44 replies to this topic

[ronsingapore]

Would it be possible to create a system where drives are allocated purely on a merit basis?

 

Say, for example, Teams have to select their drivers from only a small select pool of drivers.

 

For example, there are 22 seats available for a particular season.

 

So maybe a pool of eligible drivers can be created from which the teams have to draw on:

 

1) The top 10-11 finishers with the most number of points from the previous F1 season

 

2) the top 10-11 finishers (with the most points) from the previous GP2 season

 

3) the top 10-11 finishers from the previous  FIA European Formula 3 Championship

 

4) The top 3-5 finishers from the previous GP3

 

This should give around 30 ++ drivers whom have some credentials and resume to their credit.

 

I don't know if something like this would even produce better driving!

 

i think the biggest flaw about this is that it creates a system of winners and losers; i.e the F1 drivers whom need to leave or the drivers whom did not do well; and I think the problem is that it creates a lot of unintentional by-effects. 

 

 

[RosannaG]

Dreaming is free of charge. 

[HoldenRT]

In an ideal world, but not in F1.

[Imateria]

Terrible idea, it's telling drivers they're not eligable for F1 just because they drove for a backmarker team the previous year.

[Mauseri]

Terrible idea, it's telling drivers they're not eligable for F1 just because they drove for a backmarker team the previous year.

Top-10 and  those who beat their teammate can stay? Others lose their F1-racing license. Of course the points scoring system would have to be improved before that to reflect the true and not the random performance.

[Mauseri]

Maybe it would not be such a bad idea, that at the end of the season a few drivers would be told you were not F1 material. You cannot continue to participate on this level.

[V8 Fireworks]

Yes, this would be good fun for a spec series.

[ronsingapore]

Dreaming is free of charge. 

[BRK]

No, since even a handful of those side-effects would be enough to run F1 into the ground. Spiralling costs in legal fees, track testing, simulator work, change in chassis\car design philosophy every season to suit a different driver..

[Peter0Scandlyn]

Get your IP against that idea and take it to Bernie when he (if he) gets GP1 going.

[Tsarwash]

Would it be possible to create a system where drives are allocated purely on a merit basis?

 

Say, for example, Teams have to select their drivers from only a small select pool of drivers.

 

For example, there are 22 seats available for a particular season.

 

So maybe a pool of eligible drivers can be created from which the teams have to draw on:

 

1) The top 10-11 finishers with the most number of points from the previous F1 season

 

2) the top 10-11 finishers (with the most points) from the previous GP2 season

 

3) the top 10-11 finishers from the previous  FIA European Formula 3 Championship

 

4) The top 3-5 finishers from the previous GP3

 

This should give around 30 ++ drivers whom have some credentials and resume to their credit.

 

I don't know if something like this would even produce better driving!

 

i think the biggest flaw about this is that it creates a system of winners and losers; i.e the F1 drivers whom need to leave or the drivers whom did not do well; and I think the problem is that it creates a lot of unintentional by-effects. 

Sounds like communism to me !

[Wes350]

There should not be a point system for drivers once they get to F1 - once you're in, you're in!

 

But to qualify for a Super license to race in F1...

 

The usual mileage requirement, and the candidate must have achieved:

 

Top Three in Championship standings to Qualify for Super license:

GP2

Formula E

Formula Renault 3.5

SuperFormula

IndyCar

WEC (LMP1 & 2)

DTM

Super GT

 

Must be Champion to Qualify for Super license:

FIA F2

FIA F3 European

GP3

Formula 3 Nazionali e FIA F4

Formula Renault 2.0 (ALPS, Eurocup, NEC)

Indylights

 

So that's 30+ eligible "rookie" candidates for F1 each year - far more  than rides available each year...

 

And you can also have an easy renewal system for past Superlicence holders previously  in F1.

 

I think such a  system is about as fair as you can be if the goal is to force teams to select rookie drivers based on some kind of merit; While keeping undeserving drivers from just jumping into F1 with stacks of cash.

 

This would also prevent pay drivers from exploiting a points system where they can ride around for a few years, get enough points to "qualify", and then buy their way in.

 

You wold still get the occasional Jolyon Palmer, but at least such drivers would be forced to really earn it.

Edited by Wes350, 10 March 2015 - 06:53.

[ronsingapore]

 

There should not be a point system for drivers once they get to F1 - once you're in, you're in!

 

But to qualify for a Super license to race in F1...

 

The usual mileage requirement, and the candidate must have achieved:

 

Top Three in Championship standings to Qualify for Super license:

GP2

Formula E

Formula Renault 3.5

SuperFormula

IndyCar

WEC (LMP1 & 2)

DTM

Super GT

 

Must be Champion to Qualify for Super license:

FIA F2

FIA F3 European

GP3

Formula 3 Nazionali e FIA F4

Formula Renault 2.0 (ALPS, Eurocup, NEC)

Indylights

 

So that's 30+ eligible "rookie" candidates for F1 each year - far more  than rides available each year...

 

And you can also have an easy renewal system for past Superlicence holders previously  in F1.

 

I think such a  system is about as fair as you can be if the goal is to force teams to select rookie drivers based on some kind of merit; While keeping undeserving drivers from just jumping into F1 with stacks of cash.

 

This would also prevent pay drivers from exploiting a points system where they can ride around for a few years, get enough points to "qualify", and then buy their way in.

 

You wold still get the occasional Jolyon Palmer, but at least such drivers would be forced to really earn it.

 

 

I admit defeat, the above is a far superior system.

[jee]

Teams should draft the drivers, worst teams from previous season get first pick 

[LuckyStrike1]

Who would pay for the running of the teams? 

[ronsingapore]

Teams should draft the drivers, worst teams from previous season get first pick 

 

That is the NFL system!

[Victor_RO]

 

There should not be a point system for drivers once they get to F1 - once you're in, you're in!

 

But to qualify for a Super license to race in F1...

 

The usual mileage requirement, and the candidate must have achieved:

 

Top Three in Championship standings to Qualify for Super license:

GP2

Formula E

Formula Renault 3.5

SuperFormula

IndyCar

WEC (LMP1 & 2)

DTM

Super GT

 

Must be Champion to Qualify for Super license:

FIA F2

FIA F3 European

GP3

Formula 3 Nazionali e FIA F4

Formula Renault 2.0 (ALPS, Eurocup, NEC)

Indylights

 

So that's 30+ eligible "rookie" candidates for F1 each year - far more  than rides available each year...

 

And you can also have an easy renewal system for past Superlicence holders previously  in F1.

 

I think such a  system is about as fair as you can be if the goal is to force teams to select rookie drivers based on some kind of merit; While keeping undeserving drivers from just jumping into F1 with stacks of cash.

 

This would also prevent pay drivers from exploiting a points system where they can ride around for a few years, get enough points to "qualify", and then buy their way in.

 

You wold still get the occasional Jolyon Palmer, but at least such drivers would be forced to really earn it.

 

 

One thing: I'd scrap LMP2 or restrict it to drivers in that class ranked by the FIA/ACO as Gold or Platinum. Otherwise you might get gentleman drivers eligible for a Superlicense.

[P123]

Teams should draft the drivers, worst teams from previous season get first pick 

No drivers would go along with that scenario! They'd all drift away to another series where no such stipulation exists. And F1 would be left picking the best from a bad bunch.

Edited by P123, 10 March 2015 - 08:18.

[Fatgadget]

Who would pay for the running of the teams? 

 

Why, Mr Hypothetical of course! 

[LuckyStrike1]

My hypothetical scenarion: 

 

Fix the flawed business model of F1 and the quality and standard of drivers as well as the practice of teams chosing F1-drivers is not a problem. 

 

I don't think there is a problem with the standard of F1-drivers today. 

 

The problem is that they are "forced" to bring multi-millions in sponsorship to the teams because teams operate in a business with a flawed business model, and the size of sponsorship sometimes is the sole deciding factor for driver movements. 

 

I don't really see a problem with any of the current F1-drivers in terms of driving quality, merits in the past and present and ability to drive a F1-car fast, safe and controlled. The problem is that a majority of them needs to bring multi million dollar deals to get their seat. 

[noikeee]

 

There should not be a point system for drivers once they get to F1 - once you're in, you're in!

 

But to qualify for a Super license to race in F1...

 

The usual mileage requirement, and the candidate must have achieved:

 

Top Three in Championship standings to Qualify for Super license:

GP2

Formula E

Formula Renault 3.5

SuperFormula

IndyCar

WEC (LMP1 & 2)

DTM

Super GT

 

Must be Champion to Qualify for Super license:

FIA F2

FIA F3 European

GP3

Formula 3 Nazionali e FIA F4

Formula Renault 2.0 (ALPS, Eurocup, NEC)

Indylights

 

So that's 30+ eligible "rookie" candidates for F1 each year - far more  than rides available each year...

 

And you can also have an easy renewal system for past Superlicence holders previously  in F1.

 

I think such a  system is about as fair as you can be if the goal is to force teams to select rookie drivers based on some kind of merit; While keeping undeserving drivers from just jumping into F1 with stacks of cash.

 

This would also prevent pay drivers from exploiting a points system where they can ride around for a few years, get enough points to "qualify", and then buy their way in.

 

You wold still get the occasional Jolyon Palmer, but at least such drivers would be forced to really earn it.

 

 

This is exactly what the FIA is doing starting next year. Method slightly differs but the point is the same.

[Tsarwash]

Teams should draft the drivers, worst teams from previous season get first pick 

Now that basically is communism. I love how American Football has a totally communist system of picking college players to force the constant redistribution of wealth, (the best players.) Kind of ironic. 

[redreni]

Currently drives are allocated partly on merit and partly on ability to pay and/or attract sponsorship. Sponsorship is also dependent on ability to some extent, as well as other considerations such as marketability, image, appearance, nationality etc.

 

I understand why people are concerned about factors other than ability entering into the equation. I share those concerns. However it's important to understand that these selection factors influence a driver's career right from the very start. There's a financial cost to getting involved in motorsport in the first place, even at the lowest level of junior karting. This deters those without much money before they even embark on any kind of motorsport activity as a child, and potential megastars are eliminated from the F1 reckoning without even entering into the arena where they could be considered for a competitive drive in any form of motorsport. From junior karting, the road to F1 involves innumerable hurdles, and at each hurdle the field of potential candidates is whittled down until a select few end up in F1. Money is a factor at every stage.

 

I don't personally think it's realistic to talk in terms of "pure" merit. It's a case of trying to prevent money from dealing a fatal blow to the career of the most talented people at every level - i.e. if people clear the ability hurdle, then they should be helped to clear the financial hurdle as well. Scholarships and young driver programs are important in this regard, but it's a case of making sure there are enough of these programs with places for all the drivers who are good enough to deserve a shot at the next level up, having a coherent ladder that allows the people running the top teams and the young driver programs to identify who the most deserving recipients of their assistance actually are and to reduce the number of good people who are missed, and improving the financial health of the F1 teams so that they can afford to give more weight to ability than commercial factors when selecting their drivers.

 

On the last point, there's already a strong imperative in F1 to recruit the most able drivers, and pretty much all drivers have personal sponsorship and bring sponsorship to their team, so it's really a case of weighing up a driver's ability against the amount of money he brings. All other things being equal, F1 teams will always choose the driver they think is more able. If they're choosing people who allegedly have a budget of $3m a season and still can't get a drive in LMP1, I'd say that's bourne of desparation and shows how bad things have got for the F1 teams. CVC and the manufacturer-backed are going to have to settle their dispute as to who will pay for the second half of the grid before the independents all go bust, and then hopefully we'll see an improvement on that score as well, but don't imagine for a moment that if you somehow fixed the final few hurdles to entry into F1 so that they were purely meritocratic, that it would sort out the fundamental problem of it being a rich kid's game.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

Although I fully support the concept that any Formula One driver must be darn competent, I do not endorse any program that restricts the selection process. Teams should always be free to chose whatever driver they wish, from anywhere. If that philosophy was not practiced, we would have never seen some of the greats that entered the sport by different methods. Mario Andretti would have never been on such a list, also Fangio, or Gilles Villeneuve or Kimi Raikkonen. And even Lewis Hamilton, he was on McLaren's short list of prospective drivers long before he was a blip on the Formula One radar.

 

It is bad enough that Formula One has become a closed club with the teams, politics, and money. But to also build in an enclosed driver selection process would not bring the best into the sport, but rather guarantee that some of the best never got there.

[V8 Fireworks]

One thing: I'd scrap LMP2 or restrict it to drivers in that class ranked by the FIA/ACO as Gold or Platinum. Otherwise you might get gentleman drivers eligible for a Superlicense.

 

Ah, the FIA already announced a similar system.

[ToxicEnviroment]

Split by iRating

[redreni]

One thing: I'd scrap LMP2 or restrict it to drivers in that class ranked by the FIA/ACO as Gold or Platinum. Otherwise you might get gentleman drivers eligible for a Superlicense.

 

How are we defining "gentleman driver"?

 

If it means "driver who provides funds for the team" then F1 is already full of them.

[Kalmake]

Although I fully support the concept that any Formula One driver must be darn competent, I do not endorse any program that restricts the selection process. Teams should always be free to chose whatever driver they wish, from anywhere. If that philosophy was not practiced, we would have never seen some of the greats that entered the sport by different methods. Mario Andretti would have never been on such a list, also Fangio, or Gilles Villeneuve or Kimi Raikkonen. And even Lewis Hamilton, he was on McLaren's short list of prospective drivers long before he was a blip on the Formula One radar.

 

It is bad enough that Formula One has become a closed club with the teams, politics, and money. But to also build in an enclosed driver selection process would not bring the best into the sport, but rather guarantee that some of the best never got there.

I'm sure those gentlemen would have qualified through lower formulas without much trouble. Even Andretti might have found time for it if F1 money had been far above the rest as it is now.

[Victor_RO]

How are we defining "gentleman driver"?

 

If it means "driver who provides funds for the team" then F1 is already full of them.

 

Classified as Silver or Bronze by the FIA/ACO/SRO committees for the last 3 years. Drivers that make their name in junior single-seaters as well as LMP can start out as Silver in their first LMP year but quickly get upgraded to Gold.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

I'm sure those gentlemen would have qualified through lower formulas without much trouble. Even Andretti might have found time for it if F1 money had been far above the rest as it is now.

But Mario was making a very comfortable income in the USA before he got serious about Formula One. Do you think that someone with his credentials (such as winning the Daytona 500 and Indy 500) is going to take two years away from very lucrative driving jobs in the USA to compete in lesser series in Europe? And even with today's drivers pricing levels, it is not worth it to undertake such a venture because the loss of revenue from drives in the USA would exceed anything he could make in Formula One. Geez, Jeff Gordon makes easily $25 million a year. If he (purely hypothetically) decided to spend three years in Formula One, he would have to take off five years in the USA at a net loss of $125 million. The first two years spent in lesser series earning his place in Formula One, then 3 years in the sport. So he would have to command over $40 million a year while in Formula One just to balance the books. What team would invest such a sum on a driver who has not even competed and unproven in Formula One? The economics don't make sense.

[Brazzers]

I don't think it would be possible.

 

Just like in normal life networking and knowing people in 'right' areas would foster one's chance than someone that is arguably more talented. Happens all the time in the corporate world and to an extent in modern day racing than any other sport in my opinion. 

[PlatenGlass]

It would never happen in F1 where you have teams. If you had an entirely driver-based ladder with no teams at all on the way up then it could be done on merit. You would inevitably end up with a higher standard of driver overall.

Click on the link in my signature!

[McLaren]

Top-10 and  those who beat their teammate can stay? Others lose their F1-racing license. Of course the points scoring system would have to be improved before that to reflect the true and not the random performance.

 

But say for this season, McLaren are outside the top 5 or so best teams.. that would mean that one of Button or Alonso would lose their F1 license...

 

I think the whole idea of it all is way too artificial...

 

I do believe that drivers who have performed very well in the feeder series to F1, should have a very strong chance of participating in the next season... but with the current lack of testing, it is hard for teams to compare these up and coming drivers with the current crop. 

 

The lack of testing is due to the ever inflating costs involved with running f1 and running f1 teams...

 

So baring all that i mind, I think a good way forward would be for certain teams to volunteer to run the top talent (from the feeder series) each year on a new set of testing days.. designed specifically for that purpose. The cars will be at least 1 year old, and so will the tyres.

 

The extra cost for the teams might be a slight issue.. but the advantage for the teams that choose to volunteer is that they get first choice at signing the given driver running in their car, to their team for the next season. Of course this will all depend on how well they perform.. but they will be given a number of days to impress. 

 

The idea of the above, is so that teams can gage these drivers, and can decide to sign a contract with them if they impress... but they don't have to sign them by any means..

[Atreiu]

Nops. Sorry.

[rhukkas]

With billionaires, ex-f1 drivers and current F1 designers pricing everyone but the extraordinarily rich out of karting, the chances of there being any meritocratic element to motorsport. Hamilton got picked up from a Stevenage normal background, do not expect that ever to happen again.

[NoSanityClause]

With billionaires, ex-f1 drivers and current F1 designers pricing everyone but the extraordinarily rich out of karting, the chances of there being any meritocratic element to motorsport. Hamilton got picked up from a Stevenage normal background, do not expect that ever to happen again.

Mmmh...that's debatable. First, Hamilton was not the only one coming from a normal background. I am not familiarised with most drivers' background but I know at least Alonso and Kimi come from similar origins. Anyways, drivers coming from the middle classes were always a minority. That's not something new. Ayrton Senna came from a wealthy family, and so did most drivers. Motorsport simply never was a cheap sport. That's not something new. We had Counts (von Trips), Earls (Dumfries) and even a Prince (Prince Birabongse Bhanudej Bhanubandh, also known as B.Bira and yes, I had to copy paste his name )

 

I don't see any differences in social composition of the field frankly.

 

As for the OP. No, I hope never happens. I don't want F1 to be simply the upper echelon of a drivers' bureaucracy. I want my F1 drivers hand picked, the good, the bad and the weird.

[Kalmake]

But Mario was making a very comfortable income in the USA before he got serious about Formula One. Do you think that someone with his credentials (such as winning the Daytona 500 and Indy 500) is going to take two years away from very lucrative driving jobs in the USA to compete in lesser series in Europe? And even with today's drivers pricing levels, it is not worth it to undertake such a venture because the loss of revenue from drives in the USA would exceed anything he could make in Formula One. Geez, Jeff Gordon makes easily $25 million a year. If he (purely hypothetically) decided to spend three years in Formula One, he would have to take off five years in the USA at a net loss of $125 million. The first two years spent in lesser series earning his place in Formula One, then 3 years in the sport. So he would have to command over $40 million a year while in Formula One just to balance the books. What team would invest such a sum on a driver who has not even competed and unproven in Formula One? The economics don't make sense.

Actually he might have qualified by doing well in the equivalent of Indycar series back then, USAC?. Currently you only need to a top4 in IndyCar championship.

 

There is no path from NASCAR to F1, but I doubt there is anyone trying to make that move anyway.

[KingTiger]

That doesn't make any sense. I'm sure Ricciardo learned a lot more in his year at HRT than he would've if he spent it beating up on hopeless paydrivers in GP2 or F3. 

 

What I think needs to happen is for F1's financial structure to be such that good teams can survive without having to rely on wastemen like vdg to bring in money. 

[RealRacing]

Introduce only one qualifying category for F1, call it F1Q, and select the first X placed to be eligible to drive in F1. Make this qualy category open to anyone, even WRC drivers for example. If you finish in the last X in F1 you leave, with the chance of going back to F1Q and re-qualify, unless you impress and are hired by a better team. Or something like that. 

[redreni]

Introduce only one qualifying category for F1, call it F1Q, and select the first X placed to be eligible to drive in F1. Make this qualy category open to anyone, even WRC drivers for example. If you finish in the last X in F1 you leave, with the chance of going back to F1Q and re-qualify, unless you impress and are hired by a better team. Or something like that. 

 

What would the F1Q drivers drive? Would they have F1 equipment? If so, would that be supplied by the F1 teams? How, if at all, would you suggest F1Q ensures that the performance of all the cars in F1Q is the same? And if the F1Q cars aren't all the same, isn't there a risk that the best drivers won't be promoted to F1?

 

If F1Q is open to everyone, how would you prevent all the seats being sold to the highest bidder? If you wouldn't, how exactly (apart from the promotion/relegation arrangement with F1) would F1Q be different from GP2?

 

I actually think the OP's suggestion isn't a bad idea in itself, since it does try to force F1 teams to hire drivers who have achieved results, by preventing them from hiring drivers who haven't achieved anything of note but can bring a lot of money to the team. But I think there are problems with the idea: it may attract allegations of restraint of trade, as well as possible challenge from various series and championships on the ladder if they're left out of the equation or not granted what they consider to be appropriate weight, and the fact that if you stopped the smaller F1 outfits selling their race seats for millions per season, they would all go bust. And it would only make the upper echelons of the sport more meritocratic - it would do nothing at all about the selection bias towards rich kids that occurs from the lowest junior karting age group on up.

 

Your idea suffers from all the same potential problems, but in addition, I don't understand how it would even achieve the OP's limited goal of making it so that F1 at least allocates its seats to the most able of the existing pool of readily available and appropriately qualified and experienced racing drivers?

[RealRacing]

What would the F1Q drivers drive? Would they have F1 equipment? If so, would that be supplied by the F1 teams? How, if at all, would you suggest F1Q ensures that the performance of all the cars in F1Q is the same? And if the F1Q cars aren't all the same, isn't there a risk that the best drivers won't be promoted to F1?
 
If F1Q is open to everyone, how would you prevent all the seats being sold to the highest bidder? If you wouldn't, how exactly (apart from the promotion/relegation arrangement with F1) would F1Q be different from GP2?

For the first 3 questions, I don't know X 3. It could be a spec series. Or not. Yeah there would be a risk that the best drivers won't be promoted, but that's life. If they are good enough, they'll either win right away or soon enough in a spec series or be promoted to better teams that allow them to qualify eventually.

If a paid driver can drive and qualifies, it means he's an ok driver at least so he'll get a chance in F1. If it wasn't a spec series and he qualified only because he had a good car he'll fall back to F1Q eventually as top teams in F1 don't usually hire/keep bad pay-drivers.
 

I actually think the OP's suggestion isn't a bad idea in itself, since it does try to force F1 teams to hire drivers who have achieved results, by preventing them from hiring drivers who haven't achieved anything of note but can bring a lot of money to the team. But I think there are problems with the idea: it may attract allegations of restraint of trade, as well as possible challenge from various series and championships on the ladder if they're left out of the equation or not granted what they consider to be appropriate weight, and the fact that if you stopped the smaller F1 outfits selling their race seats for millions per season, they would all go bust. And it would only make the upper echelons of the sport more meritocratic - it would do nothing at all about the selection bias towards rich kids that occurs from the lowest junior karting age group on up.
 
Your idea suffers from all the same potential problems, but in addition, I don't understand how it would even achieve the OP's limited goal of making it so that F1 at least allocates its seats to the most able of the existing pool of readily available and appropriately qualified and experienced racing drivers?

IMO, the way F1 is set up now, smaller, under-funded teams have no place in it anyway so it wouldn't really matter to me if they were replaced by 3rd cars from the top teams for example. That would get mostly rid of the pay-driver problem to start with. No system is perfect and yes, a qualy F1 category would probably play a similar role to the various categories leading to F1, but it may draw more interest if it was only one and it could be easier to control and manage. At the end of the day, if F1 is not spec, why does it matter how good or bad the drivers are and how they got there as, supposedly it should not be a competition of driver talent but team, and increasingly marketing, management?

[rhukkas]

Mmmh...that's debatable. First, Hamilton was not the only one coming from a normal background. I am not familiarised with most drivers' background but I know at least Alonso and Kimi come from similar origins. Anyways, drivers coming from the middle classes were always a minority. That's not something new. Ayrton Senna came from a wealthy family, and so did most drivers. Motorsport simply never was a cheap sport. That's not something new. We had Counts (von Trips), Earls (Dumfries) and even a Prince (Prince Birabongse Bhanudej Bhanubandh, also known as B.Bira and yes, I had to copy paste his name )

 

I don't see any differences in social composition of the field frankly.

 

As for the OP. No, I hope never happens. I don't want F1 to be simply the upper echelon of a drivers' bureaucracy. I want my F1 drivers hand picked, the good, the bad and the weird.

 

Alonso, Kimi, Hamilton. Simply put they would NOT be on the KF Senior grid (equivalent of what they raced back in the day - Formula A/Super A/ICA) today. 

 

Motorsport has always been expensive, but right now it's worse than it has ever been.

[pdac]

How about an alternative scenario where drives are allocated purely on the amount of money the driver brings to the sport. Seems just as valid to me.

[NoSanityClause]

Alonso, Kimi, Hamilton. Simply put they would NOT be on the KF Senior grid (equivalent of what they raced back in the day - Formula A/Super A/ICA) today. 

 

Motorsport has always been expensive, but right now it's worse than it has ever been.

Ah, ok, now I see your point. I can't really comment on it because I know nothing about how expensive it is to race in karts. But that's why there should be no prerequisites. If a guy seems good but all he raced was shopping carts because he is poor, they should be able to hire him nonetheless.

[Atreiu]

Forget merit, have teams draft pilots.

 

Consider 2016 the year zero. Every driver who meets requirements for a super license enrolls for the draft. Then, on January Xth 2016, teams pick pilots one at a time in reverse 2015 WCC order.

 

So assume Manor draft first, and then eleventh. Their pilots are Hamilton and Maldonado. Mercedes, who won the 2015 WCC and WDC, want Hamilton back. So they enter a negotiation with Manor and it the end it is decided that they get him in exchange for full supply and support for PUs units to Manor, free of charge, for three years. Manor replaces Hamilton with an undrafted pilot or somehow negotiate with another team in the same fashion.

 

Mercedes retains their WDC and assures continuity.

 

Manor gets a lifeline and keep a competent and fast driver who also brings money to help develop the car.

 

Smaller teams would have some leverage against the larger teams and then the regulations would not be written without their consideration.

 

If a driver is drafted by a team, but does not want to race for them, the team negotiates him to whomever is interested. If nobody is interested, he is simply dropped and someone else chosen. Said driver would not have a seat for 2016.

 

Then, for 2017, drivers under contract are not eligible for drafting. Pay-drivers-to-be would all have to qualify for a super license. 3rd pilots and test pilots would be chosen/hired among the pool of those undrafted and available.

 

And no driver can sign a contract for longer than 3 years.

 

Perfect. At the very least we'd get madness and fun, like reversed grids.

Edited by Atreiu, 12 March 2015 - 00:29.