Welcome to Wednesday’s edition of the RaceFans round-up.
Comment of the day
Having rigidly enforced its superlicence points system for years, the FIA is trying to have its cake an eat it by offering exceptions to certain drivers, says Martin:
I can understand potentially having an age limit as well as a superlicence points requirement on the basis that you should have some minimum level of maturity and experience in addition to merely showing the speed required for the superlicence. But, therefore, if you want that rule, there shouldn’t be exceptions to that rule! Martin (@F1hornet)
Mayor of Imola Marco Panieri and president of the Emilia-Romagna region Michele de Pascale: 'This is news we were already aware of, and which understandably raises questions, disappointment and a sense of bitterness externally, because in recent years our region has proven capable of hosting an extraordinary event with record numbers—an event that combines international prestige, promotion of Made in Italy and the Motor Valley, and tangible benefits for the economic and tourism sectors of our area and the whole country.'
'I think the upgrade we brought to Imola has worked because it did improve our high-speed performance, and the car is definitely better. The thing is right now, everybody is moving, so it’s difficult to completely judge as you can’t go solely by competitiveness, but with everything we measure ourselves, it is working. In Montreal, will we see the full extent of it? Probably not as it hasn’t got high-speed corners, it’s all about straight-line speed, low-speed traction and chicanes.'
'18 races, it’s our biggest calendar yet as Formula E charts a course around the globe with thrilling new race locations and the returning favourite bringing all-electric racing.'
'Penske has announced its temporary timing stand staffing choices for the third consecutive IndyCar Series race after the race strategists for its three Chevy-powered entries were fired days prior to the May 25 Indianapolis 500.'
'In its third consecutive year hosted on the city street circuit, the grand prix attracted approximately 156,000 people to downtown Detroit over the three-day weekend, representing a 4% increase in total attendance from both 2023 and 2024. With packed grandstands and fans filling the rooftop viewing decks and the garages surrounding the venue, the grand prix’s overall ticket revenue also increased by approximately 10% in 2025.'
Add the dates for every race on the 2026 Formula 1 calendar to your device here:www.racefans.net/contact/f1-f… #F1
COTD is spot-on. Ultimately, whenever one sets a minimum requirement regarding age for anything, any given minimum should always be a hard limit rather than a two-parter with a given default & a separate absolute minimum under certain circumstances to totally avoid ambiguity, which inevitably always arises when making exceptions based on certain criteria, especially when accurate-defining is hard.
The same regarding a driver’s license in that whichever is the minimum in a given country should always be a hard limit without any dispensation exceptions for handing earlier, although to my knowledge, only one country has effectively a two-parter limit in this regard instead of a single hard limit.
Regarding the Imola article: A post-2026 return itself is possible, but bi-annual hosting is realistically the very maximum for any possible future return, just like Montmelo’s survival beyond next season is realistically dependent on bi-annual hosting at the very maximum.
No, it’s bogus. (No disrespect intended for Martin (@F1hornet), nor for Jere: Just my opinion.)
“on the basis that you should have some minimum level of maturity and experience”
That simply is no basis, unless for ventilating opinions.
If I put my grandma in an F1 car for two training events, I can argue she exceeds the minimum level of maturity and has experience as well.
Now image she has a massive fanbase and even bigger sponsorship contracts as well as all of the other forces going for her that push her towards a race seat.
Maturity and experience are concepts that need to be quantised by means of a set of metrics that (potential) drivers need to comply with and exceed first, before they can be classified as fullfilling the concepts.
It is utterly pointless to discuss such things, these concepts, if they have no defined set of metrics connected to them. And as long as they don’t they are no basis you can build on, but rather just an unsubstantiated opinion.
So as long as the FiA refuses to actually quantise the requirement metrics, just like they do in almost all of their rules – and for example keeps using unquantisable words like ‘sufficiently’, or even ‘sportsmanlike’ – , then these discussions are pointless and just for the media attention.
The exception being where people come up with actual, quantisable metrics – and the FiA implements them.
CotD is not that.
Coventry Climax That’s essentially what I’ve also been pointing out.
FIA should definitely be fully transparent with what actually counts as ‘outstanding ability & maturity’ since these two aspects, especially the latter, are almost impossible to define accurately, meaning that they’re mostly based on subjective assessment (which should never the case for the sake of avoiding double standards) rather than definitive facts, not to mention 17-year-olds generally are more or less equally mature in comparison except for special circumstances & outright results aren’t necessarily the most accurate indicator for ability either since they aren’t always necessarily fully merit-based, but by pure luck.
I think the issue here is that, in theory, or so I have understood it, this rule is so that a person under 18 cannot be appointed as an F1 driver with the intention of protecting young people and so that a child cannot be put under the pressure of being a Formula 1 driver. In other words, it’s not because it is thought that a 17 year old could be a danger, but that the danger could be to him, his development as a person and his mental health. If this was really the intention, any exception is absurd. To determine whether someone is dangerous, or knows how to behave on track, there are the superlicence points. Under this premise, making an exception to this rule on the basis that the guy is fast and has demonstrated an adequate knowledge of how racing works makes no sense at all.
That’s my whole point: The FiA rules should not leave room for “I think”.
I’m pretty sure that what you say is part of it too, but again, “pretty sure”?
There should be a long list of metrics related to things like eyesight, general health, reaction time, heat and stress resistance, legal matters (e.g. regarding child labor) and whatever, to determine if someone is suitable as an F1 driver.
Just saying he should be ‘suitable’ -standard FiA talk- is not good enough.
I don’t really think there should be an age limit rule myself, but my point is if that’s the rule, it should be followed. It makes no sense to exempt some and not others for opaque reasons. It’s either a rule or it isn’t. And if there are other factors the FIA is using to judge if drivers pass a threshold, then use those measures instead.
The age limit isn’t just to protect F1 from immature kids, it’s also there to protect the kids themselves (see figure skating and gymnastics) and also the lower categories, both from being skipped entirely and losing relevance and from being supercharged with huge cash poured into it to guarantee quick successes.
It’s true that this was introduced after Verstappen.
But that the FIA cared much about people criticizing F1 itself because of it seems doubtful. After all, there are even younger people racing at Le Mans and nobody cares. It’s mostly just an excuse or some, for whatever reason, to criticize F1. As much as I enjoy some other motorsport series, it’s a bit silly how many of their participants and commentators have a chip on their shoulder about F1 being vastly, incomparably more popular (and profitable).
That a 17-year-old generational talent got a place on the F1 grid is hardly a bad thing, even if in hindsight he might have benefited from a season in F2.
But any 17 year old who has enough super licence points at that age must be a very good driver, so why exempt anyone under age that has enough points? I would be happy to remove the age limit, but right now it seems unfair to exempt some and not others.
Imola was brilliant this year considering it was supposed to be a procession and proper tracks look so good on telly. I’d loved to have gone to Imola, its a place steeped in history and tragedy and the corners, most anyway, are still fabulous. If it pops up i’m not going to miss it next time
Understandable when you consider that the legal status of the new track in Spain that effectively takes their race place has erm, “legal issues” regarding the permit to construct the track, the lack of environmental impact assessment (required) among other items.
To lose Imola is a huge loss for Formula 1 :(( It’s one of the greatest tracks on the calendar.
I was happy that at least this year F1 cars delivered a nice race on it.
Jere (@jerejj)
11th June 2025, 7:03
COTD is spot-on. Ultimately, whenever one sets a minimum requirement regarding age for anything, any given minimum should always be a hard limit rather than a two-parter with a given default & a separate absolute minimum under certain circumstances to totally avoid ambiguity, which inevitably always arises when making exceptions based on certain criteria, especially when accurate-defining is hard.
The same regarding a driver’s license in that whichever is the minimum in a given country should always be a hard limit without any dispensation exceptions for handing earlier, although to my knowledge, only one country has effectively a two-parter limit in this regard instead of a single hard limit.
Regarding the Imola article: A post-2026 return itself is possible, but bi-annual hosting is realistically the very maximum for any possible future return, just like Montmelo’s survival beyond next season is realistically dependent on bi-annual hosting at the very maximum.
Coventry Climax
11th June 2025, 10:19
No, it’s bogus. (No disrespect intended for Martin (@F1hornet), nor for Jere: Just my opinion.)
“on the basis that you should have some minimum level of maturity and experience”
That simply is no basis, unless for ventilating opinions.
If I put my grandma in an F1 car for two training events, I can argue she exceeds the minimum level of maturity and has experience as well.
Now image she has a massive fanbase and even bigger sponsorship contracts as well as all of the other forces going for her that push her towards a race seat.
Maturity and experience are concepts that need to be quantised by means of a set of metrics that (potential) drivers need to comply with and exceed first, before they can be classified as fullfilling the concepts.
It is utterly pointless to discuss such things, these concepts, if they have no defined set of metrics connected to them. And as long as they don’t they are no basis you can build on, but rather just an unsubstantiated opinion.
So as long as the FiA refuses to actually quantise the requirement metrics, just like they do in almost all of their rules – and for example keeps using unquantisable words like ‘sufficiently’, or even ‘sportsmanlike’ – , then these discussions are pointless and just for the media attention.
The exception being where people come up with actual, quantisable metrics – and the FiA implements them.
CotD is not that.
Jere (@jerejj)
11th June 2025, 11:43
Coventry Climax That’s essentially what I’ve also been pointing out.
FIA should definitely be fully transparent with what actually counts as ‘outstanding ability & maturity’ since these two aspects, especially the latter, are almost impossible to define accurately, meaning that they’re mostly based on subjective assessment (which should never the case for the sake of avoiding double standards) rather than definitive facts, not to mention 17-year-olds generally are more or less equally mature in comparison except for special circumstances & outright results aren’t necessarily the most accurate indicator for ability either since they aren’t always necessarily fully merit-based, but by pure luck.
Coventry Climax
11th June 2025, 12:37
How does my
match with your
then?
Jere (@jerejj)
11th June 2025, 17:17
Coventry Climax I agree with you, but I don’t think the COTD is entirely bogus either, i.e., both of you have valid points.
Coventry Climax
12th June 2025, 11:30
Let’s try another one and see what you come up with next:
Esmiz (@esmiz)
11th June 2025, 12:43
I think the issue here is that, in theory, or so I have understood it, this rule is so that a person under 18 cannot be appointed as an F1 driver with the intention of protecting young people and so that a child cannot be put under the pressure of being a Formula 1 driver. In other words, it’s not because it is thought that a 17 year old could be a danger, but that the danger could be to him, his development as a person and his mental health. If this was really the intention, any exception is absurd. To determine whether someone is dangerous, or knows how to behave on track, there are the superlicence points. Under this premise, making an exception to this rule on the basis that the guy is fast and has demonstrated an adequate knowledge of how racing works makes no sense at all.
Jere (@jerejj)
11th June 2025, 17:20
@esmiz Indeed.
Definitely some contradictions in FIA’s logic & how they ambiguously determine the relevant criteria.
Coventry Climax
12th June 2025, 11:24
You start your reply with “I think”.
That’s my whole point: The FiA rules should not leave room for “I think”.
I’m pretty sure that what you say is part of it too, but again, “pretty sure”?
There should be a long list of metrics related to things like eyesight, general health, reaction time, heat and stress resistance, legal matters (e.g. regarding child labor) and whatever, to determine if someone is suitable as an F1 driver.
Just saying he should be ‘suitable’ -standard FiA talk- is not good enough.
Martin (@f1hornet)
11th June 2025, 18:38
I don’t really think there should be an age limit rule myself, but my point is if that’s the rule, it should be followed. It makes no sense to exempt some and not others for opaque reasons. It’s either a rule or it isn’t. And if there are other factors the FIA is using to judge if drivers pass a threshold, then use those measures instead.
MichaelN
11th June 2025, 13:45
The age limit isn’t just to protect F1 from immature kids, it’s also there to protect the kids themselves (see figure skating and gymnastics) and also the lower categories, both from being skipped entirely and losing relevance and from being supercharged with huge cash poured into it to guarantee quick successes.
An exception every now and then is fine.
grat
11th June 2025, 14:40
The age limit is because everyone pointed at F1 and laughed because a 17 year old was able to drive the “pinnacle of world motorsport”.
MichaelN
11th June 2025, 16:18
It’s true that this was introduced after Verstappen.
But that the FIA cared much about people criticizing F1 itself because of it seems doubtful. After all, there are even younger people racing at Le Mans and nobody cares. It’s mostly just an excuse or some, for whatever reason, to criticize F1. As much as I enjoy some other motorsport series, it’s a bit silly how many of their participants and commentators have a chip on their shoulder about F1 being vastly, incomparably more popular (and profitable).
That a 17-year-old generational talent got a place on the F1 grid is hardly a bad thing, even if in hindsight he might have benefited from a season in F2.
Martin (@f1hornet)
11th June 2025, 18:40
But any 17 year old who has enough super licence points at that age must be a very good driver, so why exempt anyone under age that has enough points? I would be happy to remove the age limit, but right now it seems unfair to exempt some and not others.
Roger Ayles (@roger-ayles)
11th June 2025, 15:50
That horrible Detroit Indycar circuit is one that the drivers hate, That fans hate and which doesn’t do much from a racing standpoint.
But because people turn up and I guess it makes money it seems we are sadly stuck with it.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
11th June 2025, 17:59
Imola was brilliant this year considering it was supposed to be a procession and proper tracks look so good on telly. I’d loved to have gone to Imola, its a place steeped in history and tragedy and the corners, most anyway, are still fabulous. If it pops up i’m not going to miss it next time
SteveP
11th June 2025, 18:24
Understandable when you consider that the legal status of the new track in Spain that effectively takes their race place has erm, “legal issues” regarding the permit to construct the track, the lack of environmental impact assessment (required) among other items.
SteveP
11th June 2025, 18:33
Well, the walk from the bus stop in the afternoon sun clearly helped me construct a coherent sentence, didn’t it?
Wer
12th June 2025, 15:52
To lose Imola is a huge loss for Formula 1 :(( It’s one of the greatest tracks on the calendar.
I was happy that at least this year F1 cars delivered a nice race on it.