46 replies to this topic

[gillesthegenius]

Well they raced identical machinery in F3 several years ago. Same car, same engine, same tires, same time.

Hamilton won 15 races, took 13 poles and 10 fastest laps. Vettel didn't win a race, never took pole but managed one fastest lap.

Yes, out of context it looks like Hamilton slaughtered Vettel in circumstances that were very equal. But when the ignorance of that post is shed off and the info about how this was Vettel's first season in the series while it was Hamilton's second is considered, the picture changes completely, especially when one is told about how Hamilton, in his first year in that particular series won only one race while the 'not so super-talented' Jamie Green slaughtered him, in equal machinery (i.e with the same car, same engine, same tires and of course at the same time), to win seven races on his way to that year's title.

My question is, why did we see such a big performance difference between the first and second years of Hamilton's time in that series? Such a difference (not as dramatic though) can be seen in Vettel's time there too. Is experience such an important factor in junior series? If so, why is it? And what about f1?

Discuss...

PS: And please, lets just keep it to ''the importance of 'EXPERIENCE' in junior series and f1''. Not everything - like the 'World Suzuki Liana Championship' - has to turn into a 'my driver is better than yours' argument. If anyone wants to proclaim Jamie Green to be the fastest driver on the grid - wait a minute, he's not even on the grid - then this is not the place.

Edited by gillesthegenius, 16 February 2013 - 07:39.

[Tufty]

The best of the best will win everything they touch. Not always the first time, but they will. The solid midfield F1 guys can either look mediocre or phenomenal below F1. Actual midfielders in the support series' tend to be the ones who aren't worth considering at all.

I could be wrong, but that's the impression F1 has given me in recent years.

[TecnoRacing]

Yes, out of context it looks like Hamilton slaughtered Vettel in circumstances that were very equal. But when the ignorance of that post is shed off and the info about how this was Vettel's first season in the series while it was Hamilton's second is considered, the picture changes completely, especially when one is told about how Hamilton, in his first year in that particular series won only one race while the 'not so super-talented' Jamie Green slaughtered him, in equal machinery (i.e with the same car, same engine, same tires and of course at the same time), to win seven races on his way to that year's title.

So Vettel scored no wins in his debut Euro Formula3 season...Hamilton one victory...
Vettel scores 4 wins in his second season....Hamilton 15 wins.

I don't see how the picture 'changes completely.' I agree it's unfair to only compare their F3 performances in the overlap year of 2005 (Hamilton's 2nd year vs. Vettel's first) but any way you slice it, Lewis simply has the better Formula 3 record...and convincingly so. Both drove for AMS in their second season, so that's the only remotely direct comparison.

My question is, why did we see such a big performance difference between the first and second years of Hamilton's time in that series? Such a difference (not as dramatic though) can be seen in Vettel's time there too. Is experience such an important factor in junior series? If so, why is it?

Familiarity with the racecar, the team, the circuits. Acquisition of technical knowledge, emotional growth, development of racecraft etc....all comes with going through the process.

[gillesthegenius]

The best of the best will win everything they touch. Not always the first time, but they will. The solid midfield F1 guys can either look mediocre or phenomenal below F1. Actual midfielders in the support series' tend to be the ones who aren't worth considering at all.

I could be wrong, but that's the impression F1 has given me in recent years.

You are probably right about that. But it probably hasnt been the absolute rule as super talents like Alonso and Vettel, who were pushed faster (at a younger age) into the higher categories in junior series and finally into f1, havent won 'everything they touched'; while guys like Hamilton and Hulkenberg (a guy who still hasnt delivered in f1 what he promised while coming up the ranks), who took a little more time in junior series, actually won 'everyrhing they touched' like you say.

Even this makes the question about 'the importance of experience in lower series' ring even lounder in my ears. And another similar question one can ask, considering the curious cases of the hastily promoted Alonso and Vettel, is how much better do teenage racers become with every year they race and when does their development curve start plateauing?

Edited by gillesthegenius, 16 February 2013 - 08:25.

[gillesthegenius]

So Vettel scored no wins in his debut Euro Formula3 season...Hamilton one victory...
Vettel scores 4 wins in his second season....Hamilton 15 wins.

I don't see how the picture 'changes completely.' I agree it's unfair to only compare their F3 performances in the overlap year of 2005 (Hamilton's 2nd year vs. Vettel's first) but any way you slice it, Lewis simply has the better Formula 3 record...and convincingly so. Both drove for AMS in their second season, so that's the only remotely direct comparison.



Familiarity with the racecar, the team, the circuits. Acquisition of technical knowledge, emotional growth, development of racecraft etc....all comes with going through the process.

Well, in the context of your last para, the picture about the 2005 season does change drastically. Doesnt it? And I did not ask who did better than who in f3? I asked why they did so much better in their second seasons (Hamilton winning 14 more races - which was mightily impressive - and Vettel winning 4 more - than zero of course - races only, but at a time when he was also splitting his focus on the FR3.5, f1 testing and a chopped off finger beside his challenge for the F3 Euroseries title), for which you did finally answer in your last para.;)

And about your last para, how much do you think those factors matter once a driver gets into f1? And why?

[Brandz07]

Well, in the context of your last para, the picture about the 2005 season does change drastically. Doesnt it? And I did not ask who did better than who in f3? I asked why they did so much better in their second seasons (Hamilton winning 14 more races - which was mightily impressive - and Vettel winning 4 more - than zero of course - races only, but at a time when he was also splitting his focus on the FR3.5, f1 testing and a chopped off finger beside his challenge for the F3 Euroseries title), for which you did finally answer in your last para.;)

And about your last para, how much do you think those factors matter once a driver gets into f1? And why?

I doubt he would of won that many more races if he was only doing F3. I mean he did just 3 Renault 3.5 races and a bit of F1 testing and granted it may take some of the focus off, but it's not like he completely switched off from F3.

It is interesting that the second season produced so much more success for both drivers though.

Edited by Brandz07, 16 February 2013 - 11:24.

[Ross Stonefeld]

In his first year Lewis had 2 wins, 1 pole, and 2 fastest laps. So he shaded Vettel's first year, but only a little.
But in Hamilton's first year, he was beaten by Rosberg(in his second).

So...whatever.

[expert]

Reverse grid races in F3 2006 made it more difficult to win so many races. Champion only won 5.

[krea]

Afaik Vettel was younger than Hamilton at the same point of the carrier, that makes in the early years a big difference.

And we don' Need to forget that Vettel was the youngest driver with points, with a pole, with a GP win and the youngest WDC.

Edited by krea, 16 February 2013 - 12:02.

[Amphicar]

Different drivers have different "learning curves" and some are extremely steep. For example, in 1997 Jenson Button was racing karts - he won the Ayrton Senna Memorial Cup and became the youngest driver ever to win the European Super A Championship. The following year was Jenson's first (and only) season in Formula Ford. He won 7 races, 9 poles, 7 fastest laps, the British FF Championship and the FF Festival. The following year was Button's first (and only) Formula 3 season - he won 3 races, 3 poles and 4 fastest laps, finishing 3rd in the British F3 Championship and second in the prestigious Macau Grand Prix. The year after that was Button's first F1 season - he had gone from racing karts in 1997 to a full-time F1 drive in 2000. Of course his subsequent progress was much less spectacular - it was seven years before Jenson won his first F1 race and another two before his World Championship.

Arguably, it was Button's sheer speed rather than experience that brought him success on the way up to F1, whereas now, as the most experienced driver on the grid, it is his experience and knowledge that produce wins.

[Red17]

I think nowdays junior formula is important for the aspect of getting an hand on the politics.
As for talent display it could be mean somethign or not. There are tons of examples of great junior drivers who never made it in Formula 1 and drivers who never having made an impact in the junior ranks being successful in Formula 1.

In my opinion it all comes down to how well the driver can adapt and progress.

[Clatter]

Well, in the context of your last para, the picture about the 2005 season does change drastically. Doesnt it? And I did not ask who did better than who in f3? I asked why they did so much better in their second seasons (Hamilton winning 14 more races - which was mightily impressive - and Vettel winning 4 more - than zero of course - races only, but at a time when he was also splitting his focus on the FR3.5, f1 testing and a chopped off finger beside his challenge for the F3 Euroseries title), for which you did finally answer in your last para.;)

And about your last para, how much do you think those factors matter once a driver gets into f1? And why?

Can only guess, but I suspect the step up from karting to F3 is a bigger leap than from one car series to another. Probably requires quite a change in style and I don't think they get much practise time.

[Peter Perfect]

Different drivers have different "learning curves" and some are extremely steep. For example, in 1997 Jenson Button was racing karts - he won the Ayrton Senna Memorial Cup and became the youngest driver ever to win the European Super A Championship. The following year was Jenson's first (and only) season in Formula Ford. He won 7 races, 9 poles, 7 fastest laps, the British FF Championship and the FF Festival. The following year was Button's first (and only) Formula 3 season - he won 3 races, 3 poles and 4 fastest laps, finishing 3rd in the British F3 Championship and second in the prestigious Macau Grand Prix. The year after that was Button's first F1 season - he had gone from racing karts in 1997 to a full-time F1 drive in 2000. Of course his subsequent progress was much less spectacular - it was seven years before Jenson won his first F1 race and another two before his World Championship.

Arguably, it was Button's sheer speed rather than experience that brought him success on the way up to F1, whereas now, as the most experienced driver on the grid, it is his experience and knowledge that produce wins.

I was just about to bring up Button as I read down the thread but you beat me to it

In Buttons first year at Williams the team really carried him from a technical point of view (I believe he had the lowest ever score on the Williams technical test). It was a bit of a shock when he went to Benetton the following year and was exposed by Fisi. Fortunately he had a cast-iron contract that Flav couldn't break that in hindsight saved his F1 career, as his 2nd year he really knuckled down and got to grips with elements other than just driving as fast as he could. Hamiltons preparation in contrast was much more structured and that showed in his first year when he was on a par with Alonso pretty much from the start.

I guess the trouble is that it's extremely rare that a driver can progress through the series at a pace that suits them. IANARD (I Am Not A Racing Driver) but it appears to me that a drivers progression is linked inextricably to the funding that he can get his hands on. Some drivers struggle to get funding to move up the ladder while others get the chance and feel that they can't pass it up, even if they're unprepared for the step.

[KnucklesAgain]

I doubt he would of won that many more races if he was only doing F3. I mean he did just 3 Renault 3.5 races and a bit of F1 testing and granted it may take some of the focus off, but it's not like he completely switched off from F3.

It is interesting that the second season produced so much more success for both drivers though.

I'm not sure that it's so interesting. General life experience tells me that everything comes easier the second time you do it, and I don't see why it shouldn't apply to them

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 16 February 2013 - 14:38.

[Seanspeed]

Reverse grid races in F3 2006 made it more difficult to win so many races. Champion only won 5.

Correct.

Couple other things:

- Both drivers switched teams from their first year to 2nd. Lewis from Manor to ASM(now known as ART, and the dominant team in F3 Euro at the time). Vettel from Mucke to ASM. This alone explains the huge difference in form from one season to the next.

- Every year, the competition is different.

Grosjean also had the same experience. He started out in the series with Signature and wasn't really on the map. But then a switch to ASM the next year saw him win the title. Interestingly, he was teammates with Hulkenberg and Kobayashi that year. Hulk was in his first year, Kobayashi his 2nd. Hulk went on to win the title in his 2nd year as well. He was teammates with Bianchi(his 1st year and who won it in his 2nd as well).

Edited by Seanspeed, 16 February 2013 - 14:53.

[V3TT3L]

Physical development is important too.

Consider that Roger Federer only won his first Grand Slam at 22yo, having a pale palmares in his junior years.

When you are a teenager, every year counts a lot in physical and mental strength.
Then they also have to learn to read the telemetry.

[Wander]

Physical development is important too.

Consider that Roger Federer only won his first Grand Slam at 22yo, having a pale palmares in his junior years.

When you are a teenager, every year counts a lot in physical and mental strength.
Then they also have to learn to read the telemetry.

That's very true. It's also important to note that different people develop at different rates. Not every teenager is at the same stage in both physical and mental development at 16 and 17 etc. This should be obvious to everyone. Some men may for example still grow in height at 20 years old while some will have that part pretty much done at 13.

[gillesthegenius]

I doubt he would of won that many more races if he was only doing F3. I mean he did just 3 Renault 3.5 races and a bit of F1 testing and granted it may take some of the focus off, but it's not like he completely switched off from F3.

It is interesting that the second season produced so much more success for both drivers though.

I agree, but I guess the introduction of reverse grids meant that a Hamiltonesque season with 15 wins was only going to be a dream. So had he focussed fully on f3 that year and netted 2/3 more wins, it probably would have been equivalent to winning 10-12 races in the previous year. So one can argue that he did improve by more than a fair bit in his second season.

In any case, the Roger Federer reference by V3tt3l is very interesting. The way he dominated after winning his first slam relatively late probably tells us that the rate of development of young stars is not proportional to the amount of talent an individual possesses. Thats probably why we come across cases like Magnessen, who probably hit his plateau sooner than the others. Schumacher on the other hand seems to have grown older than most - as evidenced by how he out developed HHF and Wendlinger - before hitting his plateua.

[gillesthegenius]

I'm not sure that it's so interesting. General life experience tells me that everything comes easier the second time you do it, and I don't see why it shouldn't apply to them

It was interesting for me because we rarely come across such drastic improvements in f1 and driver performance in f1 is, rightly or wrongly, considered by most to be consitant over long periods of time.

But as the others have pointed out, the rate of physical and mental growth during the teenage years probably has a big say in how they improve with age.

[gillesthegenius]

Can only guess, but I suspect the step up from karting to F3 is a bigger leap than from one car series to another. Probably requires quite a change in style and I don't think they get much practise time.

Thats an interesting thought. Anyone out there who can give us a first hand account about such a leap from karts to f3?

[Ross Stonefeld]

For a time they were considering putting Button straight into F3. I think he initially tested an F3 car before going to Fords.

[gd2]

In his first year Lewis had 2 wins, 1 pole, and 2 fastest laps. So he shaded Vettel's first year, but only a little.
But in Hamilton's first year, he was beaten by Rosberg(in his second).

So...whatever.

Haven't seen any mention of Seb's teammate in 2006 who also in his 2nd season took 5 wins, 5 poles and the title, one Paul Di Resta. Unfortunately he wasn't one of Marko's boys!

[gillesthegenius]

Haven't seen any mention of Seb's teammate in 2006 who also in his 2nd season took 5 wins, 5 poles and the title, one Paul Di Resta. Unfortunately he wasn't one of Marko's boys!

His story is also an interesting one. Though he seemed to be at a similar level to the younger and distracted - as discussed above - Seb back then, Marko probably saw him hit the plateau sooner than Vettel as he was the older one of the two. And his wisdom seems to have been vindicated, atleast for now, with the Hulk showing him up and another team across the paddock, namely Mclaren, also ignoring him.

And the Hulk is another interesting case. Having been beaten by the ageing Barrichello in his first season, he has managed to string together a very good second season, beating the much hyped PDR in the process. But he still hasnt deliverd what his Hamiltonesque junior career promised though. So his development over the next couple of years will, god willing, be worth keeping an eye on imo.

[mnmracer]

Sebastian Vettel drove 94 races in Formula BMW, Formula 3 and Formula Renault 3.5, in which he won 29 races, took 22 pole positions and 54 podiums.
Lewis Hamilton drove 109 races in Formula Renault 2.0, Formula 3 and GP2, in which he won 37 races, took 32 pole positions and 62 podiums.

Percentage-wise,
Sebastian Vettel won 31% of his races, took 23% pole positions and finished 57% on the podium.
Lewis Hamilton won 34% of his races, took 29% pole positions and finished 57% on the podium.

Looking only at their time in the highest junior class,
Sebastian Vettel won 20% of his races, took 20% pole positions and finished 60% on the podium in Formula Renault 3.5.
Lewis Hamilton won 24% of his races, took 5% pole positions and finished 67% on the podium in GP2.

[gillesthegenius]

Sebastian Vettel drove 94 races in Formula BMW, Formula 3 and Formula Renault 3.5, in which he won 29 races, took 22 pole positions and 54 podiums.
Lewis Hamilton drove 109 races in Formula Renault 2.0, Formula 3 and GP2, in which he won 37 races, took 32 pole positions and 62 podiums.

Percentage-wise,
Sebastian Vettel won 31% of his races, took 23% pole positions and finished 57% on the podium.
Lewis Hamilton won 34% of his races, took 29% pole positions and finished 57% on the podium.

Looking only at their time in the highest junior class,
Sebastian Vettel won 20% of his races, took 20% pole positions and finished 60% on the podium in Formula Renault 3.5.
Lewis Hamilton won 24% of his races, took 5% pole positions and finished 67% on the podium in GP2.

Interesting stats. But I dont think such a comparison is a valid one as the competition they faced was vastly different. In any case, I dont see how it fits into this discussion about the effect of experience gained by young drivers.;)

[DampMongoose]

I don't think experience in the lower levels means much anymore, Raikkonen only drove single seaters a couple of dozen times before he joined Sauber...

[gillesthegenius]

I don't think experience in the lower levels means much anymore, Raikkonen only drove single seaters a couple of dozen times before he joined Sauber...

Im not too sure about that. Imo he and Damon Hill are the two recent champs with the most unfulfilled potential, and the fact that neither of them had proper junior careers cannot just be a coincidence.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Eh? Damon Hill did Formula Ford, Formula 3, a decent amount of F3000, F1 testing, etc.

[Wander]

Maybe he meant the fact that Damon only started racing cars seriously at 24. It's like if Sebastian Vettel only started racing last season. Unbelievable that he became a world champion really.

Edited by Wander, 17 February 2013 - 13:39.

[HaydenFan]

Maybe he meant the fact that Damon only started racing cars seriously at 24. It's like if Sebastian Vettel only started racing last season. Unbelievable that he became a world champion really.

Much like Jacques Villenueve, the name can carry a driver pretty far if they show any sort of speed in a race car. These guys (including Carlos Sainz's son currently) benefit from that past. They seem to get more chances due to that name and really are on a different junior formula playing field.

Like mentioned many times in this thread, experience in the lower formula is beneficial for some, whereas some drivers could almost make the jump from karts to F1 without little trouble. It's all about the individual, and unlike even 20 years ago in Damon Hill's time, F1 has changed to the point where a guy in his mid 20's, might be passed over for an F1 seat by a top team just due to his age.

I'd like to know who where the first people to start putting their kids in cars from karts at 14-15 years old came from. Because in the past a 22-23 year old rookie had only a couple of years in cars. Now a driver of that age could be racing cars for nearly a decade.

Edited by HaydenFan, 17 February 2013 - 14:02.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Yeah they've got 12 and 13 year olds racing at Skip Barber, I think US F2000 reduced it's age to 15, 14 if you turn 15 sometime during the season.

I don't know how to decide on a limit, but surely you should need a driver's license to qualify for a racing license(as opposed to say just a karting license). And when something like F2000 races in support of Indycar, and particularly on street circuits, you'd think the tracks would have some discomfort with the low ages.

[Wander]

I don't know why you would need to have a driving license, that has nothing to do with it. It's like saying that you have to have a blue belt in Karate to do boxing.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Legal/insurance issues. You ultimately have to set a minimum age, why not calibrate it to the legal road age? Especially if you're racing on a street circuit, which is still public roads.

[Wander]

What legal/insurance issues? You can set the minimum age for a racing license to wherever you want, but it should have nothing to do with a common driver's license. I think the street circuit example is simply irrelevant, cause they are closed roads when the race sessions are on.

I actually just grabbed on this point, because I know of a guy who started racing Formula 3 cars in his 30s while not even having a driver's license. And I don't see any reason why he should have had.

I suppose you have to have a driver's license in rallying, cause you have to drive the car on open public roads to move between the stages, unless that could be handled in some other way? I haven't researched this point.

Edited by Wander, 17 February 2013 - 15:07.

[trogggy]

Legal/insurance issues. You ultimately have to set a minimum age, why not calibrate it to the legal road age? Especially if you're racing on a street circuit, which is still public roads.

If there were legal / insurance issues then it would have already happened, no?
A closed street circuit is a circuit, not a public road. Until it's opened again.

[Wander]

I suppose you have to have a driver's license in rallying, cause you have to drive the car on open public roads to move between the stages, unless that could be handled in some other way? I haven't researched this point.

Actually, now that I think of it, I seem to remember some rally driver having to have his co-driver drive the car between the stages, cause he had his driver's license temporarily suspended because of speeding.

And that's also an another reason why the driver's license thing makes no sense. Drivers with a suspended driver's license would not be able to race? Would be a funny way for an F1 championship to be decided if Mr. A couldn't race due to getting caught speeding or whatever in his free time.

Edited by Wander, 17 February 2013 - 15:17.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I actually just grabbed on this point, because I know of a guy who started racing Formula 3 cars in his 30s while not even having a driver's license. And I don't see any reason why he should have had.

He was of age to have one though. Saying you have to be 16 to drive race cars is not a controversial suggestion. Otherwise eventually we'll end up with 15 year olds in GP2. And remember, these people aren't legal adults yet.

If there were legal / insurance issues then it would have already happened, no?
A closed street circuit is a circuit, not a public road. Until it's opened again.

Jeff Krosnoff's accident in the Toronto Indycar race basically created a crime scene. Now maybe that would happen on an oval too, but there were a lot of issues with the Toronto situation.

And that's also an another reason why the driver's license thing makes no sense. Drivers with a suspended driver's license would not be able to race? Would be a funny way for an F1 championship to be decided if Mr. A couldn't race due to getting caught speeding or whatever in his free time.

Didn't the FIA suggest something similar once? I'm fine with a zero tolerance policy on racing drivers screwing around on public roads.

[Clatter]

He was of age to have one though. Saying you have to be 16 to drive race cars is not a controversial suggestion. Otherwise eventually we'll end up with 15 year olds in GP2. And remember, these people aren't legal adults yet.



Jeff Krosnoff's accident in the Toronto Indycar race basically created a crime scene. Now maybe that would happen on an oval too, but there were a lot of issues with the Toronto situation.



Didn't the FIA suggest something similar once? I'm fine with a zero tolerance policy on racing drivers screwing around on public roads.

GP2 has a strange of way of saying the age limit is 16.

30.16 People under 16 years of age are not allowed in the pit lane

But why is 16 OK? Is that just because that's the age you can drive in the states? In the UK you have to be 17 to have a car driving license. And that's a provisional license. Should the rule be that it has to be a full license?

[Ross Stonefeld]

Is 18 or 16 the legal age for most things in most countries? I assume that rule applies to anyone, so why did they pick 16 for a safety rule?

Granted that's probably a subclause to an FIA/FOM rule?

Edited by Ross Stonefeld, 17 February 2013 - 15:47.

[trogggy]

He was of age to have one though. Saying you have to be 16 to drive race cars is not a controversial suggestion. Otherwise eventually we'll end up with 15 year olds in GP2. And remember, these people aren't legal adults yet.



Jeff Krosnoff's accident in the Toronto Indycar race basically created a crime scene. Now maybe that would happen on an oval too, but there were a lot of issues with the Toronto situation.



Didn't the FIA suggest something similar once? I'm fine with a zero tolerance policy on racing drivers screwing around on public roads.

You're saying that there are legal / insurance issues - if they exist and they're not trivial then someone should let the race organisers know asap.
OTOH maybe they've checked.
Whether it's a good thing that kids are racing cars at a younger age is a different question - I don't think it is, for reasons that in the main have nothing to do with motor racing.

[Clatter]

If the rule originated in the UK then 16 is the legal age to leave school and that might have something to do with it.

[Amphicar]

Is 18 or 16 the legal age for most things in most countries? I assume that rule applies to anyone, so why did they pick 16 for a safety rule?

Granted that's probably a subclause to an FIA/FOM rule?

In the UK the minimum age for things varies:

To drive a car it is 17

To ride a moped it is 16

To join the army it is 16 1/2

To buy alcohol it is 18

Age of consent (to sex) is 16

To hold a firearms certificate is 14

Take your pick!

[Ross Stonefeld]

And to vote?

[Clatter]

18, but there are discussions to bring that down to 16.

[trogggy]

And to vote?

18,but there's ongoing discussion about reducing it to 16.

[HaydenFan]

The minimum age is at least in my idea a way at trying to get a driver more experience across the board. While in theory a 14-15 year old kid could be ready to jump to cars, what's wrong with another year of karts? Or work on the bottom series. In the 90's you had series below Formula Renault 2.0 (like FR1.6 and Formula Vauxhall). I think Formula BMW was that really good fit. And for the German drivers, it was the pivotal entry point. Now you are jumping kids from karts to the Formula Renault car, which is growing in speed every year, which for some is too much in their first year or two (being that they are 14-15) of car racing. Even a generation ago, you had guys like Scott Speed, Filipe Albuquerque winning Formula Renault titles in their 20's. Now if you are that age and not dominating F3 or GP3 (or even being in GP2), you are more than likely going to be passed over by some sponsors and mostly the money coming from F1 teams. The minimum age idea works along the idea that driver's are being rushed along their careers. This keeps some kids in a series where they need more time to mature. Dmitry Suranovich as an example was a driver who really looked to be over his depth. He was 16 and probably shouldn't have been nowhere near a GP3 car. We saw what his lack of maturity did at Monaco.

[frp]

Until the mid-90s, the minimum age to race cars in the UK was 17, and IIRC a full driving licence was required.

16-year-olds were first allowed in, I think, 1995, in recognition of many drivers starting in karts at a younger age and having years of racing experience by their mid-teens. The T-Cars series, only for drivers aged 14-17, started in 1999.

Andy