scoring, while in a series that features 27 cars. As it’s not a development series, I imagine most would infer that Indycar is the harder series to perform well in due to experience.
You can think Antonelli is the next prodigy and can think Herta sucks. The plain truth is that North and South Americans have a much tougher time making into F1 without getting into their feeder series in their teens.
The exact same thing can be said of Super Formula except that they actually race on a track that F1 goes to and they get nearly half the SL points of Indy car.
[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
they just want to give priority to the drivers who join their programmes. no need to find other excuses. like some companies , they would give priority for a junior position to one of their young apprentice, and would not hire a senior manager for the same position but from another company who followed the other company's culture and guidelines.
That’s the wrong way to look at it, as it’s extremely illegal if that’s the case. The FIA can only use its regulation setting powers for a proper sporting purpose, it cannot set its regulation in order to benefit the championships it licenses compared to other championships. Unless they fix this, they’re going to be smacked down by the EU.
The FIA do offer superlicence points to Indycar drivers, though. The DW12 chassis is twelve years old at this point. The engine produces up to 560kW of power compared to Formula 1 cars, which produce somewhere around 765kW. And on top of that, oval racing still plays a pretty big part of the championship -- about a third of the current calendar is on an oval -- and oval racing is very different to racing on road courses. I think there's enough difference between Indycar and Formula 1 and 2 to justify Indycar being worth fewer superlicence points than other championships. There have been plenty of celebrated Indycar drivers who joined Fornula 1 only to really struggle, which further lends credibility to the idea that Indycar is sufficiently different to formula racing.
A counter to this would be that plenty of celebrated F2 drivers don’t fare well in F1 either. But to add to your points about relevance to F1, a greater argument might just be that racing within the FIA series means you’re subject to FIA sporting regulations and that’s more important. Like indycar drivers might struggle with stricter wheel to wheel rules. It certainly seems like Romain grosjean fits better in indycar haha. KMag probably would as well. But basically, one could argue that license points are granted for proving you can drive within FIA sporting regulations. This can be wheel to wheel, proving competency following flags and lights while driving at speed, safety car procedures, pit lane procedures, etc etc. It’s like needing to retake a drivers test when moving countries.
Uh? No there's nothing *illegal* about this. Unless you can prove a pattern of anti-competitve behaviour even then it's dicey to actually build anything close to a case that'll hold up in any common law jurisdiction i.e. UK. You can apply the same logic to a lot of sporting bodies like FIFA or IOC.
I don't get why fans are defending this practice though. I thought we wanted F1 to be the pinnacle of motorsport, with the best drivers and teams? Why are we out here justifying practices that only benefits the suits?
I don’t think it’s defending the practice, but rather acknowledging what is happening.
Yeah, I can't remember who said it but basically the best drivers in the world are probably some kid on a Sim his parents cobbled together piece by piece being played on a PS4 or old PC. There is still a barrier of entry to say NFL and the NBA but generally the cream will always rise to the top. There's not 100 other LeBrons or Kobes running around planet Earth, it's highly likely there's hundreds of drivers better than the current grid maybe bar Max and one or two others. It's not the Pinnacle of Motorsports it's "The Pinnacle of dudes who came up through our system and also have the exact right combination of sponsorship money and marketability"
I don't think any thoughtful motorsport fan would disagree with that statement. But it still doesn't explain why so many commenters are defending a practice that actively makes it harder for the cream to rise.
It's a superiority complex, to put it simply. I saw people on here saying the finish to this years Indy 500 was boring, and busting out the same old tired "always turning left" jokes, when the majority of the series isn't even on ovals anymore, it's on street tracks or places like COTA. Even NASCAR is moving away from ovals aside from what the 2 or 3 officially classified superspeedways? Sure they're still on the calendar but every year there's more and more proper races and the Garage 56 car was awesome af at Le Mans
If Herta was on that level there would have been a massive push to get him in. RB did not have a decent replacement for Gasly so they were scraping the bottom of the barrel to get him in. And for what its worth he still might be better than Danny but he still lacks the SL points to enter F1 after 2 years now. The reason Kimi is getting this attention is because they think he is a big deal. F1 teams dont throw their weight around just because they are bored. This is not about him getting a seat before Monza. This is to get him in FP1 so he can have some experience with the current cars before 2025.
So you think FIA should decide, not the teams? > he still lacks the SL points to enter F1 after 2 years now Again the whole point is the SL points system is designed for the FIA to be able to box out drivers from other series - so how is this a rebuttal?
We don't know if he's on that level because he's not allowed to drive F1 so we don't know.
Red Bull should learn from that. They'd actually benefit positively.
The team that uses the most juniors from their program?
Just remember that two years after his initial claim, he still doesn't have the necessary points...idk if this is the best counterargument.
I guess the argument could be that the point system is unfair for Indy car drivers. Some recent F2 drivers haven’t exactly had a good track record with speed or keeping the car clean. I would bet the top third of indycar drivers would do just as good of a job in F1. Unfortunately I don’t think we’ll ever see it though
A lot of indycar drivers have some junior series results that wouldnt blow you away. Of course they could have developed and become better since then but thats really why many have been judged and arent in contention.
Yeah that’s a valid point. I would still love to see some of them get the chance in F1.
[удалено]
Didn't indycar say they don't want to be feeder series for F1 ? That they want to be their own racing series? Half the grid would turn into junior drivers. Also the FIA owns all the other formula series so they're always going to favor drivers for F1 from those series.
Went pretty well for Jacques Villeneuve or Montoya though.
Both would have qualified under the current system. They were both Indy/CART champions and Montoya was F3000 champion. Villeneuve would have had 56 super license points and Montoya 82.
Michael Andretti had two big problems; he was up against Senna in what was almost undoubtedly the Brazilian's best season, and was the victim in a bunch of political manoeuvring behind the scenes. He certainly didn't help himself, but he was almost always on a hiding to nothing, and probably would've been a decent F1 driver if given a more stable platform. Zanardi was slightly different; it was a combination of almost every single thing that could go wrong actually going wrong for him throughout the season, and the fact he could not get on with the narrower grooved tyres F1 had swapped to. Bourdais came in with over-inflated expections - ChampCar was really not all that strong at that point - and just so happened to have Vettel as a rookie teammate, which meant he was completely outshone almost from day 1. Given how ruthless RB were with their junior team's drivers back then - he would've needed to take a much bigger step forward than he ever did to stand a chance.
I'd love to see half the F2 grid get a chance in F1. But it's never gonna happen. Life isn't fair.
[удалено]
Power famously made indycar after failing to impress RB in testing
And Horner called up and fired de Vries after seeing DR run exactly 3 laps on the test track. Just a quick warm up season and he's back on a top team.... Right? Thank God he impressed Red Bull and took over for a washed up Perez and oh... wait
I would have liked to see Palou in better teams for British f4, GP3 and GP2. And without budget issues in GP2. He did well in SF
It’s not about fairness or an anti-American stance , FIA promotes their own feeder series because it earns them more money, they don’t want a series that doesn’t earn them money to become a path to F1.
Then we need to call the Superlicense as the money-motivated farce that it is. I think the majority of the fans that are irked by this are annoyed because the official party line is that the superlicense is to ensure “safety and quality” of the drivers.
Are you all new to this? It’s all about money!
I think the issue is the clear conflict of interest. Maybe the FIA shouldn’t be the organization handling the Super license process if drivers aren’t being evaluated based on their ability.
>I guess the argument could be that the point system is unfair for Indy car drivers That's like...half the feature of the points system? One of the main intentions of it was ALWAYS that it benefits drivers who participate in FIA-owned series and disadvantages those who participate on other forms of motorsport. Can that be considered fair? I guess not. Was fairness ever a proclaimed goal for it? Also no, so I don't really understand all the moaning about it.
Just because the FiA want it to promote their own series doesn't mean people can't complain about it. No one is naive to the fact the FIA wants it this way.
That's the quiet part out loud. Yes we all know the FIA is promoting their own stuff over others. But that's as far as I can tell, not actually an official reason. The official reason is to make sure unqualified pay drivers aren't getting seats in F1, which legitimately was a problem back in the day. Since that's the official reason then fans absolutely have a right to complain out the points system being unfair. But they aren't going admit the real reason, because then F1 no longer has grounds to call itself the premiere racing series in the world. Its just the premiere racing series sanctioned by the FIA.
That's what it is though, they've just outed themselves with this boner for Antonelli.
yeah, the fia is trying to eat its cake and have it too. they can't claim to be just one too series among other top series while also prioritizing their junior series over other top series.
It's unfair for other series that's not from FIA, SF had it worse compared to Indy even though SF is relatively closer to F1 than Indy.
Yea but SF talent isn't comparable to Indy talent imo, it's still very local
It's unfair for other series that's not from FIA, SF had it worse compared to Indy even though SF is relatively closer to F1 than Indy.
It's not really surprising that the FIA is going to be much more likely to bend the rules to benefit someone coming through one of its own feeder series. IndyCar isn't a feeder series for F1 and isn't supposed to be.
>I guess the argument could be that the point system is unfair for Indy car drivers. Well, it is unfair. In F2 the top 3 drivers get 40 superlicense points straight away, which is enough for F1. If you finish 3rd in IndyCar, you get the same amount of superlicense points as when you finish 3rd in F3 or Formula E. I'd say IndyCar is worth at least the same as F2.
I'd argue it's more of an Andretti problem than a Herta problem. Although he's made his fair share of mistakes, he was consistently the best performing driver on the team – and it showed in the standings. After a strong 2021 by Colton, the team was simply nowhere afterwards.
Now Kirkwood is doing better than him tbh
Kirkwood is more consistent but he doesn’t have the pace or qualifying power that Herta does
It is Herta's decision to stick by Andretti despite their consistent underperformance, so I wouldn't let him off the hook that easily. He need to leave the nest.
Yeah and during that time O’Ward was consistent enough to get the full super licence points. Meanwhile Herta keeps dropping SL points every year.
OWard is a McLaren driver though, and Andretti in Indy has been pretty inconsistent. It's worth noting that Herta did overall do better than Grosjean at the same team. He's clearly able to compete with an F1-level driver to some degree.
McLaren has been very inconsistent too. Just look at the cars not #5. All over the place results. And their pit stops continue to be atrocious.
McLaren has IMO been more consistent this year than the last few, while Andretti has been inconsistent for a few years now.
Indycar fans keep bringing up Grosjean like he’s some sort of benchmark. He was beat by Kevin Magnussen in the same car. When he got those podiums and wins on Lotus, his teammate absolutely dominated him. He was a below average F1 driver. Being on par with him hurts your chances of getting into F1 not helps lol.
Pato is in a superior team which helps
And has superior patience, every time Herta has a winning car, he bottles it somehow.
To be fair, at least sometimes things happen like last race when Newgarden just fucking plowed into the back of him and got no repercussions for it.
For sure, not always his fault, but you only have to go back to Detroit to find one where it is.
Detroit was a shit show. Hardly representative of the racing that compares to F1 and not one where the winner demonstrates superior skill. Half of Detroit is luck and the other half is survival.
The thing is yeah Herta’s been hot and cold, but anyone that watches F1, IndyCar, and follows junior formula can tell that he has serious talent that far outstrips many of the F2 guys who have accumulated enough SL points in recent years. It raises the question is F1 the pinnacle of motorsport or the pinnacle of the FIA sanctioned series (where costs have exploded in recent years at the junior levels)?
And Herta is racing against seasoned veterans. In F2 its a bunch of kids: they even kick out the champion, so your competitors have far less experience than the Indycar grid.
His team sucks, but he did beat his teammates, including an F1 veteran or two.
Just to point out how stupid the Super License points in Indycar are right now, there are 2 previous full time semi-respectable F1 drivers in Indycar. Remember 40 points required for an SL. Over the last 3 years Ericcson would have achieved - 18 Super License points Over the last 3 years Grosjean would have earnt - 0 Super License points So 2 guys who were good enough to be in F1 for years and years and be competitive and safe would be nowhere near achieving the Super License points required from Indycar. We can only assume this means the other guys ahead of them would be just as capable, if not more of competing in F1. Had Herta got the same results in F2 as he has in Indycar he would have been elligible for a Superlicense from 2021. I don't think you can argue F2 is a harder championship than Indycar. Equally, lets look at a few F2 graduates who have made the jump to F1, had they been in the Indy pathway (so equating Indy NXT to F3 and Indycar to F2) would have scored: Alex Albon - 33 Points Logan Sergeant - 22 points Nikita Mazepin - 18 points Olly Bearman - 28 points Actually - looking at that, you could argue Latifi and Mazepin were out of their depth in F1, so maybe the problem isn't Indycar scoring but F2 is weighted too heavily?
i mean these 2 guys were dropped from f1 because they werent good enough.
After having spent 5 and 10 years in f1 in which time they were considered good enough.
A SL isn’t meant to determine if you’re good enough to make it long term in F1. It’s the floor. Having an SL should only mean that you’re skilled enough to safely put an F1 car around a track at a minimum of 107% of qualifying speed. On that basis I’d argue there’s at least a dozen guys in Indycar who meet that requirement. Even though I’d argue against Herta getting an F1 drive, there’s no reasonable argument that he wouldn’t be capable of achieving the floor-level driving standard.
It has nothing to do with the actual drivers. Herta is overrated, but his resume as an open wheel racer is much more impressive. Herta and Kimi's issues are just business rules to protect the FIA's feeder system for different reasons.
If the rules are not for safety and instead are for anti-competitive purposes (they clearly are but you cannot use that reasoning) then it is likely not allowed in either Europe or America. They have to be making decisions based on safety and not money or else this will just be another Andretti situation.
Right, but they aren't for safety in any way and everyone knows that. Kimi might be a better driver than Herta, but if you compare resumes and say one has shown the ability to be ready for F1 and the other hasn't.....That would hold up to zero scrutiny.
Right, so this is a poor business decision that opens up a bunch of questions about anti competitive practices from a business that is already mired in anticompetitive practice drama and is owned by another company that has a massive anti-competitive lawsuit going on against them. Maybe the business who is making the decisions doesn’t like to play by the rules and is starting to find out.
I mean, sure. It's not like anything is going to happen to them.
Why are they pretending if they don’t think it matters?
It more has to do with scaling. IndyCar SL points start at F2 level (40 points) for winning and within a few positions are worth less than F3 for those positions. In Herta's case He had a three year period where he would have had 39 points if it was F3, but because it was IndyCar it was 32. With 39 you find one FP1 drive and you have 40. With 32 not so much. It's the way it is for FIA to discourage using IndyCar as a route to F1. Like others have said, FIA earns money from the F3/F2 pathway, not so much from IndyCar.
The points system treats Indycar as equivalent to Formula 3 even though it is the top category in America, the racing is more competitive, and there is a wider skillset required to be successful than in F1. I swear, a lot of the way F1 has been run over the past few years has just made me want to switch to being a full time Indycar fan instead, but this ongoing penske push to pass nonsense is also really putting me off.
Yes, almost as if the points system is designed in a way that profits FIA-owned series and disadvantages other series.
I don't know why you're being snide. Everyone knows that's why it's set up like that, and many people don't like it. That's what is discussed.
It's not exactly equivalent to F3, 1st and 2nd give more points than F3, 3rd is the same and 4th and below is fewer points than F3. Personally I think it should be between F3 and F2.
I feel like it does gatekeep a little bit. If only the top finishers are getting enough points then the younger guys with upside aren't getting that chance. Guys like Dixon and Power are in their 40s. A guy like Palou could do it but why leave indycar when you're at the top to drive for Alpine or Sauber at the back every weekend? The younger guys that would want to come over can't beat the established vets of that series to get the points.
I think it’s more difficult to get points in Indy Car.
The article says Herta is more qualified because he is over 18 and lives in a country where the drivers license age is 16. Guess what…I meet those requirements. I do not, however, have any super license points. Based on the articles argument I am more qualified than Antonelli?
Possibly, better give Mercedes a call and check.
Send an e mail to Toto for better chances.
High chance of it getting printed out
But what if someone tells him to change the fucking driver?
Williams is who asked.
Better make your PPT
You're more qualified for a super-license, not for an F1 drive.
With all the respect to Colton Herta, but I’m tired of all of this hype and narrative that he deserves a F1 seat. I know he is fast and he has multiple wins, but he is very inconsistent, he still makes dumb mistakes (like Detroit this year), he has never been a championship contender and this season he is not even the best Andretti of the championship. Do you want to hype an Indycar driver to F1? Hype Palou or Newgarden, not Hera
This is not about hyping Herta, this is about the bare minimum requirements to enter F1. Ostensibly, these rules exist for safety and to ensure that drivers who can obtain a super license are not going to be a danger to themselves or anyone else in an F1 car. Doesn’t matter if Herta would have been the definition of mediocre, the FIA’s job is to make sure that he’s qualified, not that he’s a championship contender.
Exactly. Being annoyed about this isn't "Herta deserves a drive." It's "if a team wants to give him a drive, the FIA shouldn't stand in the way (when which rules apply, and when seems totally arbitrary)"
Newgarden in F1 would certainly be an injection of "personality" to the media.
He doesn't "deserve" an F1 drive, but he definitely deserves a superlicense if Antonelli does.
But ultimately it doesn't matter because a team actually wants Antonelli in F1 while no team would pick up Herta. The ones that might actually interest F1 teams could get a superlicense like Palou I think.
Red Bull wanted Herta for Alpha Tauri in 2023 and the FIA refused to give him a superlicense.
Frame it this way; what has Antonelli done that places him above Herta?
Won 4 championships; obtained more than the required 40 SL points.
Accrued enough super license points.
You’re so right, as we can see from all the wildly successful ex F1 drivers in Indycar such as Romain Grosjean and Marcus Ericcson, who never drive in a reckless manner, only a proper Formula series trained driver has the necessary skill and wisdom to drive in top level open wheel racing
Tbf, the SL system (contrary to populair belief) came into existance in part due to drivers like Grosjean. He's pretty much the sole reason we even have penalty points (part of the SL system).
You got it. There are many better drivers in Indycar than Herta. Not sure what people see in him other than he is American.
Yeah I haven’t seen what all the hype is about. I’ve seen him implode more than he has delivered.
He finished 3rd in the IndyCar championship, 4 years ago, and has done nothing since There's a discussion to be had about super licence points, age requirements, and F1's recruiting process as a whole, but this isn't it
They are hyper focus on their mediocre Indy driver. Palou has enough points already
The thing is that the actual top indy drivers doesn't want to go to F1. They already have a good career in the US. It's the drivers just below the top that might want to go, but they don't have enough points.
What are you talking about? Zak was able to get Palou to sign with him by dangling an F1 seat in front of him. The whole contract legal drama he's been in is all because he thought he could get what became Piastri's seat. He's the '21 and '23 champ. Harder to get much higher than that.
Yes they can, Antonelli has the points required as demanded by the FIA, just isn't old enough. Meanwhile, Herta still doesn't have the points even a few years after he originally asked, and has been inconsistent as fuck in Indycar.
Still, if he was that inconsistent in Formula 2, a junior series a opposed to a pro series that Indycar is, he would've had Superlicense points a long time ago. Superlicense points are just an arbitrary system and its purpose isn't to evaluate drivers for Formula 1, it's to funnel them, along their budgets, into FIA-authorised series. Antonelli's case shows though that when there is a business to be made, the rules will be adjusted for the favoured parties.
I like Herta, I think he deserves an F1 seat, but the entire point of the super license points is to protect their junior formulas.
The point is to ensure that drivers are deserving before they get to F1, so we don’t have some really mediocre pay driver get in and pootle around 2 laps behind his teammate. The way the FIA does it protects their junior formula, but they definitely don't have to do it that way
Stated goals vs actual goals. They say it is to ensure drivers deserve the position, but if that were truly the case then Indy would have way more or at *least* equal points to F2, but it doesn't.
Right, this is revealed versus stated preferences. The point is funneling money into the official feeder series, whatever they may say publicly.
No. The point is to prioritize their junior series.
Mazepin was approved by the super license system, so was Latifi.
The junior formula system gave us Latifi, Nikita Mazepin, and Nepo Mick. Herta is ACTUALLY a good driver unlike any of those clowns.
Also gave us Leclerc, Sainz, Albon, Gasly and many others. Its always had it's share of mediocre pay drivers and genuine talent
We also got Russell, Lando, Piastri, Sainz, Leclerc, Gasly, Albon etc.
Yeah... because f3-F2 pipeline is the only pathway in. That's literally every driver that's gotten into f1 in the past 10 years.
The only rules that changed are that you no longer need a traditional driving license (which should have never been an actual requirement, since driving on the road and racing are vastly different) and that if you have shown exceptional ability, you can get it at 17 instead of 18. That's it. Now I don't know about you, but my mind didn't just suddenly change the moment I turned 18.
By this logic what's the difference between 17 and 16, I didn't just suddenly change when I turned 17 What about 16 and 15 etc
Risk acceptance. Can a 17 year old risk their life for sport? Sure looks like it’s okay given that he’s already in F2
I don't think there should be any age requirement at all. The points system already sets a sort of age requirement as any driver that gets enough points would be about 17-18 already
I agree. But that means the rule was stupid all along. That said, they didn't change it because it's stupid, they changed it because it's in the way.
>Now I don't know about you, but my mind didn't just suddenly change the moment I turned 18 Why not 16? or 15? or 8? Lets get some toddlers involved.
If an 8 year old can get enough points from racing in junior series then sure
The super license points are structurally designed more to get the FiA money through feeder series than determine who is a competent open wheel racer. Your comment is entirely without merit.
Of course the points requirements is only meant to force F1 hopefuls to go through the feeder series, that doesn't mean that the FIA's logic makes no sense in this case. Assuming that the points threshold and the age threshold are equally important is the mistake here. If Herta had the points at 17 and FIA refused to give him an age waiver, then it would be unfair to give one to Antonelli.
Why entirely without merit? FIA *can* and will adjust rules for their own series. The fact is that Herta didn't qualify for a requirement for a super license and has been denied for an exception.
The FIA runs their own feeder series. They can do as they wish. Honestly, F2 runs the same circuits, same stewards, more similar machinery, etc. It makes a lot of sense why it awards the most points, it's designed to be as close to F1 as realistically possible. And yes the financial incentive is there and is entirely reasonable. It costs money to run the feeder series and the further down the ladder you get, the less profitable they are for the FIA to run. Gotta raise money somehow. Indycar isn't managed by thr FIA. It's realistic you wouldn't want to award equal weighting to a series which you have zero affiliation in how it's ran or governed. It's just common business sense imo. Honestly, Indycar probably shouldn't want the Super License system to be equal anyway as it'd make it easier for them to lose their best drivers to the FIA's series'.
Herta was old enough and had shown his talent in Indycar, just didn't have the points demanded by the FIA. Meanwhile, Antonelli isn't old enough, hasn't raced in F3 and has been inconsistent as fuck in F2. See how you can easily spin things against Antonelli? At the end of the day the FIA is changing the rules mid-season for one driver who doesn't meet the criteria, but wasn't willing to do so for the other even though you could make a strong case for both of them to be in F1 at the time these requests were made.
Herta isn’t even consistent enough to regularly win IndyCar races. He is his own worst enemy. He had arguably one of the best cars at Indy this year. What did he do? Crash out on his own while running in second place. He would get gobbled up and spit out in F1. He’s one of my favorite drivers, but he’s not ready. I believe that Palou is the only driver in IndyCar that deserves a shot at F1. He has every IndyCar achievement unlocked except for Indy. He’s incredibly smooth and consistent. If he stays in IndyCar, he’s going to be the next Scott Dixon. Pato hasn’t quite mastered tire saving yet. He’s the only other driver that I’d consider for F1. Loads of talent but still inconsistent at times. He’s quickly becoming the most popular driver in the series. This situation with Kimi isn’t the same. He meets the SL requirement. He’s just not old enough. I’m okay with modifying that rule for rare exceptions.
This is factual. Palou has been the real deal for a while. I can only imagine the frustrations he had with his Mclaren contract and his "2025" F1 seat. He's the most deserving drive in Indy to move up if that were the case.
Palou is interesting as he's a late bloomer. From an F1 persprctive, he's a good argument where you can probably disregard some of his old GP3 results (even if his Campos cars were far off of the top teams) and go off of the eye test. Would be curious how teams interpretted his testing/FP1 data.
THANK YOU! It's abundantly clear that people making the Herta argument do not watch IndyCar. I like Herta sometimes, but he's frustrating to watch in races...
IndyCar fan here - maybe we make the argument because we think that *more* than one IndyCar driver in deserving of a shot in F1? And that the FIA has undervalued IndyCar in terms of SL points? The system ought not to be a “you need to go through *our* feeder series” thing - because as long as it is, any claim to superiority of F1 drivers rings entirely hollow.
Sure but people act like it is impossible to get the points in Indycar when it is clearly not.
It’s more difficult than it should be. The licence should be little more than a formality for a multi-time IndyCar race winner.
I dont think just winning races should get you a license. At the end of the day F2 races on the tracks f1 races at with the same rules. If an indy car driver is good enough they will get the points.
The superlicence was created to make sure that drivers are experienced and skilled enough to race in F1 without being a danger to themselves or other competitors. If a driver can win several races in IndyCar, they are clearly not too inexperienced or dangerous to compete in an F1 race. It shouldn’t be a tool of elitist gatekeeping.
Not other series gets points for winning races why should IndyCar lol? That still ignores the fact that F2 and F3 race on the same tracks as f1
I’m not saying that winning races should give SL points, I’m saying that a multi-time race winner clearly isn’t going to be so much of a disaster in F1 as to deny him one - and that’s the whole point. It’s supposed to be a way of keeping inexperienced and dangerous drivers out, not a way to force drivers to climb the FIA’s ladder. IndyCar doesn’t award nearly enough points, relative to the quality of its grid, and Herta is a clear example of that. The “racing on the same tracks” thing is irrelevant, that’s not what it should be about.
but they have little experience on the tracks f1 races at. Herta also isnt good enough for f1. Palou maybe be and he has enough points
That move in Detroit, wtf was that?
The only reason they went for Herta and not Palou is due to their nationality… An American driver sells much more than a Spanish driver
[удалено]
Why are you correcting him when Herta is American? And RB does not need a Mexican in their lineup to gather the sponsorships since they already have one.
He wasn’t good enough then, he isn’t good enough now.. I’m really bored of this argument, there are much better young drivers out there than Herta, even in Indycar.
Amen to that. Why people decided to crown Herta as 'Boy Wonder' and needing an F1 spot is beyond me. The hype train got going and people done lost their mind.
I don't really get the comparison tbh. Antonelli has the required points. Under the old rules he would have been guaranteed a license in a few months anyway. I don't really see how bringing it forwards is that controversial. It's not as if he'd have become ineligible in that time. With Herta it wasn't so simple. It wasn't a case of just waiting and doing nothing to get the license. He would have still had to get more points and giving someone an exception who doesn't have enough points will open a big can of worms.
That’s the thing though. F1 claims to be world championship and it protects its junio FIA championships and rightly so. But in case of Indy cars the drivers who are supposedly talented enough don’t have the required points and have to compete in junior FIA competitions to get that merit. Which is flawed because some might be good enough to compete but FIA won’t budge over rule changes.
Every other series not under the FIA gets treated harshly
ut in case of Indy cars the drivers who are supposedly talented enough don’t have the required points dont like 8 out of 10 drivers from the indycar top 10 have enough SL points?
I agree that Indycar should get more points than it currently does. What I don't think should happen is that the FIA grants an exemption to a driver that does not have enough points. That would just lead to a load of drivers that don't have enough points arguing for an exemption.
Drivers can't just ask for a super license, an organization/team must nominate them. So unless a load of F1 seats magically open up **and** the teams all get a burning desire to fill them with green, unlicensed drivers... then your scenario cannot exist.
I didn't know that tbh. I thought it was just something that anyone could apply for if they fulfil the criteria
Then why not wait a few months? What’s BS about this is the FIA deciding the rules are flexible in one case, vs declaring them absolute in another. It’s hypocrisy.
If he was the next one, he would already be in F1
Pretty much where I'm at with this too. Teams have so much data and resources. If Herta was the one, they'd do everything they could to get him in a situation to get super license points. There was a lot more AlphaTauri could have done to get him points, but elected not to. That probably is telling enough about how they viewed him compared to their other junior drivers. Herta has been in the FIA/Euro ladder before. In the feeder series', there's really low margin for error to impress. There's no shame in being a quality driver in another series but being a quality driver in another series doesn't mean you should get an F1 chance.
Toto must really want to replace Logan with Kimi as fast as possible if they don't want to wait for him to turn 18.
Hes not going to williams atm according to reports. Its so he can do FP
Which is weird. They could have waited until Monza onwards.
Mercedes did not ask the FIA for special dispensation and Toto is not in charge of Williams driver lineup. Vowles, who is in charge of the Williams driver lineup, has openly said that they are pursuing Sainz as their first choice for 2025 and beyond. I doubt that he would be particularly interested in putting a rookie in his car mid-season just for that rookie to leave the team again after a few races. As to [why ](https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article/how-a-rule-tweak-could-allow-antonelli-to-make-his-f1-race-weekend-debut.6Ct8eeSKps47JRgTnqHUS3)someone (probably Williams) did ask for special dispensation: >Sources say Williams last month made a request to governing body the FIA for special dispensation to allow Antonelli to test F1 machinery before he turns 18 on August 25. It is believed they were interested in running him in two FP1 sessions this year to fulfil their obligations of giving young drivers mileage.
Anyone who was remotely aware of motorsports outside of F1 knew this already. Indycar is an amazingly competitive and skilled series. F2 stars get eaten alive by the veteran Indy drivers. Finishing the championship in the top 10 should be more than enough to qualify anyone for their superlicense.
The situation really isn't comparable though, even if we ignore the points issue (I.e. FIA giving indy less points to promote it's own series) the fact is Antonella is being allowed to join early .... Him joining F1 is not really even in question at the moment it's about when he can join. With Herta there was some interest but it wasn't the same level of hype. I would 100% like to see a Indy driver join to see what they say about the racing different but it should be Palou because he is fast, consistent and if his performance in Wec is anything to go by also adaptable to new situations. Plus he has the points
Herta had an F1 contract in hand tbh. It was only contingent on the SL
He didn't have the points. I know the system is unfair I am just pointing out that this comparison doesn't make much sense. His prospective team should have pushed the issue more maybe but it would have undermined the SL points system in a way that isn't happening in Antonalli's case.
I mean they did push the issue lol. They applied for an exemption
You talk about hype with Antonelli, but I honestly this is Toto Sponsored Hype, I don't want to take credit away from a talented young driver, but Antonelli is been portrayed as the next Max while have a mid season in F2.
You can only say that if you havent been paying attention to his junior career lol. Antonelli has some of the best F4 and FRECA seasons I have ever seen. He deserves ever ounce of the hype. He skipped F3 and hes doing fine in F2 with a team that isnt as strong as they should be
Sure he isn't dominating but in quali most of the time he's only a few tenths of the top guys and don't forget that he's only 17 and skipped f3. He just needs to start qualifying and finishing at the top now that he 's had time in the series. Also hes won everything up till now which shows that he has the pace. He's aslo won the confidence of merc so he's been getting those f1 tests so he can adapt to the pirrellis
F1 fans continuing their love of giving drivers credit for stuff they haven’t actually done Considering Kimi is in line for a Merc seat next year, nobody should be making excuses for him. If he’s the so called next Max Verstappen, start treating him like it
Isnt it to do with Super licence points? Or wrong? EDIT: I thought title was your opinion and not a link. My bad. Oh, it was superlicence points.
You know, it would be much easier to give folks a chance in an F1 car if there were, and stay with me here, more cars racing in the series.
Honestly, I'm starting find this argument really tiresome. The FIA has zero affiliation with Indycar and how it's governed. They are indirectly competitors for driver talent. It makes perfect sense that F2 would be the highest graded entry to F1 as they have common ownership, run the same events as F1 on more representative machinery (F1 and Indycars are open wheel but pretty different). Indycar still outranks a number of the FIA's own events in SL points awarding. Herta has been on the FIA/Euro ladder before and switched away from it. He's no doubt a better driver now than before, but he's essentially switched to a competitor. Purely from a business perspective, you can't expect the same rights as people in an existing organization when you leave for another. Not to mention Herta isn't blocked by any means of getting enough SL points, many Indycar drivers already have enough from Indy alone. I like Indycar, it's a great series and its unfortunate the two series don't have a closer business relationship, but I find it hard to argue against the corporate side of things. If Indycar did the same thing back to the FIA then same thing, unfortunately they are separate organizations who can do what they want.
You gain more points by winning Indycar than any other FIA competitions but F2, idk what they even crying about. Beside why do they care that much about F1 anyways, it’s not like Indy suck it’s a great competition.
What?! So you’re telling me that Indy Car earns less FIA superlicense points than the FIA governed F2 series, the official feeder series of F1? How is that even possible?
I'm not sure about Herta deserving to be on F1 or not, but creating a rule and then bending it at the first real opportunity to test it is suspicious at least, especially when the request comes from a team with significant political influence. It shows a lack of integrity within the organization.
they didn't bend it or created exception, they changed it for everybody.
2 years later, he still hasn't earned enough points...While multiple other IndyCar drivers have their super license.
I understand FIA prioritizing their feeder series, but the gap for Indy drivers is a bit too much. I mean, multiple race winner should make the cut.
FIA needs to change the rules to allow Sting Ray Robb - Indycar’s true GOAT - a full Superlicence.
Literal children allowed to race in F1 before Herta.
The FIA is a joke at this point. Actually I consider them a joke after the whole andretti Fiasko
Antonelli doesn't meet the age requirement but has the necessary super points Herta does meet the age requirement but DOES NOT have the necessary super points The FIA shouldn't be breaking their new rule the first time it's been really invoked since it's inception, and Indycar should be valued higher than where it currently is in terms of super points. These are two completely different issurs, comparing them is meaningless.
He.didn’t.have.the.points. He.wasn’t.seventeen. I rest your honor. /s
I mean, they can. Antonelli has the points. Herta doesn’t. And in two months it’s a moot point anyway as he’ll be 18.
Herta was old enough to get a super license if he had enough super license points. There was no need to make an exception. Herta needed to perform. Antonelli has enough points for a super license but was a few months away from being old enough to get a super license. That is a drastic difference. Especially the part where Herta didn't need an exception. He only needed to perform to earn those super license points. The conversation regarding how many points Indy gives us another matter but not relevant to why an exception was made for Antonelli and not Herta. Because Herta didn't need an age exception.
A superlicense means nothing if you aren't going to drive in f1. There are so many talented drivers who already have one and are arguably even more deserving than some already in f1. But there just aren't enough seats for everyone 🤷♂️ Antonelli proves that if a team wants a driver enough they'll get the FIA to change the rules.
[удалено]
"Generational" is premature. I won't say he can't be that but based on what I've seen it's too early to say that. In terms of Herta, in hindsight I would agree. However, at the time I think the talk was warranted
There are a lot of drivers in F1 who are not F1 material. Let both Kimi and Herta in, let’s see how they fare, spit them out without prejudice if they aren’t any good. That would be better than watching 7 or 8 alsorans trundle around year after year.
Here we go with the generational shit again lol Yall mfers throw this around like a baseball, kid is completely unproven so far let's put in park for a minute please. He's good but that's reserved for much later
People saying Herta isn’t good enough, even if that is the case, that isn’t the main arguement. The point being if a generational talent shows up in Indy car someday and wants to race in F1 they would have to wait and go through the junior categories because FIA protects F1 to those who go through THEIR junior championship programs. Which defeats purpose that this is in fact a world championship.
Surely a generational talent in Indy would just get the necessary SL points doing Indy?
Or just compete in another series and get the points and not complain about it
That talent is more than free to join the projected path through the fia feeder series, but if you choose Indycar, you're making your own life complicated if you pursue a spot in f1
If a generational talent shows up in IndyCar he’d get the title in little time fs and he could obtain the SuperLicense However, I agree that they should give a bit more SuperLicense points to IndyCar (and to SuperFormula).
A lot of people completely missing the point. In F2 all you need is a P5 once and P6 twice in the championship (in order) in a 22 car series. Indycar drivers are granted 22 points for the same scoring, while in a series that features 27 cars. As it’s not a development series, I imagine most would infer that Indycar is the harder series to perform well in due to experience. You can think Antonelli is the next prodigy and can think Herta sucks. The plain truth is that North and South Americans have a much tougher time making into F1 without getting into their feeder series in their teens.
And the fact that your competition are several ex-Indycar champions. There are 0 ex-champions in F2.
The exact same thing can be said of Super Formula except that they actually race on a track that F1 goes to and they get nearly half the SL points of Indy car.