The F1 Super Licence

What is it? Why do you need it? And why do I think it needs to change?

To be allowed to compete in Formula One, you need a super licence. In essence it’s just a fancy driver’s licence for really fast cars. You have to be at least 18 years old to have the licence unless you’ve been granted special exemption. This is given to a driver under 18 if they have “consistently demonstrated an outstanding ability and maturity in single-seater formula competition”. Verstappen and Antonelli have both notably benefited from this, with Verstappen joining the sport when he was just 17 years old.

There are a few stages that need to be completed before you can ‘earn’ a super licence.

First of all, you must have completed at least 80% of the races in 2 separate seasons of a single-seater championship, which is certified by the FIA. As well as this, there is a theory test that you must pass that covers topics such as the International Sporting Code and the F1 Sporting Regulations.

After you’ve driven the minimum 80% of races for 2 years and have hopefully passed the theory test, you still need to earn 40 super licence points in the three years prior to your F1 debut. The image below shows how the points are distributed depending on the series you are in:

If you have all of these things (by some miracle), there is one final step. Using your teams ‘representative car’, which is basically just a swanky way of saying a car that’s a few years old, to complete 300km around a circuit. The distance needs to completed in no more than 2 days and has to be at full racing speed with all the controls (a test you’ve also passed) on offer to you. As long as the 300km test is no more than 180 days before the application is submitted – then you have your super licence!

So in short, it’s a licence which you need to drive really expensive cars round in oddly shaped circles in different countries. Simple!

However, the system in my opinion has some drastic flaws. More specifically with the points distribution.

If you take a glance back at the points ‘merit’ list, you’ll notice at the top, both F2 and IndyCar are awarded 40 points for winning the championship. My issue is with 2nd and 3rd onwards. F2’s 2nd and 3rd  place finishers also receive 40 points, whereas in IndyCar they are only awarded 30 and 20 points respectively.

Now I understand that F2 is the championship below F1 and the FIA are keen to promote drivers within their ‘ladder’, but the bias shown towards the series is clear to see. IndyCar is a series matched much closer to F1, so why are they receiving less points?

This debate was brought to the forefront of discussion a couple of years ago, when 22 year old American IndyCar racer Colton Herta was denied a super licence. For context, by the 2022 season, Herta was a 7 time winner, 11 time pole sitter and had finished the previous season in 5th place – in only his 4th year. He had 32 / 40 points on his licence, with his raw talent proving how special he was, but the FIA denied his application.

The Alpha Tauri F1 Team (now RB) were keen on signing Herta as a replacement for Pierre Gasly who was heading to the Alpine F1 Team for the 2023 season. Helmut Marko (Redbull motorsport advisor) applied to the FIA for special exemption, with the request immediately dismissed. Marko described the decision as “incomprehensible” that somebody of Herta’s talent was being denied the opportunity to prove themselves in F1. As a result, Herta’s opportunity went, with Nyck de Vries signing for the team instead – and we all know how that went…

Don’t get me wrong, F2 has great talent in the championship, with the likes of Bortoleto, Bearman, Antonelli and Hadjar all being promoted to F1 teams for 2025, but the competitiveness of the championship is nothing compared to IndyCar.

The talent on show in IndyCar is incredible. As well as Herta they have Dixon, Newgarden, Power, Palou, O’Ward and McLaughlin, just to name a few. Between them they have won 13 IndyCar titles and 4 Indy500s, as well as McLaughlin’s titles in Australian Supercars. One thing they all have in common is the recognition of Herta’s ability and talent, with McLaughlin poetically stating “kids a stud” (he’s from New Zealand in case you couldn’t tell).

Fellow IndyCar driver Graham Rahal took to twitter, saying that “F1 is an excellent sport…[but] they don’t want us…they want US companies money…they don’t care about the rest”. It should be said that this tweet was made before Williams announced Sargeant for the 2023 season. Before Logan, there wasn’t an American F1 driver since Alexander Rossi, who is now in IndyCar, who drove for the Manor Marussia Team in the latter part of the 2015 season. Yes, it was a fleeting stint in the sport, but it made Americans talk about F1. So especially now, in a country where they are trying to grow and develop commercially, why would they block one of the best American racing talents of this generation? It makes no sense to me.

The super licence was introduced to help control the safety of the sport on track. It means that the racing should be of the highest standard because all the drivers are deemed ‘safe and responsible’ when behind the wheel. That makes sense to me, what I don’t understand though is why an IndyCar driver of all people would be denied. 3x IndyCar champion (and super licence holder) Alex Palou has raced in F2 and F3, as well as SuperFormula in Japan, and when asked about the points situation he said that the “track time we get, it’s massive compared to an F2 driver”. This was in no way aimed as disrespect to F2 drivers, it’s just highlighting the point that they are more than capable of handling themselves on track. Qualifying for the Indy500 can mean the cars exceed speeds of 234mph, a rate which F1 cars can only dream of. If a driver is able to control a car so precisely at that speed, for that period of time, they are more than prepared to at least be allowed a test in Formula One.

For 2026, Formula One has granted entry (finally) to General Motors under the Cadillac brand to the join the F1 grid. This was once the Andretti F1 Project, which was all about making the sport more accessible for American drivers, or those racing in America. If they don’t use this opportunity to sign American talent such as Kirkwood or Herta, or even O’Ward (I know he’s Mexican but he races in America), it would be disastrous.

I know I’ve focussed on IndyCar compared to F2, but the same issue exists with other series as well. The unbelievably competitive SuperFormula series in Japan receives less points than F3, with the NASCAR Cup Series champion getting half the points of the F3 champion. Admittedly NASCAR is a world apart from F1 in how the cars are designed, look and handle, but they are also world class drivers. Kyle Larson is arguably one of the best drivers in the world at the moment and for him to be denied even the chance to test an F1 car seems ridiculous to me.

I don’t think there would be this debate if there wasn’t the exemption rule for the likes of Antonelli. Is that the rule just because he’s a Mercedes Junior driver in F2, whereas Herta who is arguably just as talented, isn’t affiliated to a team? Either way, I think the FIA need to review the rules, as I believe F1 would be a much more competitive sport if the likes of Palou, Herta and O’Ward were given a chance in an F1 car for a season.