FIA confirms new 2016 F1 superlicence points system

2016 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

The FIA has confirmed the details of its new Formula One superlicence points system in an update to the International Sporting Code.

From 2016, in order to be eligible to compete in F1 drivers must accumulate at least 40 points over a three-year period which are allocated based on which championships they have participated in and how well they have performed. They must complete at least 80% of the series to be eligible for points.

The FIA has reserved the highest points allocation for a “future FIA F2 championship”. The next highest ranked series is GP2, with Formula Renault 3.5 and Japanese Super Formula drivers receiving substantially smaller points hauls for the same finishing positions.

Drivers will also have to hold a valid driving licence and be at least 18 years old at the start of their first F1 race weekend. First-time super licence applicants have to pass a test on the International Sporting Code and F1 sporting regulations.

As is current practice, new drivers must also have covered at least 300 kilometres of running in a recent Formula One car.

FIA 2016 F1 superlicence points system

Future FIA F2 championship6050403020108643
FIA F3 European Championship40302010864321
FIA World Endurance Championship (LMP1 only)40302010864321
Formula Renault 3.530201510753210
Japanese Super Formula2015107532100
FIA-certified national Formula Four championships10752100000
National Formula Three championships10752100000
Formula Renault EuroCup, ALPS or NEC5310000000

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2016 F1 season

Browse all 2016 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

126 comments on “FIA confirms new 2016 F1 superlicence points system”

  1. Will it be retroactive? I mean, does a driver like Vandoorne already has some points?

      1. @spoutnik There’s no indication in the rules of any kind of cut-off year so I see no reason to assume pre-2015 performance won’t be taken into consideration. Is that what you were asking?

        1. Absolutely, thanks!

    1. Ok, Vandoorne has it already, but for others?

  2. Apart from the fact that the weighting is interesting to say the least (is GP2 worth that much more than FR3.5?), how could they not add series like Formula E or DTM?

  3. So a championship that doesn’t exist is worth more than anything else? GP2 is more worthy than IndyCar, the hardest and most diverse open wheel championship to master? GP2 is worth more than WSR3.5, yet WSR3.5 champions make it to F1 and GP2 champions recently struggle to. SuperFormula is almost as fast as F1 with high standard drivers yet is worth less than GP3? F4 is worth as much as F3 at national level?

    How does that work out?

    1. 3.5 champions should generally make F1, but they often don’t, unfortunately. Before Sainz and Magnussen, four champions between 2009 and 2012 failed to get into F1 – especially Frijns and Wickens should have.

      1. Frijns won consecutively Formula BMW, Renault 2.0 and Renault 3.5… Not enough according to FIA, only 35 points in 3 years…
        The points system is a very good idea, but it definately needs some adjustments.

    2. I guess the solution is all in that first centence @hosty96xd – the FIA wants to (re)launch F2 (again) and need to make it attractive. And then to not upset Bernie too much they give him and his overly expensive GP2 series to competative advantage of being rated higher than winning the WEC Championship in LMP1 or indeed Indycar.

      I guess Renault did not pay Todt enough to get an equal lvl for WSR 3.5? Or really just to make BE less upset about this proposal.

      Yeah, I agree that

    3. Nothing against the system but the points awarded to some series is pathetic. Like @hosty96xd says, rating GP3 higher than WSR3.5 is an absolute joke.

      So this Future F2 will not imply the end of GP2? Oh my!

    4. This “Future F2” should have quite a car to be valued more than GP2, with V8s and a good deal of downforce, and IndyCar, with turbo V6s bigger than F1’s (though with no ERS-like system, I believe Push to Pass increases the turbo pressure, but I’m not sure it’s like that). F3 for one, cannot be higher than IndyCar, and LMP1 championships should be higher, the cars are one of the most powerful out there.
      To me, the ranking needs some serious tweaking. I know I’m basing on the cars’ power output, but being motorsports, I really don’t know what other criteria should be taken into account.

      1. Although the regulations mean that the DW12 has a larger displacement engine, the limitations on boost pressure and materials are intended to limit the peak power to about 650-700bhp, mainly because that reduces maintenance issues and helps keep a cap on the peak speeds during the oval races. The Mercedes powertrain, meanwhile, is rumoured to be closer to 800bhp in combined power mode, which would put it some way ahead of an IndyCar.

        As for the LMP1 cars, yes, in theory the combined power mode of Toyota’s TS040 is higher (close to 1000bhp), although Porsche and Audi have claimed much lower figures (indicating power outputs closer to around 750bhp).

        However, there are some catches – firstly, if teams are driving the front wheels with the hybrid systems, they cannot use it below 120kph, so the power output is sometimes limited by that constraint. Secondly, the ACO has also legalised some driver aids, such as traction control, which are not allowed in other series – although the cars may be, in certain circumstances, more powerful, the regulations also permit aids that make them easier to drive.

    5. I don’t think it is about Championship difficulty than it is prioritising the route that the FIA wants drivers to take to make it to F1.

      I for one love this new points system. It means that you won’t get hopeless pay drivers anymore. To get a superlicense, you actually need experience and some modicum of success in lower formula. And those aiming for F1 will all be headed to the same Championships hopefully making them more competitive.

    6. Fikri Harish (@)
      7th January 2015, 0:33

      I’d like to point out however, that GP2 and GP3 races are held on the same weekend as an F1 Grand Prix and all three run on the same tire supplier. So I can at least understand why GP2 and GP3 are ranked higher in this list as there is no better avenue to prepare you for an F1 race meeting than those two series, in my opinion.

      IndyCar and LMP1 are a considerably different breed compared to F1, the former still being run on ovals and the latter being an endurance series, so it really shouldn’t be surprising to see them ranked so low.

      As for the FIA-backed single-seater series though, that’s just shameless, free, marketing.

    7. It’s quite simple really ! The FIA has introduced a 100% objective classification of the series that they have the most control on … uh, sorry, where the drivers’ talent really shine :)
      It would be like Google sorting the people they interview on criterias like “Oh, you’ve worked for Nest/Waze/Motorola/whatever subsidiary of Google ? Lots of points to you !” and “You’ve worked for Microsoft/IBM/Intel ? Baaaaaah, sorry, maybe we can find an internship for you ?”

      1. That analogue doesn’t really work because every single corporation out there will give you more “points” if you have worked for them previously compared to applicant who has not.

  4. Strange that winning both the Formula Renault 2.0 and 3.5 titles is worth only 35 points, and is not enough to earn a superlicense. I imagine that will hurt the quality of these series now they’re ‘ranked’ lower than they should be.

    1. Under these rules, Carlos Sainz would not be allowed to make his F1 debut. As a 3.5 champion. While winning the Formula 3 title gives you enough points on its own.

      Formula Renault 3.5 has been a really exciting series with a lot of talent in the last few years. Thanks to the superlicense points distribution, I’m afraid it’ll now be far from the best feeder series it arguably recently was.

    2. This system will destroy many series in terms of attracting talent and sponsors. The idea is not bad, but it needs adjustments or it will have a very bad effect on the future of feeder series.

      1. It’s hardly a coincidence that you cannot earn enough points for a super license by winning the Renault 2.0 and 3.5 titles.
        The FiA wants to devalue the competition and push their own series.
        If the FiA only cared about drivers having to gain experience the F3 title wouldn’t be worth as many points…

        1. I see it the same way @moctecus and it’s quite creepy.

    3. Means you gotta spend on more season racing and finish in a good position. Perfectly OK with this.

  5. Assuming the same points range, I believe this would make more sense:
    GP2: 1st 50 etc
    FR3.5: 1st 40 etc
    WEC: 1st 40 etc
    F3: 1st 30 etc
    GP3: 1st 30 etc
    IndyCar: 1st 30 etc
    All the rest probably the same. It seems off that FR3.5 is considered so lowly, but then I suppose that it is less relevant to F1 than GP2. But that much less? They equate finishing 3rd in GP2 to winning FR3.5. Interesting. I’m also surprised IndyCar holds more points value than FR3.5. Odd.

    1. Hm, WSR 3.5 less relevant for F1? When of the recent drivers (and testers) it delivered us as many as GP2?

    2. Indy Car is not so easy. And a driver winning a championship there should be given a lot of weight. honestly, I don’t get why the points can’t be made the same for some of the series. It seems silly to have to arbitrarily hold one above another.

    3. @philereid I’d say more like:

      GP2/FR3.5: 50
      WEC/Super Formula: 40
      GP3: 30
      FR2.0/F3: 20
      FR1.6/national F3/F4: 10

      FIA is basically killing off FR3.5. And they’re leaving Red Bull in a weird place with their young driver development programme: as winning FR2.0 and FR3.5 doesn’t even net you as much points as F3 Euro, and thus no F1 drive, they’ll have to drop FR3.5 altogether and race in GP2 instead, leaving their engine partner Renault in the cold with their racing series.

      This is incredible.

      1. They might be doing it intentionally to frustrate Red Bull and their driver development program, I guess.

  6. I can see this kind of system being a benefit to the quality of F1, having to prove your talent in the lower formula and not just paying for a drive with some paid for testing experience.

    1. This is good point, as much as I think Max Chilton is a nice guy, there are far more deserving drivers missing out on F1 grid spots because they lack sponsorship of some of these guys. (Fact Sam Bird never got F1 driver is just criminal in my eyes). Might mean that some smaller teams might struggle with funds if some of these drivers, with mega backing money, aren’t able to get required points. Although again that in turn might make sponsors back the better drivers if they’re depeserate to get name into F1, the consequences could complex is basically what I’m saying! :p

      Could be interesting stat (@keithcollantine) to see how many of current/recent F1 so called “pay drivers” would’ve actually qualified under this new system.

    2. Boooo, crap pay drivers are a integral part of F1. You want to cut off F1 Rejects’s reason to exist? :(

  7. So the FIA-sanctioned series are worth more than others?

    How odd. Probably just a mistake. I’m sure they’ll sort it soon.

  8. Interesting to think about how many recent F1 rookies would have failed this test.

    e.g. Marcus Ericsson finished 10th, 8th and 6th in GP2 from 2011 to 2013, so would only have 14 points!

    My impression is that a lot of pay-drivers from recent years wouldn’t have got to 40 points, which is a good thing from a sporting perspective, but might be tricky for teams from a commercial perspective…

    1. Sainz wouldn’t have made it either. He would only have 32 points by my count…

      1. The list goes on: Kobayashi, Pic, Chilton, even Di Resta as DTM seems to be on the list, unless there’s recognition for test mileage…

  9. Why is Euro F3 weights more than world series by renault 3.5? Is FIA trying to destroy the whole world series? Because from now on, this points system will strongly influence drivers’ decision. And why is WEC Lmp1 only? Also i would think DTM should have its points, and also the whole road to indy is missing.

  10. Smart move from the FIA. They knew the GP2 is losing ground to FR3.5 over the last couple of years, so they just give the FR3.5 champion only half the amount of points a GP2 champion gets. Now winning the GP2 championship will be far more important to young drivers, so problem solved for FIA

    1. @jlracing Well not half (50 vs 30) but yes that seems to be a smart move to up the value of GP2.

      1. Yea I’ve read it wrong. I tought 60 vs 30 but still a huge difference between GP2 and FR3.5. But GP2 and GP3 are sort of initiated by Ecclestone, and drive in his Formula 1 weekends so that definitely had some influence.

    2. GP2 is not an FIA series though, so it seems strange that they would weight it so heavily compared to the many other non-FIA series which are so heavily penalised.

      1. @wificats no no it makes sense. FIA series are overvalued (see tne non-existing F2, but also F3 Euroseries), FIA-linked series are probably OK (GP2, GP3) and non-FIA series are screwed.

  11. This seems to be another knee jerk reaction for me. They need to increase the point allocation For WSR3.5, Superformula, Indycar. And also increase the points for lower rankings in higher class categories.
    With this move, FIA is severely limiting entry to Formula 1.
    They do nothing right these days, it seems.

    1. With this move, FIA is severely limiting entry to Formula 1.

      In some ways, I think it needs to be done. F1 should be the home of the best drivers. However, lower down the grid, it is home to the richest drivers, and some incredible talent gets left by the wayside.

      I’m undecided over the points allocations. The best drivers will want to compete in the highest-scoring championships, however so will the richest, and it could see the “cost of entry” to those shoot up. This could actually end up having the opposite effect to above, as quality drivers are priced out of the highest scoring championships, just as many are priced out of F1.

      I’d love to know more details of any plans for F2.

      1. Personally I dont see any “Incredible Talents” left out. The Current GP2 champions are in their 4th/5th year in the series. No wonder they dont get drives, Hulkenberg is still in a midfield team, despite winning the championship pretty easily.

  12. I’m intrigued by the future Formula Two series – there must be something in the pipeline? Perhaps an open chassis, multiple engine manufacturer series a bit like the original F2 and earlier years of Formula 3000? Or am I in dreamland here?

    1. If this proposal gets signed off, I bet there will suddenly be some interest in staging it @mathers … purely coincidence off course

      1. @bascb @mathers There could be something there, put teams like Manor and Cosworth in it, use detuned 2.4L V8s and KERS, add in recent teams that didn’t get in to F1 or FE, use a cost cap with some freedom etc., but most likely I see FIA F2 being WSR FR3.5 branded under a new name.

  13. WEC LMP1 should be top of the chart. Try to win that, and you’re qualified for F1, for sure.

    And GP2 in front of FR 3.5… I mean, really?

  14. Is there a rationale for not giving points for WRC?

    Formula E should probably get points. I’m guessing they’re just waiting to see how the series pans out before giving points to it.

    As for IndyCar: I can see that it does deserve points, but it’s not an FIA sanctioned series. Making superlicense points available for it would be – in effect – legitimising it. The FIA can’t give it too many points (it would look like they’re favouring another series over their own) but if they give it too few they are insulting it and its fans. I think, on balance, leaving IndyCar out might be the best political move, even if it makes little sense from a sporting perspective.

    I wonder if the FIA can also award discretionary points, so that a driver with a lot of superbike experience, or indycar experience can still be awarded a superlicense as a special case.

    1. Is there a rationale for not giving points for WRC?

      I’d say, single seaters series only?

    2. Oh wait… IndyCar is there. Well… I look silly now.

  15. Too artificial.

    1. Your too kind! It’s actually “Too manipulative!”

  16. This an abhorrent system both conceptually and substantively.

    Conceptually this system denies talents like Verstappen making the step up to F1, a step that his testing and practice form suggests he is perfectly capable of. It would deny fans the debate and the interest flash point that is a super young driver like Max, with the question surrounding his performance level a key area of fan anticipation for next season.

    However it is the substance of the scoring system that is by far the most ridiculous part of this policy. How ironic is it that GP2, a series that has given F1 Gutierrez, Chilton, Van der Garde and Ericsson in recent years, is scored more highly than FR3.5 or GP3 (with the recent graduates of those series being Bottas, Bianchi, Kvyat, Ricciardo and Magnussen)? Further to that insult, the FIA seems to believe that being a dab hand on an oval or being able to manage slower GTE traffic has greater relevance to being an F1 driver than skills learnt in GP3 or FR3.5! And how surprising: the unwanted alternative to FR3.5 or GP2, FIA F2, is conveniently worth more points. It also appears that whilst IndyCar competition is deemed relevant to a decent F1 performance level, competing in the single seater-esque tin-tops in the DTM against a melting pot of GT, single seater and Le Mans stars is not. With one foul swoop the F1 prospects of Juncadella, Merhi and Wehrlein have eclipsed.

    Ultimately, are F1 teams not incentivised to sign drivers capable of doing the job? Is Marko not intelligent enough to judge driver potential?

    1. @countrygent That is the point. The FIA wants F2/F3 to be the main feeder series – not GP2, and even less so FR 3.5. The new superlicense points system is the FIA’s attempt at doing that. Their thinking is that the talent will move to the highest-scoring categories – which should work on paper. The question now is if that will happen in reality.

      1. @journeyer Adding another player to a junior ladder that bears a greater resemblance to a spider’s web is deluded. Is the GP2/FR3.5 conundrum not adequately confusing? The FIA is making an overt punt for power and influence over the junior F1 driver market – governing merely F1, WEC and WRC does not appear sufficient.

    2. My editor has just asked me to produce a list of recent F1 graduates who would have not scored an adequate tally to earn a license. I will post some names on tomorrow’s round-up – Vettel is immediately springing to mind…

      1. @countrygent A retrospective application of the new rules is pointless. It’s like applying a new point system to past championships. Utterly irrelevant other than to say “Well multiple F1 champion Vettel wouldn’t be in F1 if these rules existed then” which is nonsense as with his talent and Red Bull backing would have easily made the grade. This is to stop the pay driver with more money than talent getting in.

        1. Just read what you wrote there and reconsider your point @tonyyeb

          If Red Bull backing (i.e. money) would have solved Vettels superlicense, then explain to me how would this stop pay drivers? Surely if push comes to shove the FIA would grant a driver a superlicence anyway (see our freshest F1 driver for Caterham – Will Stevens who got it just to have Caterham be able to field 2 cars in Abu Dhabi – and he was there for his contribution, not his great pedigree).

          1. @bascb I meant the Red Bull backing would get him a drive in a lower formula. Then it is down to him with his talent.

          2. Yeah, sure enough RBR would just adapt their planning to maximize points to get their drivers into F1 @tonyyeb.

            Although I still doubt keeping pay drivers out has much to do with the motivation, IMO its just about giving F2 something to build upon and to get people interested in a new reboot of the series

          3. @bascb Not quite what I meant. If a driver is good enough they’ll make it under this system. Red Bull would get him his chance in the lower formula (along with a few others like now and like McLaren, Merc, Ferrari etc do) and the rest is down to them. This way though the FIA determine who is good enough, not Marko, Ron or whoever it is at the teams mentioned.

        2. @tonyyeb GP2 and FR3.5 have existed since 2005, and during that period there has always been an adjacent international F3 series: so as long as my cases are within that period, where’s the issue? The only thing that has really changed within the junior system since 2005 is that there are now more international series, such as GP3 and the two variants of FR2.0, and national series such as British F3 have receded somewhat. Other than that I am comparing apples with apples to a large degree, and can say that one Daniel Ricciardo would not have received a licence under this system.

          1. @countrygent Because nobody at that time would be aware of such a requirement. In his second or third year he may have tried to switch to a formula that gave more FIA superlicense points. You simply cannot apply a rule that didn’t exist in the past. Why not apply the engine usage rule to a season in the 1980s when they changed the engine most race weekends? We would maybe have a different set of champions! That would make a great article… you should write that.

          2. @tonyyeb You are right in that this system will change the mentalities for junior drivers (it is for instance fatal for FR3.5 since even the champion with additional GP3 and FR2.0 experience fails to make the grade), but substantively it is still true to say many drivers on the grid would not be there under this system. Yes, I cannot calculate the shift in normative culture there would have hypothetically been had the system been introduced in 2005, but no analysis can be perfect, and moreover this article will just be a PC way of illustrating how deluded the system is.

            Regarding your article idea, I am not the ideas man, I am just sent to a darkened room to it! Try emailing AUTOSPORT, they tend to welcome reader participation.

          3. @countrygent I just think the F1 press at the moment think it is in vogue to scoff every idea the FIA comes up with. Regardless of the points split amongst the various formulas, I think the intention of making F1 safer and of a higher standard by having better, more experienced drivers on the grid, then I’m for it. So what if drivers who wouldn’t have made it in the past. This way there is no doubt that by getting 40 points in those formulas in three years they deserve a shot at F1.

      2. I had a short conversation about this on Twitter with @craig-o and he mentioned Vettel would just be in with 41 points. But yeah. Magnussen wouldn’t for example

        1. Or wait, he would because he was 2nd the year before I guess?

        2. And lets not forget that a winner of 3 races last year, and easily in the top 3 of drivers would not be allowed to be on the grid in Daniel Ricciardo.

        3. @bascb Vettel was just off the top of my head; I see now he’d have made the cut by a point. But Ricciardo or junior megastar Frijns? No.

        1. @bascb Keith has done my job for me! A tea and shortbread afternoon is on the cards I think…

    3. @countrygent It doesn’t deny any of those people (or anyone for that matter) entry. They just need to do better in the lower categories or spend longer improving to make the grade. We judge an F1 champion by their position in the table at the end of the season. Why not judge the entry into the highest level by their ability up to that point? It is how virtually all other multi tiered sports work (i.e. best in the 2nd tier gets promoted to compete in the top tier).

  17. This future F2 is bellow GP2? Surely that does nothing but undermine the FIA’s previous decision to have GP2 as the bellow F1 level. Also the decision to have WEC and Indycar so far down… They should be at the top!
    No WRC or FE again undermining themselves.
    More misguided decisions by the FIA doing nothing but discouraging young rising talent from aiming for F1.

  18. Euro F3 worth more than Renault 3.5? I’d rank JPN Super Formula AND GP3 above Euro F3 and LMP1 as well.

    Ug! This is all so dumb. Convoluted regulations to solve a non-issue.

    If there’s a young prodigy out there that has the requisite skills to leapfrog up to F1, let them race!

    Is there any actual genuine bio-mechanical/safety issue that a person under 18 just can not physically drive an F1 car competently? Is the FIA cutting off the risk that teams will look to younger and smaller, jockey stature drivers for the superior weight distribution allowances?

    1. I guess it relates to maturity. Having phenomenal raw talent is one thing, but being able to consistently drive with a level head is another thing that cannot be necessarily successfully honed in just a singular season in a junior formula.

  19. Oh! And another thing. It’s useless over-regulations like this that meant a driving god like Sebastian Loeb could be stopped from driving a Toro Rosso several years back. How will we ever get another John Surtees style cross-discipline champion with pointless regulation hurdles like these?

  20. are these rules only for race seats or test/reserve driver seats?

  21. thE lIMESTREAM
    6th January 2015, 11:58

    Its pretty easy to assume this is an anti-verstapping law

  22. It bothers me that there are no points for F1.

    1. @mateuss If a driver is in F1 then they already have a superlicence.

      1. @strontium I understand, but it still bothers me for no good reason what so ever.

        But I dislike the idea as a whole. It limits the series from which F1 drivers can be chosen.

    2. There are actually points for F1. If you do not race in F1 for 3 consecutive seasons, you have to re-do the whole process!

      1. Does this mean e.g. Barrichello will now have to drive in GP2 or WR3.5 first if he wants a superlicence for 2016?

        1. Yes, for two years.

          It’s ridiculous.

  23. Have I misunderstood but it seems you need to win 1 race (40 points) in any of the top 5 championships to be eligible for a super licence. That is a fairly large number of drivers, more than F1 can handle anyway. This kind of makes the exercise futile.

    1. F1 drivers must accumulate at least 40 points over a three-year period which are allocated based on which championships they have participated in and how well they have performed.

      I would assume this refers to their finishing position in the championship, rather than individual results scored within the championship. The fact that they have to complete 80% of the season would back this up.

      1. Thanks – yes of course.

        It still means that the winners of the top 5 championships over 3 years are automatically able to get a super licence (upto 15 drivers), plus any runners up over a couple of years. Still too many for F1. offering 50 points may appear to be promote F2 above the others, but it seems fairly meaningless to me.

  24. ColdFly F1 (@)
    6th January 2015, 12:19

    Drivers will also have to hold a valid driving licence

    No female F1 drivers from Saudi Arabia any day soon then!

    1. On the 11th of December 2009, at the World Motor Sport Council of the FIA, the creation of a Women in Motorsport Commission was voted through under the presidency of Jean Todt.

      “The Women & Motor Sport Commission aims to create a sports culture which facilitates and values the full participation of women in all aspects of motor sport.” Michèle Mouton, President of the Women & Motor Sport Commission

    2. There’s no reason a Saudi Arabian woman couldn’t get a British driving license. Since she’d probably do racing in Britain / the rest of Europe / Japan it seems likely she’d live there long enough to get a license.

  25. So Robin Frijns would not have collected enough points for a superlicence, even though he won the title in Formula BMW, Formula Renault 2.0 and Formula Renault 3.5 in a row? FIA please…

    1. I do understand that the FIA uses this to push drivers to their championships, I’m just pointing out the consequences when this system was already used. Oh, the discrimination!

  26. How would this system work for returnees like Raikkonen and Schumacher?

    1. They would have done the distance in f1 wouldnt they?

  27. It’s pretty broken when Daniel Ricciardo wouldn’t make the cut but Pastor Maldonado makes it with ease.

  28. I dont disagree with the idea of a points system but this is pretty tough on divers i feel.

    But rather than points for the main championships it should be something like
    A top 10 finish in an Indycar season should be enough
    Top 5 in GP2, F2, F3.5 and Endurance
    Winenr of GP3, Jap Super formula, F3 & National F3 champion.

    I think they have done enough to earn there shot a F1, Good enough for Senna & Schumacher!

  29. This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. This is worse than DRS. If you only need 40 points to get a super licence, why do GP2 and F2 award superfluous points?
    So if, hypothetically, Marc Marques tests at Fiorano and is 1 second quicker than Kimi or Vettel and the Fez want to put him in the red car, he will have to do lame GP something first…. This whole thing makes me sick.
    Can agree with the 18 year old age limit, that is reasonable.

    1. *(if the points are based on race results rather than champ results, that is much less onerous and I think just acceptable), but I think there is only 1 driver in my time watching F1 that should not have been allowed in an F1 car, Nissany. So they are solving a problem that doesn’t exist.

  30. LMP1 is not necessarily on this list. LMP1’s results belong to more than one drivers.

    1. I don’t understand what you mean. LMP1 is mentioned in the table.

  31. Hmmm, this gives the FIA a lot of control over pretty much all other single-seater series doesn’t it? If any series – say a series that competes with an FIA/favoured series – gets a bit too successful they can cut it off at the knees by tweaking its points value as a route to F1.

    In fact they’ve brazenly loaded the dice for their own F2 series, already. Is this ‘abuse of a dominant position’ according to EC competition law?

    1. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
      6th January 2015, 13:21

      You really have to question the FIAs business ethics in the way theyve stacked the dice here.
      I would imagine us F1Fanatics here are generally in agreement that FR3.5 is the better feeder series, and its clearly a move to shut that success down.

      Its a pity Renault are so intertwined with the FIA, otherwise as you rightly say @lockup, they should take this to the EC.

    2. I can definitely see thing being raised with the CAS or EC. It is an abuse of position. F2 worth twice as much as FR 3.5? GP2 worth 20 points more than FR3.5? And also the standing of IndyCar is questionable, maybe even the Japanese Super Formula.

      Neat idea, but thoroughly unfair execution.

  32. Anyway, Todt has made some trouble for himself

  33. No great shock that it effectively trashes the FR2.0-3.5 route… disgusting abuse of power from the FIA.

  34. The FIA are trying to kill two birds with one stone here: prevent young and inexperienced drivers from driving F1 cars, and excluding weak drivers. It’s good that the FIA feels the need to address these issues, but once again it just seems a bit… not very well thought out.

    First off, let me say how sad it is that categories like the Formula Renaults, Formula E, touring car racing and GT racing are undervalued. The World Series has been of exceptionally high standards in the last couple of years, so it’s a bit sad how the FIA tries to ‘lure’ drivers to GP2. The most likely result of that is we will see even more pay drivers in GP2, since that will be the only chance for them to ‘qualify’ for F1.

    And that’s another thing. This new system just gives the impression that Formula 1 is the real deal, whereas all other forms of motor sport (including LMP1, IndyCar, Formula E) are inferior, just a tool to get into Formula 1. That is not how I see it and it’s a bit ridiculous how the FIA tries to make F1 into an exclusive club by introducing a set of rules that would have blocked drivers such as Ricciardo and Vergne, instead of filtering out the pay drivers in a more constructive way such as introducing a cost cap or distributing the prize money more equally.

    1. @andae23 If this isn’t CotD then I don’t know what is.

      It’s ridiculous, and come to think of it, Formula E isn’t even on there, so if a driver like Vergne (and Alguersuari, Buemi, etc.) go away and race there for a few years (which many are doing), they can’t even return.

    2. @andae23 And DTM which they could be destroying here by not including it at all.

  35. I find it a little unfair that you must hold a valid drivers licence. There are some people in the world that don’t like driving on the roads, in traffic etc. How does that have bearing on driving on a race track?

    1. I guess in most countries, if not all, to get a driver license you need to pass mental exam. That would been bad news for Maldonado.

    2. @ambroserpm That’s one thing I don’t understand. Road driving and track racing are completely different.

      Besides which it’s pretty much pointless, given that most people are able to get a drivers licence relatively straightforwardly anyway – you don’t have to prove to be an outstanding talent to do that.

  36. I’m sure there is a water-tight case for EU anti-monopolistic commission somewhere in there.

  37. I would have thought a system of qualifying progression up the different series, e.g. Nat F3, Euro F3, F2, on a similar points system would be better. I would also like to see the license points system extended to the lower classes and upgrade qualification points deducted if you have points on license.

  38. A good idea. Might need some tweaking as it starts to be implemented.
    No chance for Suzie Wolf now to enter an F1 race.
    Interesting about Formula 2. If it will be technically more diversified (different chassis and engines) than GP2 and
    F Renault 3,5 it has a rightful place above these 2 in point allocation.

  39. As usual the FIA take the concerns fans had about 17y/o F1 drivers and go completely overboard.

    1. Yes, just to clarify all this was over a driver who will only be half a year under the new age limit when he starts. It’s very over the top to do all this.

  40. Utterly despicable to try and steal the best drivers from rival series by labelling them as less worthy alternatives. Disgusting way to use the superlicence and F1 just to prop up their own series.

  41. The FIA’s ideas are very strange.

  42. Most of the complaints seem to be about the level of points for different series. But another equally problematic issue I think is the tailing off of points for different finishing positions in a series. For example in some series (e.g. F3) there could be a season long 3 driver battle for the title. At the end of the season one driver has enough points to go to F1 and 2 don’t (ignoring previous seasons results). Is that fair, are the 2nd and 3rd placed drivers any less ready for F1 – perhaps because of mechanical unreliability, luck or being in a less good team setup?

    For me this solution doesn’t solve any perceived problem of inexperienced drivers coming into F1 (I think this has very seldom been an issue). It looks more like a league structure promotion system (i.e. win the league and you can be promoted, don’t win in and you can’t, but with playoff places for those who come close lots of times). If that is the aim then so be it, but I’ve never heard of the FIA intending to do that, I think it is accidental.

  43. FIA Cartel attempting to maintain a monopoly over ‘the ladder’.

  44. What is the model of Redbull there. Is it a RB1 ?

  45. Hey.. Felix da Costa would be allowed with 43 points!!
    Too bad he won’t make it..

  46. Most worrying for me is that you could finish 2nd in GP3, 3rd in GP2 – so proved to be competitive in the feeder series, yet not have enough points for F1.

  47. I know I’m posting on a page which has already been going for some time, but I just wanted to add my opinion:

    I’m unsure as to why the points system is so heavily slanted towards winners: surely second place in some of these Championships also indicates you’re a competent driver?

    As an idea:
    Why not scale (linearly) Championship points from these series, so the winner’s tally is (say) 40, depending on the strength of the series
    Award license points based on Championship points (rounding up)
    e.g. Indycar 2014
    Power 40
    Castroneves, Dixon 37
    Montoya 35
    Pagenaud, RHR 34
    Kanaan 33
    Munos 29

    Or, for WEC
    Davidson, Buemi => 40
    Lotterer, Treyluer, Fassler => 31
    Lieb, Dumas, Janni, De Grassi, Christiensen => 29

    Also, TUSCC isn’t on the list, which is a shame. Nor is NASCAR (yes, I know they are different styles of racing).

Comments are closed.