2022-2023 Silly Season Thread

[gert]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

So Herta apparently has a Red Bull deal with AT IF the FIA allow him. I don't get why he would get an exemption. Indy crowned a champion in 2020 and 21 so he had a chance to earn points in both seasons, and Pato had a better case when the FIA said Indy Lights didn't have enough cars to award champion points.

Agreed.
He could have gained 40 points if he had done a better job in the championship he competed in.

An exception (for - let's be honest - purely commercial reasons) would send out a very bad signal.

[Hawkwood]

It could send out a good signal that the FIA has come to its senses over the naff points system?


It was brought in to solve a problem that didn't exist (drivers being out of their depth), and it hasn't even solved it.

[bjohnsonsmith]

An interesting article from MotorSport Magazine, regarding IndyCar drivers and the superlicence.


https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/a...talent-medland

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

An interesting article from MotorSport Magazine, regarding IndyCar drivers and the superlicence.


https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/a...talent-medland

Seems like someone else doesn’t understand why the current rules are as they are.

[broadrun96]

There is some slight imbalance for Indy drivers, second and third should probably get more points but that wouldn't help him. I can't see Indy/Penske considering pushing for it, he wants them in his series, maybe Zak gets some traction for his team to build talent/park F3 or reserve guys a season if they can't get an F2 seat.

I do think FIA series get too many points and the Top 3 in F1 getting a SL is a bit excessive, been a few 3rds in F2 who probably needed more time before getting a license but likely already had enough points just from running years in FIA series. But they've paid their FIA time within the rules. Should the rules be tweaked, well everything should be evaluated to make sure it's doing what the FIA wants. Maybe dial back the F2 and F3 points so they aren't far ahead of Indy, even SuperFormula gets more than Indy. But think they're likely much faster and closer to F1 cars so I get it.

[S griffin]

I see nothing wrong with Herta getting a licence, he’s been very good in Indycars and has experience of racing in Europe. He should adapt no problem

With Gasly almost certainly going to Alpine, that leaves fewer choices for Ricciardo. I see Haas as the only seat he can get realistically. Can’t see him at Alpha Tauri and I expect Zhou to stay at Alfa. Also looks like de Vries will get the second Williams seat

[bathurst77]

Originally Posted by S griffin

With Gasly almost certainly going to Alpine, that leaves fewer choices for Ricciardo. I see Haas as the only seat he can get realistically. Can’t see him at Alpha Tauri and I expect Zhou to stay at Alfa. Also looks like de Vries will get the second Williams seat

I feel f1 will bid farewell to DR3 at the end of the year. Nothing next year, and his age and poor results the last 4 years, and the number of promising (and cheap) young drivers in F2/3/W at the moment would make a comeback in 2024 or later unlikely.

Wec? indy? nascar? Aussie gt or supercars? Or just farmer dan and media appearances (he would be very attractive media presenter/commentator)

[bathurst77]

Which makes me think about car numbers. A few years ago they changed it so a driver gets a number at the start of his f1 careeer and keeps it even when he swaps teams (except #1)

So if Danny retires 3 will be free for someone else ( i dont know if it has to sit unused for a period) So a new guy can be 3.. but what if he comes back? will he get a new number?

in 20 years time if we still have f1 will be watching car #46852 vs #56231?

[S griffin]

It really would be sad if Danny Ric left F1 like this, especially with his performances not being great. Last weekend at Zandvoort really was painful to see

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Seems like someone else doesn’t understand why the current rules are as they are.

Why do think Chris Medland doesn’t understand why the current rules are as they are?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Why do think Chris Medland doesn’t understand why the current rules are as they are?

He clearly doesn’t understand a key point of the rules is to funnel potential F1 drivers through the Liberty-owned and FIA-sanctioned junior series that race as part of F1 weekends for a start.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by peebee2

He clearly doesn’t understand a key point of the rules is to funnel potential F1 drivers through the Liberty-owned and FIA-sanctioned junior series that race as part of F1 weekends for a start.

He says in the penultimate paragraph: ''I understand the desire to prioritise FIA-run championships as a route to F1.''

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

He says in the penultimate paragraph: ''I understand the desire to prioritise FIA-run championships as a route to F1.''

Which contradicts the rest of his story.

Also, just because he thinks he understands it, it doesn’t mean he really understands it.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Which contradicts the rest of his story.

Also, just because he thinks he understands it, it doesn’t mean he really understands it.

Why does it contradict the rest of the article?


Having read the article, he clearly does understand, so why do you think he doesn't?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Why does it contradict the rest of the article?


Having read the article, he clearly does understand, so why do you think he doesn't?

Having read the article he clearly doesn’t understand. His whole article is why Indycar drivers should be exempt, when they’re by design not exempt.

He also says the rules are stopping “several top IndyCar drivers making the F1 jump.” Like who? (All the real front runners qualify already anyway).

Herta may turn to be an F1 star but the current Super Licence rules are no surprise, they’ve been around a few years now.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Having read the article he clearly doesn’t understand. His whole article is why Indycar drivers should be exempt, when they’re by design not exempt.

The title of the article is. ''FIA needs Superlicence rule change for IndyCar's top talent''. The subheading goes onto say: ''The current Superlicence points system is currently preventing several top IndyCar drivers making the F1 jump – something has to give, writes Chris Medland''. The article doesn't say why IndyCar drivers should be exempt. When you say exempt, do you mean they should be exempt from having to qualify for a Superlicence?

Originally Posted by peebee2

He also says the rules are stopping “several top IndyCar drivers making the F1 jump.” Like who? (All the real front runners qualify already anyway).

Herta may turn to be an F1 star but the current Super Licence rules are no surprise, they’ve been around a few years now.

I can think of other drivers apart from Colton Herta, for example Alex Palou and Pato O'Ward. The front runners like Dixon and Power have established careers in IndyCar, so they aren't even in the picture, as has Newgarden, however I think Newgarden could still switch to F1.

Indeed, the Superlicence rules have been around for a few years and as the article says it is time to change them.

[Richard C]

My impression is that the FIA Super License is to prevent drivers from showing up in F1 and being in over their head. Either a danger to themselves or to other drivers on the track due to a lack of experience and/or skill. I think in recent times, the age and maturity of drivers has been the main topic.

I don't follow IndyCar, but Herta is in his third season? He has won multiple races? My gut tells me that it feels wrong that he could not move to F1 if someone wanted to hire him.

The bar just feels artificially too high. Or it is structured wrong for the goals it is trying to achieve.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My impression is that the FIA Super License is to prevent drivers from showing up in F1 and being in over their head. Either a danger to themselves or to other drivers on the track due to a lack of experience and/or skill. I think in recent times, the age and maturity of drivers has been the main topic.

I don't follow IndyCar, but Herta is in his third season? He has won multiple races? My gut tells me that it feels wrong that he could not move to F1 if someone wanted to hire him.

The bar just feels artificially too high. Or it is structured wrong for the goals it is trying to achieve.

Richard

His IndyCar debut was in 2018, at the final race of the season. Since then he has won 7 races, the most recent was this year at IMS. He has 11 podiums and 9 Poles. His best championship finish was 3rd in 2020.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The title of the article is. ''FIA needs Superlicence rule change for IndyCar's top talent''. The subheading goes onto say: ''The current Superlicence points system is currently preventing several top IndyCar drivers making the F1 jump – something has to give, writes Chris Medland''. The article doesn't say why IndyCar drivers should be exempt. When you say exempt, do you mean they should be exempt from having to qualify for a Superlicence?

I can think of other drivers apart from Colton Herta, for example Alex Palou and Pato O'Ward. The front runners like Dixon and Power have established careers in IndyCar, so they aren't even in the picture, as has Newgarden, however I think Newgarden could still switch to F1.

Indeed, the Superlicence rules have been around for a few years and as the article says it is time to change them.

You are confusing yourself massively. No, I don’t think they should be exempt from the current rules. Medland does.

In calling for the rules to change both you and he don’t understand the reality of why the current rules are as they are.

PS. There are no several drivers who would jump to F1 if the rules were relaxed. That’s total fiction.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

My impression is that the FIA Super License is to prevent drivers from showing up in F1 and being in over their head. Either a danger to themselves or to other drivers on the track due to a lack of experience and/or skill. I think in recent times, the age and maturity of drivers has been the main topic.

I don't follow IndyCar, but Herta is in his third season? He has won multiple races? My gut tells me that it feels wrong that he could not move to F1 if someone wanted to hire him.

The bar just feels artificially too high. Or it is structured wrong for the goals it is trying to achieve.

Richard

Indeed. It would have prevented the likes of Inoue, Lavaggi and Deletraz coming into F1. Of course on the flip side Raikkonen and Verstappen came into F1 after one season of car racing, which can’t happen now, but at least it stops drivers who have no right to be in F1 from coming in

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by peebee2

You are confusing yourself massively. No, I don’t think they should be exempt from the current rules. Medland does.

In calling for the rules to change both you and he don’t understand the reality of why the current rules are as they are.

I'm not confusing my self in the slightest. It's your use of the word exempt that was confusing, hence my question, ''When you say exempt, do you mean they should be exempt from having to qualify for a Superlicence?''

Medland isn't saying they should be exempt from the current rules, just that the rules regarding the Superlicence need to be changed.

So what is the reality of why the current rules are as they are?

Originally Posted by peebee2

PS. There are no several drivers who would jump to F1 if the rules were relaxed. That’s total fiction.

Is Zak Brown known for creating total fiction? According to that article, he says the drivers that have tested its 2021 car – Pato O’Ward, Colton Herta and eventually (if another court battle works out in McLaren’s favour) Alex Palou – are in the frame if Piastri doesn’t end up joining. Doesn't sound like total fiction me.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I'm not confusing my self in the slightest. It's your use of the word exempt that was confusing, hence my question, ''When you say exempt, do you mean they should be exempt from having to qualify for a Superlicence?''

Medland isn't saying they should be exempt from the current rules, just that the rules regarding the Superlicence need to be changed.

So what is the reality of why the current rules are as they are?



Is Zak Brown known for creating total fiction? According to that article, he says the drivers that have tested its 2021 car – Pato O’Ward, Colton Herta and eventually (if another court battle works out in McLaren’s favour) Alex Palou – are in the frame if Piastri doesn’t end up joining. Doesn't sound like total fiction me.

You are certainly confused old bean. Change rules or make people exempt, as has been extensively reported, is the same thing to all intents and purposes.

Your list of drivers who would jump if they had a licence already qualify to have licences!

If you are top end of Indycar championship you qualify for a Superlicence. Under the current rules.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by peebee2

You are certainly confused old bean. Change rules or make people exempt, as has been extensively reported, is the same thing to all intents and purposes.

You are the one who is confused, if you think changing the rules and making people exempt from the rules is the same thing.

Changing the rules doesn't necessarily make someone exempt from them. It can do, if that is the purpose of the rule change. However, in the case of the Superlicence, all that's being asked is for the rules to be changed, so there is a more level playing field for IndyCar drivers, not for IndyCar drivers be exempt from the rules. You say it's been extensively reported, however I have yet to come across anything that is calling for IndyCar drivers to be exempt from the Superlicence rules.

Originally Posted by peebee2

Your list of drivers who would jump if they had a licence already qualify to have licences!

Out of that list, possibly O'Ward and Palou, as they are with AMSP.

Originally Posted by peebee2

If you are top end of Indycar championship you qualify for a Superlicence. Under the current rules.

You are incorrect. Top end IndyCar drivers don't automatically qualify for a Superlicence, they need to have accrued 40 points. Now in the case of drivers like Dixon and Power, they will have achieved that, due to how long they have been racing in IndyCar.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by peebee2

If you are top end of Indycar championship you qualify for a Superlicence. Under the current rules.

The top 3 in Formula 2 all receive a superlicense, only the championship winner in Indycar does. It seems odd the Formula 2 has a more generous SL point distribution, but obviously it is the designated feeder series and the FIA already killed Formula Renault 3.5 V8 very effectively!

If Indycar received the same superlicense points as Formula 2 through the championship standings, then over the counted seasons Herta would have a superlicense without issue.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

You are the one who is confused, if you think changing the rules and making people exempt from the rules is the same thing.

Changing the rules doesn't necessarily make someone exempt from them. It can do, if that is the purpose of the rule change. However, in the case of the Superlicence, all that's being asked is for the rules to be changed, so there is a more level playing field for IndyCar drivers, not for IndyCar drivers be exempt from the rules. You say it's been extensively reported, however I have yet to come across anything that is calling for IndyCar drivers to be exempt from the Superlicence rules.



Out of that list, possibly O'Ward and Palou, as they are with AMSP.



You are incorrect. Top end IndyCar drivers don't automatically qualify for a Superlicence, they need to have accrued 40 points. Now in the case of drivers like Dixon and Power, they will have achieved that, due to how long they have been racing in IndyCar.

Blimey, you do want an argument just for the sake of it.

Exempting Herta has been reported literally everywhere.

Your total list was Palou and O’Ward. So that’s your whole list, not ‘out of that list.’

I didn’t say top end of Indycar for one season. I meant for or over several seasons. Hence so many qualify. Herta doesn’t currently qualify as he hasn’t been a consistent top end championship performer.