Problems in the young driver pipeline?
Discussion
It has always seemed to me that in previous generations there were 10 potential hot young drivers fighting for each seat in Formula 1. This always seemed as it should be, with those 20 seats being the absolute pinnacle.
However in recent years, and this one especially, it seems that teams are actually struggling to find drivers.
Good old boys like Hamilton, Bottas, Alonso and Ricciardo, well into their 30s/40s seem destined to find a drive next year,
Rich kids like Latifi and Stroll buy their way in, despite clearly not being WC material.
The young kids who come up like Piastri seem to think they can drive where they want and bite the hand that has fed them.
More than half the grid feel like they are never going to win a championship and they are just journeymen along for the ride.
Have I just been wrong, has it always been so?
Have we just had recently a surge in hiring younger drivers like Lando, Leclerc et al, and now there's a bit of a talent vacuum for a few years?
Or are the feeder series simply not doing their jobs?
Jake899 said:
Have I just been wrong, has it always been so?
I'd say that the issue has always been present in F1 but the scale of it has ebbed and flowed.If you go back just 10 years, we had 12 F1 teams on the grid with at least one more likely to have joined. Young drivers would have embarked upon the ladder with a reasonable expectation that if they were good enough and got the points, they'd at least have a shot at F1. By the time they got there, even if they did do well, they found that F1 was unobtainable.
The problem is accentuated today by the competitive (and commercial) longevity of drivers. It's feasible that Alonso could be racing as he approaches 50. Hamilton equally so and others too.
There's a couple of other issues too (IMO):
Driver Academies: Whilst welcome and effective in supporting up and coming talent, I do feel they are due some sort of reform. As much as they are useful to a team in bringing on future champions, they are are also used to limit access to useful drivers by other teams. This goes on in other sports too. Otherwise decent drivers are locked into programmes which means they cannot take advantage of opportunities elsewhere when they emerge.
Pay Drivers: Always been a thing and always will. But such has been the need for revenue over the recent past, their need has been so great that money has outgunned performance. I would like to think that the changing economics of F1 will see this issue dwindle but there also needs to be a de-coupling of money from progression further down the ladder.
I also think there's the need for something that sits between F2 and F1. I haven't worked out what, exactly - perhaps a F1 B-league or something. A championship where the lowest performing drivers form F1 drop back into, where the likes of Jamie Chadwick could really show they've got it.
And perhaps there's an argument to promote other championships as an equal to F1. There was a time when Sportscars (LeMans / Endurance) was seen every bit as aspirational as F1 - arguably more so. I think it was Derek Bell who said he raced in F1 just to pass the time between endurance races.
All that said, I still maintain that cream always rises to the top regardless. If you look at the truly elite drivers over the past 20 years; Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Schumacher...... etc, none of them came from particularly wealthy families or hedge-fund backing in Karts. And when you examine the careers of those drivers tipped for greatness in F1 who never got there and consider what they've achieved in other series, few of them have shown the level of greatness expected of them.
So, at the risk or arguing with myself, perhaps there isn't a problem!
Edited by StevieBee on Thursday 25th August 07:05
It's a circular argument in many ways. With drivers starting as teenagers it's little wonder seats are "blocked" for decades. Used to be that F1 was something you got to in your late 20's or even 30's. It was even true (according to many drivers) that it would be physically impossible for a teenager to drive an F1 car let alone turn up and do hundreds of laps as they do these days.
It's one of the many things wrong with F1. They say it's the best drivers in the world but anyone who knows the slightest about motorsport knows that it is a blatant lie. There are many superb drivers in other series who will never get a chance as they are over the hill in their early 20's as far as the F1 fans are concerned.
It's one of the many things wrong with F1. They say it's the best drivers in the world but anyone who knows the slightest about motorsport knows that it is a blatant lie. There are many superb drivers in other series who will never get a chance as they are over the hill in their early 20's as far as the F1 fans are concerned.
StevieBee said:
I also think there's the need for something that sits between F2 and F1. I haven't worked out what, exactly - perhaps a F1 B-league or something. A championship where the lowest performing drivers form F1 drop back into, where the likes of Jamie Chadwick could really show they've got it.
Lots of interesting points in your post Steve, I think the important thing is how many new seats are available each season. With 20 drivers, the maximum number of theoretical seats available is of course 20 per year, but in reality it seems to be two or three seats available tops. I'd love to look back at the last 10 or 20 years and see actually how many new drivers make it to F1 each year. Edited by StevieBee on Thursday 25th August 07:05
I actually think the answer for many of F1's problems is to increase grid size. A 30 car grid would mean more opportunity for young drivers, it would mean more racing, more stressful passing of backmarkers, more conflict, more noise. I'd love to see it!
Of course the grid size has been ring fenced by greed, so it won't happen.
Jake899 said:
I actually think the answer for many of F1's problems is to increase grid size. A 30 car grid would mean more opportunity for young drivers, it would mean more racing, more stressful passing of backmarkers, more conflict, more noise. I'd love to see it!
Of course the grid size has been ring fenced by greed, so it won't happen.
I'm not certain that all the tracks have the physical capacity to accommodate a 15 team / 30 car field (back in the pre-qualifying days, some of the back marker teams were prepping cars under gazebos in car parks!). But there is a strong argument to support at least one additional team.Of course the grid size has been ring fenced by greed, so it won't happen.
That aside, an alternative option would be to move to three car teams, giving the teams to the opportunity to change their third driver three times over the course a season. That would give 30 drivers the opportunity to show what they've got at the thick of it.
StevieBee said:
I also think there's the need for something that sits between F2 and F1. I haven't worked out what, exactly - perhaps a F1 B-league or something. A championship where the lowest performing drivers form F1 drop back into, where the likes of Jamie Chadwick could really show they've got it.
Sprint race for reserve drivers and make it count for constructor points. Grid formed either by best or worst performing driver representing that constructor (personally prefer the latter to spice up the racing).StevieBee said:
And perhaps there's an argument to promote other championships as an equal to F1. There was a time when Sportscars (LeMans / Endurance) was seen every bit as aspirational as F1 - arguably more so. I think it was Derek Bell who said he raced in F1 just to pass the time between endurance races.
Most drivers want to be in F1 unless you're realistic with your driving level and the availability of well paid/factory drives because nothing comes close to driving and racing an F1 car.Bottas is 32. Ricciardo is 33... At no time in history have this been 'old' for a F1 driver. I feel that drivers are actually tending to get to F1 younger in modern times and then in many cases retiring earlier than in the old days. Of course nowadays we thankfully don't have the natural turnover created by frequent fatal accidents, or accidents causing life-changing injuries. Vettel at 35 I consider to be a young retiree. Maybe F1 retirement ages are actually getting younger now that a driver may have done 15+ seasons by the time they're 35.
Recently I think we have been spoiled by an absolutely vintage crop of F2 drivers from 2017 and 2018. Three drivers, any one of which could be considered a rare talent, all of them having since transitioned to F1 and demonstrating their worth. 2019 was a bit of a return to normality- a true rare talent emerging sometimes only once in 2-3 years... now we have a clamour for Piastri and Lawson linked with Williams. Nonetheless we have had Zhou and Schumacher graduate. But that has been four or five drivers in five years which were so good that they absolutely must get into F1, which is a rare thing. I feel like in a typical year we have one driver graduate to F1, maybe two, and occasionally one of those drivers will turn out to be a standout talent.
What's changed recently is that there is an escape valve for less convincing F3 / F2 graduates... Formula E. There also seem to be more drivers going to Indycar from Europe than before.
Pay drivers in F1 probably have less pull than they ever have with the budget cap and the intrinsic value of all the teams.
I think that basically the depth of talent is the best it's ever been, and the young driver pipeline is working as well as ever.
Recently I think we have been spoiled by an absolutely vintage crop of F2 drivers from 2017 and 2018. Three drivers, any one of which could be considered a rare talent, all of them having since transitioned to F1 and demonstrating their worth. 2019 was a bit of a return to normality- a true rare talent emerging sometimes only once in 2-3 years... now we have a clamour for Piastri and Lawson linked with Williams. Nonetheless we have had Zhou and Schumacher graduate. But that has been four or five drivers in five years which were so good that they absolutely must get into F1, which is a rare thing. I feel like in a typical year we have one driver graduate to F1, maybe two, and occasionally one of those drivers will turn out to be a standout talent.
What's changed recently is that there is an escape valve for less convincing F3 / F2 graduates... Formula E. There also seem to be more drivers going to Indycar from Europe than before.
Pay drivers in F1 probably have less pull than they ever have with the budget cap and the intrinsic value of all the teams.
I think that basically the depth of talent is the best it's ever been, and the young driver pipeline is working as well as ever.
HustleRussell said:
What's changed recently is that there is an escape valve for less convincing F3 / F2 graduates... Formula E. There also seem to be more drivers going to Indycar from Europe than before.
Formula E has a lot of top drivers from endurance racing. It's not like when DTM used to hoover up EuroF3 drivers.LukeBrown66 said:
Pay drivers have now taken on a new form, basically part owning teams like Mazespin and Stroll and to some extent didn't Latifif bring team sponsors aswell as his own dough?
I think F1 has always (well since the 70s) had drivers who are only there because they bring sponsorship. StevieBee said:
I'd say that the issue has always been present in F1 but the scale of it has ebbed and flowed.
If you go back just 10 years, we had 12 F1 teams on the grid with at least one more likely to have joined. Young drivers would have embarked upon the ladder with a reasonable expectation that if they were good enough and got the points, they'd at least have a shot at F1. By the time they got there, even if they did do well, they found that F1 was unobtainable.
The problem is accentuated today by the competitive (and commercial) longevity of drivers. It's feasible that Alonso could be racing as he approaches 50. Hamilton equally so and others too.
There's a couple of other issues too (IMO):
Driver Academies: Whilst welcome and effective in supporting up and coming talent, I do feel they are due some sort of reform. As much as they are useful to a team in bringing on future champions, they are are also used to limit access to useful drivers by other teams. This goes on in other sports too. Otherwise decent drivers are locked into programmes which means they cannot take advantage of opportunities elsewhere when they emerge.
Pay Drivers: Always been a thing and always will. But such has been the need for revenue over the recent past, their need has been so great that money has outgunned performance. I would like to think that the changing economics of F1 will see this issue dwindle but there also needs to be a de-coupling of money from progression further down the ladder.
I also think there's the need for something that sits between F2 and F1. I haven't worked out what, exactly - perhaps a F1 B-league or something. A championship where the lowest performing drivers form F1 drop back into, where the likes of Jamie Chadwick could really show they've got it.
And perhaps there's an argument to promote other championships as an equal to F1. There was a time when Sportscars (LeMans / Endurance) was seen every bit as aspirational as F1 - arguably more so. I think it was Derek Bell who said he raced in F1 just to pass the time between endurance races.
All that said, I still maintain that cream always rises to the top regardless. If you look at the truly elite drivers over the past 20 years; Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Schumacher...... etc, none of them came from particularly wealthy families or hedge-fund backing in Karts. And when you examine the careers of those drivers tipped for greatness in F1 who never got there and consider what they've achieved in other series, few of them have shown the level of greatness expected of them.
So, at the risk or arguing with myself, perhaps there isn't a problem!
Re Number of teamB, I have to agree. While teams such as Haas, Lotus/Caterham, Manor/Marussia/Virgin, HRT/Hispania Racing & more recently Williams and Sauber have floundered at the back their existence at least gave many drivers their break. A number of the current F1 drivers made their debuts in these teams as well as a number of driver that are no longer in F1.If you go back just 10 years, we had 12 F1 teams on the grid with at least one more likely to have joined. Young drivers would have embarked upon the ladder with a reasonable expectation that if they were good enough and got the points, they'd at least have a shot at F1. By the time they got there, even if they did do well, they found that F1 was unobtainable.
The problem is accentuated today by the competitive (and commercial) longevity of drivers. It's feasible that Alonso could be racing as he approaches 50. Hamilton equally so and others too.
There's a couple of other issues too (IMO):
Driver Academies: Whilst welcome and effective in supporting up and coming talent, I do feel they are due some sort of reform. As much as they are useful to a team in bringing on future champions, they are are also used to limit access to useful drivers by other teams. This goes on in other sports too. Otherwise decent drivers are locked into programmes which means they cannot take advantage of opportunities elsewhere when they emerge.
Pay Drivers: Always been a thing and always will. But such has been the need for revenue over the recent past, their need has been so great that money has outgunned performance. I would like to think that the changing economics of F1 will see this issue dwindle but there also needs to be a de-coupling of money from progression further down the ladder.
I also think there's the need for something that sits between F2 and F1. I haven't worked out what, exactly - perhaps a F1 B-league or something. A championship where the lowest performing drivers form F1 drop back into, where the likes of Jamie Chadwick could really show they've got it.
And perhaps there's an argument to promote other championships as an equal to F1. There was a time when Sportscars (LeMans / Endurance) was seen every bit as aspirational as F1 - arguably more so. I think it was Derek Bell who said he raced in F1 just to pass the time between endurance races.
All that said, I still maintain that cream always rises to the top regardless. If you look at the truly elite drivers over the past 20 years; Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Schumacher...... etc, none of them came from particularly wealthy families or hedge-fund backing in Karts. And when you examine the careers of those drivers tipped for greatness in F1 who never got there and consider what they've achieved in other series, few of them have shown the level of greatness expected of them.
So, at the risk or arguing with myself, perhaps there isn't a problem!
Re older drivers, it is a shame that teams seem to have become more risk averse and are employing proven drivers for longer such as Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Raikkonen instead of taking risk on younger drivers. Haas when they shunned Mazepin could have risked another junior but instead they opted to bring Magnussen back. It would be interested to analyse the mean age of the F1 grid over recent years, considering the age of the F1 debutant has dropped.
Not every driver can be Hamilton and join F1 straight in to a top drive.
Re Pay Drivers, they are a necessary evil. As wonderful as it would be for motorsport to not require drivers that pay for their rides, ultimately without them those teams would not exist. It just isn't realistic to expect team to subsidise the costs incurred by drivers when competing. Teams are ultimately businesses, if the outgoings exceed the incomings too greatly then it won't exist for long. I would like to see a reduction in drivers using money to buy drives they wouldn't be able to secure with their results however.
There seems to be a pushback against wealthy parents funding their kids' progression that I don't understand. What exactly is the different between a parent funding thier progression versus a sponsor that isn't related to them? How is one better than the other? It is not as if the cash is any different.
Re the gap between F2 & F1, that really is not a problem. The gap between them is sufficient, it is supposed to be a challenge to move up and it is.
It is not a F2 or F1 issue considering the driver you mention is below F3 level. There already is such a mid "b-league" series in between F4 & f3 in the form of Formula Regional series, of which there is a big variation of quality too. At the top end of the scale you have FRECA and at the bottom end of the scale you have W Series.
Chadwick may be too good for the bottom end of that scale, but she is also not good enough for the top end of that scale. Chadwick is not close to being a driver capable of good things in F3 never mind a new series in between F2 & F1. She isn't being held back by a lack of opportunity or funds, but a lack of opportunity that suits her expectation. She has enough funds to buy herself a pay drive in a low end F3 team that would be willing to take a huge risk on her.
Re champions being equal to F1, how exactly would you judge that though? Considering many ex-F1 drivers go to other series once they have reached their peak in F1. Formula E, WEC, Indycar all feature F1 drivers that have been dumped from F1, can you really class them as equals? Especially when the driver then go on to have success in them long after they ceased to be successful in F1, if ever?
How many Formula E drivers have been former Red Bull driver programme talents that they have squandered?
Peacockantony said:
Re Pay Drivers, they are a necessary evil. As wonderful as it would be for motorsport to not require drivers that pay for their rides, ultimately without them those teams would not exist. It just isn't realistic to expect team to subsidise the costs incurred by drivers when competing. Teams are ultimately businesses, if the outgoings exceed the incomings too greatly then it won't exist for long. I would like to see a reduction in drivers using money to buy drives they wouldn't be able to secure with their results however.
There seems to be a pushback against wealthy parents funding their kids' progression that I don't understand. What exactly is the different between a parent funding thier progression versus a sponsor that isn't related to them? How is one better than the other? It is not as if the cash is any different.
Supporting a child through any sporting endeavour requires significant financial commitment. My lad developed quite a skill in Badminton at school and started to play to county standards. There was some talk of heading to national championships, European... Olympics. When we started to add up the hotels, travel, training fees and whatnot, it was rather eye watering. Thankfully he discovered girls and beer! There seems to be a pushback against wealthy parents funding their kids' progression that I don't understand. What exactly is the different between a parent funding thier progression versus a sponsor that isn't related to them? How is one better than the other? It is not as if the cash is any different.
IMO, the issue in F1 is that F1 should be the pinnacle of excellence which has to include the drivers and the system at the moment in some quarters favours money over talent. When you consider the potential talent that's spewed out of F2 and gone nowhere yet look at drivers like Latifi, you have to conclude that something's gone adrift.
Some teams are having to chose between a driver with money but who's half a second slower than another driver with none and have to choose the former. There is no way that should be the case in F1.
This isn't the teams' fault and I understand the need but I think the system needs to spread more money further down the chain so that money less important to progression as it is now.
StevieBee said:
I also think there's the need for something that sits between F2 and F1. I haven't worked out what, exactly - perhaps a F1 B-league or something. A championship where the lowest performing drivers form F1 drop back into, where the likes of Jamie Chadwick could really show they've got it.
Jamie Chadwick would need to demonstrate some success in F3 and F2 first.carl_w said:
StevieBee said:
I also think there's the need for something that sits between F2 and F1. I haven't worked out what, exactly - perhaps a F1 B-league or something. A championship where the lowest performing drivers form F1 drop back into, where the likes of Jamie Chadwick could really show they've got it.
Jamie Chadwick would need to demonstrate some success in F3 and F2 first.
But I get your point!
kambites said:
LukeBrown66 said:
Pay drivers have now taken on a new form, basically part owning teams like Mazespin and Stroll and to some extent didn't Latifif bring team sponsors aswell as his own dough?
I think F1 has always (well since the 70s) had drivers who are only there because they bring sponsorship. Thanks to the super licence rules, they actually have to be of a minimum standard too, which means several years in the lower formulae and a lot of private testing. Even Lance Stroll has turned into a respectable journeyman driver, after several years’ experience. Having only two pay-drivers on the grid this year, is definitely a record low.
I think next year will be a record young F1 field, with only Fernando and Lewis older than 33.
I’m in two minds about the young driver programmes, but on balance they do take a lot of the monetary problems away from the F3 and F2 drivers, and allow them to concentrate on racing rather than funding - at the expense of reducing their agency to go and find a drive. Red Bull in particular, had a bad habit of getting through a lot of drivers without giving any of them the opportunity to develop - but they did get that opportunity to drive in F1, and I think they’re all still pro drivers.
I bet that all the teams are looking very carefully at young driver contracts at the moment though, after Piastri was seemingly able to walk away from the many millions of dollars invested in him by Renault!
The lines are blurred on pay drivers. IMO it could be argued that there is not a single pay driver on the grid. All of them have won major championships on their way up. Plenty of drivers on the grid bring money but are never subject to pay driver jibes.
I do wish money was less of a determining factor in how many opportunities and chances a driver gets. However in the modern, fully professionalised form of the sport, the true pay driver of old is arguably extinct.
I do wish money was less of a determining factor in how many opportunities and chances a driver gets. However in the modern, fully professionalised form of the sport, the true pay driver of old is arguably extinct.
Sandpit Steve said:
kambites said:
LukeBrown66 said:
Pay drivers have now taken on a new form, basically part owning teams like Mazespin and Stroll and to some extent didn't Latifif bring team sponsors aswell as his own dough?
I think F1 has always (well since the 70s) had drivers who are only there because they bring sponsorship. Yes even Mazapin.
kambites said:
True. I think a lot of people fail to appreciate just how good even the worst pay drivers in F1 are compared to many drivers of the past.
Yes even Mazapin.
Yep, even Mazepin got a couple of F2 feature race wins, and a handful more podium finishes. That requires more than just money. Yes even Mazapin.
It’s been more than a decade since the 107% rule was last enforced in F1, against the HRT cars in Australia 2012. In a dry qualifying session, the field spread is usually no more than 103% - although getting exact numbers is difficult as the fastest runners don’t usually set representative times in Q1. That says an awful lot about just how high is the standard of cars and drivers in recent times.
And now it seems Antonio Giovinazzi is being lined up for an F1 seat. Did i miss anything from his last F1 stint? Don't get me wrong he wasn't a bad driver, but he wasn't really anything special, and who really expects anything different than the occasional point this time round? Is there really no hungry new young driver worth more of a punt?
Albon came back and has impressed I must say. So has Magnussen. So perhaps I'm being hasty. But it kinda emphasizes my concerns.
Albon came back and has impressed I must say. So has Magnussen. So perhaps I'm being hasty. But it kinda emphasizes my concerns.
Jake899 said:
It has always seemed to me that in previous generations there were 10 potential hot young drivers fighting for each seat in Formula 1. This always seemed as it should be, with those 20 seats being the absolute pinnacle.
However in recent years, and this one especially, it seems that teams are actually struggling to find drivers.
Good old boys like Hamilton, Bottas, Alonso and Ricciardo, well into their 30s/40s seem destined to find a drive next year,
F1 drivers in their 30's isn't anything new and 40's are still the exception rather than the norm. It's not so much their age more the length of their careers which are now much longer due to arriving in F1 earlier and now not getting injured. The big shift I think really happened when testing got banned since that put a bigger value on experience.However in recent years, and this one especially, it seems that teams are actually struggling to find drivers.
Good old boys like Hamilton, Bottas, Alonso and Ricciardo, well into their 30s/40s seem destined to find a drive next year,
Jake899 said:
Rich kids like Latifi and Stroll buy their way in, despite clearly not being WC material.
Same as it ever was.Jake899 said:
The young kids who come up like Piastri seem to think they can drive where they want and bite the hand that has fed them.
Lets see what the Contracts Recognition Board has to say. Super licence points don't last forever and many drivers who should have had a shot were quickly forgotten when the next exciting Hot Shot showed themselves.Jake899 said:
More than half the grid feel like they are never going to win a championship and they are just journeymen along for the ride.
In the cold harsh light of day that is almost certainly true but they still believe they can.Jake899 said:
Have I just been wrong, has it always been so?
Have we just had recently a surge in hiring younger drivers like Lando, Leclerc et al, and now there's a bit of a talent vacuum for a few years?
Or are the feeder series simply not doing their jobs?
We do seem to have just gone through a period with a particularly strong crop of young drivers being given a shot by well funded teams.Have we just had recently a surge in hiring younger drivers like Lando, Leclerc et al, and now there's a bit of a talent vacuum for a few years?
Or are the feeder series simply not doing their jobs?
The super licence points system has essentially made F2 by far the most viable route for the young driver into F1 (arguably exactly what it was intended to do) and re-enforced a trend that was already underway. More subtly most F1 teams are now businesses run by hired Team Managers rather than owners and no Team Manager has ever been blamed for hiring an F2 champ to drive for them.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff