2022-2023 Silly Season Thread

[Alan52]

Except for giving Netflix an extra plot line I can’t see great demand for Indycar drivers to go to F1.Except for Villeneuve and Montoya every Indycar driver that has gone to F1 in the last 30 yearshas been somewhere between mediocre and terrible.

[HDTVKSS]

Originally Posted by Alan52

Except for giving Netflix an extra plot line I can’t see great demand for Indycar drivers to go to F1.Except for Villeneuve and Montoya every Indycar driver that has gone to F1 in the last 30 yearshas been somewhere between mediocre and terrible.

EDIT - read it wrong.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Herta doesn’t currently qualify as he hasn’t been a consistent top end championship performer.

Having seen Herta make a mess of qualifying at Portland I will cover my eyes should he ever get to try and qualify at Monaco.
I understand the desire to put an Indycar driver into F1 for commercial reasons, but is Herta really up to being the chosen one to take the rather large step from Indycar to F1? He strikes me as being potentially quick (on his day) but at best erratic.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Alan52

Except for giving Netflix an extra plot line I can’t see great demand for Indycar drivers to go to F1.Except for Villeneuve and Montoya every Indycar driver that has gone to F1 in the last 30 yearshas been somewhere between mediocre and terrible.

No comment one way or another on the Netflix theory, but I do like the logic applied here. If you exclude all of the good examples, they rest may not look so good.

I have mentioned many times that I don't follow Indycar (stopped decades ago), but who all are these "other" drivers. From memory I can come up with...

* Michael Andretti: He barely squeaks through your 30 year time period. I guess we can put him into your category as I think he messed up his own F1 experience.
* Scott Speed: He can't be on the list as I don't think he was an Indycar driver until AFTER F1. And not a good one at that.
* Alex Zanardi: I am not sure if he qualifies or not. He started in F1, went to Indycar and then back to F1. Didn't have an outstanding career, but are we to say he shouldn't have been in F1?

I am probably missing someone, but I am thinking not a lot of examples? And yes, lets pretend that Villeneuve and Montoya don't exist. One a WDC and the other someone who was 3rd in the championship twice, multiple race wins many podiums and someone who put in some spectacular and memorable races.

Originally Posted by E.B

Having seen Herta make a mess of qualifying at Portland I will cover my eyes should he ever get to try and qualify at Monaco.
I understand the desire to put an Indycar driver into F1 for commercial reasons, but is Herta really up to being the chosen one to take the rather large step from Indycar to F1? He strikes me as being potentially quick (on his day) but at best erratic.

Reminds me of comments about early days of our current WDC.

The problem here is that Indycar is a pretty strong national series that pulls drivers from a large geographic area. It is pretty competitive so if you are consistently good, you are likely to stay and be a big fish in a relatively big pond. There is a long list of drivers that many might say may have done well in F1, but are never going to be pulled away from Indycar (or are considered "too old" at this point). The rest of promising drivers who might not yet be as experienced as their successful Indycar peers. A bit rough around the edges, but also not able to break into the top like is as required to get the required Super License points. Good drivers stay in Indycar. But the preferred feeder series of F2, the good drivers are kicked out on a regular basis. I guess the smart thing to do is to just grind in F2 until those better than you are kicked out.

It sounds like the FIA Super License points structure is setup in to reward those who are likely to not leave Indycar and not those who are looking to make the Indycar to F1 leap.

It would also be interesting to do the math to treat F1 as a series in a hypothetical "Indycar Super License" scenario. In which you must really perform highly before you are deemed "good enough" to even just participate in Indycar. I suspect that given the dominance by a few teams/drivers over the past decade or so, very few F1 drivers would make the cut. I guess people like Lewis, Max, and maybe one or two other might?

As I posted above, it seems the goal of preventing inexperienced drivers might be working. But it also seems to equality exclude experienced drivers as well. People point out the system in a "rules is rules" type of way to justify the uphill climb for Indycar drivers. But the rules are as artificial as anything else in the sport. The didn't exist previously and could be changed tomorrow.

Richard

[Bcarr6]

Indycar has some fantastic young talent these days, in some cases of better potential than a lot of the F2 field.

it also has a lot of more than past it drivers.

Would I pick Herta from the field to go to F1? probably not, and I think the fact he cant gather enough points for his super license to move to F1 is fair.

If he cant beat a Indy field of 3-4 promising young guns, and a bunch of past prime drivers, hes unlikely to make much impact in F1.

I do think it'd be great to see an Indycar driver go forth to F1, as a comparison more than anything. Herta wouldnt be my pick.

Palou has maybe more potential, as I would say does O'Ward. Both drivers need more time in Indy first to really prove whether they warrant interest.

Have seen Red Bull say they will only release Gasly if they get their way on Herta. That looks unlikely, so leaves the question of who will be in that Alpine seat.. I very much doubt it to be Ricciardo, but who else do they really have as a solid option. Schumacher?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by peebee2

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

I'm not interested in an argument for the sake of it, I was just responding to what you wrote in your previous post, #372

Originally Posted by peebee2

Exempting Herta has been reported literally everywhere.

Agreed, the possibility of exempting Herta from the rules has been reported. However, you never specifically mentioned Herta until now. You said: ''Change rules or make people exempt, as has been extensively reported, is the same thing to all intents and purposes.''

Originally Posted by peebee2

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

My total list was the same one Zak Brown went with; Colton Herta, Alex Palou and Pato O'Ward.

You previously said: ''Your list of drivers who would jump if they had a licence already qualify to have licences!'' That's not an easy sentence to follow, however I replied: ''Out of that list, possibly O'Ward and Palou''. I'm therefore not sure what you mean by: ''So that’s your whole list, not ‘out of that list.'

Originally Posted by peebee2

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

What you actually said was: ''If you are top end of Indycar championship you qualify for a Superlicence. Under the current rules.''

As I said, I am not interested in an argument for the sake of it and I can only respond to what you have written. Therefore you need make it clear what it is you are saying. If you meant something different, then say it from the outset.

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

No comment one way or another on the Netflix theory, but I do like the logic applied here. If you exclude all of the good examples, they rest may not look so good.

I have mentioned many times that I don't follow Indycar (stopped decades ago), but who all are these "other" drivers. From memory I can come up with...

* Michael Andretti: He barely squeaks through your 30 year time period. I guess we can put him into your category as I think he messed up his own F1 experience.
* Scott Speed: He can't be on the list as I don't think he was an Indycar driver until AFTER F1. And not a good one at that.
* Alex Zanardi: I am not sure if he qualifies or not. He started in F1, went to Indycar and then back to F1. Didn't have an outstanding career, but are we to say he shouldn't have been in F1?

I am probably missing someone, but I am thinking not a lot of examples? And yes, lets pretend that Villeneuve and Montoya don't exist. One a WDC and the other someone who was 3rd in the championship twice, multiple race wins many podiums and someone who put in some spectacular and memorable races.


Richard

Da Matta and Bourdais are two others. And Speed raced in European single seaters before F1

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Da Matta and Bourdais are two others. And Speed raced in European single seaters before F1

Thanks. I tend to know them via F1 and not the path they followed to F1.

Richard

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I'm not interested in an argument for the sake of it, I was just responding to what you wrote in your previous post, #372



Agreed, the possibility of exempting Herta from the rules has been reported. However, you never specifically mentioned Herta until now. You said: ''Change rules or make people exempt, as has been extensively reported, is the same thing to all intents and purposes.''



My total list was the same one Zak Brown went with; Colton Herta, Alex Palou and Pato O'Ward.

You previously said: ''Your list of drivers who would jump if they had a licence already qualify to have licences!'' That's not an easy sentence to follow, however I replied: ''Out of that list, possibly O'Ward and Palou''. I'm therefore not sure what you mean by: ''So that’s your whole list, not ‘out of that list.'



What you actually said was: ''If you are top end of Indycar championship you qualify for a Superlicence. Under the current rules.''

As I said, I am not interested in an argument for the sake of it and I can only respond to what you have written. Therefore you need make it clear what it is you are saying. If you meant something different, then say it from the outset.

No idea what argument you’re trying to switch to now. I can’t be bothered to point out the obvious errors any more. It’s 100% clear that, like your favoured journalist, you don’t understand why the current SL rules are as they are.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by peebee2

No idea what argument you’re trying to switch to now. I can’t be bothered to point out the obvious errors any more. It’s 100% clear that, like your favoured journalist, you don’t understand why the current SL rules are as they are.

Nonsense, I haven't switched my argument. I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in what you have previously said.

I understand perfectly why the current SL rules are as they are. This article explains it very well. I suggest you read it, you might actually learn something.

https://www.total-motorsport.com/how...super-licence/

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Nonsense, I haven't switched my argument. I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in what you have previously said.

I understand perfectly why the current SL rules are as they are. This article explains it very well. I suggest you read it, you might actually learn something.

https://www.total-motorsport.com/how...super-licence/

Interesting that the top 3 in F2 get exactly the same points. And I used to think being champion in that category was the greatest achievement

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Nonsense, I haven't switched my argument. I was merely pointing out the inconsistencies in what you have previously said.

I understand perfectly why the current SL rules are as they are. This article explains it very well. I suggest you read it, you might actually learn something.

https://www.total-motorsport.com/how...super-licence/

Brilliant. I know the system well thanks. It’s decent article, even if there are some errors in it - such as how Herta can qualify for a 2023 licence being wrong. Presumably you now finally know why Indycar gets the points it does, and also see that any true Indycar front runner has no problem reaching the required benchmark. Glad you finally came full circle to understand, even if you’ll doubtless deny that.

[Sandgroper]

This may sound like a Honeymoon, however what if Lewis decides not to retire.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/motors...967b89333cd84a

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by Sandgroper

This may sound like a Honeymoon, however what if Lewis decides not to retire.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/motors...967b89333cd84a

If anyone thinks Mercedes would choose a turning 35 Ricciardo to replace Hamilton in 2024 when they could have their choice of any driver on the grid bar Verstappen there is no hope for them.
Delusional Dan Fan is the best description.

[Sandgroper]

Originally Posted by Alan52

If anyone thinks Mercedes would choose a turning 35 Ricciardo to replace Hamilton in 2024 when they could have their choice of any driver on the grid bar Verstappen there is no hope for them.
Delusional Dan Fan is the best description.

I guess someone just signed a 41 year old driver to a 2 year contract.

Never say never.

[PhilipR]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Interesting that the top 3 in F2 get exactly the same points. And I used to think being champion in that category was the greatest achievement

TBH it might be better in how F1 works to finish 2nd or 3rd in F2. You get the SL points and if no race seat available in F1(ala Piastri) you get the chance to do another season F2 and continue to show your skills.


I am not sure about the Herta situation - has he done enough to warranty the points or an exception? He is super fast on his day but very inconsistent

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by peebee2

It’s decent article, even if there are some errors in it - such as how Herta can qualify for a 2023 licence being wrong.

Why is it wrong? The article says that if Herta finishes 3rd (or higher) he would get the necessary points.

20 points plus 20 points equals 40 points?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Why is it wrong? The article says that if Herta finishes 3rd (or higher) he would get the necessary points.

20 points plus 20 points equals 40 points?

No, what is actually says is:

"Herta’s bid for an F1 seat in 2023 can only be ensured by finishing in the top three in the 2022 IndyCar championship."

It says ONLY. Not true, there are numerous other ways, including but not limited to competing in one or two of the established winter series to earn points, although he would need to ensure he earns more than he drops from the oldest year which could drop out.

He could also drive in every FP1 going after Monza - especially as so many teams seem to lack the candidates to comply with the 2022 FP1 rules.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by peebee2

No, what is actually says is:

"Herta’s bid for an F1 seat in 2023 can only be ensured by finishing in the top three in the 2022 IndyCar championship."

It says ONLY. Not true, there are numerous other ways, including but not limited to competing in one or two of the established winter series to earn points, although he would need to ensure he earns more than he drops from the oldest year which could drop out.

The championships would need to be completed in the calendar year of 2022 to be eligible for a 2023 F1 entry - so points from a winter series started in 2022 would not count.

Originally Posted by peebee2

He could also drive in every FP1 going after Monza - especially as so many teams seem to lack the candidates to comply with the 2022 FP1 rules.

That would only give a maximum of 10 points, and they would not count because the F1 season started before the IndyCar season ended (Supplement 1).


If there is a circumstance that is missing - please can you provide an example of how Herta can finish outside of the top 3 in IndyCar but still ensure a super licence for 2023?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

The championships would need to be completed in the calendar year of 2022 to be eligible for a 2023 F1 entry - so points from a winter series started in 2022 would not count.



That would only give a maximum of 10 points, and they would not count because the F1 season started before the IndyCar season ended (Supplement 1).

Hmmm, you might be right on the first - although I thought you can apply for the licence at any time of the year and it's the three years prior to application that count, as opposed to the three last complete calendar years. So apply in March 2023 and use results from 2021, 2022, and 2023. Then can possibly bring in 2019 due to Covid in 2020.

The second one I was more sure about but you might be right but that would rule out most of the other drivers who are doing it from F2/F3, such as Vips and Lawson etc. wouldn't it?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by peebee2

The second one I was more sure about but you might be right but that would rule out most of the other drivers who are doing it from F2/F3, such as Vips and Lawson etc. wouldn't it?

IIRC, Vips and Lawson both had the points from previous, and are/were just completing the mandatory 300km in an F1 car to retain the license?

[S griffin]

That makes sense about Vips and Lawson

[Alan52]

Originally Posted by Sandgroper

I guess someone just signed a 41 year old driver to a 2 year contract.

Never say never.

A 41 year old who is a double world champion who is still really on it and didn’t spend last weekend behind everyone except Latifi.Even then Alpine made a huge mistake entertaining the thought of signing a 41 year old as it cost them Piastri.
Believe me it’s never.

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by peebee2

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

The absolute irony of this sentence

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

IIRC, Vips and Lawson both had the points from previous, and are/were just completing the mandatory 300km in an F1 car to retain the license?

I just asked someone from the FIA who would know and he said he can get the points from FP1s no problem.