Starting grid, Hungaroring, 2023

There’s no changes in the F1 driver line-up for 2024 – but should there be?

Debates and Polls

Posted on

| Written by

The FIA confirmed the official entry list for the 2024 Formula 1 season his week.

In an unprecedented situation, every driver who took part in the final round of the championship will return for the first race of next season – at the same team.

That is bad news for those in Formula 2 and beyond, as at a stroke it has left them without any chance of moving up into F1.

It’s often said that F1 is home to the best 20 drivers in the world. But do all of them deserve to remain in the series next year? Join in this week’s poll below.

2024 F1 drivers compared

DriverStartsBest race finishBest championship finish
Max Verstappen1851 (x54)1 (x3)
Sergio Perez2571 (x6)2
Lewis Hamilton3321 (x103)1 (x7)
George Russell10414
Charles Leclerc1231 (x5)2
Carlos Sainz Jnr1831 (x2)5 (x2)
Lando Norris1042 (x7)6 (x2)
Oscar Piastri2229
Fernando Alonso3771 (x32)1 (x2)
Lance Stroll1433 (x3)10
Pierre Gasly13017
Esteban Ocon13318
Alexander Albon813 (x2)7
Logan Sargeant221021
Yuki Tsunoda63414 (x2)
Daniel Ricciardo2391 (x8)3 (x2)
Valtteri Bottas2221 (x10)2 (x2)
Zhou Guanyu44818 (x2)
Nico Hulkenberg2034 (x3)7
Kevin Magnussen16329

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

I say

Sergio Perez had a terrible 2023, but given the strength of his performances in previous years, I don’t think his time has come yet. He needs a much better season next year, however, and among the other front-running teams the drivers have been so consistently strong there’s no reasonable case to be made for dropping any of them.

Another driver in the latter stages of his career, Valtteri Bottas, has found it hard to distinguish himself as Alfa Romeo’s form slipped this year. However I’m prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt given the team’s lack of competitiveness, and the same goes for his team mate Zhou Guanyu, who showed signs of progress this year.

I had doubts over Nico Hulkenberg returning to Haas this year, but I’ve been completely won over by his performance. He made Kevin Magnussen look quite indifferent – a change he needs to reverse.

Another driver who has made much of his return to F1 is Alexander Albon at Williams. His team mate, however, had a woeful first season.

Logan Sargeant only took a single point, and he got the rub of the green on that occasion, as two drivers ahead of him were disqualified while he and others potentially got away with track limits infringements. If Williams had dropped him, I would have found it hard to argue against it.

Along with Perez and Sargeant, another driver who got trounced by his team mate this year was Lance Stroll. This has been fairly typical for him since he entered F1, and after seven years I suspect we’ve seen the best from him.

You say

Which of these drivers do not deserve to stay in F1 next year? Cast your votes below and suggest who you’d like to replace them with in the comments.

Which F1 drivers should NOT keep their seats for 2024?

  • Logan Sargeant (23%)
  • Alexander Albon (0%)
  • Yuki Tsunoda (4%)
  • Daniel Ricciardo (4%)
  • Kevin Magnussen (11%)
  • Nico Hulkenberg (1%)
  • Fernando Alonso (1%)
  • Lance Stroll (28%)
  • Zhou Guanyu (8%)
  • Valtteri Bottas (4%)
  • Oscar Piastri (0%)
  • Lando Norris (0%)
  • Pierre Gasly (1%)
  • Esteban Ocon (2%)
  • George Russell (1%)
  • Lewis Hamilton (1%)
  • Carlos Sainz Jnr (0%)
  • Charles Leclerc (0%)
  • Sergio Perez (10%)
  • Max Verstappen (1%)

Total Voters: 115

Loading ... Loading ...

A RaceFans account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here. When this poll is closed the result will be displayed instead of the voting form.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

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.

57 comments on “There’s no changes in the F1 driver line-up for 2024 – but should there be?”

  1. Who F1 drivers should NOT keep their seats for 2024?

    ermm …. shouldn’t that be “Which F1 drivers”?

    I would like to make a Chinese joke here, but that would probably be considered racist these days :/

    1. p.s.
      I’m not voting in this one as I am happy enough with all of them, but I’m expecting a landslide against poor old Lance.

    2. I don’t understand the second part of your comment. Why would you mention that you are not going to do joke in stead of…. Just not writing anything about it?

      Also, the definition of racism hasn’t been changed for a while, so if it wasn’t racist a long time ago, it isn’t racist now and vice versa.

      I was going to write something about self-pity, but decided that it wouldn’t contribute.

      1. Such a predictable comment.

      2. I don’t understand the second part of your comment. Why would you mention that you are not going to do joke in stead of…. Just not writing anything about it?

        I can kind of picture you sitting in the audience at an Edinburgh Fringe Gig.
        Just sat there … looking confused … ;)

      3. The definition hasn’t changed, but the application has.

        When I wore a younger man’s clothes, racism usually involved abusive behavior– the idea that a casual reference to racial stereotypes, or “Did you hear the Chinese president’s visiting?” “Who?” “No, Xing. Hu retired”, is on the same level as public lynchings or burning an entire town to the ground (see “Rosewood”) because a woman was caught having an affair with a laborer, is mind boggling.

        I still maintain that racial humor (as opposed to abuse) acted as a pressure relief valve– if you can laugh at each other, you’re less likely to assault one another.

  2. There is something distinctly cruel about introducing a super license points system that forces drivers down a particular pathway, compelling them to spend vast sums of money with teams in series that can provide said points—only for them to discover afterward that there’s no actual opportunity at the end of it. But this follows a long trend of declining opportunity in F1 for drivers which is directly correlated with the lack of new teams coming into the sport, as well as increased length of time drivers stick around in the current era.

    I don’t believe drivers should be ‘given’ seats or anything like that, but it makes a mockery of the so-called system that was designed to prevent what Max Verstappen did, which was essentially avoiding spending millions upon millions with particular teams in what was GP3 and GP2.

    A deep investigation is genuinely needed. I, for one, strongly dislike how F1’s influence has wielded a wrecking ball on karting in the last few decades and relegated it’s greatest championship to some weird Formula 5 with a couple of actual professionals. However, observing what’s happening for drivers on the so-called ‘road to F1’ is equally disheartening.

    1. The superlicense system is definitely in need of review.

      1. To add to that, the second highest rated series in the superlicense scheme is Indycar. Currently, based on the points gathered in the past four season (the covid-rule means the lowest scoring season can be dropped if the previous three seasons include 2021 or 2020), there are only five people in Indycar who have 40 points and could race in F1. There are some former F1 drivers who could get a license based on previous participation (although it’s not a 100% guarantee that they’ll get one).

        These are:
        – Dixon (90)
        – Newgarden (90)
        – Palou (88)
        – Power (52)
        – O’Ward (40, he can drop the 2022 season, replacing it with 2020)

        For 2025, the covid-rule will no longer apply as the past three seasons will be 2024, 2023 and 2022.

        So in order to qualify for a superlicense in 2025:

        – Palou (guaranteed)
        – Dixon (guaranteed)
        – Power guaranteed)
        – Newgarden (if he finishes 9th or higher)
        – McLaughlin (if he finishes 4th or higher)
        – O’Ward (if he finishes 2nd or higher)

        Everyone else would need to win the title to instantly get 40 points.

        It’s pretty slim pickings from four years (!) of the second highest rated series in the FIA superlicense scheme. All the more so as people like Dixon (aged 43), Power (42) and likely even Newgarden (33) are probably no longer interested in F1 at this stage of their career.

        1. It’s not just Dixon, Power and Newgarden who have no interest in F1.

          As far as I’m aware, out of all the names you’ve listed only O’Ward has expressed any interest in F1.
          I know for certain that McLaughlin doesn’t want any part of F1.

    2. Totally agree, the current superlicense system excludes so many drivers and doesn’t do the F1 any good.

    3. The FIA superlicence system is perfectly valid for its intended purpose.
      Those competitors who earn it based on results within the FIA’s own ladder have the most chance of reaching F1, as they have proven to the FIA over a multi-year period that they are a suitably competent and safe competitor in competitions run under the FIA’s direct management. Other comparable series run under different sporting regulations (and usually quite different unofficial rules of engagement).
      The FIA award as many superlicence points as they do to competitors in other series at least in part to attract those competitors into the FIA’s ladder prior to F1. Not directly into F1 itself.

      Neither of the other two ‘big’ open wheel series (Indycar and Super Formula) are administered by the FIA. ACCUS and JAF are FIA affiliates (and domestic bodies, compared to the FIA’s overarching global status) – a partnership which provides the ‘benefit’ that they even award any superlicence points at all. The FIA is happy to allow only the best (ie most successful) drivers from these series an advantage based on previous success if they want to compete in F1 – but there are no free passes.

      It’s not ‘cruel’ that the FIA prefers competitors to compete in their own series’ over other competing (regional/domestic) series at all.
      F3 and F2 are the property of the FIA – as is F1. This is all (part of) the FIA’s business.

      And it is fuelled, in large part, by the fan and media hype that F1 is somehow superior to all other of those regional or domestic series, and that the drivers are inherently ‘better’ as well.
      Naturally, the FIA raised the standards to meet those expectations…

      1. The FIA superlicence system is perfectly valid for its intended purpose.

        It is entirely unnecessary. Almost twenty years earlier, the FIA was already perfectly equipped to give a provisional license to Räikkönen on the basis that his lack of experience made them reluctant to give him a permanent license. In addition, they were, and are, also able to outright ban every driver that proves to be unfit for the job. It’s actually quite telling that it was the debut of Räikkönen and later Verstappen – both race winners and later champions – that caused the FIA to intervene.

        Although it has been suggested the license scheme’s main target was the World Series/Formula Renault series, that’s not entirely true. Renault had already stopped backing the series, and when the point system was introduced for 2016, the title winner of the World Series would still get 30 points, putting it ahead of Super Formula, and equal to GP3. And since the points can be gathered over multiple years, the World Series remained a viable path to F1. In theory, because following Renault’s withdrawal most competitors also left and an attempt to restyle the series as a WEC support series failed, leading to the 2017 season, with a very small grid, being its last.

        1. It is entirely unnecessary.

          Not to the FIA. And since it’s their game, they get to make the rules.

          There are plenty of other racing series around the world that don’t have the requirement for a F1 superlicence.
          All of them, actually. Drivers aren’t exactly short of options for a fulfilling racing career outside of F1.

    4. This is a problem with a simple solution – we don’t need to talk about getting rid of drivers – let’s appreciate the current crop for the good job they are doing, some of them in difficult cars.

      They just need to re-design Formula 2. Remove these silly rules that prevent former F1 drivers and former F2 champions from competing. Formula 2, then by extension, becomes a series that is below F1 but not a ‘junior series’ (anyway, we already have enough of those).

      The next thing I’d do is implement a rule where the bottom three teams in the Constructors Championship are *required* to take one of the top three finishers in a Formula 2 season.

      That way, drivers can keep driving if they lose their F1 seat. They drop back to ‘2nd division’ and try to re-enter, competing against the best new drivers and other veterans who are currently without a seat.

      This would also mean more eyeballs on Formula 2, because F1 fans will see a direct correlation between the two series.

      If it seems radical, it fixes the problem you mentioned, which essentially is like sending someone to university for three years without having a job available at the end of it. Also, I think this would make racing more exciting in general.

      1. There are a number of issues here. Firstly, F2 and F1 are completely different competitions run with two different rule sets. You can’t combine them under one rule set. You can’t have promotion and relegation into what essentially are two separate sports.

        The idea that the bottom three WCC teams have to sack a driver seems odd. Contractually, it becomes a nightmare for starters. Do you think Lewis Hamilton will allow a relegated clause in his contract? Then we have the problem whereby you punish a team for being slow. They have to sack one of their drivers. That seems terribly unfair. In addition, what you do then is that the top teams in F2 can charge 3x-4x what they are charging now. They already hold the monopoly on major super license points and F1 eyeballs. But if they are the gateway to a guaranteed F1 slot, they could charge whatever they want. And where’s the demoted F1 driver going? Where are they getting their budget?

        I think a lot of this attempt to force F1 to adopt reserve drivers is all nice and that, but essentially misguided

  3. Unfortunately teams will always prioritise F1 experience over youthful promise when selecting drivers, predominantly due to a lack of testing – the cost cap arguably makes this worse too as rookie errors can be so expensive.

    There are several drivers currently on the grid who, a generation ago, would almost certainly have been replaced years ago by up-and-comers, but are now seen by risk-averse teams as more viable options. Hulkenberg, Magnussen, Tsunoda, Bottas, Ricciardo and arguably Ocon fit into this category.

    And I agree about Stroll. He has been outclassed by virtually everybody during his time in F1, and now that wet weather racing is no longer allowed to happen, his one genuine strength is irrelevant.

    1. Wet racing can still happen, just (hopefully for now) in intermediate conditions, stroll is a relatively recent driver for f1 standards and back when his career started there was already hardly any full wet running, he wasn’t there in 2016 for example.

    2. Unfortunately teams will always prioritise F1 experience over youthful promise when selecting drivers, predominantly due to a lack of testing

      Which is where re-purposing the “sprint” as a F1 hopefuls competition would be perfect. Use last year’s car.
      It would be an opportunity for the hopefuls to showcase their prowess, or lack thereof, in a competitive environment, and also stop irritating the long term fans with one change.

      1. Which is where re-purposing the “sprint” as a F1 hopefuls competition would be perfect. Use last year’s car.

        None of the teams want this.
        Hardly any viewers want this.
        Broadcasters don’t want this.
        Sponsors don’t want this either – exchanging real F1 drivers (and their media draw) for people that most viewers have never even heard of.

        If you really are a ‘fan’ as you say, you’ll accept and embrace sprints as the permanent part of F1 that they have now become.

    3. I agree there is too much risk averse decision making. Imho the system should be altered to stimulate new talent coming through or at the very least get a chance. This might need allowing for more testing in order to reduce possible damage costs to cars from inexperience. From the 2023 line-up I would like to nominate 10 drivers to be replaced:

      Sargeant, Magnussen, Zhou, Ricciardo, Hulkenberg, Bottas, Tsunoda, Ocon, Gasly, Stroll.

      They are not going to make the difference. But in all fairness it also has to do with the number of talent available which is still small since it has to come from a very small portion of the total population; those who can afford racing. The total population to select from is way larger. F1 academy should be more instrumental and not gender limited. It’s primary objective should be to level the playing field in terms of opportunity for talent out there to develop and prove themselves.

  4. The answer is obviously yes. But also we simply need more teams.

    1. We do not need more teams.

      1. Coventry Climax
        17th December 2023, 11:16

        Yes. No. Yes. No.
        How about having a survey here on Racefans with that question: Would you like to see more teams and cars on the grid, yes or no.
        Won’t change your opinion, obviously, but gives insight in to what the opinion of everyone else is, on average.

      2. F1 as a business might not ‘need’ new teams, F1 as a sport absolutely does. Also the ethics of young competitors spending millions of dollars to get a chance to earn enough points for a Super Licence only to find there is zero opportunity in 2024 is highly questionable. I don’t think it’s given anywhere near the amount of attention it deserves.

        1. Just make the sprint races a separate championship for third and young drivers. Voila!, 10 more (part-time) slots open up.
          Between 6 and 8 races, with at least half of them in “Europe”, should suffice.

          1. That’s not F1, nor would it work. You take 10 drivers out of 6 F2 weekends? a 10 race championship? It would also devalue the F1 brand. It’s not a solution.

          2. No, you take all 20 (22) regular drivers out of the 6 Sprint races.

            Regular drivers participate in the WDC. Teams now compete in the WDC, the WCC and, with their young drivers, they participate in the World Sprint Championship.

          3. So, do we have a grid of just 10 drivers? Using whose car? How are you allocating time over the weekend?

            You can’t call it a World Championship either because there’s zero chance of the FIA giving it World Championship status with a grid of 10 and a reliance on non-F1 WDC drivers. It’d have to be called the ‘Sprint Cup.’ That’s the least of the issues, though. Say the Sprint has an enormous accident and an F1 WDC has to miss a race or session because the car needs work. Even then, set up changes mean they will be affected come rain or shine, having to swap the car between the drivers. That means the WDC is directly affected by a non-F1 WDC participant. That simply cannot be allowed to happen. And where are you taking these drivers from? You would have to remove them from whatever competition they are doing for those six events. It might be possible to avoid clashes with F2, but it isn’t easy, nor desirable.

            This is some fantasy idea not grounded in reality. It would also destroy the credibility of the FIA World Championship events, and there’s no way Liberty would sign up for that.

            I can’t emphasise enough why this is a bad idea.

          4. Pfft.

            Like sprint “racing” hadn’t already destroyed the credibility of the FIA WC events.

          5. Like sprint “racing” hadn’t already destroyed the credibility of the FIA WC events.

            As though shorter race lengths or increasing the quantity of competitive sessions have any bearing on the credibility of any racing series…

            FIA World Champion means exactly the same now as it did 70+ years ago, in terms of ‘credibility.’

  5. Teams aren’t looking for the “best drivers” in the world – they’re looking for the “best at driving F1 cars”.

    The sad truth is that none of the support series are close to F1 anymore, which means there aren’t many propsects out there who could reasonably outperform Perez, Bottas, Magnussen in their first season.

    If you’re a small or medium team – why would you hire the newbie and take the pain of developing them? The reason half the young drivers have come through RB/Toro Rosso is they’re the only team on the grid with a mission to hire new.

    The best way to change all that would be to find a way for youngsters to race something close to Formula 1. Have a support series driving last year’s cars. Have a third driver who must be a teenager. Have people with < 20 starts run the sprint races. Up the Formula 2 and 3 specs (and add more cars to their races). Revamp the superlicense and make it easier to come from Japan or IndyCar. Just – let teenagers get into something like an F1 car.

    1. Coventry Climax
      17th December 2023, 11:26

      Agree. One addition though, which makes it even more ‘difficult’:

      Teams are looking for the “best at driving F1 cars”.

      I think that should actually be: Teams are looking for the best driver for their F1 car.

  6. I’d take this from the top in terms of Grand Prix raced.

    Alonso and Hamilton have both done over 300 races. Despite that, it seems indisputable that they still have more to give.

    Pérez, Ricciardo, Bottas and Hülkenberg have done over 200 races. This group is arguably the ‘experience makes up for …’ quartet; they’re not A-listers, and these are the main beneficiaries of there being so many barriers to new drivers.

    Verstappen, Sainz, and Magnussen have done over 150 races. The first two are race winners in 2023, but the last probably wouldn’t be missed if he left F1.

    Stroll, Ocon, Gasly, Leclerc, Norris and Russell have done over 100 races. This is probably the main body of the 2010s generation. With the exception of Stroll, they’re all doing well enough, even if it’s a problem for F1 that there don’t seem to be any generational talents in here.

    Albon, Tsunoda, Zhou, Piastri and Sergeant have done fewer than 100 races. Tsunoda is there for Honda, so he is guaranteed a seat as long as he is the only non-Toyota affiliated Japanese with a superlicense. Zhou is doing enough for Sauber now, but probably won’t be back when Audi brings in its own drivers. Piastri shows promise, while Sergeant doesn’t look all that impressive. Albon is hard to judge as his teammates post-dumping by Red Bull have been the weakest on the grid.

    All in all, the likes of Sergeant, Tsunoda, Stroll, Magnussen, Ricciardo, and arguably Bottas and Pérez don’t have much more to give that we haven’t already seen. But are there 7 drivers with a superlicense to fill those seats that would be a clear improvement? Probably not, and that’s perhaps the even bigger problem; the well of F1-ready talent is drying up, and the road to F1 is being barricaded by shortsighted policies, both in F1 and at the FIA.

    1. My list to be gone was Stroll, Sargent, Perez and Ricciardo. I think these 4 offer nothing to the teams they’re in and are just stopping more competent replacements being given a F1 opportunity. 3 of them are experienced enough to have expected much better this year.

      I’m not a Tsunoda fan but he did okay last year albeit I think a full season against Lawson would have proved how average he is imo.

  7. This calm-before-the-storm feels similar to 2019/2020, when only Kubica and Hülkenberg had to leave to make room for Latifi and Ocon respectively, and that market activity seemed extremely low back then. But no wonder, as every team wanted to make sure to start the last season of the actual formula, 2021, with a pair they were venturing into the new one in 2022.

    The situation is similar, 2025 will be the last season of this era, and with the exception of Hamilton, Russell, Norris, Piastri and Verstappen (if I know this correctly), all the other drivers will have their contract run out at the end of 2024. This way I’m expecting an incredibly busy transfer season, and with some key contracts revealed even before the first GP of 2024.

  8. Coventry Climax
    17th December 2023, 11:36

    In an unprecedented situation, every driver

    So we have yet another record in F1.

    I took my private F1 results database down sometime ago already, but does anyone have the numbers/percentages for the change in teams and drivers, over the years?
    Would be nice to see if there’s actually a trend there.

    1. I logged the decline a few years ago of drivers who took part in a Grand Prix race. If I included drivers who didn’t qualify it’d be worse. But yes there has been a steady decline in debutant drivers each year throughout F1’s history. I think 2025 will see a spike because we have a bottleneck, the the trend line is clearly downward. This can be quickly drawn up from Wikipedia data.

      The sport is safer now, drivers have longer careers (that’s a hunch though) and there’s less new teams. These are the main reasons.

      1. It’s not just a hunch, it’s true they have longer careers.

  9. There are a lot of half-decent experienced drivers but I’d like to see some new talent coming through. So I’d lose Stroll, KMag, Perez, Hulk, first off. But also Ocon and Tsunoda I get the feeling have been in enough races now for me not to be impressed. I’d much prefer seeing Porchaire, Drugovich, Palou, Lawson, Martins or Vesti to see what they would be capable of given half a chance.

    1. I’d love an event where F1 drivers have to run a weekend in F2 cars, and see whether anyone picks it up quickly enough to match the current F2 racers

  10. I don’t understand why this site always organises the polls in this way. The percentages shown should be the percentage of total voters, not total votes. We can see an order for which drivers most people want out, but 31% for Lance Stroll doesn’t mean that 31% of people want rid of Stroll, it just means 31% of the votes have been for Stroll which doesn’t really mean anything as different people will vote for a different number of drivers. Shouldn’t you show the percentage of people who voted for Stroll instead? This would make so much more sense.

  11. Call me crazy but looking at those percentages, that looks about right to me for the order the drivers should have been rated this year.

    Those who most deserve not to have their seats, are subjectively the worst drivers.

  12. I voted for sargeant and zhou in the sense I don’t think they’re good enough for f1, sargeant by far more deserving of the vote ofc.

    I would’ve voted for stroll too if the question had been who doesn’t deserve their current car, but I wouldn’t mind stroll at williams in sargeant’s place, it’s where he belongs performance wise, and actually it’s also where he began.

    1. And obviously same reasoning for perez: he was terrible this year and doesn’t deserve that car, but he did well enough the other years, including the ones at red bull, though I’d like to see someone who can challenge verstappen there, say norris and perez at a 2nd tier car, like mclaren in this case.

  13. I, for one, am glad that Formula One is now a series that values experience.

    We have gone from the days in the 2010’s where there was constant churn seemingly for the sake of it, spearheaded by Helmut Marko and his ‘young driver programme’, and imitated by others.

    I think of names like Alguesuari, Buemi, Vergne, di Resta, Kobayashi, Nasr, Wehrlein, and more, drivers who were there for two, at most three years, and suddenly dropped, without seeing how they would have developed or fared in stronger teams. Most of these drivers were improving steadily, and were never offered a further chance.

    Let’s appreciate the job the current Formula 1 drivers are doing, some of them in underwhelming cars, and realise there are very few out there who could match them.

    As for the ones outside looking in, I’ve given my simple solution in reply to another comment – something along the lines of removing the bans of former F1 drivers and F2 champions from Formula 2, and mandating the top three finishers in an F2 season are automatically promoted to F1 with the bottom three teams in the Constructors Championship.

    1. Unfortunately, your solution creates somewhat of a contradiction.

      Having the lowest 3 teams in the championship required to accept F2 drivers means that those drivers will most likely be turfed out every season – as the bottom 3 teams in the championship rarely change. Especially when they are required to run drivers that may not be particularly stellar…

      It also creates quite the problem with the existing driver academies, as almost all drivers now are contracted to a particular manufacturer or team long before they even reach F3.
      Would be interesting to see Ferrari, Red Bull or Alpine juniors driving Mercedes-powered cars or vice-versa – from an F1-politics perspective at least…

  14. Formula 1 in the 2020s is far too forgiving or maybe just far too risk averse. Underperforming at the pinnacle of motor sports should result in instant dismissal. At least five drivers last year are due a replacement, Sargeant, Stroll, Zhou, Bottas, and probably both Tsunoda and Perez. I’d add Magnussen to the list too.

    F1 needs both more teams, and more ruthless managers that aren’t afraid to sack poor performers.

    1. The managers are sufficiently ruthless — but a ruthless manager doesn’t axe a ‘decent’ driver like most of the ones on your list in order to get a random untrained new one. What’s in it for them?

      Sometimes a propsect is so exciting you bring them in; sometimes retirements and last year’s rookies not working out creates spaces. Otherwise, there’s little incentive for an individual team to give someone a chance. Even replacing Lance Stroll with Liam Lawson would be a bit of a gamble in the first year.

      Alphatauri are an exception because their key goal is to train new drivers: hence Albon, Gasly, Lawson, Ricciardo, Sainz, Tsunoda, Vettel, Verstappen. Other teams don’t have that goal.

      1. Oh no it isn’t, hence bringing back Kvyat, keeping Tsunoda for four years and Ricciardo again. Who knows what the point of, um, RB is any more? I wonder if Horner will explain it in simple terms for us.

    2. Given that Tsunoda both improved his own game AND beat all of the teammates he was up against this year, I fail to see your reasoning there. If anything, you should have Daniel making room for Lawson in there!

      I doubt there are that many drivers who would do a better job overall against Max (and not have it end in scandals and infighting – which would certainly be the case with a Hamilton or Alonso calibre driver at Red Bull next to Max).
      Magnussen, I can see. Bottas actually did pretty decently but the car really was a downer compared to last year, the same goes for Zhou as well. I’d say Sargeant would probably have been replaced if Williams had had a better prospect available to them, although I am somewhat happy to see whether he manages to show more progress in his second year.

  15. Voted Stroll, Zhou, Sargeant and Perez.

    Now it’s important to distinguish that this poll is about drivers who are not deserving of their current seat, not necessarily undeserving of remaining in F1 entirely. That’s why Perez belongs on this list. As for the other 3, they should not still be in F1 at all, it’s pointless. As for KM who was chosen by quite a few, I disagree. We know what he’s capable of, he’s a good driver. One swallow doesn’t make a summer = 1 bad season in a terrible car and partnered with an underrated driver who’s been a qualifying monster throughout his career (and in the races Hulks advantage is small, it’s only in qualifying where he destroyed KM) isn’t enough evidence that he doesn’t deserve a drive. If it continues the same way in 2024 then yes he doesn’t deserve to continue in 2025 but we’re talking about 2024 here.

  16. My choice may be surprising, but Ricciardo, i.e., Lawson alongside Tsunoda instead of him.
    I already felt this way when the formal announcement came on the Japanese GP weekend.

    1. Yeah, I also think that given the way he stepped in at short notice and got only a few races Lawson was the more promising prospect.

      I get that Daniel was hampered by the accident and had to get back on pace (and I guess there might be some loyalty / contractual obligations they have with Daniel that would prevent that), but he really did not show that he would be the shoe in for Perez that Red Bull had hoped to have on their books.

  17. Kevin Magnussen, who from his interviews has clearly no ambition left, has nothing to add to F1 anymore.

    Lance Stroll, who has been out of his depth since he entered F1, can exit aswell.

    Bottas could be useful as an experienced driver, but the lack of development at Sauber makes me doubt the quality of his feedback and therefore his place in F1.

    Zhou needs to start proving his worth this season and beat Bottas at every occasion, otherwise one might aswell find a new youngster to replace him.

    Perez has always been a fast but mediocre driver that makes alot of mistakes, but aslong as he is no threat to Max and delivers the points he is useful for Red Bull.

    Logan should get atleast another year to show what he’s got.

    Gasly and Ocon mediocre drivers at an unambitious and chaotic team, which might have potential for the future now that there are foreign investors like Rob & Ryan.
    Atleast Gasly is a team player and can help develop. Ocon is too egotistical, willing to sacrifice team results if it means beating his teammate.

    Liam Lawson performed above expectations those few races he got the chance. He should get a full season to show whether he’s got the potential to perform.

    A side note has to be made that drivers that enter F1 have been getting younger and younger by the decade. In the olden days the average driver didn’t enter F1 until around the age of 28.

  18. Of Stroll shouldn’t be there.

  19. bennie johnston
    19th December 2023, 10:54

    Out of twenty drivers only 4 of them haven’t had a podium. Eleven of them have won an F1 race. This is why we are seeing so little change, this is an amazing grid.

Comments are closed.