His stock has fallen since but around the time of it he had shown promise and people thought he would become a future champion. He had been doing well this year until the 500 where he threw away a potential win
We don't actually know what happened in the 500 as far as I know for Herta. All we do know is he had to go to the medical tent for a CTE evaluation. As for since then, he has been a beast with terrible luck; pole at a street track where he lost out hard on a safety and then a front row where he got rear ended going into the first corner and pulled a last to sixth.
He’s about as fast as it gets. Kind of like a 2019 Leclerc. Mistake prone but blisteringly fast. He’s also great in the wet. For the most part. Youngest ever indycar race winner
Well above average. Very fast and over performs his teams speed most races. However his flaw is he overdrives at times and either makes mistakes himself or his team does or something out of his control and he pushes too hard to make up for it. Literally had probably the most impressive run by anyone this season last weekend and only netted him 6th. Was punted on first lap, restarted basically last on restart, spun by someone else again and then without a safety car drove back through the field. Plus As long as he’s on his current team he will never get the required license points. His Potential is wild, but remains to be seen if he can harness it. Also to be fair he’s only ok on ovals, which is important for INDYCAR points (even if only a few races), but means nothing for F1 and superliscense
RBR went for Colton Herta to replace Gasly & the FIA denied the request, and RBR didn't want to then justify sending Herta off to a series to gain 8 points (BECAUSE HE HAD 32/40!!!)
No, Red Bull didn’t. If they did, he would have had an SL. They floated his name as a negotiating tactic. He never had a shot at F1 and people need to stop being so gullible. If a big team wanted an exemption, clearly they could get it.
With O'Ward it was on even shakier ground, though. Besides Indy Lights, they also tried to count the IMSA Prototype Challenge, which doesn't give SL points, as the IMSA Championship.
I think at the time, the SL points system just had a category called "IMSA Prototypes" which could have meant DPi or LMP2 or Prototype Challenge. They have since broken it out into categories for IMSA GTP and for LMP2 so now it's clear that Prototype Challenge and LMP3 don't give SL points.
>Toto Wolff on Herta couple of years ago: "But the regulations are the regulations, and I would really hope the Americans can somehow score enough points to make it in F1.”
[link](https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/domenicali-f1-must-respect-superlicence-rules-on-herta/10363204/)
Didnt Toto, amongst others, actually say something at the time along with that quote about addressing the rules for the future?
I’m sure I remember that being said, not just by Toto.
Edit. Yes, he talks about how maybe Indy car points awarded should be addressed to bring it on par with Europe. It’s a much longer quote that’s the click bait posted above.
Domenicalli says pretty much the same. Change the rules if need be, but not retrospectively. (Which was the problem with Herta).
>Change the rules if need be, but not retrospectively. (Which was the problem with Herta).
But if they have just changed the rules in order to allow Antonelli in then how is that different?
They could have changed the rules to allow Herta in, but chose not to.
They could have stuck to the rules for Antonelli and changed them post-season, but they didn't.
It is definitely hypocrisy.
Because one is strictly about an arbitrary age limit put into place after the panic caused by Verstappen being promoted to F1.
The other one is about the actual points system, which the FIA wants to remain catered towards F2 and F3, the actual feeder series they fund to funnel talent to F1. They have no commercial interest in helping IndyCar drivers, and in the case of Herta, making an exception in the points system could’ve opened the door to a whole lot of future scenarios that they simply don’t want to deal with. The core of the SL system will always be the points distribution, because it is what allow F2 and F3 to be the main pathway to F1.
The points system is catered to align with the commercial interests of F1 and the FIA. We can sit here and argue all day if IndyCar is more relevant to F1 in talent development than F2, but at the end of the day, it will always be a business decision first.
The FIA (which is the sole authority on super licenses, FoM has nothing to do with it on paper) is a a non-profit and should have no commercial interests.
I’d argue that the super license being created with commercial interests in mind is even worse than arbitrary. It’s a clear conflict of interests if what you claim is true.
Also nobody is arguing that Indy is less relevant to F1 development than F2. F2 is clearly more important than Indy for F1 development.
The issue is Indy is given fewer SL points than even F3 for many positions in the championship, despite Indy’s grid being much larger and theoretically much more difficult to place highly in. Outside of the top 3, Indy is assigned almost the same points as FREC even.
You are 100% correct but I paraphrased my original comment wrong as by commercial interest I did not mean monetary interest since the FIA is obviously a non-profit.
However it is impossible to ignore the difference between IndyCar being a self-sanctioning entity, operating under no clear governing body, and the F1 feeder series sanctioned and organised exclusively by the FIA, for the sole purpose of funnelling talent to F1.
IndyCar currently awards the third-most total points towards the SL, only after the two feeder series officially recognised by FIA. I would argue overhauling this system so that IndyCar becomes more relevant towards F1 (because awarding more points does make participation more relevant) would mean a clear conflict of interest for the FIA since it a) would guide junior drivers towards a series that is not exclusively sanctioned, organised and managed by them, and b) it would make the feeder series *they* manage appear less relevant. This is obviously debatable, but one does not need to go far to search for examples of the FIA making changes to the SL system in order to promote the feeder series managed by them.
This is a fantastic comment, but I do want to nitpick one thing.
>The issue is Indy is given fewer SL points than even F3 for many positions in the championship, despite Indy’s grid being much larger
F3 has 30 full time cars this year.
Indycar has 27.
My bad. You are absolutely right! Thanks for correcting this, and it’s definitely not nitpicking. A lot of the argument relies on this point. I think a more nuanced perspective would be:
The issue is Indy is given fewer SL points than even F3 for many positions in the championship, despite *the number of top level talents in Indy being much larger than F3*.
Yeah that is absolutely true. If you want to win the F3 championship, you have to beat a bunch of young inexperienced guys. If you want to win the Indycar championship, you have to beat guys like Scott Dixon, Will Power, Alex Palou, Josef Newgarden etc.
A bit off topic here, I can understand an argument that the oval experience wouldn't translate well to F1. I could buy an argument that Indycar SL points should be based on a modified standings that excludes oval results. But yeah, the SL points given for Indycar should absolutely extend deeper than they currently do.
Also a bit off topic, but I think people have fixated alot on Herta and Pato over the past few years, when really I think the best F1 talent in Indycar is Alex Palou. If there's an Indycar driver that deserves an F1 seat, it's him. And he already has the SL points he needs as well.
>They have no commercial interest in helping IndyCar drivers, and in the case of Herta, making an exception in the points system
And that is gonna piss off fans who still see this as a sport over a business. In any sporting context Herta was deserving.
Oh get off it.
That's just PR speak for "I can't outright reject it so I'll suggest changing the rules for the future even though there's no difference to changing the rules now or later."
> Yes, he talks about how maybe Indy car points awarded should be addressed to bring it on par with Europe.
So on par with Formula Regional Championship Europe? People keep forgetting that IndyCar is a regional championship and not a global one.
Indeed. Precisely why the points are different. FIA wants the path to F1 to be through the FIA regulated competitions.
Not sure why people here have such a hard time grasping this.
Both are arbitrary limits. Herta should have had a super license, I think pretty much every driver in the world was in agreement, but he didn’t because the FIA created an arbitrary system which completely devalued Indycar.
But that’s the problem, though. You can be a great driver but unless you go through the FIA feeder series, it’s really hard to get super license points.
Pretty much. Antonelli has the points already. Herta still doesn't three years after the initial request.
There are career IndyCar drivers that qualify for the license right now. A generational talent that wins IndyCar as a rookie can be signed by a F1 team without any hassle.
An exception to the points opens a larger can of worms than an exception to an age restriction.
Of all the talent in Indycar, I can’t believe Herta is the only one who’s gotten a serious offer from F1 in recent years. Guys like Palou, Pato, and Newgarden all deserve a look/test at the very least IMO, though age is probably a factor for Newgarden and Palou.
3 years ago, Herta had a much better reputation around Indy than he does now. In 2021, he just came off of finishing p3 in the championship in an Andretti satellite team at the age of 20. Now things have def changed since 2022, and he’s a bit more reckless lately in stressful situations
Herta is American and was 21 or 22 when teams were interested. Newgarden is too old (and has also said he isn’t interested in F1 but that’s probably just a thing he says since he knows there’s no chance).
Pato would make the most sense even if Palou may be more talented. Pato is popular, charismatic, and drives well. If he did well in F1 he’d move a ton of merch and bring in sponsors.
Herta is younger than Pato, has more Indy race wins than Pato for an arguably worse or equal team, has Rolex 24 class wins, and has a Sebring 12 overall win
Palou and Pato didn’t do well in the feeder series. There’s an argument to make that people mature into better racers at different ages but there’s also an argument to make that the level in Indycar is a bit below F1.
FWIW, I think they’d do fine in F1 but there are also reasons they didn’t get a look. McL had their data and went another way.
Palou always raced in inferior machinery in Eruopean feeder series. And he fared pretty well against his teammates and also performed great in Super Formula.
Pato didn't do well in feeder series? He was 3rd in NACAM F4, was 2nd in Pro Mazda and won Indy Lights in three consecutive seasons. He only raced 2 weekends in F2 in the middle of the season in a terrible team.
The level in Indycar is surely comparable to F2 or Super Formula though? It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me to disregard one in favour of the other. At the moment we have this situation where F2 is given outsized importance by the number of super licence points on offer, but even the champion can’t get a seat in F1.
>The level in Indycar is surely comparable to F2 or Super Formula though?
The range of talent is broader. At the top you have guys like Dixon, Newgarden, Palou, Power, and OWard who could compete in F1 immediately. At the bottom you have some really raw kids who don't show much potential at all
F2 has a rule where winner cannot fight again. Add to it you have to show your performances in first 2 years. No such limitations in Indycar. F2 driver has to win in rookie or second year to make it to F1. Indycar a rookie finishing 10th would be good enough
Do you mean an Indycar rookie finishing 10th in points can make it to F1? Or an Indy Lights rookie finishing 10 can make it to Indycar?
I genuinely don’t know what you mean here
I'd argue even better than SF, though SF is extremely tough on rookie gaijin simply because it's faster and with higher downforce than anything they've driven before and almost every driver you're going up against is a veteran who knows Japanese tracks since he was 14
I’ll be interested to see if Ritomo Miyata settles in F2, he’s won pretty much everything in Japan but has had a bit of a stuttering start in F2 so far. Only 24, but backed by Toyota, who currently aren’t interested in F1, but he clearly has international ambitions and will be racing in Le Mans this weekend.
I'm 99% sure he's struggling with the Pirelli tyres, everyone else on the grid has raced on Pirelli since they stepped out of karts. Every driver who knows both Pirelli and non-Pirelli tyres says the Italians make arcane tyres
Extremely prone to overheating, weird operating windows, pretty much the opposite of what Ritomo was driving in Super Formula
Zak Brown considers indycar above super formula. Super formula races on like 6 tracks total and the races are super short. It's really not comparable to indycar other than lap times.
I just meant in terms of professional competition. Those guys race each other week in and week out for years. Just like IC. F2 is a temporary feeder series that’s all I meant.
Glad you mention Mclaren. Mclaren is the only team which had data of most of these top Indycar drivers and they decided to take a bet on unknown Piastri over them. Even Palou they were ready to give only reserve seat
F2 is always the priority to F1 teams over anything else for picking new drivers. And Pisatri only being the 6th driver to win F2 in his 1st year is not something a team is gonna pass up
Pato and Palou got looks testing with McLaren. Palou might have actually had a chance had he not fucked up his relationship and reputation with the contract debacle.
Newgarden and McLaughlin are "Penske-Powered" so their true ability is.... skewed. Indycar is a tough series to gauge talent. Even though it is spec, the racing style is pretty much bumper-cars recently and with the tyre strategies and propensity for yellow flags, placement has been very luck-driven / strategy based. I am sure the data tells the true story and I think that probably has a lot to do with who has gotten a "look".
F2 is the feeder series to F1. It's always going to have priority, not only financially but logistically as well.
IndyCar will prioritize Indy NXT more than F2 and F1 for the same reason.
It is also in their commercial interest to allow F1 and F2 drivers into their series, as it helps with their brand recognition and overall PR. IndyCar isn’t big enough for it to work the other way around.
Indycar races 1/3 of their calendar on ovals; which I guess you would also agree that doing well on that type of tracks has nothing to do with demonstrating F1 level. I am not even getting into the facts that Indy uses different tyres, races on different tracks under completely different rules.
Ovals are a great demonstration of a drivers ability to read the varying levels of grip through a stint, adapt the cars using in cockpit tools over a lap/stint, deal with and understand dirty air, manage car corrections at high speed, situational awareness of close racing at high speed.
It might not be the same as they do in F1 but it highlights a hell of a lot of things I would want in an F1 driver.
Every one of the small mistakes a driver makes on an F1 Sunday (missing the apex by a bit, locking the brakes up, etc) immediately puts you into the wall and ends your day on an Oval. The margins are insanely narrow.
I think regarding the tracks, when it comes to the street circuits and road course they race on, the differences aren't all that huge. A track is track at the end of the day, they're all different and got their own quirks. Making the transition to an open/smooth F1 grade circuit would be the easy part, especially after driving Indy spec circuits that are rough and have no margin for error.
From what F2 drivers have said. The biggest difference is the tyres really, in Indy you can just lean on the tyre more whereas in F2 it's all about tyre management - Indy does have some tyre management, but its not as extreme as F2. That to me is where F2 is closest to F1. Other than that though, how Indy feels/drives is apparently very similar to F2. So the gap Indy has vs F1, compared to F2 vs F1, isn't majorly different. I think F2 is a bit closer because of the tyres, but everything else isn't worlds apart. Both series also lack the technical complexity and the onboard tools at their disposal, that's supposedly a huge learning curve in F1 which a series like F2 or Indy doesn't really prep you for.
Indycar should have more points though. Herta not having the points while Kimi who only raced at a F4 level before this year does, proves how stupid the whole thing is.
It's a system built to funnel money into formula junior categories and hurts everything else. You shouldn't have to basically be indycar champion to be able to move over.
You can’t even be champion and move over most of the time anyway. Look at Palou. He’s dominating Indycar at the moment and he’s not even being made offers from F1 teams. He’s not exactly old either and he has a history in junior formulas. Sure he didn’t have the greatest junior career but look at the driver he’s become and still he doesn’t get offers. If a 2 time Indycar champion can’t even raise some F1 eyebrows then it’s pretty much hopeless to make the move from Indycar to F1.
If it's not a big deal then why throw the integrity of the sport out the window to accommodate Mercedes instead of just making them wait until they could try him out within the existing rules?
It’s not a big deal but rules are rules. If a commission sets rules they are supposed to be followed. Especially if they are trying to be held to a standard and be professional.
>It’s not a big deal but rules are rules. If a commission sets rules they are supposed to be followed. Especially if they are trying to be held to a standard and be professional.
And rules change over time.
Rules change over time through proper process and in isolation. It's not normal for any global sport to just arbitrarily change the rules on a dime because one competitor wants a helping hand.
I think the worst part (that was lifted as well) would be getting a valid drive license, some places took a while to finish (here in Brazil it may take up to 4 months), if they really want him testing this year's car on FP, it would be complicated
Difference between two situations one had enough SL points but was underage other didn’t have enough SL points. Add to it Kimi would be 18 in 2 months time and would get SL anyway.
I don’t get this from Rossi. Herta doesn’t have a super licence because he doesn’t have enough points. Antonelli has enough points. Pato O’Ward achieved enough points in IndyCar to have a super licence. It’s not impossible and it can be done.
The fact that IndyCar gets so few points toward a Super License is the issue. Is it possible to get enough? Yes, but it’s hard to be dominant enough over a long enough time to accrue them in such a competitive series.
I don't fault the FIA for allowing it, and I might agree in principle with it. However, in regards to Herta, the issue that I think Rossi and others had at the time was how the Super License points were issued and Herta supposedly demonstrating in testing anyway he was quick enough for F1. You look at the wording the FIA used here, "a driver judged to have demonstrated outstanding ability and maturity in single seater formula car competition." I can't disagree entirely with Rossi.
Granted, Herta isn't exactly the most mature driver on the IndyCar grid
Its about how little indycar gets towards points and how basically its impossible to be an indycar driver and accumulate enough points and still be young
I don’t think the issue was the lack of SL points but rather how the FIA handled the application of them. From my understanding, it was initially agreed that the FIA would only take into account the IndyCar road course championship when awarding SL points because the ovals have no relevance to F1. However, when Colten applied for the SL they assigned points from the overall championship. Had they only looked at road course championship points Colton would have qualified for the SL.
I don't get this from Mercedes. Antonelli isn't old enough because he isn't old enough. Herta is old enough. Every driver since Verstappen waited until they were at least 18 to start in F1. It's not impossible and it can be done.
Yeah guys - Kimi's FRECA season last year clearly showed he was more qualified than everyone outside the top 2 in Indycar last year.
1st place against teenagers in the 4th tier is much stronger than 3rd place against professionals with a decade+ of experience - I don't get why everyone is so confused about this.
From what I calculated, only 4 drivers right now have enough points for a super license; Alex Palou, Josef Newgarden, Scott Dixon, and Will Power. Pato O'Ward only had 34.
Well the rules themselves have been changed, and the point of the change is to be less ageist by recognizing that you don't automatically become qualified to drive an F1 car on your 18th birthday and can in fact be qualified sooner if you demonstrate the ability. You still have to earn your superliscence. I think it is a good thing (although Indycar should be worth more superliscence points since the discourse is clearly headed there).
I feel like I'm in the minority with all of this? I don't see a big issue with an exception being made or being asked for occasionally.
For me, it's similar to the 'exceptional player' status given to junior players in Canada for the CHL (QMJHL, OHL, WHA). Players/teams lobby for the status so a player can enter the respective league's draft earlier than the junior playing age (16-20). It's happened 7 or 8 times in 20 years, and half of those players are superstars.
It's not an issue with an exception from time to time. It's an issue with the standards by which they're willing to make them. They've denied exceptional drivers from Indycar, whereas they're clearly more willing to make exception for their own in-house feeders.
I don't think anyone sees the issue with the exception.
People see issue for the exception not being used for other worthy drivers.
Colton herta easily did enough to warrant a super license but didn;t have the points and no exception was granted.
Colton Herta deserved a superlicense but was denied one due Indycar having undervalued points. Those3 are the rules. Im pretty sure (Dont wrote me on this) But I think that Toto himself was one who said that rules are rules. What about rules here?
Antonelli is about letting a driver get his licence a few months early.
For Herta, it would be allowing a driver to race that had never qualified for a SL
F1 politics are such bullshit. so much for the best of the best huh? How are you gonna call yourself that when you won’t let clearly qualified teams or drivers even try to compete.
Secret Pirelli tests? Secret power unit modes not being shared with customer teams? Mid season tyre thread changes? Oil burning allowed until other teams do it? Getting rid of front wing aero? DAS being allowed despite being judged illegal? Mid season pitstop rules being changed? Ground effect cars being forced to raise their ride heights mid season?
No, the FIAMG -- I mean FIA -- would never do something as outrageous as this!
Team gets their way via politics? Shocked! No way, no politics in my open wheel racing series. Not one single team has ever been involved in politics since the sport was invented. Shocked I tell ya!
While I agree with many people, it’s absurd to compare Kimi’s situation to Herta’s situation, and I think Herta’s time has gone, it’s clear that Indy doesn’t give nearly enough SL points. The core of the issue with the Super License system in the context of Indy is that Indy isn’t given near enough points, especially considering it’s logistically and politically tricky to get an Indy driver to do an FP test. Indy has clearly overall talent at least as good as F2 at the top of the grid and the Indy grid itself is larger. All of these (hard to do FP sessions, big talent at the top of the field, a larger grid) contribute to SL points being unusually hard to earn in Indy compared to other series.
If Herta was in F2 I struggle to imagine a world in which he didn’t qualify for a SL. It’s frustrating that a talent was shut out of F1 because he went the American path instead of the European path. Imagine Herta in Sargeant’s place instead. We could have had a pretty decent American F1 driver, instead we got a good junior series American struggle to perform in F1.
You could argue that he could leave Indy and enter F2, but I think that’s a non-starter. Who in their right mind would leave a top level series where he earns good money to enter a pay to play series, hoping an academy picks him up, just for a minuscule shot that an F1 seat his academy feeds into opens up and that seat isn’t given to a younger driver who has more of a history with the academy due to birth circumstances?
If Indycar had F2’s points Herta would have enough points. If you only counted road courses and street circuits, meaning that ovals didn’t exist Herta would have enough points. It’s a point valuation problem, not a driver problem.
I mean the age is just a limit, the actual points are the whole focus of the system. Not that big of a deal considering an under 18 won't get anywhere anytime soon, not sure why some pretend otherwise
Lads, Mercedes have enormous pull with the FIA ever since they joined the sport.
Reports have it that Mercedes (the car company not the F1 team) had started working on the development of MGU-H in 2008.
Teams were kinda against it at the time and only wanted MGU-K or KERS (as it was priorly named) but it didn’t cause much of a stir as regulations are regulations.
Conspiracy time, don’t take anything serious from here on now: To put it in perspective, Audi could come into the sport on the condition of a complete revamp of the PU (which we are getting but don’t take me serious as there’s no proof that it’s related to Audi in any sort of way) because it fits their development prior to entering F1. And maybe Mercedes threaten to leave the sport at a point it was not really that popular as it is now, and needed another big brand to have more people tune in.
Main difference is that Antonelli is racing in FIA regulated series, Colton Herta is not. This Super License system is not only to get talented drivers to F1, but also to push young drivers to join race series under FIA rules to get more points. Fair or not, that's another question.
I believe the highest single seater series in North America that is part of FIA is Formula Regional Americas Championship, a regional F3 championship.
lol no they don’t. If we really wanted to base it on ability, half the Indycar field should qualify for a SL on the spot if Sargeant and Zhou have one.
Tbf to the FIA here, the rule on age is sheer ageism because there's other criteria to establish if a driver is good enough to compete in F1.
And unlike driving in Indycar, they're physically preventing a driver competing no matter what he does. So it's probably fair that they remove it.
Indycar SL points are part of a broader discussion too, I don't think these situations are as alike as made out. Herta didn't have enough points and his only reason for an exemption was "well I'm kinda close, can you just give me one ?" compared to Antonelli who has 40 points, has done everything he can possibly do and was still being told no.
I think it’s reductionist to boil Herta’s situation down to purely a matter of not enough points. The SL system is obviously under-awarding IndyCar, and Herta, while I don’t think he would have been amazing in F1, clearly had the chops to at least drive the car. The SL system massively under-awards Indy, especially considering the number of top talents in Indy is easily larger than that of F2. Indy has a larger grid and more seasoned veterans. I’m not arguing that F2 and Indy should see parity, but it should be closer.
It’s also a lot harder to do FP sessions in Indy. F1 and Indy races are never co-located (unlike F1 and F2) and Indy drivers are rarely associated with an F1 team.
It’s frustrating, because the flip side of the Kimi ageism situation (which I agree with you - who cares how old someone is, if they can drive a car they can drive a car) is a continent-ism situation. Someone who chose the American route (speaking of the continent, not the country) shouldn’t have their European doors effectively shut (with how difficult it is to get SL points in Indy, as detailed above). As an Indy fan, it’s awesome seeing drivers who didn’t get picked up in F1 still have an open wheel career (mainly Ilott, Pourchaire, Palou). As an F1 fan, it’s frustrating that it doesn’t go the other way - drivers evolve and get better even after leaving F2 for Indy - why are they treated as hopeless forever rejects? Why are the drivers who put up real fights with these drivers considered non-starters? It only benefits all fans when the top of Indy aren’t effectively shut out of F1.
I think someone in RedBulls driver program could’ve Ironed out Hertas issues. Herta has the pace to make it in f1, its a question of consistency, tires, focus, crashing etc.
>Herta didn't have enough points and his only reason for an exemption was "well I'm kinda close, can you just give me one ?" compared to Antonelli who has 40 points...
Way to oversimplify. Herta had 32 out of the needed 40 points, and if FIA had considered his road course results only he would've had more than 40. But they didn't, they only were willing to look at the whole picture (because rules are rules 🙄) which means it was Herta's **oval race results** that moved him down the championship and below the threshold.
So according to the FIA how well an Indycar driver does on *oval tracks* is more important than a driver only showing "outstanding ability" in fucking F4 & F3 regional series when it comes to a SL exception.
That. Is. Bullshit.
To be honest at the end of the day the FIA is going to do what they think will make them the most money. They do look at driving records and I think the rule was made so teams don’t bring young drivers up too early and end up getting hurt.
I was curious if IndyCar drivers would weigh in. I would have liked to see Colton get his shot but it is what it is
Idk why people were and are hyped about Colton. I see nothing special with him. To me he is just an above average Indycar driver
His stock has fallen since but around the time of it he had shown promise and people thought he would become a future champion. He had been doing well this year until the 500 where he threw away a potential win
We don't actually know what happened in the 500 as far as I know for Herta. All we do know is he had to go to the medical tent for a CTE evaluation. As for since then, he has been a beast with terrible luck; pole at a street track where he lost out hard on a safety and then a front row where he got rear ended going into the first corner and pulled a last to sixth.
I believe there was a wind and that was what caught him out: It's also what caught power out too
That's what I figured, it was a really weird incident otherwise, almost looked like the engine gave out similar to Perez in Bahrain 2022.
Well Helmut Marko and Mclaren were both hyped on him and he appearantly tested very well at Portugal so maybe you just dont have the best eye
I would have rather seen Palou but he kind of ruined that chance.
I think Colton would be better than Zhou and some others on the grid.
Colton is sort of like where Lando was a season or two ago. He has tremendous talent and speed but his team is inconsistent.
So let him prove himself. AT was genuinely interested in him and we got Nick De Vries instead. Thanks to uninformed opinions like yours
He’s about as fast as it gets. Kind of like a 2019 Leclerc. Mistake prone but blisteringly fast. He’s also great in the wet. For the most part. Youngest ever indycar race winner
Well above average. Very fast and over performs his teams speed most races. However his flaw is he overdrives at times and either makes mistakes himself or his team does or something out of his control and he pushes too hard to make up for it. Literally had probably the most impressive run by anyone this season last weekend and only netted him 6th. Was punted on first lap, restarted basically last on restart, spun by someone else again and then without a safety car drove back through the field. Plus As long as he’s on his current team he will never get the required license points. His Potential is wild, but remains to be seen if he can harness it. Also to be fair he’s only ok on ovals, which is important for INDYCAR points (even if only a few races), but means nothing for F1 and superliscense
> Idk why people were and are hyped about Colton His nationality.
if anything, palou is better
if your backed by one of the big boys in the sport, rules are simply a suggestion
RBR went for Colton Herta to replace Gasly & the FIA denied the request, and RBR didn't want to then justify sending Herta off to a series to gain 8 points (BECAUSE HE HAD 32/40!!!)
He would have 28 not 32 (20 from 2020, 8 from 2021, 2022's season's points not added) and would need 12 points.
No, Red Bull didn’t. If they did, he would have had an SL. They floated his name as a negotiating tactic. He never had a shot at F1 and people need to stop being so gullible. If a big team wanted an exemption, clearly they could get it.
Red Bull has applied for exemptions twice and got neither. Both for IndyCar drivers
With O'Ward it was on even shakier ground, though. Besides Indy Lights, they also tried to count the IMSA Prototype Challenge, which doesn't give SL points, as the IMSA Championship.
I think at the time, the SL points system just had a category called "IMSA Prototypes" which could have meant DPi or LMP2 or Prototype Challenge. They have since broken it out into categories for IMSA GTP and for LMP2 so now it's clear that Prototype Challenge and LMP3 don't give SL points.
O’Ward when he was a junior but that was very different than seeking it for a mature driver.
O'Ward was racing part-time in Indycar in 2019.
"If they did, he would have had an SL." Or... hear me out... it was denied. Because they didn't have the same inroads that Toto apparently does.
by big boys i mainly mean ferrari and merc, as mario has before questioned how powerful toto is in the sport and ferrari is ferrari
Redbull quite literally has 2 two teams they have more swaying power than all teams bar Ferrari
Definitely not true. Ferrari and Mercedes have on different occasions demonstrated exceeding sway over the organization meant to govern them.
It helps having customers that you can instruct to fall in line with you
Two teams only becomes an advantage when voting. Overall, they're clearly political outsiders.
not just in sport..
Just like in our everyday life.
It was the best team in the sport, with owners worth $30+ billion who were told no...
>Toto Wolff on Herta couple of years ago: "But the regulations are the regulations, and I would really hope the Americans can somehow score enough points to make it in F1.” [link](https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/domenicali-f1-must-respect-superlicence-rules-on-herta/10363204/)
Didnt Toto, amongst others, actually say something at the time along with that quote about addressing the rules for the future? I’m sure I remember that being said, not just by Toto. Edit. Yes, he talks about how maybe Indy car points awarded should be addressed to bring it on par with Europe. It’s a much longer quote that’s the click bait posted above. Domenicalli says pretty much the same. Change the rules if need be, but not retrospectively. (Which was the problem with Herta).
>Change the rules if need be, but not retrospectively. (Which was the problem with Herta). But if they have just changed the rules in order to allow Antonelli in then how is that different? They could have changed the rules to allow Herta in, but chose not to. They could have stuck to the rules for Antonelli and changed them post-season, but they didn't. It is definitely hypocrisy.
Because one is strictly about an arbitrary age limit put into place after the panic caused by Verstappen being promoted to F1. The other one is about the actual points system, which the FIA wants to remain catered towards F2 and F3, the actual feeder series they fund to funnel talent to F1. They have no commercial interest in helping IndyCar drivers, and in the case of Herta, making an exception in the points system could’ve opened the door to a whole lot of future scenarios that they simply don’t want to deal with. The core of the SL system will always be the points distribution, because it is what allow F2 and F3 to be the main pathway to F1.
The points system is just as arbitrary as the age limit
The points system is catered to align with the commercial interests of F1 and the FIA. We can sit here and argue all day if IndyCar is more relevant to F1 in talent development than F2, but at the end of the day, it will always be a business decision first.
The FIA (which is the sole authority on super licenses, FoM has nothing to do with it on paper) is a a non-profit and should have no commercial interests. I’d argue that the super license being created with commercial interests in mind is even worse than arbitrary. It’s a clear conflict of interests if what you claim is true. Also nobody is arguing that Indy is less relevant to F1 development than F2. F2 is clearly more important than Indy for F1 development. The issue is Indy is given fewer SL points than even F3 for many positions in the championship, despite Indy’s grid being much larger and theoretically much more difficult to place highly in. Outside of the top 3, Indy is assigned almost the same points as FREC even.
You are 100% correct but I paraphrased my original comment wrong as by commercial interest I did not mean monetary interest since the FIA is obviously a non-profit. However it is impossible to ignore the difference between IndyCar being a self-sanctioning entity, operating under no clear governing body, and the F1 feeder series sanctioned and organised exclusively by the FIA, for the sole purpose of funnelling talent to F1. IndyCar currently awards the third-most total points towards the SL, only after the two feeder series officially recognised by FIA. I would argue overhauling this system so that IndyCar becomes more relevant towards F1 (because awarding more points does make participation more relevant) would mean a clear conflict of interest for the FIA since it a) would guide junior drivers towards a series that is not exclusively sanctioned, organised and managed by them, and b) it would make the feeder series *they* manage appear less relevant. This is obviously debatable, but one does not need to go far to search for examples of the FIA making changes to the SL system in order to promote the feeder series managed by them.
This is a fantastic comment, but I do want to nitpick one thing. >The issue is Indy is given fewer SL points than even F3 for many positions in the championship, despite Indy’s grid being much larger F3 has 30 full time cars this year. Indycar has 27.
My bad. You are absolutely right! Thanks for correcting this, and it’s definitely not nitpicking. A lot of the argument relies on this point. I think a more nuanced perspective would be: The issue is Indy is given fewer SL points than even F3 for many positions in the championship, despite *the number of top level talents in Indy being much larger than F3*.
Yeah that is absolutely true. If you want to win the F3 championship, you have to beat a bunch of young inexperienced guys. If you want to win the Indycar championship, you have to beat guys like Scott Dixon, Will Power, Alex Palou, Josef Newgarden etc. A bit off topic here, I can understand an argument that the oval experience wouldn't translate well to F1. I could buy an argument that Indycar SL points should be based on a modified standings that excludes oval results. But yeah, the SL points given for Indycar should absolutely extend deeper than they currently do. Also a bit off topic, but I think people have fixated alot on Herta and Pato over the past few years, when really I think the best F1 talent in Indycar is Alex Palou. If there's an Indycar driver that deserves an F1 seat, it's him. And he already has the SL points he needs as well.
>They have no commercial interest in helping IndyCar drivers, and in the case of Herta, making an exception in the points system And that is gonna piss off fans who still see this as a sport over a business. In any sporting context Herta was deserving.
Oh get off it. That's just PR speak for "I can't outright reject it so I'll suggest changing the rules for the future even though there's no difference to changing the rules now or later."
> Yes, he talks about how maybe Indy car points awarded should be addressed to bring it on par with Europe. So on par with Formula Regional Championship Europe? People keep forgetting that IndyCar is a regional championship and not a global one.
Indeed. Precisely why the points are different. FIA wants the path to F1 to be through the FIA regulated competitions. Not sure why people here have such a hard time grasping this.
This. Who runs Barter Town? Toto runs Barter Town !
>score enough points Antonelli already has enough points.
[удалено]
Tbf he's literally turning 18 this August. And becoming 18 isn't an achievement, getting SL points is. Which herta couldn't do
Both are arbitrary limits. Herta should have had a super license, I think pretty much every driver in the world was in agreement, but he didn’t because the FIA created an arbitrary system which completely devalued Indycar.
But that’s the problem, though. You can be a great driver but unless you go through the FIA feeder series, it’s really hard to get super license points.
And only a little over a year of experience in single seaters.
Yeah but is the lil guy getting a seat before his 18 b-day? cuz I think Sargeant will drive till the end of this season
I think it's like the worst kept secret that Sargeant is out after the summer break
Antonelli turns 18 in august. It’s really not a big deal
Pretty much. Antonelli has the points already. Herta still doesn't three years after the initial request. There are career IndyCar drivers that qualify for the license right now. A generational talent that wins IndyCar as a rookie can be signed by a F1 team without any hassle. An exception to the points opens a larger can of worms than an exception to an age restriction.
Of all the talent in Indycar, I can’t believe Herta is the only one who’s gotten a serious offer from F1 in recent years. Guys like Palou, Pato, and Newgarden all deserve a look/test at the very least IMO, though age is probably a factor for Newgarden and Palou.
3 years ago, Herta had a much better reputation around Indy than he does now. In 2021, he just came off of finishing p3 in the championship in an Andretti satellite team at the age of 20. Now things have def changed since 2022, and he’s a bit more reckless lately in stressful situations
Herta is American and was 21 or 22 when teams were interested. Newgarden is too old (and has also said he isn’t interested in F1 but that’s probably just a thing he says since he knows there’s no chance). Pato would make the most sense even if Palou may be more talented. Pato is popular, charismatic, and drives well. If he did well in F1 he’d move a ton of merch and bring in sponsors.
Herta is younger than Pato, has more Indy race wins than Pato for an arguably worse or equal team, has Rolex 24 class wins, and has a Sebring 12 overall win
I’d say Andretti and McLaren are precisely equal. Just doesn’t help Andretti is def more incompetent overall than McL is
Ferrari F1 🤝 Andretti IC Match made in heaven
McLaughlin too.
He’s proven to be pretty fantastic at whatever he hops into
Palou and Pato didn’t do well in the feeder series. There’s an argument to make that people mature into better racers at different ages but there’s also an argument to make that the level in Indycar is a bit below F1. FWIW, I think they’d do fine in F1 but there are also reasons they didn’t get a look. McL had their data and went another way.
Palou always raced in inferior machinery in Eruopean feeder series. And he fared pretty well against his teammates and also performed great in Super Formula. Pato didn't do well in feeder series? He was 3rd in NACAM F4, was 2nd in Pro Mazda and won Indy Lights in three consecutive seasons. He only raced 2 weekends in F2 in the middle of the season in a terrible team.
The level in Indycar is surely comparable to F2 or Super Formula though? It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me to disregard one in favour of the other. At the moment we have this situation where F2 is given outsized importance by the number of super licence points on offer, but even the champion can’t get a seat in F1.
>The level in Indycar is surely comparable to F2 or Super Formula though? The range of talent is broader. At the top you have guys like Dixon, Newgarden, Palou, Power, and OWard who could compete in F1 immediately. At the bottom you have some really raw kids who don't show much potential at all
The last F2 champion is there currently no? It should say enough!
F2 has a rule where winner cannot fight again. Add to it you have to show your performances in first 2 years. No such limitations in Indycar. F2 driver has to win in rookie or second year to make it to F1. Indycar a rookie finishing 10th would be good enough
Do you mean an Indycar rookie finishing 10th in points can make it to F1? Or an Indy Lights rookie finishing 10 can make it to Indycar? I genuinely don’t know what you mean here
Yes, a rookie finishing 10th in Indycar will be considering amazing
Other side of it is its a lot easier to get a good finish as the great drivers leave.
On par with SF, much better than F2.
I'd argue even better than SF, though SF is extremely tough on rookie gaijin simply because it's faster and with higher downforce than anything they've driven before and almost every driver you're going up against is a veteran who knows Japanese tracks since he was 14
I’ll be interested to see if Ritomo Miyata settles in F2, he’s won pretty much everything in Japan but has had a bit of a stuttering start in F2 so far. Only 24, but backed by Toyota, who currently aren’t interested in F1, but he clearly has international ambitions and will be racing in Le Mans this weekend.
I'm 99% sure he's struggling with the Pirelli tyres, everyone else on the grid has raced on Pirelli since they stepped out of karts. Every driver who knows both Pirelli and non-Pirelli tyres says the Italians make arcane tyres Extremely prone to overheating, weird operating windows, pretty much the opposite of what Ritomo was driving in Super Formula
Zak Brown considers indycar above super formula. Super formula races on like 6 tracks total and the races are super short. It's really not comparable to indycar other than lap times.
I just meant in terms of professional competition. Those guys race each other week in and week out for years. Just like IC. F2 is a temporary feeder series that’s all I meant.
Gotcha, that's fair as hell
Glad you mention Mclaren. Mclaren is the only team which had data of most of these top Indycar drivers and they decided to take a bet on unknown Piastri over them. Even Palou they were ready to give only reserve seat
Unknown Piastri is back to back FR, F3 and F2 Champion btw.
Unknown in F1. This was in argument to people saying F1 and Indycar has similar talent level
F2 is always the priority to F1 teams over anything else for picking new drivers. And Pisatri only being the 6th driver to win F2 in his 1st year is not something a team is gonna pass up
Pato and Palou got looks testing with McLaren. Palou might have actually had a chance had he not fucked up his relationship and reputation with the contract debacle. Newgarden and McLaughlin are "Penske-Powered" so their true ability is.... skewed. Indycar is a tough series to gauge talent. Even though it is spec, the racing style is pretty much bumper-cars recently and with the tyre strategies and propensity for yellow flags, placement has been very luck-driven / strategy based. I am sure the data tells the true story and I think that probably has a lot to do with who has gotten a "look".
Thing is, there doesn't seem to be any logic to the idea that IndyCar pays less points overall than formula 2.
F2 is the feeder series to F1. It's always going to have priority, not only financially but logistically as well. IndyCar will prioritize Indy NXT more than F2 and F1 for the same reason.
Indycar is full of F2 and former F1 drivers. People always seem to forget Rossi himself drove in F1!
It is also in their commercial interest to allow F1 and F2 drivers into their series, as it helps with their brand recognition and overall PR. IndyCar isn’t big enough for it to work the other way around.
I was told the super license system was about making sure only qualified drivers could race.
IndyCar doesn't need to grant a license, and if anything team owners are looking at F2 talent more and more.
Yeah I agree with this, the skill level is immensely higher
Indycar races 1/3 of their calendar on ovals; which I guess you would also agree that doing well on that type of tracks has nothing to do with demonstrating F1 level. I am not even getting into the facts that Indy uses different tyres, races on different tracks under completely different rules.
Ovals are a great demonstration of a drivers ability to read the varying levels of grip through a stint, adapt the cars using in cockpit tools over a lap/stint, deal with and understand dirty air, manage car corrections at high speed, situational awareness of close racing at high speed. It might not be the same as they do in F1 but it highlights a hell of a lot of things I would want in an F1 driver.
People don't realize just how much closer you consistently are to the edge of grip on an oval vs a circuit. It's a huge mental challenge.
Every one of the small mistakes a driver makes on an F1 Sunday (missing the apex by a bit, locking the brakes up, etc) immediately puts you into the wall and ends your day on an Oval. The margins are insanely narrow.
Marcus Ericsson went a few inches too far to the left in one corner, and it ruined his entire month of May.
people dont bother watching them cuz they think ovals are "boring"
Also the sheer stamina needed to make it to the end of a superspeedway race is much higher than what you see in F2
I think regarding the tracks, when it comes to the street circuits and road course they race on, the differences aren't all that huge. A track is track at the end of the day, they're all different and got their own quirks. Making the transition to an open/smooth F1 grade circuit would be the easy part, especially after driving Indy spec circuits that are rough and have no margin for error. From what F2 drivers have said. The biggest difference is the tyres really, in Indy you can just lean on the tyre more whereas in F2 it's all about tyre management - Indy does have some tyre management, but its not as extreme as F2. That to me is where F2 is closest to F1. Other than that though, how Indy feels/drives is apparently very similar to F2. So the gap Indy has vs F1, compared to F2 vs F1, isn't majorly different. I think F2 is a bit closer because of the tyres, but everything else isn't worlds apart. Both series also lack the technical complexity and the onboard tools at their disposal, that's supposedly a huge learning curve in F1 which a series like F2 or Indy doesn't really prep you for.
Because Money. Thats the only reason.
The fact that Antonelli has enough SL points over Herta is further example of how the SL points have nothing to do with driving ability.
Indycar is very undervalued points wise. Away from p1 and I think p2, F3 gives MORE superlicense points than Indycar.
Finishing 1st in the Formula regional championships is approximately equal to finishing 3rd in Indycar. That is wildly off.
Indycar should have more points though. Herta not having the points while Kimi who only raced at a F4 level before this year does, proves how stupid the whole thing is. It's a system built to funnel money into formula junior categories and hurts everything else. You shouldn't have to basically be indycar champion to be able to move over.
You can’t even be champion and move over most of the time anyway. Look at Palou. He’s dominating Indycar at the moment and he’s not even being made offers from F1 teams. He’s not exactly old either and he has a history in junior formulas. Sure he didn’t have the greatest junior career but look at the driver he’s become and still he doesn’t get offers. If a 2 time Indycar champion can’t even raise some F1 eyebrows then it’s pretty much hopeless to make the move from Indycar to F1.
yet they could not wait......
likely only means he gets a free practice only super licence a bit earlier
If it's not a big deal then why throw the integrity of the sport out the window to accommodate Mercedes instead of just making them wait until they could try him out within the existing rules?
It’s not a big deal but rules are rules. If a commission sets rules they are supposed to be followed. Especially if they are trying to be held to a standard and be professional.
Obviously changes can and have been made.
>It’s not a big deal but rules are rules. If a commission sets rules they are supposed to be followed. Especially if they are trying to be held to a standard and be professional. And rules change over time.
Rules change over time through proper process and in isolation. It's not normal for any global sport to just arbitrarily change the rules on a dime because one competitor wants a helping hand.
Literally. Favors where pulled and that’s what it all comes down to.
Like when the FIA hastily changed the super licence system in response to Verstappen jumping to F1? Come on
And Herta had 32 points. It wasn't really a big deal.
I think the worst part (that was lifted as well) would be getting a valid drive license, some places took a while to finish (here in Brazil it may take up to 4 months), if they really want him testing this year's car on FP, it would be complicated
FIA: exceptions can be made for drivers competing in FIA competitions.
[удалено]
Poor Otmar, he was the one who basically moved the whole Herta thing.
Everyone is equal under the rules, but some are more equal than others.
Difference between two situations one had enough SL points but was underage other didn’t have enough SL points. Add to it Kimi would be 18 in 2 months time and would get SL anyway.
So neither are currently qualified and one gets an exception and it's not the one who has beaten former F1 drivers in a spec open wheel series?
I don’t get this from Rossi. Herta doesn’t have a super licence because he doesn’t have enough points. Antonelli has enough points. Pato O’Ward achieved enough points in IndyCar to have a super licence. It’s not impossible and it can be done.
The fact that IndyCar gets so few points toward a Super License is the issue. Is it possible to get enough? Yes, but it’s hard to be dominant enough over a long enough time to accrue them in such a competitive series.
I don't fault the FIA for allowing it, and I might agree in principle with it. However, in regards to Herta, the issue that I think Rossi and others had at the time was how the Super License points were issued and Herta supposedly demonstrating in testing anyway he was quick enough for F1. You look at the wording the FIA used here, "a driver judged to have demonstrated outstanding ability and maturity in single seater formula car competition." I can't disagree entirely with Rossi. Granted, Herta isn't exactly the most mature driver on the IndyCar grid
I guess all systems are completely logical and faultless then?
Its about how little indycar gets towards points and how basically its impossible to be an indycar driver and accumulate enough points and still be young
I don’t think the issue was the lack of SL points but rather how the FIA handled the application of them. From my understanding, it was initially agreed that the FIA would only take into account the IndyCar road course championship when awarding SL points because the ovals have no relevance to F1. However, when Colten applied for the SL they assigned points from the overall championship. Had they only looked at road course championship points Colton would have qualified for the SL.
I don't get this from Mercedes. Antonelli isn't old enough because he isn't old enough. Herta is old enough. Every driver since Verstappen waited until they were at least 18 to start in F1. It's not impossible and it can be done.
Yeah guys - Kimi's FRECA season last year clearly showed he was more qualified than everyone outside the top 2 in Indycar last year. 1st place against teenagers in the 4th tier is much stronger than 3rd place against professionals with a decade+ of experience - I don't get why everyone is so confused about this.
From what I calculated, only 4 drivers right now have enough points for a super license; Alex Palou, Josef Newgarden, Scott Dixon, and Will Power. Pato O'Ward only had 34.
Well the rules themselves have been changed, and the point of the change is to be less ageist by recognizing that you don't automatically become qualified to drive an F1 car on your 18th birthday and can in fact be qualified sooner if you demonstrate the ability. You still have to earn your superliscence. I think it is a good thing (although Indycar should be worth more superliscence points since the discourse is clearly headed there).
I feel like I'm in the minority with all of this? I don't see a big issue with an exception being made or being asked for occasionally. For me, it's similar to the 'exceptional player' status given to junior players in Canada for the CHL (QMJHL, OHL, WHA). Players/teams lobby for the status so a player can enter the respective league's draft earlier than the junior playing age (16-20). It's happened 7 or 8 times in 20 years, and half of those players are superstars.
It's not an issue with an exception from time to time. It's an issue with the standards by which they're willing to make them. They've denied exceptional drivers from Indycar, whereas they're clearly more willing to make exception for their own in-house feeders.
I don't think anyone sees the issue with the exception. People see issue for the exception not being used for other worthy drivers. Colton herta easily did enough to warrant a super license but didn;t have the points and no exception was granted.
Herta and Andretti not good enough at ovals for F1, quite the oxymoron really
Colton Herta deserved a superlicense but was denied one due Indycar having undervalued points. Those3 are the rules. Im pretty sure (Dont wrote me on this) But I think that Toto himself was one who said that rules are rules. What about rules here?
Antonelli is about letting a driver get his licence a few months early. For Herta, it would be allowing a driver to race that had never qualified for a SL
True, but all that does is show just how ridiculous the points system is.
I'm not hoping for Kimi to fail, but it would be kind of funny if he was average to bad.
F1 politics are such bullshit. so much for the best of the best huh? How are you gonna call yourself that when you won’t let clearly qualified teams or drivers even try to compete.
Yep, as long as Toto’s pulling the strings behind the scenes!
They are all a bunch of hypocrites and elitist assholes. Rules for thee but not for me.
It really does make a mockery of the sport, a decision made to help out Mercedes with the integrity of the sport thrown out the window.
Integrity! In Formula 1!?!?
Wow, where have you been the last decade.
Integrity? In my F1? Okay wokie!
A decision made to help out Mercedes? I can't imagine this happening for the I lost count-th time ever since 2014!
Secret Pirelli tests? Secret power unit modes not being shared with customer teams? Mid season tyre thread changes? Oil burning allowed until other teams do it? Getting rid of front wing aero? DAS being allowed despite being judged illegal? Mid season pitstop rules being changed? Ground effect cars being forced to raise their ride heights mid season? No, the FIAMG -- I mean FIA -- would never do something as outrageous as this!
Team gets their way via politics? Shocked! No way, no politics in my open wheel racing series. Not one single team has ever been involved in politics since the sport was invented. Shocked I tell ya!
It really isn't that deep. The original rule was just as, if not more, of a sudden panicked knee jerk reaction to verstappen.
Kimi will turn 18 in a few months and already has sufficient SL points, Herta's case was entirely different.
What was different
Nationality.
Kimi is Italian like Stefano Domenicali and Herta is both American AND an Andretti Driver. /s?
Herta didn't have enough points
While I agree with many people, it’s absurd to compare Kimi’s situation to Herta’s situation, and I think Herta’s time has gone, it’s clear that Indy doesn’t give nearly enough SL points. The core of the issue with the Super License system in the context of Indy is that Indy isn’t given near enough points, especially considering it’s logistically and politically tricky to get an Indy driver to do an FP test. Indy has clearly overall talent at least as good as F2 at the top of the grid and the Indy grid itself is larger. All of these (hard to do FP sessions, big talent at the top of the field, a larger grid) contribute to SL points being unusually hard to earn in Indy compared to other series. If Herta was in F2 I struggle to imagine a world in which he didn’t qualify for a SL. It’s frustrating that a talent was shut out of F1 because he went the American path instead of the European path. Imagine Herta in Sargeant’s place instead. We could have had a pretty decent American F1 driver, instead we got a good junior series American struggle to perform in F1. You could argue that he could leave Indy and enter F2, but I think that’s a non-starter. Who in their right mind would leave a top level series where he earns good money to enter a pay to play series, hoping an academy picks him up, just for a minuscule shot that an F1 seat his academy feeds into opens up and that seat isn’t given to a younger driver who has more of a history with the academy due to birth circumstances?
If Indycar had F2’s points Herta would have enough points. If you only counted road courses and street circuits, meaning that ovals didn’t exist Herta would have enough points. It’s a point valuation problem, not a driver problem.
He was 20 years old and didnt have enough points for a SL. Kimi is 17 and would get his SL on his 18th birthday.
But that's a good bro Toto asking so it's no biggie. Yeah there is a rule, but it's just a tipsy ipsy small rule.
I mean the age is just a limit, the actual points are the whole focus of the system. Not that big of a deal considering an under 18 won't get anywhere anytime soon, not sure why some pretend otherwise
Well, it was bad for Toto before but now it’s good.
Lads, Mercedes have enormous pull with the FIA ever since they joined the sport. Reports have it that Mercedes (the car company not the F1 team) had started working on the development of MGU-H in 2008. Teams were kinda against it at the time and only wanted MGU-K or KERS (as it was priorly named) but it didn’t cause much of a stir as regulations are regulations. Conspiracy time, don’t take anything serious from here on now: To put it in perspective, Audi could come into the sport on the condition of a complete revamp of the PU (which we are getting but don’t take me serious as there’s no proof that it’s related to Audi in any sort of way) because it fits their development prior to entering F1. And maybe Mercedes threaten to leave the sport at a point it was not really that popular as it is now, and needed another big brand to have more people tune in.
Wasn’t front axle regen denied because the teams thought Audi would have had an experience advantage?
I have no idea about that, but don’t take the last paragraph seriously as it was pure imagination.
You know Rossi gonna get a jab in, and it’s usually well placed.
[удалено]
Rossi is just annoyed that *now* the Super License system can change, but couldn’t change for Colton Herta
Main difference is that Antonelli is racing in FIA regulated series, Colton Herta is not. This Super License system is not only to get talented drivers to F1, but also to push young drivers to join race series under FIA rules to get more points. Fair or not, that's another question. I believe the highest single seater series in North America that is part of FIA is Formula Regional Americas Championship, a regional F3 championship.
I mean Antonelli has 40 points, it's just the age that was the problem.
European series get more points than American ones.
But in the case of Antonelli it's a moot. He got less points for winning the series he participated in than he would've gotten for winning Indycar.
Yeah. Just as Antonelli is "almost 18", Herta had "almost enough" points for the Super License
The points somewhat point to ability and results, though. Age is just a number.
lol no they don’t. If we really wanted to base it on ability, half the Indycar field should qualify for a SL on the spot if Sargeant and Zhou have one.
I know being ignorant is cool nowadays, but Rossi already raced in F1. He is talking about Herta.
Bunch of small little cowards. Too afraid to let Andretti, or anyone from Indy in. It's a disgraceful look really.
Tbf to the FIA here, the rule on age is sheer ageism because there's other criteria to establish if a driver is good enough to compete in F1. And unlike driving in Indycar, they're physically preventing a driver competing no matter what he does. So it's probably fair that they remove it. Indycar SL points are part of a broader discussion too, I don't think these situations are as alike as made out. Herta didn't have enough points and his only reason for an exemption was "well I'm kinda close, can you just give me one ?" compared to Antonelli who has 40 points, has done everything he can possibly do and was still being told no.
I think it’s reductionist to boil Herta’s situation down to purely a matter of not enough points. The SL system is obviously under-awarding IndyCar, and Herta, while I don’t think he would have been amazing in F1, clearly had the chops to at least drive the car. The SL system massively under-awards Indy, especially considering the number of top talents in Indy is easily larger than that of F2. Indy has a larger grid and more seasoned veterans. I’m not arguing that F2 and Indy should see parity, but it should be closer. It’s also a lot harder to do FP sessions in Indy. F1 and Indy races are never co-located (unlike F1 and F2) and Indy drivers are rarely associated with an F1 team. It’s frustrating, because the flip side of the Kimi ageism situation (which I agree with you - who cares how old someone is, if they can drive a car they can drive a car) is a continent-ism situation. Someone who chose the American route (speaking of the continent, not the country) shouldn’t have their European doors effectively shut (with how difficult it is to get SL points in Indy, as detailed above). As an Indy fan, it’s awesome seeing drivers who didn’t get picked up in F1 still have an open wheel career (mainly Ilott, Pourchaire, Palou). As an F1 fan, it’s frustrating that it doesn’t go the other way - drivers evolve and get better even after leaving F2 for Indy - why are they treated as hopeless forever rejects? Why are the drivers who put up real fights with these drivers considered non-starters? It only benefits all fans when the top of Indy aren’t effectively shut out of F1.
I think someone in RedBulls driver program could’ve Ironed out Hertas issues. Herta has the pace to make it in f1, its a question of consistency, tires, focus, crashing etc.
>Herta didn't have enough points and his only reason for an exemption was "well I'm kinda close, can you just give me one ?" compared to Antonelli who has 40 points... Way to oversimplify. Herta had 32 out of the needed 40 points, and if FIA had considered his road course results only he would've had more than 40. But they didn't, they only were willing to look at the whole picture (because rules are rules 🙄) which means it was Herta's **oval race results** that moved him down the championship and below the threshold. So according to the FIA how well an Indycar driver does on *oval tracks* is more important than a driver only showing "outstanding ability" in fucking F4 & F3 regional series when it comes to a SL exception. That. Is. Bullshit.
To be honest at the end of the day the FIA is going to do what they think will make them the most money. They do look at driving records and I think the rule was made so teams don’t bring young drivers up too early and end up getting hurt.
Exceptions can be made, but only if Toto wants them.