Andrea Kimi Antonelli, Mercedes, Monza, 2024

Ten years since its introduction, does F1 need its superlicence points system?

Debates and polls

Posted on

| Written by

Tomorrow will be 10 years to the day since the FIA confirmed the details of a new points system to determine who should be allowed to race in Formula 1.

The superlicence points system originally awarded points to drivers based only on their finishing positions in different categories beneath F1. Now extra points are awarded for participating in F1 practice sessions, avoiding penalties and more.

The threshold requirement of 40 points remains unchanged. Every aspiring F1 driver knows they must rack up those 40 points over three seasons in order to achieve their goal (the requirement to do so in consecutive seasons was temporarily relaxed due to the Covid-19 pandemic).

F1’s superlicence system has potentially prevented some drivers from racing in F1 when they could have done. AlphaTauri (now Racing Bulls) wanted to run IndyCar driver Colton Herta in 2023, but could not as he did not have sufficient superlicence points, despite being a multiple race-winner in one of the few single seater categories where car performance is close to that seen in F1.

A decade since its introduction, is F1’s superlicence points system performing a useful function for the series and for upcoming drivers?

The FIA F1 superlicence points system in 2025

Points are awarded for drivers’ finishing positions in these championships as follows:

Series 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th Total
FIA Formula 2 40 40 40 30 20 10 8 6 4 3 201
FIA Formula 3 30 25 20 15 12 9 7 5 3 2 128
FIA WEC (Hypercar) 30 24 20 16 12 10 8 6 4 2 132
Japanese Super Formula 30 25 20 15 12 9 7 5 3 2 128
IndyCar 40 30 20 10 8 6 4 3 2 1 124
FIA Formula E 30 25 20 10 8 6 4 3 2 1 109
Formula Regional European Championship 25 20 15 10 7 5 3 2 1 0 88
Japanese Super GT500 20 16 12 10 7 5 3 2 1 0 76
IMSA Grand Touring Prototype 20 16 12 10 7 5 3 2 1 0 76
Formula Regional Middle East Championship 18 14 12 10 6 4 3 2 1 0 70
Formula Regional Americas Championship 18 14 12 10 6 4 3 2 1 0 70
Formula Regional Japanese Championship 18 14 12 10 6 4 3 2 1 0 70
Formula Regional Oceania Championship 18 14 12 10 6 4 3 2 1 0 70
Formula Regional Indian Championship 18 14 12 10 6 4 3 2 1 0 70
Deutsche Tourenwagen Masters 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
International Supercars Championship 15 12 10 7 5 3 2 1 0 0 55
NASCAR Cup 15 12 10 7 5 3 2 1 0 0 55
Indy Lights (now Indy Nxt) 15 12 10 7 5 3 2 1 0 0 55
Euroformula Open 15 12 10 7 5 3 2 1 0 0 55
Japanese Super Formula Lights 15 12 10 7 5 3 2 1 0 0 55
National FIA Formula 4 Championships certified by the FIA 12 10 7 5 3 2 1 0 0 0 40
Asian / ELMS / IMSA Le Mans Prototype 2 (LMP2) 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 30
FIA WEC (LMGT3) 12 10 7 5 3 2 1 0 0 0 40
F1 Academy 10 7 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 26
Indy Pro 2000 10 7 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 26
GB3 Championship 10 7 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 26
NASCAR National 10 7 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 26
GT3 Championships registered as International Series 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
Japanese Super GT300 6 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
FIA Karting World Championships in senior category 4 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
FIA Karting Continental Championships in senior category 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
FIA Karting World Championships in junior category 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
FIA Karting Continental Championships in junior category 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Points are only awarded if championships meet various criteria, including only visiting FIA-certified tracks and involving a minimum number of drivers. Drivers can only count points from two championships per year and no more than 12 points from karting series.

Three further points are awarded to the winner of the Formula Regional World Cup. Drivers can accumulate up to 10 points by participating in Formula 1 practice sessions and gain an additional two points by keeping a ‘clean sheet’ in any series where penalty points are issued for driving infractions.

For

Formula 1 is the top level of international motor racing and drivers need to show they are capable of handling powerful machines and following the rules of racing. Junior championships are the best way to do this and it makes sense to favour those whose rules and regulations are closest to F1’s.

No system is ever going to be perfect, and although F1’s superlicence points system is complicated, it largely does its job.

Against

The superlicence points system sets a higher bar for some drivers depending on what series they were able to race in, which may have less to do with their ability than what they can afford. F1’s top junior series have become even more expensive in recent years as all their races take place at grand prix weekends.

The points allocations for some series show the system is intended to favour FIA over non-FIA series, putting drivers from some regions, notably the USA, at a disadvantage.

I say

The past five years have revealed how cynical the superlicence points system is. When an IndyCar driver such as Colton Herta comes up short, no exceptions are made. When a wealthy driver in an FIA-sanctioned series needs a licence, suddenly the system is more malleable.

Any system which blocks a driver of Herta’s ability while waving in the likes of Nikita Mazepin can’t be taken seriously.

New F1 drivers should be required to take tests demonstrating they can drive the cars and understand the racing rules. The unnecessary, over-complicated and bureaucratic superlicence points system should be binned.



You say

When we asked our readers this question five years ago, many did not approve of superlicence points but a significant minority felt the system had merit. Five years on, have those views changed significantly?

Do you agree F1 should keep its superlicence points system?

  • No opinion (1%)
  • Strongly disagree (56%)
  • Slightly disagree (17%)
  • Neither agree nor disagree (2%)
  • Slightly agree (15%)
  • Strongly agree (9%)

Total Voters: 104

Loading ... Loading ...

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

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.

Miss nothing from RaceFans

Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:

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.

53 comments on “Ten years since its introduction, does F1 need its superlicence points system?”

  1. Yes (@come-on-kubica)
    5th January 2025, 9:02

    No it’s a waste of time.

    1. Not only that: F2 and F3 titles can essentially be bought by billionaire parents for crappy drivers.

      1. I disagree with that statement. The amount of sprint and main races in F2 and F3 makes it very hard for bad drivers to win the title. More money can secure a better team, but because of the spec series nature there are usually a couple of teams close enough.

        1. Not when the majority of the field is only in that field because of sponsorship of the same billionaires.

          It’s how Lawrence Stroll bought Lance’s F3 title.

          1. The issue isn’t so much that bad drivers can get through with just a load of money, I think it is fair to say that Lance Stroll has motor racing talent for example (on his day he can do a great race), and he did put in the effort to get to F1, so in that sense fair enough, but we want not just solid or even good drivers, we want the best drivers to be able to get to F1, and currently (and perhaps always) the system is stacked against poor/unconnected drivers even if they have a loads of talent and grit, as they can’t afford the resources the Strolls put in.

            I voted slightly disagree on ‘should the FIA keep their system’ as I don’t think getting rid of the points will really cure much, but I do very much agree with Keith that a aptness test of some kind would be great, especially if itwould allow a wider entry (and let that function as the barrier to entry for an F2 series talentpool?).

          2. @bosyber but Keith’s proposed “aptness” test doesn’t really solve the problem that he has with the current system. If the problem is that you object to the wrong sort of pay driver being allowed in, the proposed solution of removing the current requirements and effectively significantly downgrading the skill requirements by saying drivers must simply complete “tests demonstrating they can drive the cars and understand the racing rule” doesn’t really solve the issue.

            If anything, the way that Keith wants to run things might instead have the opposite effect – in downgrading the requirements, it gives an incentive – indeed, it actively encourages – wealthier drivers to bypass those junior series by paying teams to run private tests with older cars to prove that they “can drive the cars and understand the racing rules” to get into Formula 1 more quickly than their rivals can.

        2. @addme
          You’re correct, so let me phrase it differently: the required amount of points can be bought and championships can be either won by spending large amounts of money or won through exaggerated experience.

          Hence Mazepin, Palmer, Latifi, Stroll, deVries, Zhou.

          None of these drivers “deserved” to be on the grid, not even Stroll, who atleast seems to have some skills but utterly lacks ambition and motivation.

          1. El Pollo Loco
            5th January 2025, 16:30

            I’m sorry, but there’s some inaccuracies going on here. Palmer did not buy his title. De Vries did not buy his title (the length of time just showed he wasn’t top grade material, which is why it didn’t buy him a shot). It did its job in keeping dangerous drivers out of F1, but of course it hasn’t kept out rich kids because that’s all F1 is. Arguments can be made against the other drivers, but as of this this season there were literally three drivers who came from families that weren’t extremely wealthy or connected: Alonso, Hamilton and Ocon. Norris’ family is worth hundreds-of-millions. Nobody talks about it because he’s good, but how good would he be if he actually had to compete against all comers like football players do? Probably not that good.

            Either way, the system is no longer needed because F1 is now profitable. So, we don’t have teams on the brink of bankruptcy all the time “signing” drivers like Mazepin. The super license system is now just an FIA racket to try to force to drivers to go through FIA series. The fact you can come second in the IndyCar championship and not get an FIA super license is a complete joke.

    2. I would let it go but with 1 restriction atleast 18 year as then you could have a driverslicense… and common sense some test rounds with a F1 car …
      This on top of your normal race license offcourse.

  2. 100% disagree.

    Teams should be allowed to make their own decision of who they want in their car, just like before the introduction.

    Can’t remember it ever being a problem and especially now with the cost cap and all I am sure teams will make sure to pick “safe bets”.

    Kimi/Max —> Latifi, Sargeant, Mazepin, de Vries.

  3. Formula 1 teams only ever employ two kinds of drivers. Really good drivers they think will get them the best results and drivers that pay them a lot of money because they’re struggling to get their budget in order. Of the final one, really only three such teams have existed in recent years. And only one of those remained this year and will stop doing it next year.

    So what’s the point in keeping drivers off of the grid? We have some pretty great drivers in the not-so-distant past that came into F1 with only one or two seasons of open-wheel junior racing. Not because they were a stunt hiring, but because they were great drivers. Do we really want to argue against the likes of Jenson, Kimi, and Max? Did these world champions need “more time to cook” before getting promotions into F1?

    It’s a silly system that’s now being abused by FOM to promote their own junior series’ over other avenues into F1. And pay drivers? Well they just pay themselves into the top teams of those exact junior series and still get into F1 seats, it didn’t stop them and it never will stop them. Just look at how Lawrence Stroll did it. Paid for the top seats, made sure the second seats were filled by drivers with instructions to move over for Lance, then made sure the teams got assistance from F1 teams in developing (dubiously legal) parts for their cars to give them a performance edge, and there you go, job done. It’s a maths based system, not a judge of merit of performance.

    Meanwhile race winning IndyCar drivers don’t get to come into F1, because the junior path to IndyCar doesn’t net nearly the same license points at the junior path in European open wheel racing does (or did, they have at least changed this somewhat). What is even the point of the system then? If you can win races in IndyCar and a F1 team is willing to take a chance on hiring you, you should get the F1 seat and not be held back because MBS’ accountants’ Excel sheets say that you’re not “fast enough” because you never drove in FOM’s F3 series.

    tl’dr: At the end of the day, the points system didn’t prevent pay drivers from being in F1. It didn’t prevent Latifi, or Sargeant, or Nikita Mazepin. But it did prevent Colton Herta from getting a F1 seat. So there’s your proof of the system being useless right there, as far as I’m concerned, the proof is in the pudding.

    1. @ideals you, and many others – including the author of this piece – seem to be working from the assumption that Red Bull were serious about hiring Herta, which is questionable.

      After all, when the initial rumours that Red Bull were supposedly chasing Herta broke back in 2022, Herta himself was rather confused and surprised that he was supposedly being chased by Red Bull when journalists asked him about it, as Red Bull had not spoken to him about any sort of deal.

      In reality, there doesn’t actually seem to have been any serious effort by Red Bull to hire Herta – instead, because Red Bull were rather publicly linking the possibility of releasing Gasly from his contract at Alpha Tauri to drive for Alpine in 2023 to Herta being allowed to drive, the more common interpretation is that Red Bull were demanding more money from Alpine in compensation for cutting Gasly’s contract short by making it appear that it’d be very difficult to replace Gasly.

      To that end, throwing in the name of a high profile American driver helped garner more publicity and press and, given they knew he didn’t meet the FIA’s licencing requirements, they knew that it would create a sizeable amount of controversy that they could then use to their advantage (since it would make the FIA look like it was the party being unreasonable, whilst simultaneously putting pressure on Alpine to increase their offer to Red Bull by saying “well, it’s the FIA that’s not letting us replace Gasly easily – but we might be prepared to agree something if you improve your offer…”).

      Equally, for all the complaints that are being made here by posters and by this site itself, Herta himself was not actually all that fussed about the nature of the superlicence. He made a bit of a passing comment about wanting to see IndyCar receiving a bit more recognition, but was much more pragmatic and open minded about the FIA’s licencing system than many posters here seem to be.

      1. Whether or not they were serious or not, that doesn’t change a thing for the actual argument made by me and the article, which is about the super
        license points system and not the alleged seriousness of Red Bull’s interest.

      2. It doesn’t matter what RB were really planning to do at all, and it’s just an example. There will be another Herta, or someone better, limited by these arbitrary rules.

        1. Dex, by definition, will not any single set of rules to define how a driver may get a licence to compete in Formula 1 going to limit the driver pool by a set of arbitrary rules?

          There are many here who, in the past, were complaining that older licencing systems that were too open ended up allowing too many unskilled drivers into the sport and complaining that there should be tighter restrictions that forced drivers to spend more time in junior series to learn driver skills and demonstrate they were competent to progress to Formula 1.

          Now we have the system in place that those who complained wanted, they now complain that it’s too restrictive and should go back to the open system that they complained about in the first place. People are always going to whine and moan that the system is unfair, or that somebody else who is deemed to be “more deserving” isn’t getting a seat whilst somebody else who is deemed “undeserving” is getting a seat – particularly when the popular definition of “pay driver” and drivers being declared as “deserving” or “undeserving” sometimes seems to be influenced more by the popular appeal of some drivers than their ability as a driver.

          Kvyat comes to mind as an example – when Red Bull first picked him, there were quite a few fans who attacked him as a “rubbish pay driver”. Some seemed to be motivated to do so because of his nationality (i.e. the belief that, as he was Russian, he would automatically be a pay driver), and some seemed to think that he’d stopped Felix da Costa getting a seat and resented him for that, but there was plenty of abuse flying around when he first appeared on the grid (although, in the longer term, there is the irony that some of those who did complain at the time later wrote da Costa off as “mediocre” when he stumbled a bit in GP3).

          However, when Kvyat did end up doing better than expected, the “undeserving pay driver” complaints quietened down – indeed, in later years, when there was more sympathy for Kvyat given how Red Bull treated him, we ended up with people saying that he “deserved to be on the grid” and “deserved more” from his time in Formula 1. It wasn’t necessarily his driving, but more the emotional side that led people to say that – showing that, to some extent, the complaints about whether the licencing system is “fair” or “unfair” seems to be more about what emotions it makes people feel, rather than the objective rationale behind the system in the first place.

    2. El Pollo Loco
      5th January 2025, 16:35

      The days of teams needing pay drivers like Mazepin have ended thanks to the budget cap. Now, all the system does is block drivers who are obviously qualified from non-FIA run series. Besides, 95% of the F2 grid are the children of the .01%. It has and never will be a meritocratic sport. So, the system is useless.

  4. Voted slightly agree. No fan wants pay drivers taking F1 seats without achieving anything significant in lower formulas, but I disagree with some of the FOM points bias that has effectively made the majority of up and coming drivers become pay drivers or face being overlooked by F3 and F2. We may also miss the next Raikkonen and Verstappen. Drat, can I change my mind.

  5. Strongly disagree was an easy choice as the points system simply ran its course a while ago already, so it should be dropped altogether.
    A more reasonable requirement list would be as follows:

    Minimum age requirement (both default & absolute with the present criteria)

    Modern F1 car testing for a 300 km minimum at proper racing speeds

    Rule studying & theory test

    In other words, keep everything else as they are.
    Literally nothing wrong with having only the above requirements for super license eligibility, so FIA should simply be willing to drop the points system that has officially been in effect since early 2016, as otherwise Max’s debut would’ve been postponed as he didn’t turn 18 by the 2015 Australian GP anyway.

    1. I forgot to add that nothing happened with Mazepin as he became eligible by simply reaching the 40-point minimum requirement under normal circumstances.

  6. Super License drove up prices for good seats in F3 and F2, and cut off other routes to F1.

    Did it raise standards? F1 has been consolidating anyway, so in my view all this did was make F3 and F2 more expensive, well even more than it otherwise would’ve been.

    You could in theory do one year of cars, and get into F1 and invest £500,000-£1,000,000 or so. Now? That’s impossible. granted it’s rare for this to happen, but it was possible, conceivable. Now it isn’t.

    1. El Pollo Loco
      5th January 2025, 23:53

      Exactly. The prices of the license are a complete joke and are doing more damage than good at this point.

  7. The move has not stopped pay drivers taking seats away from more skilful drivers, nor improved the standard of driving on the grid. The only effect it seems to have had is to remove series from the tiers below F1, resulting in more expense, fewer drivers getting to the point where they can be selected and (indirectly) leading to F2 becoming a parking series.

    The pay driver phenomenon happens because F1 is expensive. Changing how drivers get to F1 does not make it cheaper and therefore cannot be expected to reduce the pay driver phenomenon. The only moves in the last 10 years that would plausibly have reduced pay driver count would be fewer teams (because that means less total money is needed by the teams collectively to race) and the budget cap, which explains why 2015, 2017 and 2022 had the only known decreases in pay driver count in the 10-year span.

    Penalty points are issued liberally now, just as they were in 2015, and it’s not as if the expected standard has particularly improved. Improving the points standard doesn’t seem to have made any difference. The main difference is that there is now less incentive for the majority of FP1-only drivers to follow the regulations, because they are in FP1 but know they are unlikely ever to reach the points tally needed to face the consequences of their actions, in F1 or anywhere else.

    The reduction of series occurred due to manipulation of points tallies to favour preferred series. Formula 3.5 was at one point providing better-prepared candidates than GP2, but the superlicence system severely underestimated that series’ importance. Gerhard Berger, who devised the system, stated specifically the point was to get potential F1 rivals meeting earlier, so this is a feature rather than a bug. I think it temporarily set back levels of preparation and permanently halved the pool of quality candidates.

    Reduced supply for the same demand has, predictably, resulted in a huge increase in costs at the top tier. This means that less well-backed drivers can’t race any more (by this point, the increased cost has percolated as far as FRECA, so it’s even impacted the beginning of the single-seater sequence). It means that there are fewer drivers to choose from, and of those drivers, fewer of them will have the requisite skill.

    It also means that less well-backed drivers can only reach F3 or F2 by getting the support of a team, meaning the F1 selection phase now effectively happens in FRECA and equivalent (with the occasional selection in F3 or F2 for people who got lost in the shuffle like Paul Aron). F3 is being used simply to tot up points and give the driver experience in the reserve F1 driver role (which F1 teams now see as a better differentiator than performance in F2/F3), and F2 as a parking series in case there happens not to be a vacancy in a driver’s chosen team. (Bear in mind that F1 team backing doesn’t remove the requirement for drivers to pursue sponsors in most cases, it just changes the task from “impossible” to “about as challenging as getting the backing without a F1 team’s support was before the superlicence system”.

    In short, the only goal the superlicence system meets is one it shouldn’t have been doing in the first place. It would be better to remove it altogether, either to return to the old system or get something that more accurately reflects how F1-quality drivers are developed worldwide.

    (I do think some drivers that have come through needed “more time to cook”, but the Superlicence system did nothing to prevent people being put through prematurely, as Verstappen needing 4 1/2 years to start driving less sloppily than his below-par debut proved. A year more development before F1 would have cut 3-4 years off that time, and surely if a driver is good, we want to see 3-4 more years of them delivering their best performances, rather than rushing to put early performances on? Arguably, this applied even more so to Stroll – the way the system is currently constructed, the people most in need of an F2 season are the ones least likely to actually do it. However, any selection system will result in this sort of thing happening from time to time).

    1. Personally, I’d prefer the “change to a more modern system” approach and say:

      – 2 years in a recognised single-seater car racing series of at least a certain amount of power (I’d set this to somewhere around FRECA standard), at least one of which must admit international drivers.
      – Achieve top 5 positions in 2 series in a 3-year timeframe
      – No race bans or similarly serious infractions of driver conduct in the 3-year timeframe

      After this is done (drivers may start to do this as soon as their second top-5 series finish is mathematically guaranteed, and do not need to wait until it is formally locked in that December), in order:
      – Pass theory test on F1
      – A weekend shadowing a F1 team’s work
      – A session shadowing stewards at work and sitting in on at least 1 marshal briefing (with an expectation to not interrupt either), in either order. This is to understand key roles in the FIA that will have a major impact on their careers.
      – Complete at least 1 FP1 session in F1, with at least 100 km distance completed (this covers the role previously filled by “a recent experience of a modern F1 car of at least 100 km”).
      – A post-season F1 test with simulated weekend, to which all drivers eligible by the above standard who haven’t raced a F1 car in the last 5 seasons are invited. Any team not fielding two drivers must have one of their current F1 drivers in the other seat, to provide benchmarking. Driver performance would be assessed by teams, the FIA, journalists and fans, and those meeting a certain minimum threshold would be permitted a Superlicence.

      1. Well, you clearly put thought and reason into that @alionora-la-canta, would love to see something as rational and seemingly fit-for-purpose as what you propose there put in place. Not likely to happen, but it is a solid plan at least, thanks.

      2. @alianora-la-canta A decent, but a bit complicated alternative plan.

        1. @jerejj The last part, I agree, is complicated.

  8. Few seem to recognise that this system isn’t just about forcing young drivers to get more experience before entering F1 – it’s also highly motivated by F1’s desire/need to appear (and be) the most exclusive series.
    It’s intentionally set up to block not pay drivers, but unsuccessful drivers. Especially those lacking suitable media presence in F1’s target market. Europe.

    Many people will rightfully point out that US drivers are at somewhat of a disadvantage – but that shouldn’t come as a great surprise given that F1 remains highly European-centric. The American racing ladders a somewhat independent of the FIA too, which doesn’t help their cause.

    Summary is basically that if you want to get into F1, you need to prove your calibre first. I think, on principle, most F1 die-hards would see that as quite a positive – even though it comes at the cost of sporting integrity and openness.
    But hey, this is F1 – not club go karts or Formula 4.

  9. Neil (@neilosjames)
    5th January 2025, 11:57

    I have more of a problem with the Super Licence’s implementation than I do with the system itself.

    It was ostensibly brought in to ensure only capable drivers got to F1, and that should really be all it does. But it was also used to alter the pathway to F1, putting much stronger emphasis onto the FIA-approved junior ladder. Not only did it undervalue rival series to the point some folded (FR3.5 anyone?), it also dismissed professional non-FIA single-seater competitions as somehow less worthy than F2 and even F3. Super Formula and Indycar, for example.

    I don’t mind the system itself as a means of keeping poor drivers out, but I do mind it being abused by the organisation that created it for their own means, to ensure their own dominance of the pathway to F1.

    1. I don’t mind the system itself as a means of keeping poor drivers out, but I do mind it being abused by the organisation that created it for their own means, to ensure their own dominance of the pathway to F1.

      Likewise, we could argue that – even without a Superlicence system – the path to getting into, say, Indycar or NASCAR is also equally heavily influenced by their own respective junior series. Same for Aussie Supercars, BTCC, Super Formula, etc, etc.

      It’s the nature of any sporting series (not just motorsport) that there is a preferred pathway to a particular series at the top of their ladder. And being financially-motivated businesses, they aren’t going to go out of their way to help their competitors.

    2. Your point was beautifully summarised in a tweet from Alex Rossi years ago. He said that the superlicence system’s introduction aimed to prioritise sporting talent above commercial interests, but the FIA’s points weighting meant that it had prioritised the FIA’s own commercial interests above sporting talent…

  10. Coventry Climax
    5th January 2025, 12:53

    While I certainly agree with the end conclusion of the ‘I say’, I do not agree with Keith’s reasoning behind it.
    The points system is not flawed just because the FiA is fraudulent with it.
    That’s similar to saying the law for thievery is unjust because the police isn’t able to catch thieves.

    So that the FiA even manages to completely mismanage their own rules is firstly nothing new, and secondly no argument for a yes or no regarding the superlicence points system.
    There’s other, more fundamental and better arguments to judge that.

    The argument with which it was brought to life, was to prevent ‘drivers’ from just paying for their seats.
    Now why -rethoric question- would that occur in the first place?
    And for sure, the FiA once again came up with a cure that’s worse than the ailment.
    In some areas in professional life, that would rank as lack of judgement.

    Obviously, with the way the finances for the teams are more or less guaranteed these days, there’s already much less of an incentive for teams to run (at least one of) their cars with a downright unsuitable, underqualified driver.
    (That’s not to say I agree with things like the cost cap, as among other things, I feel it takes off some edge of competitiveness.)
    But even so, it is, in the first place, not for the Governing body of the racing rules to also make up rules as to who should be allowed to compete and who shouldn’t: That’s for the teams to decide and noone else. But the FiA now has a big foot, if not two, between the door of those decisions.

    At the end of a season, it is always quite obvious as to who has a place in F1 and who hasn’t.
    There should maybe be more emphasis on a system where those drivers are more readily replaced with ‘fresh’ ones, but that is not happening and the super licence points system does not aid in that at all.
    For starters, it might help if drivers ranking below a certain threshold at the end of a season -say lower than 10th – would loose s.l. points again.
    While this suggests I somehow agree with the s.l. system’s existence, I do not; I merely illustrate a fundamental flaw.

    Then, -even managed fraudulent or not- getting your driver licence is a much more lenient process when you took your lessons by an FiA sanctioned school?
    Wow, why are the teams still allowed (!) to operate their young driver programs? Shouldn’t that be an exclusive FiA task as well then?
    Oh, suddenly there’s noone home there.

    So what are the reasons for the s.l.points system being in existence in the first place?
    Well, as always, it’s about control, about the combination of power and money.
    It basically means: You can’t compete in the top tier of motorsports unless you submit to the FiA rules and earn them dollars. And by FiA rules here, I don’t mean the racing rules.

    Just look at what drivers can or can’t say, do, be and behave like these days, or where they are obliged to show up, all for the greater glory of the FiA.

    They want us to look at FiA selected and governed drivers, in FiA designed cars, made by FiA selected and governed franchise ‘competitors’, running at FiA designed and selected tracks with an FiA designed frequency, following FiA designed rules that the FiA can manipulate at will at any FiA chosen point in time, watch FiA controlled broadcasts with FiA sanctioned and moderated comment, reply to FiA sanctioned and manipulated polls and believe the FiA is great.

    Shows every sign of a hoax, actually. For money, obviously, not for the love of sportsmanship or motorracing.

  11. It’s entirely about the FIA trying to assert their control over motorsport. It has nothing at all to do with who’s good enough to race in F1.

  12. No.

    If teams are not sufficiently motivated to attract the best drivers available then they fully deserve the ridicule and lack of points that will be their part.

    Reintroduction of something like the 107 rule would be something I am more in favour of.

    1. The 107% rule has been in effect since 2011 (following a lengthy period without it), but all teams & drivers are simply fast enough to always meet the rule under normal circumstances, which is good.

  13. The teams will pick the best drivers. And as we finally see womn drivers enter the sport let the teams do this unhindered by fia politics.

  14. Most people seem to answering a question that wasn’t asked. If you read the question:

    Ten years since its introduction, does F1 need its superlicence points system?

    It clearly asks does the FIA need its superlicence points system.
    As plainly stated by @fletchuk it’s entirely about the FIA trying to assert their control over motorsport, so, obviously the FIA having eligibility criteria that ascribes more weight to FIA feeder series than non-FIA should be an obvious requirement.

    OK folks, go back to discussing whether you like the weighting of the system

    1. Most people seem to be answering…
      [sigh]

    2. Great point. And obviously you’re right.
      But the question everybody’s posed themselves and is answering is far more interesting ;)

      Anyway, FIA has got it all backward.
      You don’t make your cashcow F1 great by barring great drivers from entering it! You can make it great by pulling the best drivers in!
      If there is a fantastic new driver in IndyCar – go and grab him!
      If there is a brilliant new rallye driver interested in racing – go and grab him!
      But instead, FIA shoots itself in the foot by limiting itself to only be able to get drivers from their stupid points list.

    3. No, you even included in your quote that it asks if “F1” needs it.

      1. Well, FOM don’t make the rules for F1, so it really boils down to whether the FIA feel they need it.

        As to what the fans think – well, generally speaking they don’t like the ‘sprint’ stuff, and look how much notice FOM/FIA take of that body of opinion.

  15. It’s the wrong metric to judge young drivers readiness for F1, Always was & always will be and therefore I will always be of the view that it’s a system that simply isn’t fit for purpose & shouldn’t exist.

    1. Simple and to the point @gt-racer.

  16. If I recall correctly, the superlicense points were brought in as the result of a shockingly inexperienced 17 year old joining F1.

    Any system that bars a future 4-time world champion should probably be reconsidered.

    1. Especially as introducing a minimum age requirement was the only thing that was justified in the first place.

    2. F1 wouldn’t have missed much if Verstappen had performed his 2015/2016 antics in F2. He was a dangerous menace at times.

      Now, the point system is way too complicated and restrictive, but some kind of barrier to entry in F1 is not unwarranted. I personally prefer the way they handled it in 2001, when Räikkönen got a provisional license on account of his lack of experience. Once he proved he was up to the job, he got a normal license like all the others. Simple, and while not entirely devoid of potential biases, it’s such a rare case anyway that it’s probably fine.

      1. F1 wouldn’t have missed much if Verstappen had performed his 2015/2016 antics in F2. He was a dangerous menace at times.

        Only for his first four seasons (plus any recent ones where he actually had a rival)

  17. Sandwhichands
    5th January 2025, 22:12

    The teams have enormous financial incentives to not put an inappropriate driver in the vehicle. The selection of F1 drivers is effectively self regulated. However the issue of pay drivers who can offset binning the car week to week is obviously a concern, but my very limited understanding of the capping expenditure practices should disincentivise this as well (not withstanding other financial incentives outside of the sport like Perez theoretically offers)

  18. Coventry Climax
    5th January 2025, 22:20

    The argument for bringing the S.L. points system to life, was to prevent ‘drivers’ from just paying for their seats.
    Now why -rethoric question- would that occur in the first place?
    And for sure, the FiA once again came up with a cure that’s worse than the ailment.
    In some areas in professional life, that would rank as lack of judgement.

    Obviously, with the way the finances for the teams are more or less guaranteed these days, there’s already much less of an incentive for teams to run (at least one of) their cars with a downright unsuitable, underqualified driver.
    (That’s not to say I agree with things like the cost cap, as among other things, I feel it takes off some edge of competitiveness.)
    But even so, it is, in the first place, not for the Governing body of the racing rules to also make up rules as to who should be allowed to compete and who shouldn’t: That’s for the teams to decide and noone else. But the FiA now has a big foot, if not two, between the door of those decisions.

    At the end of a season, it is always quite obvious as to who has a place in F1 and who hasn’t.
    There should maybe be more emphasis on a system where those drivers are more readily replaced with ‘fresh’ ones, but that is not happening and the super licence points system does not aid in that at all.
    For starters, it might help if drivers ranking below a certain threshold at the end of a season -say lower than 10th – would loose s.l. points again.
    While this suggests I somehow agree with the s.l. system’s existence, I do not; I merely illustrate a fundamental flaw.

    Then, -even managed fraudulent or not- getting your driver licence is a much more lenient process when you took your lessons by an FiA sanctioned school?
    Wow, why are the teams still allowed (!) to operate their young driver programs? Shouldn’t that be an exclusive FiA task as well then?
    Oh, suddenly there’s noone home there.

    So what are the reasons for the s.l.points system being in existence in the first place?
    Well, as always, it’s about control, about the combination of power and money.
    It basically means: You can’t compete in the top tier of motorsports unless you submit to the FiA rules and earn them dollars. And by FiA rules here, I don’t mean the racing rules.

    Just look at what drivers can or can’t say, do, be and behave like these days, or where they are obliged to show up, all for the greater glory of the FiA.

    They want us to look at FiA selected and governed drivers, in FiA designed cars, made by FiA selected and governed franchise ‘competitors’, running at FiA designed and selected tracks with an FiA designed frequency, following FiA designed rules that the FiA can manipulate at will at any FiA chosen point in time, watch FiA controlled broadcasts with FiA sanctioned and moderated comment, reply to FiA sanctioned and manipulated polls and believe the FiA is great.

    Some of the above, I hear you say, are Liberty’s ideas. The FiA, I say, is only all too willing to go along.

    Shows every sign of a hoax, actually. For money, obviously, not for the love of sportsmanship or motorracing.

    Ditch it.

  19. I follow Indy Car, F1 and F2. I enjoy other series but there’s only so much time.
    On the pro points side, it needs to adjust the numbers as already mentioned. For instance, and in my opinion, Indy Car should be on par with F2.
    On the other side of the divide, what F1 team is going to put Forrest Gump in a car that’s worth millions? Yes, another Lance Stroll might show up, but the points system didn’t keep the first one out.

  20. The system was placed:
    1) because the fallout due to a certain 17 year old entering F1 without even a drivers license.
    2) because young drivers on the road to F1 began to skip GP2/3 in favor of F3 and WSR3.5. To protect GP2/3 (and Dallara for their chassis, teamowners for their sponsors, etc), the system heavily favored those series and led to the destruction of the WSR series. Those series had arguably better drivers for some years because you needed less budget. The American and Japanese routes were also cut short by rating their classes quite low.

  21. If the process had been fairly applied, one could argue it has value.

    Since the rules adjust based upon the situation at hand, then I think super license is just a joke.

  22. Justin (@vivagilles27)
    7th January 2025, 1:06

    All you have to do is look at the inequity between INDYCAR (and to a degree, WEC) and all of the lesser series. They screwed Herta and then bend the rules for Kimi Antonelli. Silly. I agree they should just have a Rookie “shake down” or test and if the lap times are there, they are there. If you can trust them in FP1 then why can’t they race? Also possibly consider if the driver has been disciplined/suspended for on-track conduct too often in their career.

  23. I think the superlicense points system has worked as intended. The last thing we want is some Chinese pay drivers or 16-year-old Formula Academy champions taking seats from more talented drivers. Deep pockets or market value should not matter when it comes to who can enter F1. Only raw speed counts.

    Obviously the current system is no perfect (for example, Kalle Rovanperä has 0 points despite being a double WRC champion), but at least anyone with 40 points cannot be totally talentless. And if a person is truly among the best-of-the-best, he or she should not have difficulties in gathering 40 SL points in feeder series.

Comments are closed.