"Formula 1 storing up a big problem for itself in five years time" - James Allen

James Allen has put up a fascinating blog up on his website this morning about how the lack of new talents cropping up will hit F1 in the face in five years time: http://www.jamesalle...ive-years-time/

It's a very true point in my opinion that there are some things more important than engines, you can have the best sounding and looking cars ever, but if the talent is nowhere to be found then it means very little.

One thing that has always confused me is why they don't let F1 teams test on a race track on the Monday after a Grand Prix, with each team putting a rookie in the car (or their second driver - depending on experience). Obviously you could not do that in double headers, but why they could not do a 1 day young drivers day at Malaysia, Bahrain, Spain, Britain, Hungary and Italy I don't know. That's six extra days there where a young driver could clock up thousands of miles around different track layouts, a bit like what Jaime Alguersuari has been doing this year.

Yes, you could argue that costs more money, but what's a more cost effective method? There is not one.

He makes a lot of assumptions there. I don't see the problem.

You have Perez, Hulk, Dir, Pastor and Romain coming in last 2-3 years - not that few drivers you should say. It is not an issue that drivers like Vettel and Hamilton don't come too often because of money. Such drivers just don't get born too often

Edited by sofarapartguy, 27 September 2012 - 11:07.

It's basically a very similar article to one Will Buxton wrote the other week.

Edited by ed24f1, 27 September 2012 - 11:07.

James Allen has put up a fascinating blog up on his website this morning about how the lack of new talents cropping up will hit F1 in the face in five years time: http://www.jamesalle...ive-years-time/

It's a very true point in my opinion that there are some things more important than engines, you can have the best sounding and looking cars ever, but if the talent is nowhere to be found then it means very little.

One thing that has always confused me is why they don't let F1 teams test on a race track on the Monday after a Grand Prix, with each team putting a rookie in the car (or their second driver - depending on experience). Obviously you could not do that in double headers, but why they could not do a 1 day young drivers day at Malaysia, Bahrain, Spain, Britain, Hungary and Italy I don't know. That's six extra days there where a young driver could clock up thousands of miles around different track layouts, a bit like what Jaime Alguersuari has been doing this year.

Yes, you could argue that costs more money, but what's a more cost effective method? There is not one.

they could add "Fp4"...or simply lengthen the Free Practice sessions...that will help, and save alot of money for testing

I think James Allen paints a bleaker picture than what is really going to happen, talent will still rise to the top, the 'Pics and Chiltons' are nothing new, we have always had them and will always have them, GP2 have (arguably) failed miserably but even that is not new F2 became F3000, F3000 became GP2 and these series as well went through cycles of being great and being less so, the second tier series fail whenever the cost becomes to much to sustain.

This season Formula Renault 3.5 is in my view the stronger junior series, and there is a lot of exiting talent there. Being Danish I look at the Danes, and neither Soerensen or Magnussen have untold wealth behind them, yet are in the thick of things every weekend.

Frijns
Bird
Bianchi
Sorensen
Magnussen

Have all shown enough to warrant a F1 seat, then some of them will show themselves not to be really it, and some will turn out to be the next great drivers. Allen use Webber as an example, he is the driver who have made it to the top without ever winning a championship (I exclude the Formula Ford Festival), if he is a sample to go by then there are plenty drivers in with a chance.

The real bane of racing at any level are the spec series.

I have nothing to add to what James said. The testin ban is causing driver mistakes as drivers need to feel at home in the cockpit... ****ing money...

One thing that has always confused me is why they don't let F1 teams test on a race track on the Monday after a Grand Prix, with each team putting a rookie in the car (or their second driver - depending on experience).

Wouldn't that mean the teams would have to bring a 3rd car just to do that young drivers testing on a Monday?

I don't see the benefit of doing the young driver testing as part of the race weekends themselves, and most of the talented drivers already busy enough racing in other series as it is.

He makes some interesting points, but they're not really ones I agree with. Vettel, Hamilton and perhaps even Alonso and Raikkonen will all be around in five years' time, and in Vettel and Hamilton's cases will be in their early thirties and probably peaking. These will be joined by current young chargers such as Perez, Grosjean, Maldonado and perhaps Bottas at the top of the F1 tree. Perhaps the grid will have a slightly less youthful complexion, but that does not mean that it need be any lower quality; in fact, the opposite is probably true, with these drivers peaking in the next five years.

In any case, the quality of F1 grids is always cyclical and it doesn't necessarily do the sport any harm. Its widely regarded that we have a better grid now than we did in, say, the late 1990s, but many people still look back on the late 1990s fondly and remember the great battles between Schumacher and Hakkinen. Hell, 2008 was for me the best season in recent memory, and it was full of hapless mistakes and moments of rank incompetency on the part of the two main title protagonists.

they could add "Fp4"...or simply lengthen the Free Practice sessions...that will help, and save alot of money for testing

I'm not sure I agree because it is not like teams' already utilise every minute of the three practice sessions at the moment as it is.

Wouldn't that mean the teams would have to bring a 3rd car just to do that young drivers testing on a Monday?

I don't see the benefit of doing the young driver testing as part of the race weekends themselves, and most of the talented drivers already busy enough racing in other series as it is.

Could they not just use the race cars?

And whilst true, I don't think many of the other series' clash with F1. GP2 and GP3 drivers' are already in the F1 paddock, and WSBR/FR3.5 etc don't race during F1 weekends always.

Every 5-10 years there are only a few drivers that stand out from a fan base point of view. If only Perez or Hulkenberg make it big time 5 years from now; one at McLaren and the other at Ferrari (or chose whatever two drivers you think will make it and what ever big team you think they will be driving for); how is that any different to the Senna and Prost/Schumacher and Hakkinen/Alonso and Raikkonen/Hamilton and Vettel, years? If Perez wins the WDC in 2017 in a Ferrari, who is going to look back and say, "oh, but he was a pay driver when he entered". What F1 driver didn't have backing?

I agree that the testing ban is not a good idea. But as long as the old drivers retire some new kids have to fill the seats, and I doubt anyone will question their ability because of it years from now. It will simply be perceived that they still beat the old guard despite their difficult entry.

Edited by Jazza, 27 September 2012 - 11:23.

Save for some exceptions, F1 is seeing new talents.

They can hold a 3 day testing session where young drivers are given a chance at the end of the season and mid season which is already in place . But with regarding to pounding hundreds miles, they cant be helped. Jamie-i-will-get-u-worry may have understood the tyres better but regards to speed and race craft, it comes from talent and experience. So the guy who can jump and be quick during those few days will get picked.

Agree a lot about the extra day of testing on the Monday.

Don't agree at all about the talent.

Like in any sport.. you have unknowns (to most of the general public).. then they win some races.. make a name for themself.. and then suddenly they are a Sebastian Vettel or a Lewis Hamilton.

The average everyday Joe Blow doesn't pay attention to junior categories.. that's only the hardcore racing fans, and they are in the minority.

If Perez wins the WDC in 2017 in a Ferrari, who is going to look back and say, "oh, but he was a pay driver when he entered".

Exactly. Lauda was a pay driver when he entered, so was Schumacher himself. I maintain that close championships are good for F1 no matter the quality of the drivers involved, and that an utterly dominant team in a strong grid (as was the case last year) is far worse for F1 than a close fight in a relatively weak one (as was the case in the Schumacher-Hakkinen years).

There's enough guys to fill the cars, isnt it,
Talent is relative, so whether they're truely talented or not doesnt really matter.

Besides, as soon as someone is clearly more talented then the rest, he will get villified anyway, people dont like an exceptional talent running away at a second a lap.

They think the truely greats MUST have "great teammates" (who, being relative, only shows that the difference isnt that big, hence driver not that big a deal). And then argue that as someone has been so good no teammate ever came close, he can't be that good as "it was a weak era".

Anyway, my point is, as long as the cars are filled, who cares. We also thought those rich guys who literally bought a drive in the 50s or 60s were great drivers, didnt we.

I can't see any lack of talents in F1. While i do agree that with many teams only looking for drivers who can bring some money, lots of talents end up in series like DTM or even out of a drive at all, i don't know how additional rookie testing would change this. We already have the Young Driver Test and teams ran people like Gary Paffett and Rodolfo Gonzalez - why would that be different in Monday rookie tests?

He makes a lot of assumptions there. I don't see the problem.

From watching British F3 and Formula Ford there's certainly plenty of interesting talent out there, whether they've got what it takes to make it to F1 is another matter.

Eric Lichenstien in F Ford looks pretty handy (minus causing a massive shunt at Snetterton through a crappy safety car restart)

Andy

One thing that has always confused me is why they don't let F1 teams test on a race track on the Monday after a Grand Prix, with each team putting a rookie in the car (or their second driver - depending on experience). Obviously you could not do that in double headers, but why they could not do a 1 day young drivers day at Malaysia, Bahrain, Spain, Britain, Hungary and Italy I don't know. That's six extra days there where a young driver could clock up thousands of miles around different track layouts, a bit like what Jaime Alguersuari has been doing this year.

Yes, you could argue that costs more money, but what's a more cost effective method? There is not one.

I have heard a very good argument against Monday testing, and I do agree that it's not very helpful to the teams. The main purpose for them is to evaluate new parts, and on a Monday after the race all you are going to have is the car you raced the day before together with any parts you testest and discarded on Friday. Plus, if you think of the team personal, they have been working pretty much four days non-stop so probably deserve a day off on Monday as they're heading home/to the next race.

If you're going to have in-season tests for young drivers only, better that it's similar to this year where the teams get a few days to use whenever they want. Even if some teams are just auctioning off a seat for a day. Unfortunately though there seems to be very little desire for more testing amongst the teams now, I'm guessing it is no longer as important as it once was.

What is more important though is the ballooning cost of competing in the lower series. When you have to find hundreds of thousands just to race at F3 level, how can anyone who doesn't have a millionaire parent or an egomaniac dictator for a friend possibly compete?

It may take a little longer for talented young drivers to cycle through into competitive cars and challenge for world championships. I wasn't around at the time, but it seems to me that Gilles Villeneuve, Keke Rosberg and Rene Arnoux weren't the less exciting as new arrivals because they entered on the other side of 25, compared to Vettel, Hamilton, Alonso, Raikkonen.

The guard at the top of F1 is as static as it was in 1989-93. That's the other side of the much-trumpeted "six world champions on the grid". These things have a tendency to come crashing down like Valhalla, and the new lot tend to lack the star power. Schumacher's already a has-been, Hamilton will get tired of it all, Raikkonen will ask for too much money, Button will lose his touch, and Vettel will frighten Alonso into retirement.

And if James Allen is suggesting F1 keep these spec V8s forever, and use the saving to fund young driver tests, I don't much like his argument.

I hope Pastor Maldonado wins a world championship, that would be a laugh.

Edited by Risil, 27 September 2012 - 12:00.

Could they not just use the race cars?.

They can't use the main race cars while they have to save things like the gearbox and engine for several races each, you really don't want to be adding extra miles onto an already stressed car just to test a new guy.
And i'm sure the main drivers wont be happy if a young driver trashes their race chassis during testing as well.

Monday testing doesn't seem all that practical to me.

Having special young driver events during the year where they can test things like car parts as well seems to be better overall for the teams.

people dont really care about junior formula, i was only vaguly aware of hamilton before he rocked up in f1.

I agree wit the author, that the drivers should be allowed to clock more miles in F1 car. An extra test day on thursday or monday would not be bad. Perhaps we could have 8 or 9 such days during the season.

much ado about nothing...i admit less testing opportunity is a reason behind too many mistakes by rookies,but talent is there...grosjean.maldo all are pretty capable driver no matter how much fun you like to make of them.....

i don't see why these guys along with perez,hulk etc. should be branded sas econd tier before they get their hand in top class machinery....

Edited by aray, 27 September 2012 - 12:18.

He's right, F1 is an entertainment business.

To say that F1 "needs to make sure that it has a supply of performers" is pretty much nonsense.

There are always gonna be people who want to drive in F1, so the supply is absolutely fine. And at the end of the day, the casual punter is not gonna care who is driving the cars so long as the racing is interesting and enjoyable to watch. Of course, a drop in quality could lead to a sort of two-tiered F1 but I can't see that happening. The sport will find a way.

Also interesting to note all the love he's giving to his chum Jaime here.

i don't see why these guys along with perez,hulk etc. should be branded sas econd tier before they get their hand in top class machinery....

I think it's intended as a description of their place in F1's order, rather than an attempt to glimpse into their essential beings.

There's enough guys to fill the cars, isnt it,

...GP2 and GP3 having quite a number of young chargers coming up, driving like Grosjean and Maldonado. When they enter the sport in the next 2 - 5 years, they will all have the same situation (lack of testing, lack of "FP4" etc.), so chances will be equal again.

The only thing that will change will be the flavor of the sport - but that happens all the time: the flavour of the 70s (Lauda, Hunt, Peterson, Andretti etc) was decidedly different from the 80s (Senna, Prost, Mansell, Piquet), the 90s (Schumacher, Hill, Hakkinen, Villeneuve) and now (Alonso, Hamilton, Vettel, Raikkonen).

So I do not worry at all like James Allen - the sport has always reinvented itself and will do so even after Bernie's demise.

Exactly. Lauda was a pay driver when he entered, so was Schumacher himself. I maintain that close championships are good for F1 no matter the quality of the drivers involved, and that an utterly dominant team in a strong grid (as was the case last year) is far worse for F1 than a close fight in a relatively weak one (as was the case in the Schumacher-Hakkinen years).

People make the crucial error in that they feel money and talent is always mutually exclusive in F1, it certainly isn't.

There will always be more good drivers than there are good cars - Don't see a problem.

I agree wit the author, that the drivers should be allowed to clock more miles in F1 car. An extra test day on thursday or monday would not be bad. Perhaps we could have 8 or 9 such days during the season.

I can't see how you can have any signifigant testing on a race weekend (friday/monday) without removing the restrictions on engines/gearboxes, otherwise teams will simply have to provide a whole new (third?) car to reduce any risks to the main race cars.

How many teams could actively afford that, or at least afford to pay rescources towards, the lower teams certainly couldn't I don't think.

I have nothing to add to what James said. The testin ban is causing driver mistakes as drivers need to feel at home in the cockpit... ****ing money...

Not so sure considering all new inductees apart from Di Resta and in particular Grosjean and Maldonado have rather extensive experience in high powered open wheelers with carbon brakes and essentially F1 spec tires. GP2 cars of course are not as fast but in close quarters where both of those guys have had problems the experience should be pretty close.

I can agree with some of Allen's comments in that article, mainly on testing rules hampering new talent, but he's overreacting on this causing a future problem. He simply looks at the frequently winning drivers from the past few years, mentions half of them will be retired in 5 years and acts like that's that. While in this context, F1 always evolves around the currently winning drivers. Whether that is Perez, Pic, Evans or someone not yet even on the F1 radar, it's irrelevant, anyone can be one of the main F1 faces in 5 years time given the right opportunity and some luck.

My impression of F1 over the years is that the truly special drivers haven't needed all of the opportunities that Allen thinks new drivers are missing out on nowadays in order to announce themselves to the F1 world. For example, a lack of experience when stepping into F1 didn't seem to do Kimi's career any harm or Schumacher's.

So I am unconvinced by Allen's premise. Whilst I think there are some good young drivers in F1, outside of perhaps Perez I'm not sure we're seeing the next multiple WDC amongst them. I don't think that's because of a lack of experience, I think it's because that person hasn't arrived yet.

I'd like to see the future talent given more opportunites before they get into F1. There must surely be a cost-effective way of getting some test sessions for the young drivers.
I actually think there's quite a lot of talent out there but nowhere for a lot of them to go, its a pity there aren't more spaces on the grid for more cars/teams, either by 3 car teams or more than the current 12 teams.
Its a pity that on the big tracks and pit facilities there are nowadays F1 can only have a maximum of 26 cars on the grid and not 30+, thus allowing for more teams and drivers to have a shot at F1. I know it is meant to be the best of the best, but there must surely be more than 12 teams who can get a teamand a car up to the standard

I'd like to see the future talent given more opportunites before they get into F1. There must surely be a cost-effective way of getting some test sessions for the young drivers.
I actually think there's quite a lot of talent out there but nowhere for a lot of them to go, its a pity there aren't more spaces on the grid for more cars/teams, either by 3 car teams or more than the current 12 teams.
Its a pity that on the big tracks and pit facilities there are nowadays F1 can only have a maximum of 26 cars on the grid and not 30+, thus allowing for more teams and drivers to have a shot at F1. I know it is meant to be the best of the best, but there must surely be more than 12 teams who can get a teamand a car up to the standard

You seriously think that? There aren't 12 teams now who can seriously compete, where are all these extra ones going to come from?

I think much could be done to improve the state of the single seater ladder in that it's too convoluted and some of the budgets just aren't workable the the current economic climate. But I don't think F1 is in danger of not having enough good drivers. It's the opposite problem right now - there are too many good ones for all to get seats.

James said it himself - in 5 years time most of the Button-Raikkonen-Alonso-Webber-Massa generation will be gone, and then more opportunities will open up. You can't force a generational change, it happens naturally. Which is tough for the young drivers out there, but that doesn't mean there are potential superstars missing out - there are still good young drivers getting F1 seats. Using Sam Bird as an example says it all - maybe he'd have had a better chance of a seat a few years ago, when there were more vacancies. But does anyone think that Sam Bird would have been a potential WDC or even race winner if he had managed to get on the grid? He's a solid driver, but no one is tipping him as they next best thing.

I think the criticism of Pic and even Chilton is a tad unfair. OK, maybe the latter's career progression plan does rely on his Dad buying him a new team at every level. But pay drivers always have and always will be part of the sport. And you could do much worse than those two - it's not like there are any Ricardo Rossets looking to get into F1 anytime soon.

Don't get me wrong, more can be done for young drivers - especially regarding seat time. But I don't think the talent supply is going to dry up.

Ricardo Rosset was a runner-up in F3000. Max Chilton and Charles Pic wish they had his record.

For example, a lack of experience when stepping into F1 didn't seem to do Kimi's career any harm or Schumacher's.

My thoughts also.

History has shown you simply cannot tell how good a driver is in F1 until he races in F1.
Historians will be able to produce large lists of "star" drivers who failed in F1, and "average" drivers who excelled in F1.

The old "thousands of hours" of practise, IMHO, dont really come into it.

Just looking at the McLaren awards list and for the first time since their inception I find that it is not worth pondering. Maybe JA has a valid point

People make the crucial error in that they feel money and talent is always mutually exclusive in F1, it certainly isn't.

I agree. Until this year, 6 out of the 7 GP2 champions found seats in F1 the following year, and 6 out of the 7 runners-up eventually ended up in F1 as well. The cream usually rises to the top.

Just looking at the McLaren awards list and for the first time since their inception I find that it is not worth pondering. Maybe JA has a valid point

"Aims to promote young British racing talent" and "aims to predict future successful F1 drivers" are not necessarily the same goal.

It's always a pathetic sight watching a driver whose talents have begun to fade. They still have the ambition but they aren't able execute. The sport needs more young drivers in the seats. The testing ban is hurting the sport.

It always amuses me how people - both in the media and on forums - are so keen to spend other people's money. F1 is affected by the global recession just like everyone else. Even the top level drivers are looking at pay cuts. HRT can't even manage to get to the testing we already have, so how are they going to afford extra testing? The only beneficiaries of increased testing are the biggest teams with unlimited budgets (or Ferrari as we call them). The gaps will widen, the poorest teams will fall out, we will be back to 18 car grids. How will that help new talent to get into F1? By limiting the opportunities?

At the end of the day the current generation is a huge golden generation, we are being spoilt here when you look at the history of F1 in terms of the quality available. It's inevitable that this will come to an end, but there's always going to be top notch drivers in F1, maybe not as much as there is now, but like I said, now is not the norm.

I don't think it'll be a problem as Hamilton/Vettel/Alonso are probably going to be fighting at the top for several more years. IMO Hulkenburg is very good since he pretty much won every junior category. Coupled with Perez and the picture isn't so bleak.

Mr Allen is flawed from the get go forgetting that the supreme talents ie vettel Hamilton started their careers in F1 in very early twenties meaning it makes up for it.

In 5 years time Vettel and Hamilton will surely be in f1 still, and we do have frijns and bird and others coming up to fill the other places.

F1 will be absolutely fine.

Any perceived problems pale into insignificance up against the biggest and most obvious issue facing racing talent - money. That's the only problem, always has been, always will be. Still, as already alluded to, talent does still get through.. so Mr Allen's monologue reads like a rant for a rant's sake.

Any perceived problems pale into insignificance up against the biggest and most obvious issue facing racing talent - money. That's the only problem, always has been, always will be. Still, as already alluded to, talent does still get through.. so Mr Allen's monologue reads like a rant for a rant's sake.

Talent always gets through does it? Tell that to the kid who's dad can't afford to race KF3 at 250k a year age 12.

What is being asked of a driver is from the age of 8-21 to earn approximately £5,000,000 ... it's just impossible. Go to any big kart meet or car meet and you'll see a car park lined with Mercs, Ferraris, Astons etc... It's all fine but as long as the sport is honest about how it really works.

Edited by rhukkas, 27 September 2012 - 19:05.

the best drivers find their way into top f1 teams very quickly, as long as the talent is in the lower formulae then there is nothing to worry about.

Allen moans about possibly there being no entertainers, but drivers don't come into f1 as premade superstars, that only happens when they win stuff.

Poor article I thought.

Alonso/Hamilton's are the exceptions not the norm. Hamilton did GP2 just like the others, he had no practice in F1 car as a test driver, he went straight in only practicing on a simulator. All teams have a simulator to practice on.
Vettel was lucky he didn't have to waste time doing a GP2 season and was able to be BMW F1 Test Driver and learn at STR in F1 instead of GP2.

Allen also forgets the teams don't want to increase testing, they've just agreed not to have that extra in season test again because running a test costs too much.

Also GP2 are open cockpit cars and not that different from F1 (designed by Williams I think) nowadays. The standard of drivers in GP2 is a problem but that is because FIA don't punish them properly and they are just worse drivers.

A driver can win every race in a junior category yet fail in F1, he can win very little in junior categories yet be a world champion - Denny Hulme, James Hunt and Damon Hill spring to mind. No-one knows a driver's real F1 potential till they get in a competetive F1 car, so saying that there are none on the way is to misunderstand the nature of F1 and I'm surprised that a man with his experience should put forward such an argument. Come to think of it, I don't recall Alonso winning much before F1.

Edited by Bloggsworth, 27 September 2012 - 19:18.