Do the F1 Driver Academies Help or Hurt the Sport?

[Jericoke]

I've been listening to the pundits diving into the silly season about Stroll, Mercedes unsigned drivers and any possible exit clauses Max might have with Red Bull. All well and good, the 'Silly Season' is definitely something for us deeper fans to engage with when there's no racing going on.

It got me wondering though, teams spend a lot of money bringing drivers along multi year career development arcs, and then after 6 poor races in F1, they let them go.  They try to get a better driver, from their academy if they can, but anyone who is available.  The 'academy' process, I believe, is relatively recent phenomenon, more or less based on Lewis Hamilton managing to impress Ron Dennis through a chance encounter at a young age.

I like the idea that young racers who may not have the resources to compete can find a team willing to take a chance on them and provide resources to develop them.

Then I hate that Mercedes (for the sake of argument) has 2 great drivers in their F1 cars, and then two other drivers under contract.  The waiting drivers are definitely deserving of racing in F1, but Mercedes doesn't want them racing for their rivals.  Maybe they can get a seat with a customer team, but then the customer team might not be competitive, and can damage their career.  And also as a fan of (for the sake of argument) Williams, it rubs me the wrong way that Williams doesn't have their own drivers, but instead is a holding ground for Mercedes, and the moment the drivers 'prove' they're a top F1 talent, poof, they're off to the 'big team', as if Williams doesn't matter.

Another problem is that there is a 'ladder' system to get into F1, and the top 'feeder' series is F2, and once a driver wins F2, they're required to move on.  Okay, it's a development series, the winner has clearly 'developed' as much as possible.  But if the winner is part of an academy that is full up in F1, they have to go ... somewhere.  It's not as competitive as F1, and if F2 is supposed to be the next best thing to F1, then they have to go somewhere 'lower'.  They're displacing someone else, they're dominating a series (assuming they're as good as they are for winning F2) that isn't really a challenge.  Worse, an F1 team with an open seat might have to promote their own driver who finished fourth place.  The champion has been shuffled off to a racing hinterland, and a pretty good, but not the best, driver gets 6 races to 'prove' themselves in F1.

Is this the risk of the driver?  If they join an academy, they're taking the risk that the program might be saturated and not be able to give them a shot they've earned?  Is not joining an academy a way to guarantee you'll never got a shot at F1?  Should F2 champions be allowed to remain as a 'holding series' for future F1 drivers, even if they've won the championship?

[John S]

You make very good points Jeri, however rich parents can still jump the system, Lando was not the hot shot in F2 but his dad's money & connections to McLaren got him a seat ahead of others.

It's not a given that a high performer in lower categories will make it in F1, quite a few academy drivers with terrific results in F2/F3 have not been able to turn it on in F1.

I reckon that FIA should allow a 12th team on the grid and bring in a relegation system for drivers with no points by withdrawing their super licence. If there are not at least 2 then the lowest scoring 2* drivers still active on the grid at end of each season.
*(more if some are dropped throughout year with nil points, to prevent teams trying to artificially game the system by dropping a no hoper 2or3 races from season end to bring him back next term)

This will force a team, or teams, to bring in at least 2 rookies each year onto the grid.
After all F1 is supposed to be highly competitive, lets add a bit of jeopardy too.