FIA Formula Two Championship - Does it work?

This season the FIA gave us yet another Spec-series, FIA Formula Two Championship with the intent of giving us a 16 round championship, racing identical cars, identical tires, identical engines.

There are no old and used engines since the series only started this season, and it is a 'low cost' series making it possible to battle for a championship for a low cost.

Since the first test sessions, and now after 3 rounds (6 races), I am surprised over the differences seen.

Valencia race 1 - Same car, same engine, same tires - 15 drivers within a second, the slowest in qualifying is 3.8 second slower than Pole?
Valencia race 2 - Same car, same engine, same tires - 16 drivers within a second, the slowest in qualifying is 2.7 second slower than Pole?

Brno race 1 - Same car, same engine, same tires - 8 drivers within a second, the slowest in qualifying is 5.7 second slower than Pole?
Brno race 2 - Same car, same engine, same tires - 17 drivers within a second, the slowest in qualifying is 3.1 second slower than Pole?

Spa race 1 - Same car, same engine, same tires - Only 5 drivers within a second, the slowest in qualifying is 4.9 second slower than Pole?
Spa race 2 - Same car, same engine, same tires - Only 7 drivers within a second, the slowest in qualifying is 4.3 second slower than Pole?

This series have a number of drivers, whom I prior this season rated as not without talent, and I was intrigued to see how Natacha Gachnang would measure up against a field of drivers in equal machinery.

I would have expected times to be a lot closer, Spa being the 'real racers track' is a wakeup call for basically the whole field, and in my mind question if this series is really giving what it was supposed to.

Will a champion from this series really have F1 credentials?

Don't include the last place drivers on this or any grid, they will inevitably have had problems that give misleading laptimes though at every weekend this year there has been more than a few people several seconds off in qualifying. I think Spa also didn't indicate much since the length of the lap will elongate the gaps.

Gachnang is doing about what I expected. This is her first year against a 'proper' grid.

It's still way too early to tell and F2's value will be in hindsight once we've seen a generation of drivers go through or not. Nice political dig though, since I can't think of too many spec FIA series.

Don't include the last place drivers on this or any grid, they will inevitably have had problems that give misleading laptimes though at every weekend this year there has been more than a few people several seconds off in qualifying. I think Spa also didn't indicate much since the length of the lap will elongate the gaps.

Gachnang is doing about what I expected. This is her first year against a 'proper' grid.

It's still way too early to tell and F2's value will be in hindsight once we've seen a generation of drivers go through or not. Nice political dig though, since I can't think of too many spec FIA series.

I have actually removed the last 2 drivers in Q for most of them, since I knew that there were some with issues.

I disagree about Spa not being of significance, in the same car drivers in a series 1 class below F1, should be closer than 1 second, even at Spa. I find Spa significant for that very reason.

I am not digging at the FIA Spec series, I am digging all spec series (Is GP2 not a FIA series as well?).

who would take washed up former gp2, 25 yr old veteran to f1? and who wouldnt take to f1 19 yr old rookie whiz kid?

if soucek wins, f2 has no credentials. if bortolotti or somesuch wins it is great f1 feeder series.

but soucek will probably win. or some other over 21 veteran

http://fia.com/en-GB...mpionships.aspx

Spa is just Spa, that the lap is longer affects the laptimes more than it being a 'drivers circuit'. The measure of any circuit is roughly how many cars are within the first second, on average, across most of the circuits. The back end of the grid indicates nothing.

who would take washed up former gp2, 25 yr old veteran to f1? and who wouldnt take to f1 19 yr old rookie whiz kid?

if soucek wins, f2 has no credentials. if bortolotti or somesuch wins it is great f1 feeder series.

but soucek will probably win. or some other over 21 veteran

Any champion regardless of age, if he / she have the talent should be in F1, it is a fallacy that the teams are currently promoting drivers due to age and not not due to talent.

Klien would likely be in Glock's seat, had he not been rushed to F1 before he was ready. Vettel is a special case, Piquet Jr is NOT as bad as he looks, but was rushed.

I just do not see that this series will give us anything which is not already found in F- BMW, Renault, Nissan, 3.

Far lower costs for starters, and no disparity between cars.

http://fia.com/en-GB...mpionships.aspx

Spa is just Spa, that the lap is longer affects the laptimes more than it being a 'drivers circuit'. The measure of any circuit is roughly how many cars are within the first second, on average, across most of the circuits. The back end of the grid indicates nothing.

Not sure why backend of grid mean nothing to you, and I do not agree that Spa being long validate the difference in time, were they in different cars, evolved and developed based on difference in budget, exact same package should not be that different.

Far lower costs for starters, and no disparity between cars.

Backside of which seem to be huge disparity between drivers, so this is a glorified Formula Palmer?

too much lower spec series too much

F2
renaults 2.0L
WSR
GP2
euro F3

add supereague to that and A1 simply too much

Edited by brabhamBT19, 29 June 2009 - 10:57.

F2 should be cheap F1

all those who applied for 40m budgetcap should be making cars and competeing in F2 under 40m cap, that would be F2

This Fia F2 is just sick. just sick.

Edited by brabhamBT19, 29 June 2009 - 10:59.

Backside of which seem to be huge disparity between drivers, so this is a glorified Formula Palmer?

There's just a large disparity between drivers period, this is showing the difference. The back end of any grid is not important because that's not where the competition is.

Far lower costs for starters, and no disparity between cars.

All witch mean nothing with regards to either the quality of on track racing, or the talent pool, or technological innovation relevancy level, or visibility and appeal.

Think we need to allow the series to run for at least a season (and probably 2) before jumping to any conclusions, but I think the spec is too low to be a true feeder into F1.

There's just a large disparity between drivers period, this is showing the difference. The back end of any grid is not important because that's not where the competition is.

I agree that there is a disparity, I just do not think that a series which will issue a Super License to the top 3 drivers in the Championship and a test driver with Williams, with the stated object:

"..which will be run in such a way as to seriously evaluate the driver with regard to their potential as a Formula One driver."

The back of the grid IS important, since that is a measure of how strong / weak competition the class give the front running drivers. In a field of 24 drivers, how many do you think 'is not important'?

I would have expected times to be a lot closer, Spa being the 'real racers track' is a wakeup call for basically the whole field, and in my mind question if this series is really giving what it was supposed to.

Will a champion from this series really have F1 credentials?

Yeah, we have had some good racing and drivers are on quite the same level but is the level high enough? I can't see exceptional talents among those 25 drivers. Some are certainly surprised everybody while there are also some massive dissapointments. I expected much more from Aleshin, Piscopo and Hohenthal. Plus those British juniors with famous names seem to be over-hyped.
Concerning Gachnang - she's exactly as hopeless as she has been in other series.
FIA is going to gift a superlicence for top 3 but why should any F1 team want them? Drivers gather some experience in F2, that's sure, but speedwise F2 is not that much different from F3.
Lap times from Spa 2008-2009:
F1: 1.47,9
GP2: 1.58,8
FR3.5: 2.04,0
F2: 2.09,8
F3: 2.15,3 (British series)

Backside of which seem to be huge disparity between drivers, so this is a glorified Formula Palmer?

I can't get excited about the cars themselves.

I think they're really unattractive with the big teapot airbox, narrow track and tiny wheels.

Racing has been OK, but I think they've missed a golden opportunity to create a good looking car.

It's not about laptime, otherwise Kimi wouldn't have been signed by anyone.

I don't think F2 is a 'development series' because it doesnt teach you anything, but I don't think it's mean to. It's more the final exam than the education. Same car as everyone else, no advantage, no excuses; can you beat the rest of the grid? The guys at the front are the names you'd expect but you're also getting guys like Henry Surtees pulling a surprise result and Hegewald killed everyone at Spa, which was definitely not expected.

We are seeing an alarming trend in world motorsport at the moment.

The growth of spec series by the FIA appears to me that they want to increase their control over motorsport by eliminating manufacturer racing.

They have recently announced a new CIKFIA World Karting Championship for under 18s that uses spec karts. The reasoning behind this was that karting has become over professional and too much about manufacturers competing. This eliminates young drivers from competing against the best karters in the world because they are full on professionals. This is the same reasoning behind formula 2. However it's not really about drivers, it's about control.

The truth is spec series do very little for drivers. All they do is promote drivers who happen to have a style that suits a particular car. I recall once watching the R6 Cup a few years ago which is a spec series for young bikers in the UK, and Valentino Rossi was in attendance. Rather to the shock of the programme makers he critisised it because the riders don't learn about set up and development.

If spec series grow and grow we will see more and more drivers LESS ABLE to provide a team with the right skills to race in F1.

This equal machinery thing is a complete red-herring. You don't WANT equal machinery. You want differing machinery because that's what you have in F1 and any top flight motorsport!

There are so many low level series now days that it just gets a bit confusing. I mean think about it, we have:

Formula 2
Formula 3
GP 2
GP 3
Formula Renault
Formula Ford
Formula Atlantic
Formula BMW
Formula Mazda
Formula Audi
Superleague
Indy lights

Just to name a few. Why cant the fia just lay down a set of rules for f2, f3 and f4, and have everyone build cars according to those rules. Doing so would create a natural progression for drivers. That way even if manafactures want to have there own series, the cars that compete in said series could be built to a certain spec, and could therefore be raced in other comps as well.

bit off topic, but meh.

Well you're mixing various things, a few of which don't compare to each other.


Tier 1: F1/IRL/NASCAR

Tier 2: GP2, F2, World Series, Indylights (America), Atlantic (America)

Tier 3: GP3 (an announcement at this stage only), F3

Tier 4: Formula Renault, Formula BMW, Formula Mazda (America)

Series that don't fit into that ladder: Superleague, A1GP

Formula Audi is a British club series, and while it is a step into F2 through their system, it's not really a 'premier' championship. Which isn't to say good drivers can't come up of that series, but it's not your first pick as a driver. Likewise British Formula Ford.

The truth is spec series do very little for drivers. All they do is promote drivers who happen to have a style that suits a particular car.

they also promote drivers who stumble on right setup on a given track. if hegenwald's spa result was due to his skill, he would've been at least near the front in other races. lack of consistent frontrunners may mean that they all are stumbling in the darkness setupwise.

Well you're mixing various things, a few of which don't compare to each other.


Tier 1: F1/IRL/NASCAR

Tier 2: GP2, F2, World Series, Indylights (America), Atlantic (America)

Tier 3: GP3 (an announcement at this stage only), F3

Tier 4: Formula Renault, Formula BMW, Formula Mazda (America)

Series that don't fit into that ladder: Superleague, A1GP

Formula Audi is a British club series, and while it is a step into F2 through their system, it's not really a 'premier' championship. Which isn't to say good drivers can't come up of that series, but it's not your first pick as a driver. Likewise British Formula Ford.

There is no tier system in motorsport. It's a complete illusion!

they also promote drivers who stumble on right setup on a given track. if hegenwald's spa result was due to his skill, he would've been at least near the front in other races. lack of consistent frontrunners may mean that they all are stumbling in the darkness setupwise.

Also some cars are more equal than others. This is accepted by Formula 2 because each driver changes car for each round. If all the cars were truly equal they wouldn't feel the need to do this!

if soucek wins, f2 has no credentials. if bortolotti or somesuch wins it is great f1 feeder series.

but soucek will probably win. or some other over 21 veteran

Soucek is a GP2 winner who has never had a budget to race properly: your suggestion will mean that the only guys who will be able to compete are those with (very) rich parents or with Red Bull / RDD contracts. Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather think that the cream should rise, regardless of their net financial worth.

Drivers gather some experience in F2, that's sure, but speedwise F2 is not that much different from F3.

F2 is actually slower than Euro F3 so far.

You want differing machinery because that's what you have in F1 and any top flight motorsport!

I would love it if only it was so. F1 is IMO the only top level single-seater series with really differing machinery. All the other professional series around the world which spring to my mind are more or less spec. If not by rules then de facto like F3. Maybe it's simply because times have changed and it has become too complicated to build a racing car?

I would love it if only it was so. F1 is IMO the only top level single-seater series with really differing machinery. All the other professional series around the world which spring to my mind are more or less spec. If not by rules then de facto like F3. Maybe it's simply because times have changed and it has become too complicated to build a racing car?

And the relative closeness of the F1 field, regardless of make is actually then a huge credit to the smaller teams on the grid. I continue to think that all drivers in a field matter.

Soucek is a GP2 winner who has never had a budget to race properly: your suggestion will mean that the only guys who will be able to compete are those with (very) rich parents or with Red Bull / RDD contracts. Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather think that the cream should rise, regardless of their net financial worth.


F2 is actually slower than Euro F3 so far.

At Spa they pulled out about 3 seconds on Brit F3, and roughly 5 on Spanish F3, though I wouldn't think that'd all be down to hp.



Soucek kinda has to win, he's got F3, World Series, and GP2 experience so he's got no reason not to. Most of the front runners have at least WSR experience, and Wickens isn't lacking in CV. But there are some random guys in the top 10 from time to time, like Henry Surtees taking pole on merit, Kazim Vasiliauskas(?????) being up there, Alex Brundle P3 on the grid at Spa straight out of Palmer Audi, etc.

But then you get guys like Sebastian Hohenthal who can't seem to find his ass with both hands. I wonder if the difference in some drivers is just approach/attitude. Some of these F3 guys will be used to endless testing and fiddling with engineers and simply won't be used to just getting into a car and seeing how fast they can go.

I think that's Soucek's biggest advantage: yeah he's used to a much more powerful car, but also he knows how to deal with 30 mins free practice / 30 mins qualy / go race.

Not sure why backend of grid mean nothing to you, and I do not agree that Spa being long validate the difference in time, were they in different cars, evolved and developed based on difference in budget, exact same package should not be that different.

Using a figure of 1.0 sec/lap difference is completely arbitrary and fails to take into account length of lap etc, making yours an entirely subjective analysis open to debate such as thatput forward by Ross. To be slightly more objective (and less open to the sort of objections Ross has made) you should calculate based on a percent laptime difference. Eg calculate the number of drivers within 103% of the pole time.

There's a reason the old qualifying rule for F1 was 107%.

As far as the level of competition. Why not calculate number of drivers within percent laptime brackets, to show the spread. 100-101%, 101-102%, 102-103% etc. Even easier, just plot each drivers' times on a graph and post it up here for everyone to see. If the graphs show a shallow decline in times across most drivers with a sharp drop off for the last, say, 10-20% of the grid I'd say that's a good competition. If the drop off is only shallow for the first 5 drivers and ten drops away rapidly that's bad.

Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather think that the cream should rise, regardless of their net financial worth.

Motorsport is, and will always be about money. but you are delusional if you think single make racing is a way to find the best drivers. It simply doesn't work. The rich drivers will always find advantages. Motorsport is so seat time dependant that the richest drivers will test other cars to keep focus. Other things they do is hire the best nutritionists and the best coaches.

True, but even spending your balls off you'd struggle to spend over 500,000 a year on F2, whereas World Series is going to be at least 750,000 before you add the extras you need to be competitive. In each case neither series is GP2 but both garuntee an F1 test to the winner.

Well you're mixing various things, a few of which don't compare to each other.


Tier 1: F1/IRL/NASCAR

Tier 2: GP2, F2, World Series, Indylights (America), Atlantic (America)

Tier 3: GP3 (an announcement at this stage only), F3

Tier 4: Formula Renault, Formula BMW, Formula Mazda (America)

Series that don't fit into that ladder: Superleague, A1GP

Formula Audi is a British club series, and while it is a step into F2 through their system, it's not really a 'premier' championship. Which isn't to say good drivers can't come up of that series, but it's not your first pick as a driver. Likewise British Formula Ford.

Yeah i didn't really put them in any order i was just listing them. My point is why do we need GP2, f2, Nippon and Atlantic's, one series is enough. Maybe have an American f2, a european f2 and a asian f2.

Same with GP3 and f3, they could have multiple comps on different continents with the same standard of car. Its one way to keep cost down.

Motorsport is, and will always be about money. but you are delusional if you think single make racing is a way to find the best drivers. It simply doesn't work. The rich drivers will always find advantages. Motorsport is so seat time dependant that the richest drivers will test other cars to keep focus. Other things they do is hire the best nutritionists and the best coaches.

Richest drivers will always go to the richest teams which can employ the best engineers etc. to create the best environment to be competitive. Then those teams can have more cars and gather more data which also helps. Then everybody wants to drive for big teams. And the bigger the teams the less the difference. That's exactly what we see in FRenault Eurocup. In FRenault NEC it's even worse - if you're not driving for Motopark you may as well not to drive at all.
But with all this - how on earth has Sebastian Vettel become so good? He has actually driven only pure spec or close-to-spec (F3) cars.

Richest drivers will always go to the richest teams which can employ the best engineers etc. to create the best environment to be competitive. Then those teams can have more cars and gather more data which also helps. Then everybody wants to drive for big teams. And the bigger the teams the less the difference. That's exactly what we see in FRenault Eurocup. In FRenault NEC it's even worse - if you're not driving for Motopark you may as well not to drive at all.
But with all this - how on earth has Sebastian Vettel become so good? He has actually driven only pure spec or close-to-spec (F3) cars.

RedBull invested vast amounts of money into Vettel. And I am talking VAST amounts... and sometimes some drivers are just good.

I like to think of F2 as 'International F3'. It is not a prep series for F1 (that is GP2), but it is a nice place to get noticed and get sponsors other than daddy, who can finance you to the next level.

And even though the series is spec, drivers still have to find a good setup. That's a valuable skill, and some people will "stumble" to the ideal setup more consistently than others.

RedBull invested vast amounts of money into Vettel. And I am talking VAST amounts... and sometimes some drivers are just good.

We can only hope that good drivers can survive even in F2.

I like to think of F2 as 'International F3'. It is not a prep series for F1 (that is GP2), but it is a nice place to get noticed and get sponsors other than daddy, who can finance you to the next level.

Daddy still has to find half a million for F2, which is still a lot. Easy if you're the son of a former F1 driver though.

Daddy still has to find half a million for F2, which is still a lot.

True. But at least daddy has the 'consolation' of knowing that the cars are equal(ish). He won't have to waste invest millions if the son does not finish in top six or so. It's back to studies and business for junior.

Using a figure of 1.0 sec/lap difference is completely arbitrary and fails to take into account length of lap etc, making yours an entirely subjective analysis open to debate such as thatput forward by Ross. To be slightly more objective (and less open to the sort of objections Ross has made) you should calculate based on a percent laptime difference. Eg calculate the number of drivers within 103% of the pole time.

There's a reason the old qualifying rule for F1 was 107%.

As far as the level of competition. Why not calculate number of drivers within percent laptime brackets, to show the spread. 100-101%, 101-102%, 102-103% etc. Even easier, just plot each drivers' times on a graph and post it up here for everyone to see. If the graphs show a shallow decline in times across most drivers with a sharp drop off for the last, say, 10-20% of the grid I'd say that's a good competition. If the drop off is only shallow for the first 5 drivers and ten drops away rapidly that's bad.

Your comment about 1 second being arbitrary is a very fair point, it can at best be used as an indication.

My graph skills are likely not that good, but I will see what I can come up with and post later.

As far as the level of competition. Why not calculate number of drivers within percent laptime brackets, to show the spread. 100-101%, 101-102%, 102-103% etc. Even easier, just plot each drivers' times on a graph and post it up here for everyone to see. If the graphs show a shallow decline in times across most drivers with a sharp drop off for the last, say, 10-20% of the grid I'd say that's a good competition. If the drop off is only shallow for the first 5 drivers and ten drops away rapidly that's bad.

Alternatively, do a chi squared test to see if the laptime distribution conforms to a normal distribution. I'd expect it follows a typical bell curve.

One thing that always puzzles me is why they call GP2 or IRL spec series when in reality only the top teams contend for wins.
I know they all race with the same chassis and same engines however there is got to be other parts which are not spec which makes the top teams have faster cars.

i'd count GP2 & IRL tier 2; F2, WSR tier 3 and so on. meaning, top 4-5 from F2 and 2-3 from WSR would be good enough for GP2. bigger problem is, there has not been room in F1. to finish 6th in feeder series to get promoted is kinda joke.
PS - if FIA counts F2 as a feeder to F1 then it's a bit stupid to start F1 and F2 races at the same time as it was with Silverstone and Brno...

That was just the way the schedule fell, most of the time F2 will be racing on the weekends F1 isn't, which unfortunately means they go head to head with MotoGP.

One thing that always puzzles me is why they call GP2 or IRL spec series when in reality only the top teams contend for wins.
I know they all race with the same chassis and same engines however there is got to be other parts which are not spec which makes the top teams have faster cars.

Well, it's the same reason why some people can hammer the nails into wall faster and more precisely than others. It is called skill.

Edited by alfista, 29 June 2009 - 14:44.

One thing that always puzzles me is why they call GP2 or IRL spec series when in reality only the top teams contend for wins.
I know they all race with the same chassis and same engines however there is got to be other parts which are not spec which makes the top teams have faster cars.

Setup. The best-funded teams can more accurately simulate the conditions and alter the car as necessary.

i'd count GP2 & IRL tier 2; F2, WSR tier 3 and so on. meaning, top 4-5 from F2 and 2-3 from WSR would be good enough for GP2. bigger problem is, there has not been room in F1. to finish 6th in feeder series to get promoted is kinda joke.
PS - if FIA counts F2 as a feeder to F1 then it's a bit stupid to start F1 and F2 races at the same time as it was with Silverstone and Brno...

hehehe there are no tiers. You got enough money you can race in any series you want. Also the level of skill doesn't have to improve through each series. The whole thing is an illusion to sell seats!

Using Ross's scale I'd have to say I see F2 as being about Tier 2.5. Not on par with GP2/WSR in my view.

Yeah it's a 2B definitely, the fact that you get a superlicense and an F1 test, and that it's a pan-European series puts it slightly above F3.

For what reason does NASCAR get the same status as F1? On all levels NASCAR is lower - money, technology, performance, worldwide appeal.

If we're doing it on performance based then NASCAR would be near the bottom as around a circuit they are scarily slow.