The problem with winner takes all
When Bernie Ecclestone first proposed his idea to settle the Formula 1 drivers' title by number of wins, the immediate response was not favourable.
The sport had just delivered two sensational championship showdowns in a row, in 2007 and 2008, so why fix what was clearly not broken?
Now Ecclestone has got his way, following Tuesday's decision by governing body the FIA, but the idea does not appear to be any more satisfactory than when F1's impresario first made his idea public in November last year.
The best justification for the new system is that, had it been in place for the entire history of F1, it would have left a list of champions that is more satisfying to the purist than the actual list.
Britain's first world champion, for example, would have been Stirling Moss, not Mike Hawthorn.
It's difficult to argue against the basic rightness of that given that a) Moss won four races in 1958 to Hawthorn's one; and b) Moss has no championship to his name despite being regarded as one of the greatest racing drivers of all time - a status to which Hawthorn has no claim.
Jim Clark, a man held in the same sort of esteem as Moss, would be a four-time champion, adding titles in 1964 and '67 to the ones he actually won in '63 and '65.
Among other changes, Alain Prost - second in the list of race winners behind Michael Schumacher - would have won five titles rather than four - which, given that the great Frenchman lost titles in agonising circumstances in 1982, 1983 and 1984 seems fair enough.
Likewise, Nigel Mansell would be a three-time champion instead of simply having his single title in 1992 - probably a fairer reflection of his ability and status.
On the other side of the coin, three-time winner Nelson Piquet would not have won any titles, which seems fair enough given the men who would have won them instead (Prost twice and Mansell).
Worryingly for the future, there is the probability under the medal system that in a season of dominance - such as that enjoyed by Michael Schumacher and Ferrari in 2004 - the championship would be decided far earlier than under the current points system, with a consequent decline in TV audiences.
Equally, the different winners dry up after 1991, when the number of points for a win changed from nine to 10 - which suggests that tweak did its job.
The only time a different driver would have won the title since then was last year - when, as every media report has pointed out, Lewis Hamilton would have lost out to Felipe Massa.
And that's where the problems begin with the new system - as well as the other changes made by the FIA World Council on Tuesday.
Hamilton would have lost out because Massa won six races to his five - but those tallies would have been reversed had it not been for the controversial decision to demote Hamilton to third in the Belgian Grand Prix.
Few people in F1 have absolute faith in the decisions made by the FIA and its stewards - and the idea of extending the areas vulnerable to them will fill many with disquiet.
Within F1, though, the new points system is being seen as a smokescreen deflecting attention from something far more controversial - the decision to implement a split-level championship in 2010.
There will be an optional budget cap of £30m - and teams operating within it will have more technical freedom to develop their cars and engines. Those that choose to spend what they like will be forced to operate within the current more restrictive rules.
Would a poorer, smaller team with a more powerful engine and freer play with aerodynamics produce a faster car than a big-budget manufacturer operating within constraints but with a better driver?
It's an intriguing question - but there will not be an answer, because FIA president Max Mosley says his organisation "will balance the median performances by adjusting the cost-capped cars should this prove necessary".
The idea of the FIA fiddling about with the performance of all the cars so the championship remains competitive will fill the teams with horror.
Through bitter experience - and whether they are right or wrong, this writer is not in a position to say - the teams do not trust the FIA to do this impartially.
What makes it worse are the factors that lie behind these decisions.
F1 has so far emerged relatively unscathed from the global economic crisis - but fears that one or more of the major car manufacturers will pull out of the sport this year remain, and I'm told by someone who knows both men well that Mosley and Ecclestone are "paranoid" there will not be enough cars on the grid in 2010.
Mosley is undoubtedly right to worry about the impact of the global meltdown on F1 - the commercial departments of the various teams are finding it extremely difficult to tie up new deals as they stare at the looming end of current sponsorship contracts - and his £30m proposal means that teams could compete solely on the prize money and television income provided by Ecclestone's companies.
But that does not necessarily make Mosley's plan the right one.
For a start, there are significant doubts about the FIA's ability to police a budget cap.
Mosley insists his "forensic accountants" can divine how much money a team is spending. But one insider told BBC Sport on Wednesday: "We don't publish our accounts until a year later - and even our own accounts department can't tell me how much we spend."
And then there's the lack of transparency inherent in the policing of the "equivalency" of the two types of cars.
It would have been far better to do what was done in 1987 and 1988, and create a temporary two-tier championship while - in that case - the big teams weaned themselves off turbo engines, but with a clear set of rules for each and a clear end in sight to the disparity.
It also has to be remembered that this is merely the latest salvo in the ongoing struggle for control of F1 between Mosley and Ecclestone on the one side, and the teams' organisation Fota on the other.
The visions of the two sides are completely separate.
Mosley and Ecclestone have made little secret that they want absolute control over a low-tech, low-budget category in which essentially similar cars are differentiated more or less only by different colour schemes.
The teams - all of them - want much more freedom as well as a greater share of Ecclestone's revenues.
The decisions announced yesterday are merely the latest salvo in an increasingly bloody war.
As one insider put it: "I think Max will win in the end - cutting costs is what he has to do. But there will be a watering down because there always is. That's how he works. He goes in ruthlessly, and then backtracks and backtracks."
The battle now is over how far the teams are able to push him back.
The love affair has blown hot and cold, but Formula One has had me in its spell for most of my life. After 16 years covering the sport, in which I have reported from more than 100 Grands Prix, I am as thrilled by its heights, fascinated by its complexities and exasperated by its idiosyncrasies as ever. I hope there will be plenty of all of them to share with you now F1 is back on the BBC. You can also follow me on
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~29~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
In every sport I am aware of, points always dominate wins when it comes to an a sport with multiple events...wins will be the decider if points tie.
I can understand that they wish to increase overtaking and make the sport more enjoyable...but for who? clearly not existing fans. Not everything has to evolve just for the sake of change!
Also consider this...the drivers championship could potentially be won on the race immediately after the half way mark, points can be deducted later in the season for infractions taking it the DC right down to the wire...I can't see the FIA declaring that a racer will have to forfeit obtained in the first half of the season....
...what then? we watch in some kind of excitement to see who finishes 2nd and 3rd?
Where is all the excitement gone...its a bold step but a step too far in a unquestionable power trip.
Complain about this comment
Excellent article, I couldn't of put it better myself.
The real issue here is Max Mosely and his cost cutting. It could so easily cause huge rifts in F1. Hopefully the F1 teams will pull together and sort out the mess with some sound cost cutting ideas.
As for the winner takes all I think it will have little if no affect accept to make drivers go for wins in the last couple of races and make more drivers be in contention for the championship longer... Providing the teams remain as close.
Stuart - http://www.formula1-blog.co.uk
Complain about this comment
Max will get his way, he always does, he's seemingly untouchable (very much no pun intended) at the top to bring in any of his "rule changes".
This is a horrifying development in the rules in F1 and I hope the drivers and the teams (and the broadcasters) fight against it as yet again the fans are being ignored.
Complain about this comment
Great Article,
I just don't think the points system will work how Ecclestone & Moseley want it too, from what we can tell from the Winter testing, Massa may have the Championship sewn up by the time we get to race 14 or even sooner. The only way this can be stopped is if Brawn GP, Renault or BMW can take a few GPs, McClaren seem too far behind atm to mount a serious challenge against Ferrari.
Also another point is how will we differentiate the middle to lower teams that have no "medals" at all?
This rule may incourage over-taking and teams going for the win, however it may incourage team orders and teams/drivers not getting the recognition of have a good consistent season like BMW last year, Alonso would have finished higher than Kubica last year despite Kubica having a better season all round!!
As you say don't fix what isn't broken.
Complain about this comment
Once again the FIA and Ecclestone have proved that they do not give a damn about the fans and what they want. F1 is going to be extremely boring yet again.
In all fairness I was really looking forward to this new season with the technical overhaul but once again Mosley and Ecclestone have managed to ruin it yet again.
I shall be watching MotoGP this year I think.
Complain about this comment
The cost cutting/split-level proposals for 2010 are, indeed, worrying and arguably poorly concieved. But as mentioned in the blog, at least there is a little time and scope for negotiation with the teams.
The new 'most wins, wins' system, however, has been announced so close to the start of the season that there is no room for negotiation. On top of that, the idea is just insane, and it goes completely against the overwhelming public opinion against Bernie's original medals plan.
I really don't see it improving the racing. The obvious outcome I can see is that two drivers racing in 1st and 2nd will end up colliding (and both retiring) because the driver in 2nd place would rather prevent his rival from taking a win than sit behind him on a track where overtaking is difficult. Seeing drivers walking back to the pits is NOT preferable to seeing the cars race (even if we do get some Piquet/Salazar-style punch-ups!)
Complain about this comment
I just started to show some interest in F1 again, but this shows that Ernie has too much influence and this could be its downfall... could this be the end? Ernie's influence is damaging, his view of Lewis Hamilton has also been weird - Ernie is the same as Sepp Blatter of FIFA, too much power...makes you question who they really support the fans or themselves...
Complain about this comment
I do not see why people are so upset about the wins idea. It's great - we need to get away from the idea that points are best.
Think about what it would have been like last year if we had the wins system then. Hamilton would have had to race for the win in Brazil instead of messing around at the back. Massa outclassed him and was extremely unlucky to lose by a single point.
Provided that no one is messing with the system during a season, I don't see what the problem is. The drivers and the fans all know the rules before the first race, so let's get on with what will be a great season.
Complain about this comment
Another knee-jerk reflex to fix a problem that doesn't exist. Like the team orders ban which was never really enforceable, or the points system change to stop Schumacher's run of titles. The irritating thing is that these changes are never tested out before they're implemented - applying new scoring systems to old results doesn't give a fair picture, as I doubt Lewis or Felipe would have settled for second in any races in a winner-takes-all scenario.
Slightly off-topic, but does anyone know if any of the teams have tried racing each other in the '09 cars? The changes might look good on paper, but several drivers have said it might actually reduce overtaking because it will be so easy to knock those massive front wings off and ruin your race. And they claim F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport... it's slowly turning into Wacky Races!
Complain about this comment
If this system had been in place last year, Massa would have won, but only because he was AWARDED one race by the stewards (Belgium), which Hamilton won in reality, and most unbiased observers felt should have stayed his race. Well, I assume that under Bernie's scheme, a race earned by effort on the track is worth the same as one which is in the mindset of the stewards to bestow.
Complain about this comment
I really am confused as to how the new points system is going to help! More often that not, the guy who wins most wins the championship so whats the point in changing anything?
Also it does open the door to a 'lucky champion'. If, as it looks, all the cars are relatively close in performance, then we could have at the end of the season driver A, B, C, and D with 3 wins each. If driver A, B and C retire in the last race and driver D wins, he is hardly deserving of the title is he? Add in to that driver D only managed to finish 6 races over the season but takes the title. (bit long winded and confusing but think I got there!)
I hope the system won't detract the enjoyment I get from this sport but I suspect it will.
Complain about this comment
So under this system, a driver who wins a race in freak conditions (think Monaco 96 when only 3 cars finished or USA the other year) but finishes last in all other races will be placed higher in the championship than a driver who finishes on the podium every race but is kept off the top step by a dominant team above him? Nonsense rules. To be expected from Bernie and Max though!
Complain about this comment
The most exciting race of last season culminated in a frantic fight for the lead as the rain fell. This sort of frantic fight will continue with no difference so I don't see how the new system will improve things. However, that infamous race had the most disappointing outcome as Hamilton - not for the first time - was accused of cheating and his win stripped from him. Get the stewards sorted out before you try to change the things that already work... i.e. racers race, it's in their blood. Politicians steward and make rediculous rulings on a regular basis that destroys the sport. Marcus Lane
Complain about this comment
The 'medals' system really seems to be poorly thought through. If wins are the only thing that counts, then what are the cars in positions 3-20 going to be doing during a race. Its often the case that certain cars work better on certain tracks - so when a Ferarri pulls away at Turkey, the racing behind them will be non existent, because when it comes down to it, the points are absolutely worthless apart from a few pounds at the end of the season for the constructors. Why would P6 and P7 bother racing each other? Racing for Kudos is hardly motivational throughout a whole season.
Absolutely ridiculous to change something so drastically that clearly wasn't broken. The FOTA suggestion would have been much fairer, or adding a bonus point for P1 in qualifying would have been perfect. That would have seen some real battles. You'd have had plenty of 'lesser' cars running low fuel, trying to get pole for the point, then the cars who went for a normal level tank on a race strategy would have to fight there way through. There would be racing all over the track consistently.
Its almost as though Bernie, Max et al literally have no logical bones in there body.
Complain about this comment
A very good article... I can only say that this 'tweaking' goes to show the one single thing that most fans have always thought. That those that run F1 want to control who races, how they race and who wins more than making sure the fans (who ultimately fund it all) enjoy the experience.
Complain about this comment
As annoyed as I am with the rule changes they won't last long. If a driver wins the title this year with 4 races or so still left then they'll change it again for next year. Just a shame they've felt the need to tinker with a system that's been working well for years now. As you've said Andrew the last 2 years have been the closest ever so why the need to change things? If the FIA could be trusted and remained impartial then people wouldn't be so annoyed about these proposals but they seem to make the rules up as they go along. Hence why people are concerned they could decide who's going to win the title in the courts instead of letting the drivers sort it out on the track.
Complain about this comment
This whole thing is stupid, the past 2 years F1 has gradually been getting better and there has been some overtaking with all the new young drivers now coming through.
If they wanted to make wins more important they should have stuck with the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system or something similar which gave extra points for the win and they drivers wouldn't necessarily be happy with a lower position.
Bernie Eccles should retire now and let a younger generation of past drivers take over the running of the sport
Complain about this comment
The value in points at the moment is wrong. There is not enough difference between first and second. Four wins the same points as as 5 second places is rubbish. There is not enough reward for winning the race!
Complain about this comment
The value in points at the moment is wrong. There is not enough difference between first and second. Four wins having the same points as five second places is not right. There is not enough reward for winning the race! Go back to ten poits a win and six for second!
Complain about this comment
neiltc13 - I don't think Massa outclassed Hamilton during the season. Massa drove well, Hamilton drove better in a slightly worse car. And as the general concensus is that Hamilton should have kept his win it wouldn't have been so close and you could say that Massa was very lucky to have got that close to Hamilton.
fatgav -Good point, I was really looking forward to this year, now I am full of foreboding. I hope it doesn't mess things up but on the other hand for the long term I hope it does so that Max and Bernie have to change this ridiculous law. If it doesn't Max & Bernie will claim it worked and it'll stay and eventually there will be a joke of a seaon. I think i'd rather get that season out of the way now so we can go back to some sense.
Complain about this comment
Not sure about the rule change, part of me thinks its a good idea, but I can see major flaws in it.
Oh, and can you stop having a go at Nelson Piquet please,
"(He)would not have won any titles, which seems fair enough given the men who would have won them instead (Prost twice and Mansell)."
What has Nelson ever done to offend you - other than fall out with media darling Nigel Mansell.
Given that 2 of his championships were with Brabham he deserves a lot of credit for his consistency. This is one of the major problems with the new system, as it rules out any hope that someone from a lesser team can challenge.
Take Kubica last season for example, he was still in with a shout with 2 races to go, under the new system he would have never had any chance at all as he had only won once.
so with the budget changes they try to encourage smaller teams to enter, but then reduce their chances of winning titles
Complain about this comment
PhilJones87 you are getting confused I think. Points still apply to the top 8 places same as they always have. these points decide positions in the championship other than the winner, They are also used to determine the contructors championship as well.
So if you finish 2nd you still get 8pts, but with no race win you won't improve your chances of winning the title.
Really, with the exception of the top 2 or 3 drivers, it hasn't changed very much for anybody
Complain about this comment
It feels like a scam to me!!!
They won't listen to anyone at the moment, not FOTA, not the fans...
Ilove the sport but I trully hate this new direction it's taking.
If you want to push drivers then make it 15, 10, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Otherwise, offer 3 points for fastest lap. some points for Qualifying.
Want to excite fans? give us more angles (multi chanels?) open Radio feeds and have a bigger gap between tyre compounds.
It costs nothing (opposed to the multi million KERS)...
I didn't want Mosley to leave because he's into wild parties, but I WANT him to leave because he's terrible at his job.
Go Felipe GO
Complain about this comment
I was a big fan of the British Touring Car Championship, which was very exciting and full of action, until the authorities started to intervene and introduced weight penalties etc. It's now as dull as dishwater!
I think the new design rules for 2009 will improve things in F1, so they should have let that take effect BEFORE messing with the points system too. What's the strategy anyway? What are they trying to achieve? What's the long-term goal?
Why does F1 exist anyway?
If it's to identify the best driver in the world then maybe it's time to think again... Theoretically F1 could be a class of driver (i.e. NOT a class of car) that competes in Indy cars, rallying, drag racing, stock cars etc...
I'd rather watch that instead of the current aimless drifting of rules, regulations, scoring, politics etc...
Complain about this comment
Maybe Bernie should join Pal. He seems very good at making dogs dinners of everything he turns his hand to.
Complain about this comment
What people don't seem to get is that it ONLY decides who comes first. ALL other positions are done on the old points scheme, so, in response to a lot of people saying someone with one fluke win will finish higher than someone who podiums, but doesn't win: They wouldn't!
Complain about this comment
Dictators will ruine everything, history has proven that. Zimbabweans will suffer till Mugabe dies, F1 fans will suffer ...till Ecclestone dies ... !
You need rules in any sport, but what happens in F1 is out of this world ! The money issue: Don't get involved, the market will do its thing for sure, spend as much as you like, use as many engines per race as you wish, change drivers during pit-stops, what ever !
You do not tell a top football team to play without shoes because the budget is restricted ? ... or let them use the same shoes for 5 seasons and if the laces break, to get a penalty of one goals against for putting new ones on ... ?
What about those who like to sport, the fan's, who pay enormous amounts of money to see what they are entitled to, top motor racing.
Never mind F1-fans, it will get worse as long as the Max & Bernie rule continues ... and the world looks on; what's new !?!
Complain about this comment
I'm glad Andrew has highlighted the 2 major flaws of the "most wins" system.
If one team starts the season with a significant advantage, the title could be decided after 9 or 10 races. Just watch the TV audiences and race crowds plummet if this happens.
The most worrying thing is that it will encourage more risk-taking, especially if the new aero rules, slick tyres and KERS actually do result in more wheel-to-wheel racing.
If we see a marked increase in incidents such as the one that happened at Spa last season, my greatest worry is that the greater involvement of the stewards, gives greater potential for "controversial" race results, through the handing out of penalties, etc.
However, all things being equal, the win system shouldn't really come into play until the last few races and thus shouldn't affect the status quo too much.
I really hope FOTA find some way of freeing themselves from the shackles being imposed on them by Max, Bernie et al. I wouldn't trust these jokers in charge of F1 to organise a heavy drinking session in s brewery!
Complain about this comment
Under the new system, you could, in theory, have a driver finish only two races, winning them both and, provided the rest are all shared around equally, be declared the champion.
Farcical, but possible.
Complain about this comment
So if a Driver wins over 50% of the races he is automatically champion.
what if this happens half way through the season. The rest of the season is ruined, with the driver not needing to drive and further.
Complain about this comment
The assessment of who would have won various championships in the past under this new system is totally flawed. It fails to take account of the fact that any intelligent driver drives for the championship. Had the championship been awarded on the basis of wins rather than points, drivers would have driven past championships differently, so all that can be said is that the had this system always been in place we likely would have had different winners. In any sport, you need to know the rules and play the sport accordingly. If the points system changes, you probably need to change your tactics. Therefore, nobody knows whether Stirling Moss would have ever won a championship with the new rules as he and most other drivers would have had different tactics.
Complain about this comment
In my view this rule will ruin F1 this year and will be scrapped by next years season. They seem to change the rules whenever something happens that they don't like - the points change to stop Schumacher - and now this!!!
This is a season sport - and season sports should 100% be decided on a point win, no debate should even be necessary!!
Driver A has 6 wins to Driver B's 5 but B has 20 more points because A has spent half the season breaking down or sliding off the track - who deserves the win?? In my opinion Driver B!!
Why not just give the winner a 4 point advantage and leave it at that! Oh hang on a minute we had that a few years ago didn't we - can't do that then - that would make Berni look really stupid :-o
Complain about this comment
I really can't see there being excitement in watching the last two or three races to see what the minor places are going to be after Ferrari have won the championship as they will consistently win with BMW Brawn et al picking up a few wins and Mclaren coming good too late in the day, adn that is just this season!
It is a bizarre bit of Bernie rubbish, shocking waste of time, the last few seasons had rekindled my interest in the sport. I thought they might make it truly interesting by removing the pit stops hey ho. Back to cycling - far more exciting
Complain about this comment
It's better than watching the last 25 laps of a race where the driver in 2nd place is on cruise control.
And Mansell won the WDC half way through the season, so points or no points it can still happen.
It's FOTA and their mythical survey F1 fans have to worry about, I mean is anyone going to admit to voting for less F1 on TV, like FOTA said we all did.
Complain about this comment
It seems to me that the new 'medal' system will partly reverse the attempts made over the last decade to make the sport safer. As some have already said above, for the top drivers who are targeting the drivers' championship, second place will mean (almost) nothing. So what's to stop them trying dangerous overtaking manoeuvres in the last few laps? Fail and they lose very little. Take out their main rival for the title, preventing them from getting the win and, if anything, they're better off!
Complain about this comment
I have been an F1 fan for approaching 30 years. I am passionate about the sport and count down the hours from the end of one season to the beginning of the next. Some of the changes introduced by the FIA and Bernie Ecclestone have been welcome, particularly in the area of safety under the auspices of Prof. (should be Sir) Sid Watkins. Others have been disastrous. The attempts to neuter the sport have led to a climate that puts revenue over spectacle.
The new points system could be the straw that breaks the camels back for me. We shall see as the season progresses but I predict, as the season progresses, that the championship will be wrapped up early and the vibrant, young drivers who have entered the sport will have a precious season stolen from them. If so it will be the last season I follow, albeit with a heavy heart.
If football, for example, had followed similar rule changes to the raft of those implemented by the FIA then tackling would have been outlawed unless you gave the ball back to the opposing team, the scoreline would have been changed after the match and now the season would probably have been decided by Christmas.
Please, please, please stop the tinkering!!!!! Give us back our sport.
p.s. If the FIA and Bernie really care about what we think why do they make contacting them so difficult via their websites - therein lies the truth I feel.
Complain about this comment
Not that it matters one bit....but I think Prost would have 4 titles. His 1989 title would have gone to Senna with more wins giving Senna 4 titles also. His 1986 title would have gone to Mansell.
Complain about this comment
Not too sure about this one. When I was a lad of 13, I used to race BMX. I won that years local championship on points. I wasn't necessarily the best rider that year, nor did I have the most wins. But I was consistent over that year. The chap I pipped had more wins, but due to a short spell with a broken arm and a tendency to 'crash and burn', I beat him by about 15 points, less points than a single heat. So who was more deserving of the title in that case....
I'm not sure this is the way they should be going in F1, it may make the end of the season very dull. Nothing like the nail-biter we had last season.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps a good way to illustrate the problem with the new rule is that in 1996 Panis would have moved from 9th in the DC to 4th. He would have been one place ahead of Jean Alesi despite 'losing' to Jean with 13 points against 47.
However, that is an extreme example and I can't see a big change in the overall championship positions coming about. Generally the driver who wins the most races wins the championship. In fact, before 2008 the last time the championship would have gone to a different driver was 1989. This table is a useful guide:
http://www.fia.com/public/medal_analysis_results.pdf
Overall, I'm a supporter. Whoever wins the most races should win the drivers championship.
Complain about this comment
Yup, nice and sicinct.
It's amazing how the FIA has ignored its own evidence on the prospect of seasons ending earlier under the new Most Wins rule, and has generated a situation where there is a greater chance of injury by attempts to pass dictated more by desperation than skill, and/or deliberate 'accidents' to try and take a win, or merely to prevent another driver taking one. There are also going to be a lot of 'Ronnie Petersons' this year, if you catch my drift, under strict instruction not to take any wins away from the team's preferred driver; even the likes of McLaren and Williams will need to play favourites pretty much from the get-go. Once one driver has a couple of wins more than his team-mate, his buddy won't get a look in except through retirements and other misfortunes both during (and after) the races.
FYI: The Atlas F1 forum, which is affiliated to Autosport magazine (a publication rather familiar to Andrew Benson!), are running a poll. If you want to take a look, the URL is
http://forums.autosport.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=106986
The count as I write is 82% against, with 13% for - the rest are Don't Knows
(You'll need to register to vote if not already signed-up)
Complain about this comment
I remember when this idea was first proposed a few months ago - the message boards were almost unanimous in condemning this as another one of Bernie's crazy ideas. I'd say the split was about 90% - 10%.
To me, this is yet another example of the fact that one man has way too much power in F1. Despite the fact that almost everyone else is against this, there's absolutely nothing to stop Bernie doing whatever he wants with F1.
Complain about this comment
chrisbriddon - I'm not confused, but tell me what is the point of racing for a currency which is not recognised as the most valuable one at the end of the season.
Why would you bother racing for points? You could finish 2nd in every single race, but if 15 other drivers all won a race through freak weather or saftey car luck etc during the season, they would all be ahead of you in the title race. Why would you bother?!
Front row of the grid normally wins the race - How is it going to make any difference to the spectacle if they effectively reward this even more. Lewis Hamilton trying to hang on to 5th was the most engrossing piece of sport on television in quite a few years - Imagine the scenario this year under the same rules. It would be boring.
Racers will always want to race, whether its in F1 cars or on push bikes or whatever. Making the ultimate goal virtually unattainable for almost 90% of the field is wrong to me. The goal should be getting most points.
Imagine if they did the same in other sports. It'd be dreadful.
Complain about this comment
Come on teams! Time to pick up your toys and take them somewhere other than the FIA playground. How much more shin kicking from Bernie can you take?
Complain about this comment
The new "number of wins" winner of the championship should not be brought in untill next the 2010 season. This is because the new technical rules may leave the 2009 cars with some unreliablity and as stated above a "lucky winner" may win the season in the first five races of the season. Therefore the season may be over before the summer break.
The other problem with the "number of wins" winner is the teams may not be able to back one driver if they are all on the same number of wins.
The point system does need to be addressed but determining the championship by wins is not the solution to the problem. The solution should to increase the points difference so consistency during the season can be rewarded, like Lewis Hamiliton's debut season he got to that position due to the consistent racing during the season.
Complain about this comment
I agree with you Andrew that it's the £30M cap that's going to have a long-term impact. But the fans will be concentrating on the points issue.
Everyone & his dog is busy promoting the issue from the perspective of which champions would have changed over the last 5 decades, but no-one has concentrated on it from the perspective of how the team tactics would change to cope with the new rule.
One historical change is that Lauda wouldn't have won in 1977 under the new rules. Yet he left Ferrari early, having secured the title. Would he have stopped so soon if he weren't already the champion?
With the win becoming massively more important than a 2nd place, team orders will become important again, whether hidden or not, and especially if a team is in the 1-2 positions. In 2008, Ferrari were in this position in the 3rd race of the season, with Raikkonen having already won the 2nd race. Would the new rules have been enough to convince Ferrari to get Massa to move over, and "let" the then-champion Raikkonen have the victory to add to his tally? If so, Massa wouldn't have had the most wins at the end of the season.
The result is clear - you can't just apply the new rules to the end-of-season totals. You have to apply it to all the decision-making pre-season and in-season too.
And that adds another point. The overall winner is now going to have to achieve a few good wins, rather than a full season of consistency. Would teams focus their car development to hit those few wins, at select circuits, rather than be a good compromise for all circuits? To change the rules only one week before the season starts, and with no more testing allowed, could mean that we will have jack-of-all-trades cars competing in a winner-takes-all environment.
I also think the "win-at-all-cost" attitude from Bernie will have another side-effect. I reckon that a team, which is otherwise competing for the drivers championship, but can't compete at a particular circuit, will go into a "disrupt-at-all-costs" mode instead. Getting your rival down to 2nd place is almost as good as winning yourself.
The law of unintended consequences is going to be fully at play this season.
Complain about this comment
This is such a bad idea, and Max knows it. Back on 14th December 2008, Autosport reported:
"We'll make a market survey and decide based on the results," Mosley told Gazzetta dello Sport. "Extending the points-paying positions to the top eight by reducing the difference between first and second was a mistake, but I'm against changing the points system too often. It disorientates people."
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't FOTA undertake the largest survey of the F1 viewing public at the end of last season, the results of which led them to recommend revising the scoring system to increase the points for a win? This was the solution that Max and the FIA rejected in favour of his friend Bernie's, albeit slightly revised, medal system.
Max and Bernie: if you want a cheap, single make formula, then by all means create one, but don't turn F1 into one; it's not what F1 is about.
I was looking forward to the unpredictability that the revised regulations were going to throw into the mix this season, but now I'm not so sure. If the season's result is decided just past the half way mark, what will be the point of watching the remaining races? Where will the drama and excitement come from, if not from the battle for the championship?
Complain about this comment
As soon as I heard about this I though it was madness. Was last years final lap drama too boring for Bernie? Clearly judging by this. My interest has waned over years but the last 2 years brought it right back. But now I fear for this season.
Theoretical situation here:- 4 drivers for the championship. one finishes 2nd 17 times, 3 others share race wins but DNF in the races they do not win.(7 wins, and 2 with 5). The driver who finishes 2nd all the time gets 136 pts, the others have 70 pts, 50pts, 50pts. Is it fair that the one with almost twice as many points does not win?? I don't.
I've got an idea just as sensible, most of the more exciting races last year were when it rained, why don't they put sprinklers at the sides of the track that go off when Bernie and Max roll a dice to decide, its a 1 in 6 chance.
I hope it still is good, foy the BBC's sake if anyones.
Complain about this comment
If you wanted to really make drivers WANT to overtake, it would have been better to get ALL of them to want to, rather than just the men fighting over 1st place.
A better incentive would have been to make the points system exponential rather than linear, and maybe even to extend it to cover more of the field.
For example: 1200, 400, 200, 100, 50, 25, 12, 6, 3, 1
Hmmm. Isn't that more like the system that men's tennis uses to give points?
Complain about this comment
What effect will the rule changes have on the constructors championship if any? At least this would mean that if the season were looking like finishing early then the driver who won couldnt simply stop trying/caring.
Complain about this comment
People will not race to finish 2nd in the championship. What would Kubica have done in the last 4 races last year under these rules. He'd have done nothing. He might have had the 3rd most points and still mathematically in with a chance of winning under the points system, but not under the medals one.
Imagine somehow (rain or something) a Ferarri starts from 15th and the other one is on pole. The guy in 15th knows he can't win the race, because an equal car is 14 places ahead of him and running away with it.
Win or bust is not going to motivate that 15th placed Ferarri. Raikkonen won't be able to care enough to think that slicing through the field to finish in 2nd place is worthwhile because the points might help him finish 2nd in the championship.
Current rules he'd go hell for leather, because 2nd place is still a good points haul and counts for something. But 2nd place now means nothing in the scorers chart for the Driver's title. How daft is that? Very.
Complain about this comment
After two fantastic seasons with two fantastic finishes they want to change things around again! It could end up with a driver winning a few races then not finishing for the rest of the season, another driver could finish with all podiums and not win the title. The system has worked for years, don't change it now. Bernie has too much power, get back to your old job as a hood ornament!
Complain about this comment
Well, I think we can say that this greatly increases Massas chances of winning the title. Everyone saw that he was the most inconsistent driver last season - he won more races than anyone else, but he didn't have the consistency to finish on the podium often enough to win the championship outright.
It also has the problem of completely removing the underdog from the reckoning. Someone like Vettel or Kibica will probably win a couple of races, but will have no chance to win the title by finishing consistently well without blowing the field away. It is ludicrous.
Complain about this comment
Don't really care!!
Complain about this comment
That's complete rubbish, especially to make the decision just days before the start of the season. FOTA's proposal with the 12, 9, 7, 5 ... pts was much better and it favored GP wins.
Complain about this comment
Too much emphasis is on the cost of the Sport at the moment.
Why do we need the teams to have their budgets cut to £30m?
It should be more, you can't get a full car for £30m, add on Drivers, team personell, testing, flights, transport...etc,etc.
Where is the money coming from?
Complain about this comment
Typical just another rule change to make sure Ferrari wins, and keep the big wigs happy.
Just when I was looking forward to F1 returning to the BBC, it is now seemingly ruined.
Complain about this comment
Great point Blade400Flyer!!!!
Formula 1 is not about drivers but about Technology in the cars before anything else...
Drivers are employees as others :)
Complain about this comment
I think this is the most stupid rule in sport I've ever heard!
Surely if they want to introduce this points system, they might as well just give points to the winner and none for second or below because this rule surely makes points for second and below null and void as, ultimately, you have to win a certain amount of races to win the championship. Which is what you probably have to do anyway to win a championship, but it's not a rule.
It makes a mockery of the points system in the sport, as not only will your final points not necessarily determine your ultimate success, but it virtually takes away reward for finishing second, third and so on.
It means that whoever finishes on top of the table at the end of the season with more second and third place finishes than, say, the third place man, could still lose to the third place finisher who has one more win overall.
It also means the title could be over with a few races to go and will often see the championship statistically only being able to be won by a tiny handful, maybe two or three drivers, after about half the season has gone if the usual suspects win all of the races.
Complain about this comment
I could never sit comfortably with a two tier system... it would be a bit like having a 100m sprint but allowing the less abled out there to join in the same race...
I don't agree with the woinner takes all thing at all... what they are forgetting is that some drivers produce world championship drives in machinery that is letting them down and they should be recognised for this...and a points system allows for this...someone wins a championship on consistency and I have no problem with it... its merely their machinery and is fair and just...
the other drivers not in teams might as well not even bother
Complain about this comment
Part of me likes the idea of a cap as there could be privateers coming back into the sport. Is that a good thing?
On the question of Max and Bernie wanting all cars the same, isn't that what happens in A1?
I will hold off on the points idea although I do kind of like the idea that the best driver/racer gets the pot of gold and not just the best team strategy. But... how many races would you realistically need to win to clinch the championship and how will going for the Constructors title affect the outcome?
Complain about this comment
Year on year we see more meddling and more rule changes. This year they have made the most dramtic changes we have seen (with Kers and the new aerodynamics, plus the testing cap) and they STILL want to make more changes!!!
Do they not realise that all the changes that have already been implemented will create enough havoc on the grid? I'm fairly sure we are going to get a great championship.
Every other sport has points why should F1 be so different? If I remember rightly, Nicky Hayden won the Moto GP championship with less wins than the second placed Rossi, but nobody felt the need to tear up the system.
Teams that are consistent are no longer rewarded. That's the bottom line.
And yet again Bernie and Max call the shots without thinking of the fans.
Complain about this comment
this new rule will ruin the sport. we won't have the drama of brazil ever again in a season. The tactics are what also adds to the spectacle of the sport.
bad move in my view!
Complain about this comment
PhilJones87 - apologies but your comment was reffering to 'medals' and what drivers in positions 3 - 20 would do.
Well to the majority of drivers, the situation doesn't change, as they never had a chance of winning the title anyway, so the number of points still applies to these drivers and the majority of teams. For the likes of Mclaren & Ferrari, well the constructors championship points still count, so if you can't win, the points you get still matter (plus it will determine your Chapionship positon if your aren't 1st!)
I am not an advocat of the new systme, but I cna also see the intention and the fact that alot of comments are the results of knee-jerk reaction rather than thought through response.
As has already been pointed out, with the exception of last yeat, the last time the winner of the championship wasn't the person with the most race wins was 1989!
Complain about this comment
Ecclestone is doing this so the drivers race harder to be first, yet Hamilton was demoted to 3rd and Massa was gifted a win when Hamilton raced hard in Belgium, so wheres the logic. Furthermore under the new rules if Massa hadnt been gifted the win he wouldnt have won the DC anyway.
Complain about this comment
Totally stupid. Often the excitement in races takes place away from the front two but the motivation for a driver in 6th, for example, to battle for 5th place has been completely taken away. There will be far too many occasions when races will merely become a procession. I simply cannot see the sense in this rule change. Has there been a single post in favour of this yet?
Complain about this comment
Maybe worth seeing how it works in practice before writing off the new scheme but I have some major reservations:
Firstly, as noted above the steward’s decisions become even more critical. A six point swing on the Belgium thing is bad enough but imagine if that was the deciding win up for grabs. Their decisions will be even more closely scrutinised and if they are not totally fair-handed (or should that be WHEN they are not totally fair-handed!) there will be even more outcry.
Also, it’s true that for championship contenders second is worth nothing and that if in second they will go for the win, but it’s also true that if a win is not on they have no motive to race. If in third in the closing laps they have no reason to challenge second, even if a pass would be odds on.
If, say, Kimi or Lewis is in the mix for the title but has a mare in qualifying, the race win is basically not on. Under the old system we would see them charging up the field to get as many points as possible, a fun race and plenty of overtaking. Now they might as well hang around at the back and do some testing, it’s the only chance they’ll get!
Complain about this comment
Hi all,
I'll come back a bit later with something more considered, but just to correct Sean_Bath's thought that I've counted Prost's title tally under a medal system wrongly, this is the situation.
He won in 1985, 1986, 1989 and 1993. Under the medal system, he would have won in 1981, '83 and '84, would have kept 1985, lost 1986 to Mansell, lost 1989 to Senna, but still won 1993. So his titles would be 1981, '82, '83, '84, '85 and 1993 - which makes five, as I said initially.
This is the full list, with actual champions listed first and medal champions listed second:
1950 Farina Farina
1951 Fangio Fangio
1952 Ascari Ascari
1953 Ascari Ascari
1954 Fangio Fangio
1955 Fangio Fangio
1956 Fangio Fangio
1957 Fangio Fangio
1958 Hawthorn Moss
1959 Brabham Brabham
1960 Brabham Brabham
1961 P.Hill P.Hill
1962 G.Hill G.Hill
1963 Clark Clark
1964 Surtees Clark
1965 Clark Clark
1966 Brabham Brabham
1967 Hulme Clark
1968 G.Hill G.Hill
1969 Stewart Stewart
1970 Rindt Rindt
1971 Stewart Stewart
1972 Fittipaldi Fittipaldi
1973 Stewart Stewart
1974 Fittipaldi Fittipaldi
1975 Lauda Lauda
1976 Hunt Hunt
1977 Lauda Andretti
1978 Andretti Andretti
1979 Scheckter Jones
1980 Jones Jones
1981 Piquet Prost
1982 Rosberg Pironi
1983 Piquet Prost
1984 Lauda Prost
1985 Prost Prost
1986 Prost Mansell
1987 Piquet Mansell
1988 Senna Senna
1989 Prost Senna
1990-2007 all the same.
2008 Hamilton Massa.
Complain about this comment
I had lost interest in F1 totally for the last 10 years after having watched it regularly since 1982, but had been getting interested again lately. I even managed to catch the Melbourne race last year while in Australia. But this stupid change to the points system is madness. I just don't see how this is an improvement, it grates and is seriously ruining my anticipation of the new season - I was excited and now I'm just thinking "why bother?".
As for the two tier structure in 2010 - 2011, that's is utter madness. Cost savings could be found in other ways than this crap. I'm all for controlling budgets so that teams with less money are able to get a look-in - in fact with the number of teams decreasing F1 needs to address this urgently - but not with this mish-mash of utter stupidity. As the blog points out most teams publish their annual accounts the year AFTER the season has finished so how on earth would you enforce it? Despite which Ferrari, McLaren and others will just get crafty with the accounting. It's a mind boggling bit of madness.
I was looking forward to it all, but now I'm just incensed.
Complain about this comment
One thing I don't quite get is what happens if one driver manages to win 6 or 7 races but then doesn't finsh the rest of the year, while the guy whos 2nd is consistant and finishes all the races but only wins 5? Surely all races in the season should count?
Complain about this comment
I think this is yet another change for the sake of change. BERNIE LEAVE IT ALONE!
The existing rule changes to the cars are designed to promote overtaking. However, before these changes have been given time to reflect, we have this change as well.
By making these changes to winning, F1 could be killed off by mid season just as much as the points system. I believe 10 points for a win and 6 points for second gave enough motivation in the first place to pass for the win.
Who will Bernie attract with these rule changes? I suppose the existing legion of fans is not enough for Bernie’s pockets. We will now have no comparability to previous seasons winners who won via points. Well done Bernie you have ruined the season for the sake of one GP race spectacle, of which there is no guarantee will be improved!
Complain about this comment
Excellent article.
How will the FIA handle a large expense, for instance moving offices a la McLaren or the installation of a new wind tunnel. Both of these would be long-term expenditure, although having an impact on that season's car.
Nuts!
I wouldn't mind a cap, but for the technical sport that is F1, is needs to be higher - that's what Sunderland spent for 1 season in the premiership!
Complain about this comment
67. At 2:57pm on 18 Mar 2009, Andrew Benson - BBC Sport wrote:
........... So his titles would be 1981, '82, '83, '84, '85 and 1993 - which makes five, as I said initially.
Is this not six years?
Complain about this comment
What is FOTA doing, where are the Braves of old!!!!!
F1 back to the Fans!!!!!!!
Bernie & Max, you are killing the sport!!!
I trully hope we get a break away formula.
Complain about this comment
Could be all academic - the title might be won by the team who can change a front wing the fastest, carbon fibre hell with those new wings!
Complain about this comment
TFH - The flaw in the counting is that whatever system you run Prost doesn't win the title in 1982 - It was either ROsberg (pts) or Peroni (wins) so it makes 5 just that Andrew has listed 6!
Complain about this comment
Thinking about the £30M thing...
I'm wondering if this is all a reaction to the Honda sale problem. Even Ross Brawn, as an F1-supremo and with a developed car handed to him (almost) on a plate, couldn't get a team going without a £100M kick from Honda (and, reputedly, Bernie).
Even Branson didn't want to get involved. So what hope is there for *any* new team starting up?
If Bernie & Max are paranoid about some of the current teams leaving, then they have to open it up to get new teams in. And what better way than to set a cap at a level that could be funded entirely within the prize money & TV funds?
I now don't think this is a cap aimed at any of the current teams. It's something aimed at getting new blood into the sport (although I hesitate to call it that with FIA last-minute interventions)
Complain about this comment
Did Bernie really come up with this daft idea after a single race (ie Hamilton driving for 5th in Brazil)???
Anyone else wanna have a guess at the number of front wings that come off around the 1st corner of Melbourne? I'll get the ball rolling and expect at least 10.
The cars look a right mess too... What have they done???
Complain about this comment
Why not just give extra points for a win? Why complicate matters?
This chopping and changing seems ludicrous and pointless. Fully agree with cutting costs so all teams can compete on a more equal footing but I really think F1 should go right back to basics and have everyone in the same car. Then we would see a real scrap at each race.
I think with this latest 'effort' from BE that F1 is on a slippery slope to the dustbin.
Does this bloke 'consult' with anyone before he makes these bizarre decisions?
At least it's back on the BBC and won't be interrupted by adverts although I'll miss Brundle.
Complain about this comment
The best are the best for the simple reason that they are the best. That will mean that the title will go to the best because they will adapt to a new system both the quickest and more efficiently. That said I agree with a couple of comentators here that we are likely to see a few more last corner dust ups where the guy running secomd has nothing to loose. I hope we dont get the alternate scenario where someone has won the title with 8 or so races left on the callender.
Its the usual story overall though and seemingly prevalent in every sport we try to watch, interfering by administrators desparate to screw every last penny of personal wealth out of anyone who has money to spend. I hate that aspect of sport and despair we will never again see true 'sportsmanship' or character ever again.
Complain about this comment
For me, the wins vs points thing is stupid. Most years the winner of more races wins the championship and even last year the man who finished first the most times won the championship(although his win at Spa was discredited).
The cost cutting is going too far. F1 is and always has been the pinnacle of motorsport, the place where the big boys go, in the fastest, most technologically advanced cars. If we want budget caps, and low tech, we'd all be watching touring cars. F1 is in danger of commiting professional suicide if it follows this too far, and I dare say that talk of setting up a rival could resurface. I know they have a contract, but frankly, if Ferrari, McLaren and BMW decide to set up a rival series, whilst racing toy cars in F1 to see out the agreement, then they will. Bernie and Max have taken the golden goose out the back and are slowly wringing it's neck!
Complain about this comment
"Likewise, Nigel Mansell would be a three-time champion instead of simply having his single title in 1992 - probably a fairer reflection of his ability and status.
On the other side of the coin, three-time winner Nelson Piquet would not have won any titles, which seems fair enough given the men who would have won them instead (Prost twice and Mansell)."
That is quite simply two of the most hideously biased paragraphs I've ever read.
Good theme, shocking article.
Complain about this comment
It's theoretically possible under this new proposal to have 17 drivers become joint champion on 10 points if they all won 1 race each and then failed to finish in the remaining 16 races. If one of the other 3 drivers came second in every race they would amass 126 more points than the 'champions' but would not be deemed worthy of the title!
Complain about this comment
Surely it's pointless to make the argument of "what would have happened" were the current rules in place in previous years. Were the current rules in place, the strategies of drivers and their teams would have been correspondingly different - presumably drivers would have been much more aggressive with their tactics for a start.
Complain about this comment
Max Mosely is 68, Bernie Ecclestone is 78.
They should forget about their own egos, retire to some old folks home, and let F1 be run be younger fresher minds more in touch with F1 fans.
Complain about this comment
'Mosley and Ecclestone have made little secret that they want absolute control over a low-tech, low-budget category in which essentially similar cars are differentiated more or less only by different colour schemes.'
That is 1 of the most worrying parts........we could effectively end up with a slightly faster version of GP2, but everything still be low cost, low tech, spec parts etc, which isn't what F1 is about. BE and MM need to go ASAP as they're doing nothing but killing the sport with their visions for the future.
Complain about this comment
This really is a shame. Fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Why on earth they rejected the (much more sensible) idea of increasing the points given for a win and went for this idea is beyond me.
I was really looking forward to the race this weekend but this debacle has left a sour taste. Shame on you Bernie and Max.
Complain about this comment
A couple of interesting anograms of Bernie Ecclestone.
Obese Licence Rent
Belie Erect Nonces
Complain about this comment
I cannot see any benefit in most wins system!
Is this Bernie fighting back because a driver in a red car didn't win last year. His biased knows no bounds.
A much better system would have been a bigger points differential for the race places, also additional points for pole and fastest lap would make things a little more interesting.
We so need another team to help break the Mclaren/Ferrari stranglehold which is killing the sport.
I'm praying for a miracle in the shape of BrawnGP
Bernie/Max, please retire, you've made your money, if you love the sport (which I doubt) walk away!
Complain about this comment
Andrew Benson is correct that an early unbeatable number of wins would kill off any interest in the end of the championship, from TV, the public or the teams. The effectiveness of the rules about teams being forced to compete until the end of the Championship would surely be tested. The other complication which they will have to face is that a completely dominant team ( such as Ferrari in 2002 and 2004 ) would have no incentive to encourage their drivers to go on racing each other for a 'real' result. The Championship would be decided in the team motor-home. This is a typical Mosley/Ecclestone ill thought-out idea, which will contribute very little to the business ( not sport ) of Formula 1.
Complain about this comment
Sign this petition against the new points system it has 10,000 signatures after only a day.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/cancel-the-fia-approved-wdc-selection-criteria-for-f1-world-championship-2009
The most shocking thing about the rule changes is not their outcome but the complete disdain they showed towards FOTA, it appears Mosley decided these proposals before FOTA's roadmap. When the roadmap did come out it was completely ignored. I always used to hate the idea of a breakaway series, but FOTA may be left with no choice.
I have to say I agree with the comment 81, there was no need for Andrew to be so biased against Piquet and towards Mansell. I hope he won't be showing that kind of bias all season towards British drivers.
PS I know the petition like those above are often futile, but occastional substantial petitions can make a difference if they gain media attention. This petition has the potential to get tens of thousands of signaturies in the space of a few days, keeping the outrage about the idea in the news.
Complain about this comment
This is just a rediculous idea as I can see as soon as a driver gets a little behind the leader then he just gives up as there is no benefit in chasing for points and wearing out his car. This will not help overtaking but exactly the opposite.
Complain about this comment
@JPBolton (39)
"Perhaps a good way to illustrate the problem with the new rule is that in 1996 Panis would have moved from 9th in the DC to 4th. He would have been one place ahead of Jean Alesi despite 'losing' to Jean with 13 points against 47. "
I don't think this is the case, as I understand it, the number of wins only decides first place in the championship. All the other places are decided on points as usual. Therefore Panis would still have finished in the same position.
I still don't like the idea though.
Complain about this comment
@EvilPix (82)
"It's theoretically possible under this new proposal to have 17 drivers become joint champion on 10 points if they all won 1 race each and then failed to finish in the remaining 16 races. If one of the other 3 drivers came second in every race they would amass 126 more points than the 'champions' but would not be deemed worthy of the title!"
Also not true, if drivers are tied on number of wins, the one with most points finishes ahead.
Complain about this comment
Nothing other than tradition matters. Giving the changes that have evolved in technology, it is still as even a playing ground as can be expected. We mustnt change rules everytime somebody feels that he/she or it knows better.
Complain about this comment
Andrew, firstly I must congratulate you on another excellent contribution.
The new 'winner takes all' system fills me with both conflict and confusion.
Firstly, the conflict, I like the idea of rewarding boldness and bravery. I like the fact that we probably would have had on, several occasions (including last season), more deserving World Champions. I also think that it may actually give us more diverse strategies as teams with little expectation of victory try something radical, instead of fueling to secure 3rd. On the other hand, I know casual viewers to be what Bernie is aiming at, I can't see how a rewarding the man who wins the most races while still having a points system as offering the clarity or consistency that casual viewers crave. I can see World Championships being even more subject to stewards decisions and finally I can see mixed messages.
Even I am confused by some of the messages.
1) How can the FIA who last season punished several bold moves now be encouraging perhaps even boulder ones. For instance, Hamilton's move at the start of the Japanese GP was punished but surely this rule change has been bought in to encourage drivers to be more daring. So if Lewis goes for a win with a similarly bold move in '09, what will the FIA do? Laud the success of the rule change as it has encouraged 'entertainment'? or still punish him, even though their justification of the rule changes was 'entertainment'?
2)The FIA talk about cost-cutting and making the sport more open to independents. Surely if the winner takes all, the chances of the plucky underdog who gets an early season advantage and then holds-on of winning the WC diminish. In 2003, we had a title that went to the wire, but under this system, Montoya in the Williams would have been long out of the title race (as would Raikkonen). As a result, we had an entertaining race as Raikkonen and Montoya fought to win while Schummi charged for a single point. The season would have had a dull conclusion and the smaller team (Williams) and the young charger (Raikkonen) would have been precluded from being potentially rewarded for driving fine seasons.
There are more conflicts on my mind, but I've already taken-up too much time and space. I can't decide if this change is good or not for the sport, therefore I guess that if there is no clear vindication for changing a winning formula, then I have to conclude that there is no point to it. If the old system was broken then we'd be dealing with a different animal!
Complain about this comment
"The best justification for the new system is that, had it been in place for the entire history of F1, it would have left a list of champions that is more satisfying to the purist than the actual list."
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
I disagree. It's just easy to say this in hindsight. Had this new wins system been in place since day one, teams and drivers would have had a different approach which would not necessarily have led to the same race results. Brazil '08 being the most obvious example.
What I do agree with is that with all this fiddling and tweaking, Max and Bernie are slowly but surely turning F1 into some sort of Global Speed Circus… now I hear the British GP is no longer safe (again)!
It's time for FOTA to stand up and make a long-term committment to do its own series.
Complain about this comment
This is just a ploy by Bernie to ensure that Ferarri win the championship
Complain about this comment
Taking comment 91 a bit further... if a driver is competing for the championship and has no hope of winning the race from their qualifying position, they may decide to not race, conserving the engine which now has to last 3 races. Probably an unlikely scenario given the teams will want the points but still worth mentioning.
Complain about this comment
I think this is a veeerrrry silly idea. This will introduce all sorts of problems. firstly, it means that a driver competing for the wolrd championship has no incentive to finish high up unless he is going to win the race...e.g. if hamilton is 18th and is a lap behind massa, wheras before he would chase and chase to try and salvage a few points, now he might as well retire and save his engine, as he can't get anything meaningful anyway.
It also encourages tactical disruption and means the races will be less competitive in the middle of the points. Plus, what is wrong with finishing consistently near the front, but not winning? in my eyes Kubica was a better driver than Massa last year because he got consistently near the front...i think lots of podiums is far more impressive than a few wins.
The FIA scare me. They are never very impartial and dont seem to have their priorities right. If they wanted to value wins more why not simply increase the points for a win? it could be calibrated so it is very difficult to win the championship without winning plenty of races. (e.g 12, 8.....)
Complain about this comment
They've lost the plot. Racing's never been JUST about winning. It's also about reliability and consistency perhaps with a car that isn't the fastest of the bunch
Complain about this comment
I can see drivers stopping at 20 laps from the end to save their engine for the next GP, if do not have any chance to win the race.
Complain about this comment
Hi all,
A number of you, pointing to my remarks about Piquet and Mansell, have drawn the conclusion that I am biased towards Mansell because he is British.
This is not true. As it happens, I was never a particular fan of Mansell - either before I worked in F1 or after. But I have been convinced by others whose views I respect that he was a truly great driver. In particular, Damon Hill told me recently that he felt Mansell was very underrated. He actually rates him higher than Prost. And he should know - having driven the same car as both of them at the same time.
What I'm saying is that, on merit, you can argue Mansell probably deserves the number of titles he would have won under the medal system (1986, 1987 and 1992). And on merit, you can argue that the drivers who would have beaten Piquet to the titles in 1981, 1983 and 1987 (Prost twice and Mansell) were better drivers than him. I defy any of you to make a convicing case that Piquet was a better driver than Prost or Mansell.
As it happens, I think Prost deserved the title in 1986 more than Mansell would have done - because he kept himself in it until the final race while driving an inferior car. But, again in terms of natural justice, you can live with that if at the same time his overall tally was to go up from four to five.
On that subject - I was right to say it would be five, but, yes, in the text of my comment answering the query, I inadvertently added in 1982, which Didier Pironi would have won, as I included in the subsequent full list. Sorry about that.
Complain about this comment
Where can I find the address of the people responsible for this change?
I think many people, like myself, would like to express there complaints directly to these people about how they are ruining this sport with this change.
Some one please find the address and post for us all!
Complain about this comment
Yet another problem would be the huge increase in benefit from the 'accidental' taking-out of a leading driver.
History teaches us that this can happen!
Complain about this comment
If they really wanted to encourage people to overtake and keep a fairer system just award a greater amount of points difference ie.
Old system, 1,2,3,4,5,6,8,10
My system, 1,2,4,8,16,32
that way double the points for each position you achieve is better and therefore does encourage overtaking, if your behind someone in 1st and your in second with 2 races to go and they already have a 20 point lead in the championship and then if they won they would have a 36 point lead overall into the championship therefore encourages overtaking.
In the stupid Bernie system, you can have a driver 1 win behind in championship in 2nd with his team mate ahead, oops there car broke down and they go through to get a win and level the title race.
Anyways stupid ideas devalues the other teams and doesn't rate consistency, if Massa or Raikenon fail to win in the first 5 races I bet this gets scrapped?
Complain about this comment
What people must remember is there are only two rules in F1.
Rule Number 1: DO WHAT BERNIE SAY'S.
Rule Number 2: REMEMBER RULE NUMBER ONE.
Complain about this comment
Piquet and Prost each won 3 races in 1981 yet Piquet won more points and had more podium finishes. How can it be that he wouldn't have been champion that year under the new system?
Complain about this comment
Dear Andrew Benson
Brilliant, thank you.
Thank god that F1 is back on the BBC. :-)
Complain about this comment
I've an idea as a team manager. Your drivers play alternate roles one races ahead on a lighter load the other plays the dummy backing up the rest of the pack. I can see the drivers hating it but for the teams it provides a better chance of winning the drivers championship, the dummy isn't a great place to be in but but at least the driver who plays it knows he has a good a chance of winning the drivers title as the other guy and he doesn't really care if he finishes second or last!
This idea has about as much value as the rediculous 39th Premiership Game - at least that idea is flat in the water, i can't believe they've pushed this one through!
Complain about this comment
To GChap1
The F1 points system works on countback. If drivers are tied on wins, it goes to how many second places you have; if they are tied on those as well, it is thirds and so on. In 1981, Prost had two second places (Germany and Las Vegas) to Piquet's one (Holland). Piquet's three third places compared to Prost's one don't come into it.
Complain about this comment
Bad idea.
If they want to encourage overtaking then why is monaco in the calender?
Complain about this comment
Wouldn't it make sense if we asked the Drivers, who actually do the "fighting", to decide and agree on the rules?
The old system is better than the proposed "new" for many reasons already enumerated on the other comments.
A better way to make drivers drive even "more entertainingly" would be to increase the points difference between the top finishers.
That way you encourage drivers to "drive to win", and to "drive to complete the race".
Of course, I bet the new system is going to go ahead anyway :-((
Can we therefore add this rule: If a driver is judged to have "accidentaly-on-purpose" "taken-out" another driver on the race track, the offending driver should be banned from the game FOR LIFE!
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
Sorry, it appears that I may have jumped to conclusions, clearly you didn't make your position on a por-British bias. I think after the last few years coverage of formula one in the British media people are afraid of the BBC taking over where ITV left off when it comes to being blindly pro-Hamilton. Hopefully this will not be the case.
Complain about this comment
My solution to the whole thing has been to watch Moto GP instead.
Easy peasy.
Complain about this comment
FatBoyW's comment #33 about going back to watching the cycling got me thinking about this completely idiotic proposal :-
Abandon points, wins etc. and just go with the cumulative time driven over the season, like in the grand tours. Lapped cars have their race time padded out with their average lap time for the race. Non-finishers get the time of the last actual finisher + 1 second. Championship positions decided on lowest cumulative time. Maybe leave the constructors' championship based on points.
Am I now officially more bonkers than Barmie Ecclestone?
Complain about this comment
It's all a bit academic to say IF this new system was in place last year then Hamilton would not have won the championship...
For a start it seems a bit more unlikely that his demotion in the belgium gp would have happened since being docked 4 points is not a bad as having what would be a precious win taken away. And also giving Masa the win would have seemed very generous given how important they would have been.
The main thing I can't get my head around is that if one driver is consistently 2nd or 3rd across a large number of races but fails to win any and one of his rivals crash out for many races but wins, say, 4 races, the second driver could be down in history as the 'champion' despite lots of ups and downs and a much lower points tally... Okay, maybe an unlikely scenerio, but this change could make a mockery of the championship...
Complain about this comment
The only reason that the notion of the most wins not winning the championship has come back last year is because second place now carries too many points in relation to first.
The biggest problem with medals/wins isnt that the season could finish early, that is there with points as well, it is that there is no point racing for second or third. At a course where one team is faster than the rest it would make sense for all the other cars to simply pull out after a few laps to save thier engines.
Complain about this comment
someone needs a good spanking to get some commin sense into them
Complain about this comment
Hi
Dokita says: Wouldn't it make sense if we asked the Drivers, who actually do the "fighting", to decide and agree on the rules?"
Chances of Max Mosley doing that are non-existent, but I will be asking Mark Webber tomorrow - and I'll let you know what he says.
Complain about this comment
Another championship yet to be mentioned is 2005, which really is the season that demonstrates the problem with this system. Raikkonen had a quicker car, but was more unreliable and more erratic where as Alonso was more consistant. They both finished on equal wins, if Raikkonen suspension had survived one more lap of the Nurburgring he would have had more wins but still less points at the end of the season.
The new system is weighted too heavilly towards raw speed in the car rather than consistency. In '05 Alonso and Renault were worthy champions because they were more consistant but if a season similar to 2005 were to happen again, it's highly likely that the inconsistant team would win the title.
Complain about this comment
I personally was angered by the announcement that wins would define the champion. This is not what formula one fans want surely? Ecclestone is apparently unaware of what real formula one fans want. By 2012 he'll probably have all the cars driving on oval tracks where they only have to turn left, exactly the reason why I have no interest at all in NASCAR. This system cheapens the formula for me. Taking away the points system, as a title decider, also removes another element that creates exitement in F1, and that is permutations. The tension at the last GP last season was created by the fact that Lewis Hamilton only had to finish 5th, Massa HAD to win. 2007 Raikkonen HAD to win with Alonso finishing no higher than 3rd and Hamilton no higher than 5th. The 2006 season Schumacher HAD to win to have any chance of winning the title, what a race that was! It's as if appeasing the lowest common denominator has become more important than the integrity of the sport. I hope I'm proved wrong.
Complain about this comment
I think the main problem with the change is the worsening effect it will have on team favouritism to a particular driver which has been a problem in the sport for a while.
If for instance, Felipe Massa wins the first 2 races, it's likely that Ferrari would already feel compelled to put their resources into him even if Kimi is second to him both times.
Is the same rule in place for the constructors' championship too?
Complain about this comment
Ludicrous change to F1 - the only great thing about this season now will be the fact that there are no adverts!!
So it would appear that the WDC will be won solely by whoever gets a clean start from pole position and then leads from the front. Clearly a ploy to gift Massa the title before Ferrari ditch him from the team.
I sincerely hope I am wrong..............
Complain about this comment
A premiership team draws all 36 games and thus ends on 36 points. Another team wins 5 matches and loses the rest, ending on 15 points. Why should the more consistently good team fair worse than the team that may have got lucky on a few occasions?
Similarly, if (say) Massa is 2 wins in front of Hamilton before the penultimate grand prix, what's to stop him causing Hamilton to fall off the track in the knowledge that even if he loses points or is demoted, it won't make any difference?
It could also be the case that somehow Hamilton is 5 wins behind with 4 races left but is only 14 points behind or so....still a chance of winning in the points system, but no chance in the new scenario. Why watch that? Where's the excitement? The drama? There is none.
It may well be boring anyway though. Last season, Ferrari were good in hot dry conditions but were absolutely useless in wet conditions. Ergo, as most races take place in spring/summer (northern hemisphere) and mostly in that said hemisphere, Ferrari would have had a huge advantage in this new scenario.
This news has made me really irritated.
Complain about this comment
This is an impossibly stupid solution to a real problem, and one that will remove much motivation on drivers, and especially championship contenders, to fight for podium places. The upshot will be far less competion all round and even more boring "races", especially in an era of a dominant driver such as Clark, or Senna or Schumacher, A much more coherent response would be to widen the points gap between first and second, and between second and third, plus add a point for pole position and another for fastest lap. This rewards drivers who are the fastest at all levels of competion. Under such a system, Moss would have won in 1958, Clark in 1964 and 1967 — but also in 1962 — and ditto for almost all the other cases mentioned above.
Complain about this comment
I absolutely hate this new system! I wasn't keen on the medal idea but even that was better then this awful mess of a compromise.
I think the things that have annoyed me the most about this sorry affair is that Mad Max said the Medal system would only be brought in if the fans liked it, they didn't, so what did Max do next to appease Bernie? He made up his own even worse system, didn't consult fans or even the teams about it and rushed it through the World Council, just 2 weeks before the start of the season so nobody can object. Nice...
It's incredibly sad that the FIA are now passing rules which are literally only wanted by one man. The new system is neither wanted by the fans or the competitors, sadly though, what FOM want, FOM get.
Never has so much been done for so few...
Complain about this comment
The problem with this system is that theoretically, if the same two drivers finish first and second in the first 9 races (one driver winning them all) the championship would already be over. But under the FOTA proposal, the driver who has won all 9 races (Driver A) would have only a 27-point advantage over the one who has finished second nine times (Driver B), and it only takes a couple of DNFs for Driver A and for Driver B to win those races and the title race is back on. This would keep fans interested for potentially much longer.
Complain about this comment
Why Change something that didn't need changing in the first palce. Thanks to the current point sysytem that started in 2003, we've had 4 championships that were decided at the last race (03, 06, 07 & 08) What more could a race fan ask for.
It's when stuff like this happens, you know Bernie, Max and the FIA are just fiddling. Everything is perfect but they wanna make it better, but it doesn't need to be better, it's perfect as it is. I was all in favour of FOTA's idea just to tweak the points just a little to increase the gap between 1st and 2nd and possibly a point for Pole Position.
Instead Bernie, Max and the FIA get thier way, they prob weren't even considering what FOTA were offering and clearly haven't listened to the us the F1 Fans.
I'am hoping this won't effect the racing and it prob won't. But with some of the secenarios you guys have been coming up with, if any of these became true there are gonna be some very angry tv viewers and race fans all over the world.
Complain about this comment
Thank you, Andrew Benson, for your clarification. It would've been unjust on Piquet, I feel. Prost only finished 6 races out of 15 that year! It would've also been absurd that Andretti would've been 1977 champion surmounting a gap of 25 points by virtue of more wins than Lauda.
I take the point that racing attitude is defined by the scoring system so we can't say that results would've been same in the past when racing under the 'medal system'. However, now that it has been introduced, I'm not so positive about the season to come.
Complain about this comment
Andrew is right in pointing out the longer-term announcement with the biggest impact will likely the the second - that of the budget 'cap' on spending (which would be near impossible to regulate surely?) However the points issue is the current talking point & the more I think about it the more I see it being a bad idea.
Let's get back to the decision itself though - something which has not been given much prominence is the event of the week before. FOTA agreed to a points system of 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1, which of course would give the winning driver a bigger reward and indeed incentive. (Personally I'd have gone 12-8-6 etc to mirror the old system - albeit keeping 8 points paying positions to compensate the lower teams for increased reliability of top cars always finishing at the front)
The point is that this would have more than adequately solved Ecclestone's problem of incentive for victory. BUT it was FOTA that came up with it. In my view this was a purely political statement to remind the teams that Ecclestone is in charge.
What is so crucial is that for the FIRST time in decades the teams are united together in one body. This is incredibly significant in the politics of F1. It's not Bernie & Ferrari vs the rest. FOTA could actually now have a massive say in how the sport is run - contrary to Ecclestone's traditional autocratic rule.
I believe the next Concorde Agreement is up for renewal relatively soon (2010?) Surely now it is time for the teams to go it alone. Bring back the soul of F1.
After all the money are problems stem from the greed of the organisers. The teams do not get a big enough percentage of revenue, hence none of the teams makes a profit. This wasn't a problem pre-recession, but now.. With CVC (Bernie's rights holder) eyeballed with debt after securing rights, money is made by going to oil-rich Asia with governments prepared to pay obscene amounts to stage a race, usually on circuits built under instruction from BE that offer little overtaking anyway.
We want the Tifosi of Imola. The securing of Silverstone and Spa. The speed & excitement of Montreal. Grand Prix State-side. No more desert races with empty stands.
FIA and Ecclestone out. Bring back the soul of F1.
(Apologies for the length, a spleen needed venting..)
Complain about this comment
Andrew is right in pointing out the longer-term announcement with the biggest impact will likely the the second - that of the budget 'cap' on spending (which would be near impossible to regulate surely?) However the points issue is the current talking point & the more I think about it the more I see it being a bad idea.
Let's get back to the decision itself though - something which has not been given much prominence is the event of the week before. FOTA agreed to a points system of 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1, which of course would give the winning driver a bigger reward and indeed incentive. (Personally I'd have gone 12-8-6 etc to mirror the old system - albeit with 8 points paying positions to compensate the lower teams for increased reliability of top cars always finishing at the front)
The point is that this would have more than adequately solved Ecclestone's problem of incentive for victory. BUT it was FOTA that came up with it. In my view this was a purely political statement to remind the teams that Ecclestone is in charge.
What is so crucial is that for the FIRST time in decades the teams are united together in one body. This is incredibly significant in the politics of F1. It's not Bernie & Ferrari vs the rest. FOTA could actually now have a massive say in how the sport is run - contrary to Ecclestone's traditional autocratic rule.
I believe the next Concorde Agreement is up for renewal relatively soon (2010?) Surely now it is time for the teams to go it alone. Bring back the soul of F1.
After all the money are problems stem from the greed of the organisers. The teams do not get a big enough percentage of revenue, hence none of the teams makes a profit. This wasn't a problem pre-recession, but now.. With CVC (Bernie's rights holder) eyeballed with debt after securing rights, money is made by going to oil-rich Asia with governments prepared to pay obscene amounts to stage a race, usually on circuits built under instruction from BE that offer little overtaking anyway.
We want the Tifosi of Imola. The securing of Silverstone and Spa. The speed & excitement of Montreal. No more desert races with empty stands.
FIA and Ecclestone out. Bring back the soul of F1. (Apologies for the length, a spleen needed venting..)
Complain about this comment
Fair enough article, except the thing about Mansell. He was not an amazing driver and could only win the title when he had a car that was far far more advanced than any other car on the grid.
Complain about this comment
This argument has highlighted a massive dilemma in formula 1.
By enforcing the wins system i think that formula 1 is going to suffer because of the fact that tactical aspect of winning a title is going to be lost. There is more entertainment to an individual race than purely who wins it, the overall points standing in the points championship adds a fascinating dimension to the action that occurs. Under the wins system, where will the entertainment be on those frequesntly occuring weekends where one team dominates from friday onwards?
I do understand the viewpoint that there should be more incentive to race up front. Despite my earlier point, i can see the point of view that drivers settling for 2nd or 3rd instead of trying for 1st has resulted in less driving action than there could have been, and there should be some alterations to the system.
Nobody wants to see a title decided with 3 races left, neither does anyone want to see a succession of races where ferrari/mclaren don't want to gamble for 2 points at the risk of losing 6 or 8. I think as a comprimise, the best option is a restructuring of the point system where the gaps between 1st and 4th are greater (e.g. 14,10,7,5,4,3,2,1).
In this way hopefully both the individual races and the overall championship would make for an exciting season of formula 1!
Complain about this comment
Consistancy has to be part of being a champion. It is possible under this system that a driver who wins 5 or 6 races and fails to finish the other races could be crowned champion ahead of a driver who wins 1 race less but scores points in all of the other races.
As other people have said, increasing the spread of points for the first 3 places would seem a far better solution.
Complain about this comment
sporran@93
If 17 drivers have 1 win each and all have the same 10 points, how do you decide which driver should be crowned champion? Give it to the driver of a red car I guess!
Complain about this comment
If the teams had any guts, they would get rid of those numpties Max & Bernie and set up their own championship. Then they could keep all the revenues for themselves instead of Bernie creaming off half of it for doing nothing.
Complain about this comment
The thing about Fomula 1 and Football for that matter are that the results are put into a table and at the end of the season the "consistently" best performing teams finish at the top. Generally the better 'team' usually wins - but not always. There are always upsets. More so in Football than Formula 1, where lower league teams quite often beat top of the table teams - but it does happen in Formula 1 - especially in unusual weather conditions - and being in the right place at the right time (ie avoiding accidents ahead). Therefore I think the current points per race system works best. Incidentally I dont agree with football play offs either - why should a team that finishes 10+ points above its nearest rivals have to play them for the chance to be promoted. It should be automatic - consistency over the season.
Complain about this comment
Couple of comments on this sytem in general. I'm undecided on whether this is a good or bad idea myself as on the one hand this will stop people like Lewis Hamilton going into a race stating: "I only need a second or third place in this race" or something of the sort but as a traditionalist I always adored the points system and despite there still being points as a big part of it, it's just not the same. The Mathematical Genius' will also need extra pen and paper to claculate the "what ifs" after every grand prix also.
On the article and I noticed two things which came to my memory. Firstly - "Worryingly for the future, there is the probability under the medal system that in a season of dominance - such as that enjoyed by Michael Schumacher and Ferrari in 2004 - the championship would be decided far earlier than under the current points system, with a consequent decline in TV audiences."
To this comment let us not forget that Schumacher won the Championship in Magny Cours and that was with the current points system so I don't think in that respect the new system would make much change to this. It's the same principle in reality but just gives drivers more motivation and more reason to fight in every aspect of F1 which can only be a plus point, surely?
Secondly to the people that are obivous more McLaren-biased in this section because of the LH influence.. what decision in 2008 did the Stewards get wrong?
Grid Drop in Malaysia - both McLarens on wasting time costing Heidfeld and Trulli preciosu tenths in their Pole Position Push.
Belgium - As Alonso was forced to be overtaken about 3 times in 06 against Klien, Hamilton should have let Raikonnen do likewise here to makesure they didn't win a penalty.
Canada - I don't need to explain myself here surely.
France - As we've learnt plenty of times from Monza, cutting the chicane is gaining an unfair advantage and therefore breaching the rules so what hamilton did here without then conceding the place is unacceptable and warrants a penalty.
Japan - Perhaps the most dubious one but then again Hamilton went too crazy at the start and took half the grid onto the gravel with him including his nearest rivals that weren't able to turn in with an out of control McLaren.
Can't think of any more on the top of my head but Last Season the Stewards were fair and reasonable in every way possible.
Complain about this comment
Again the sport is being ruined by 2 dictators, who have no conception of what the ordinary fans want, and one in particular, Bernie Ecclestone, who has consistently increased costs in F1, by his ever increasing demands for fees for holding races as particular venues. Heaven help any that will not pander to his whims.
The other who loves all racings cars providing they're red, insists in setting regulations without full regard for the ever increasing costs, his new rules involve. If it ain't broke, don't fix is a pretty good motto, and maybe they should let the current regulations now agreed run for 2/3 years at least to prevent new tooling costs, new designs etc.
Its time for the sport to give both the boot, they're definitely past there sell by dates! MotoGP and Superbikes are looking more attractive from an F1 fan of 40 odd years.
Complain about this comment
What seems to have passed by the media in the coverage of this story is what happens when a championship contender is down in 4th or 5th after the final pitstop - is he going to push hard to perhaps make it onto the podium and gain the extra points that might swing the championship on the off chance he wins the same number of races as someone else. No - he's going to go easy on the car and settle for his current position - they only have 8 engines for the season remember - so any chance to save the engine will be taken. This will result in the battle for the lower points places being destroyed, which is a shame as its usually the most entertaining part of the race as the leaders are too scared of knocking each other off.
Complain about this comment
this is the final straw.
i find it incredible that a single , near eighty year old man, can pick and choose the rules for a multi million pound contest AFTER the competitors have entered.i can honestly see this as the death knell of F1 as we know it.if the FOTA have any balls, they will break away and form their own series. no teams ,no f1, no bernie ego.
i really hope this happens, it is not right that all these multi million pound operations are dictated to by one pensioner. when are the teams going to wake up and realise that it is they who hold the power?
Complain about this comment
FIA need the teams; the teams don't need FIA. It's time that they walked away and created their own championship - F1 will die anyway.
Complain about this comment
To me, at least when I started watching F1 in the early 90's this particular racing class was all about which teams could produce the technically most advanced cars. What strikes me as most people (who write about this stuff anyway) seem to think that this is entirely correlated with spending power, but can developing an extra little piece of aerodynamically enhanced aerofoil really be more costly to develop than, say, a turbo?
This class used to let the teams develop some innovative designs (remember the 6-wheeled Tyrrell?). On the road some manufacturers prefer to go for light and nimble (á la Lotus) providing cheaper but not necessarily inferior results when compared to the likes of Ferarri, Lambourghini and who have you.
I say, don't force a budget or technology limit on the bigger teams in either the short or long term, and let smaller teams come in on a budget and see what they can produce (I would like the days when the Simtek and Pacific ilk would race to return) if the class appears imballanced then change it accordingly.
Complain about this comment
So Mr. Ecclescake ( I call him this as I am sure that's what he has for brains!) has forced through the most ill-conceived, ill-considered and badly thought out rule of F1 in years. Until the introduction of this idiocy, I had not been so excited nor looked forward so much to a season, then he does this and kills the interest I had in it at a stroke! Surely the point of a cummulative points system, such as we used to have in F1, was to reward the team with the most consistant and reliable car? Conceivably now, given a 17 race season, a team could enter only 9 races having spent the time of the other 8 preparing the car to such a degree that it is unbeatable, barring crash or total system/engine failure and win the championship with only 90 points! This will not encourage better or closer racing with more overtaking, it will merely encourage reckless linacy on the circuit, something all the other changes were supposed to prevebnt, in order to make the cars safer and the likelyhood of crashes next to impossible. I can't help thinking this is a measure to ensure a team that's not calledf McLaren or has a driver who is not whurte wins this year. I'm sorry Mr.Ecclescake, if you can't handle the fact that a council house coloured kid won bnut the days of the gentleman public school racers is long gone, it went with people such as Graham, Jack, Sterling and Jim when they either retired or died, learn to live with it and stop messing about with the sport to your own ends!
Complain about this comment
"This will result in the battle for the lower points places being destroyed, which is a shame as its usually the most entertaining part of the race as the leaders are too scared of knocking each other off."
But maybe the front of the race will be more entertaining now, so you won't have to rely on the battle for lower places to provide the racing.
I don't really agree with the system though. It's a bit like using the max, rather than the mean, to show a difference between two groups. Not very reliable. A smooth, but steeper, points increase would have had the desired effect without being so totally unpredictable.
Complain about this comment
Thinking about this logically. I'm not a hater or anything but do you think that they would've thought of this idea if McLaren hadn't of told Lewis to "not waste precious points" and "Drive Safe" sort of thing.
I do however heartly disagree with what they have done, the championship will most likely be between 2 people at the most rather than 3 or 4. However this COULD make for more interesting racing, I guess we all will have to let it have its chance and see if anything "good" comes out of it.
Complain about this comment
Very harsh on Mike Hawthorn there! Hawthorn died in a road accident less than three months after winning the World Championship (aged just 29), having taken one win and six podiums out of nine Grands Prix in the 1958 season, the first season he ever participated in the full calendar. His "solitary" win, at Reims, was completely dominant lights-to-flag affair in which he also set the fastest lap and kept second-placed Moss in his shadow the whole day. He was also a past winner of the Le Mans 24 hours, and nobody knows how many more wins and great performances he might have gone on to pick up.
A bit of respect please!
Complain about this comment
Formula one, some 6-10 years ago had a formula which worked. There were independant teams, there was over taking, it was 6 points for a win, qualifying was on a Saturday, before the footie but after football focus or some other such program. Cars got faster and faster and bigger and better, over taking dissappeared because the tracks didn't evolve with the cars, and rules started to change. I would warrent Formula 1 will go the way of snooker that was at it's televised high day in the early 80s. Soon it will be a sport few watch. You cannot exist by changing the rules every year and expecting fans to keep up and believe.
It's a way of life for those who are very rich, it has a fan base but the filthy rich Mosely and Ecclestone, just want more money, they are far removed from what it is to be fans and their meddling has ruined a wonderful sport. I can't imagine Seinna, or Moss, or Hunt, or Graham Hill looking on with a lot of keaneness to the new season... it's become a circus and the clowns are in control.
Complain about this comment
Very few pro comments here; well, let's just see how it goes. Many of the ctitisisms of the wins vs. points change are overstated - a title could have been decided early with the points system too you know!
I doubt many drivers will be too concerned - this will suit a racers temperament and driving skills more than the percentage game.
One thing that does come to mind is engine preservation - would it be worth hammering it round if you wen't going to win? We could see some boring crusing going on - but let's see how it goes - it's less than 2 weeks away!
Complain about this comment
It's stupid. So many times the driver at the front gets into an insurmountable lead. The rest of the pack will be racing for nothing
Complain about this comment
I'm with the majority that a revised points system is the best way to determine the WDC for the reasons already discussed.
However, although I like the FOTA-proposed 12-9-7-5 and classic 10-6-4... systems, my brother and I got thinking about a total overhaul and making it more like a fantasy F1. Winning a race would obviously still earn the highest points, but extra points would be awarded for:
Qualifying high, fastest lap, fastest sectors, quickest team pitstop (strategy depending & Constructors only- to ensure no driver bias)
Overtaking:
For leading drivers there's clearly less opportunity so it may seem unfair; so to level things up, award points to drivers who qualify in the top slots and offer more points for passing higher placed drivers e.g. 3rd taking 2nd gets significantly more than 15th taking 14th etc. Note, these points can only be given for a proper on-track wheel-to-wheel pass i.e. no pitstop 'leap-frogging' or positions gained from others' misfortune/retirements. So essentially it would pay to qualify well and aim for a win, but there would be great incentives too for those who overtake- seeing the big guns really battle through the field after a poor qualifying/mistake/problem would be good for the championship and should still satisfy Bernie, Max et al's desires for more action!
I'm not sure how all these points would be broken down, that would require a lot of time and effort to ensure the winners' points take prcedence over a few bonus points. Although a bit confusing I think it could really work and add some extra excitement. Clearly there must be lots of things I've overlooked, but does anyone have any other radical ideas? Constructive comments welcome!
Complain about this comment
New Formula1 motor racing rules:
A Case scenario;
Say there are 9 races in a year.
Hamilton is 2nd to Massa, 4 times – in the earlier races of a year.
Then he is 2nd, twice 2 Raikkonen in the next 2 of which Massa does not gain any points or does not qualify or is disqualified or crashes out.
So, after that if Massa does not qualify/ is disqualified/ crashes out/ ‘decides not 2 participate’ for the remaining 3 races of the season – even if Hamilton wins all of them – Massa would still be the champion of the year.
That is ridiculous!
Championship should be about (relative) consistency, ‘stamina’.
Or,
Say 8 races for the season.
One of them wins 4. Another wins the next, but is disqualified 4 the one after that – in which one, the 4 time winner ‘4 reasons beyond 1s control’ did not participate. Then the 4 time need not participate in any of the remaining 2!
Then where will the interest in the remaining races come from?
Come on ‘F1’, get an ‘FSA’!
Complain about this comment
Also more words to write/rant about is that they shud've just given the driver who wins more points, like FOTA suggested and most of the fans suggested. It wud've almost garanteed the person who wins the most races as the winner but still wudn't have ppl coming in 2nd and 3rd more disappointed and ppl from 4th-8th still quite happy with the points they receive. I think they shud've introduced 3 championships (Drivers, Constructors and Winners/Medals championship), This wud increase the will to win and get at least in the top 3. It would be interesting though to see two cars of the same team battle it out for first more often. Something I miss when Alonso and Hamilton were on the same team ;).
Complain about this comment
If Max&Bernie really want to make F1 more exciting they first need to create circuits where over taking is possible no need to do anything else its simple
Complain about this comment
We have just come out of one of the best seasons ever, with the championship being decided on the last corner of the last race, in what way do we need to improve on that !!!!
F1 isnt just about being the best, it is about being the best and most consistent Driver Team combination at each race throughout the season, to Bernies question, should a team that comes second at every race triumph over a team that wins the odd race, my answer would be an absolute yes. A team that wins the odd race, and then crashes out or breaks down for the remaining races does not deserve to win the Championship.
So in reality, if it is 5-5 wins, two drivers coming around the last race, the guy in second is leading on points, but the man in front of him will now take the championship, is he not going to push outright to force a mistake or an accident so as to take the championship, how is that racing ??
And one other thing, the Teams let it be known quite clearly that none of them give a damn about the Drivers Championship, that will always be secondary to the Constructors. So Drivers in these situations may find themselves under orders to hold position so as to preserve the Points Constructors, as opposed to risking all to get first and win the Drivers.
If you are going to do it, do it for both Championships, but preferably "Leave it alone Bernie" there has been enough change this year with KERS, Aero, Slicks etc, lets see what that does before you meddle anymore.
Complain about this comment
The new system reflects the prevalent public perception that the current world champion is without any question the most undeserving one in recent history, and the general sense of injustice that ensued.
The change is in complete contrast to the governing body's prior principles regarding this subject, and is nothing more than a desperate and poorly executed attempt not to let this happen again.
Complain about this comment
What exactly did Bernie thing was broken that required "fixing"?
Complain about this comment
This is a horrible idea. Either stick with a point system, and adjust how the points are spread (for example,. gives the winner 20 instead of 10 points, while the second place remains 8, etc), or use a medal system that in the event of a tie in wins, then the person with the most seconds takes the title, and if there is still a tie, then you keep comparing the next lower place until there is a winner: You have to totally scrap the point system.
Notice that under the point system for the past 59 years, the right man usually wins the championship, and most often than not happen to be the person with most wins, or with the second most wins (most likely one win less than the person with the most wins).
If we were to have a typical Schumacher-like season again and we use number of wins to determine the champion, the title race would have been over before the season still has more than 1/3 of the races to go. In fact, Schumacher could have stayed home in Switzerland for the rest of the year without racing again.
Personally I wonder if the idea of a champion must have most wins have something to do with Ferrari's situation last year. Situations like this happen all the time, but nobody ever complains.
It will be shame to change the system. I, for one, will no longer follow F1 if this happens.
Complain about this comment
I think this new points system is very silly and further more i predict that it will not be long before they revoke it.
Picture this, they want to increase competition but a driver can win the first 9 races and he can retire for the rest of the season and still win! at least with points there is still a chance someone else can win
Ok thats a bit unlikely but a driver still can win lost of races early, and if other drivers are not cosistant then he has pretty much won.
Also last season the season went right down to the last turn of the last lap of the last race, you cannot get closer than that!
One final thing... Do you know any fan who approves of this new scoring system? Who are they really doing this for? I reckon it Bernie trying to take the championship away from Hamilton.
Complain about this comment
Most of the drivers I've ever seen in 2nd place always look like they want to overtake, but it's just not that easy.
With these changes we may just see more reckless (or cynical) manoeuvres, more crashes, and more injuries.
Trying to see something positive in this (and I'm having to look pretty hard), perhaps the driver in 3rd position will just sit tight, hoping that the first two will take each other out and hand him the win.
Complain about this comment
I agree with most of the views above about the new Most wins = championship - its rediculous! This coming season may throw up some surprises (mainly due to reliability issues probably), but once teams settle in to the new rules and the cream rises to the top you'll ultimately end up with a two horse race or even worse one horse race (probably red and prancing to the title early in the season).
One issue I believe that people haven't considered is that the teams will just forget about the drivers title and concentrate on consistency for the Manufacturers title - Frank Williams has always been one for making sure his team wins the title first and foremost for him before he gives a stuff which of drivers wins the drivers title. So, what if - its Massa and Hamilton in the final laps of the final race of season on equal wins. Massa leads with Hamilton second. Hamilton has to win for the drivers title, but McLaren have to make sure he finishes at least second to win the manufacturers - Do they tell Hamilton to push on and risk the car for both titles or would they tell him to settle for second and guarantee the Manufacturers title?! This scenario could be worsened if the two teams are Toyota and BMW going for their first manufacturers titles.
If I was Maxie Ecclesley......
Qualifying
Sessions one and two remain the same with 5 slowest drivers eliminated each time. Remaining 10 drivers go one car at a time on track for one hot lap (i.e. out lap, hot lap, in lap) - so only one shot for pole. Driver 10th in session two would be first to go then 9, 8, 7, etc down to 1st. Cars would have low fuel for all sessions, so drivers would be flat out! 1 point for pole position.
Race Points for top 8
15, 10, 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 and if equal points at end of season THEN driver with most wins, wins the title!
Complain about this comment
115. At 5:36pm on 18 Mar 2009, complete_idiot wrote:
"just go with the cumulative time driven over the season, like in the grand tours. Lapped cars have their race time padded out with their average lap time for the race. Non-finishers get the time of the last actual finisher + 1 second. Championship positions decided on lowest cumulative time. Maybe leave the constructors' championship based on points. Am I now officially more bonkers than Barmie Ecclestone?"
No, actually this makes sense. I have not checked the rule book on FIA, but in FIM (motorcycling), this is the last way to decide a championship:
Points, Wins, seconds, thirds, etc. If all tied, then the accumulative
time will decide the championship. It actually happened before, in 1972, when Angel Nieto won the 50cc GP championship by elapsed time.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, I just wrote post 161 and then read post 155 and he has mentioned my same theory about teams caring about the manufacturers title! I also agree Bernie needs to stop 'medal-ing'!
Complain about this comment
Refer to my last post: Nieto beat De Vries by 21.5 seconds.
Complain about this comment
I feel its starting to get a bit of a joke how much Bernie and Max (the FIA) are messing with the sport, potentially in 2009 we could have a world champion who wins five times through the year but scores no more points for the rest of it,winning over a person who scores double the points. This is on the back of the FIA year on year asking the manufacturers to make engines last more and more races before changing them, i.e wanting reliability, and then penalising them for it!
Complain about this comment
"Winner takes all" is too simplistic, no need to say how it will fail to up the bar of the competition. Why aren't they creative enough to cater the following facts:
=it's harder to win in rainy condition
=some circuits offer less overtaking opportunities.
By then, we should make categories based on how easy it is to win. Count in 5-6 factors such as overtaking difficulties, number of corners, etc. and come up with 4-5 categories of venues. If you win at Cat 1, you get 9 points, if it's Cat 2, it becomes 10, and so on.
Add D-Day factor to upgrade or downgrade category, e.g. if it is rainy in 30% of total time, Cat 1 will be considered Cat 2. If 50% of the cars quit halfway through the race, a Cat 2 will be a Cat 1.
This way, Vettel's win last season would be worth more than any of Massa's wins. This way, strategy will be a lot more complex. Do we have to abandon Monaco, do we have to fight all the way for Singapore, and so on.
As points may be increased or decreased at the end of the race day, the result can ***NOT be expected*** until the chequered flag is waved. And anything hard to predict is worth watching AND competing, right?
Or maybe Mosley and Ecclestone are just old enough by now to prefer simple things?
Complain about this comment
I have already posted stating how stupid an idea I think this is and agree with the majority of people who have posted here, that consistency over a season should be more important than race wins.
I think that by increasing points value for the win (as previously suggested 15 points for 1st, 10 for 2nd, 8 for 3rd, 6 for 4th, 4 for 5th, 3 for 6th, 2 for 7th, 1 for 8th) is a great idea that would place more emphasis on racing for the win.
However the new regulations regarding larger front wings are stupid, and instead of encouraging over taking will have the oposite effect. We are likely to see drivers backing off more as it will be easier to lose a wing and rule yourself out of a race and the championship. Good idea to encourage overtaking you prats change the rules that will further restrict overtaking and the punishment for taking risks more sever.
Why not go the whole hog and ask teams to drive around in inflatable cars limited to walking speed?
I also agree that points awarded for qualifying in pole position would be a good idea, heck 2 points would make pole very sought after as it is potentially more points than can be achieved in the race and would see some teams taking a chance on some extreme stratergies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Something else to think about:
Imagine if this year if two drivers are on an equal number of wins but one of the drivers has to start at the back of the field and his main rival is on pole. There is little chance of him catching his main rival so in theory he would be better dropping down the field and colliding with his rival as he tries to overtake, wiping him out of the race and preventing him winning the championship.
Would we be praising how close a season it was? No merely how barmey the rules have got, and how dangerous it has become
Also, should the title be decided early, who will be watching the last couple of races of the season?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do the FIA aim to regulate a two tier system in 2010 when they can't regulate everyone allegedly adhearing to one set of rules.
Bernie and Max don't read comments posted by fans, it is the people with money who they listen to (sponcers, publicists, etc) as such if all the teams broke away together and raced under another banner they could do sweet FA to stop them and we could see a return to sanity. Either that or create another tier in which all the cars are the same.... hang on don't we already have that in Formula Renault?
Leave the sport alone, Stop medaling with the rules and if it's not broke don't fix it. I know you don't want to lose face but if your not careful just when F1 starts to become credible and exciting you are gonna put the sport back years and lose the fans you already have.
Complain about this comment
in response to 138.....
all of the stewards decisions were fair? OK, so you are obviously anti mclaren/hamilton. Lets talk about the 2 unsafe pit releases... the first was 'we'll wait until after the race' when they could impose a time penalty which didnt affect the outcome, and the second where they imposed a drive trough penalty when it didnt affect the outcome because massa was never going to get anywhere near winning. In the first instance, a drive through would probably have cost massa the win.
Complain about this comment
Very good artical and unlike most comments pages it's not full of hateful people just taking cheap digs at each other. Well done to you all.
Bernie and Max are surely shooting themselves in the foot. The popularity of F1 is that it's about being the fastest, richist, and most evnyable motorsport on the planet. Drawing media hype, rich business men with posh boats and celebrities from all corners of the globe. It could get swollowed up by Indy Car if they're not careful.....terrifying! Lets not forget why we all watch it and have been for the past 10 years. It's about bragging rights for us and the companies who compete. Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault, BMW, Toyota and Honda are involved to sell their product and to be able to mass produce little sticker for the windows of their road cars to tell everyone that "hey, we won the most highly regarded and expensive motor race in the world so buy our cars will you, please!" They do the same thing for WRC. (Except the people running that are doing a much better job, well they could do any worse than Bernie and Max)But i'm sure that any fan who drives a toyota has a little bit in them thinking i really hope Toyota do well even if they have a Ferrari baseball cap at home!
If they stop F1 being about car developement, and being as good as you can be and start running a lower tier race along side it like privatiers that we see in British Touring Cars in the late 90's, eventually all the big afore mentioned manufactures will pull the plug on it and it will be a total joke. It's like they (Bern and MM) are killing the very soul of the sport. It's change for change sake. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" that should be a lesson for us all. I'm all for new teams coming into the sport like Prodrive for example and cutting cost is going to be necessary with the current economic climet but this is more like butchering F1. I say slow down the changes, easy does it all the rule changes and including points systems, aero and tyre changes should have been agreed long ago before the teams comitted to the season. I think the whole thing could very easily be the end of F1 if the wrong people are left in charge any longer. I wish we had got rid of Mosely when we had the chance.
If F1 slips from grace into the just another motor sport people will not watch. We watch it because it's expensive, glamourous and exciting.
Why do they not listen to the fans? We are the audiance who buy the tickets and the people that purchase the products suck to the sides of the cars yet we are ignored as usual.
Complain about this comment
Sir Bernard of F1 is just dumbing down the championship so he can explain it more easily to the likes of Paris Hilton and the other "celebs" who hang out in the paddock at various races.
Besides if a Ferrari doesn't win this season Max will make sure there's a further "revision" to the rules...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Can anyone explain why FOTA do not breakaway from FIA?
Complain about this comment
It seems like an extremely flawed concept. If there is more than one obvious title contender and the competition is in 5th place for example, why would they push the engine/gearbox etc when they might as well just stay in 5th and save the engine etc for next race.
This will mean that racing is more limited with the new rules.
There is no point looking with hindsight at past championships either as drivers may have raced differently with different rules.
Complain about this comment
With the new rules can we anticipate that once the championship is won
what point is there in running the rest of the races. I have been watching F1 for 25 + years and have enjoyed the spectacle of this blue ribbon event. Now can I expect the drivers to bother about racing once they are the champion , or will it be a case of turn up and save the engine etc.
I know this will sound bad , but If I were team boss and my driver is champion , I would turn up for the rest of the season not bothering to compete, but use the remaining grands prix as a good testing time for next year.
Complain about this comment
The new championship system is great. Finally, what real racing is about and that is coming first!
Benefits of the new system.
- Team errors resulting from mechanical failures and pitstop mistakes won't affect the DRIVERS world championship to the same extent. Lost points through these things have counted for more than the points advantage through races won in previous years - I'm thinking of Massa last year, Raikkonen in 2005, Senna in 1989, and Mansell in 1987.
- Gives more meaning to races won in head-to-head combat. What the points system currently suggests is that a race won by a driver when his rival leading him has his engine expire is worth FIVE times more than if that person won the race in a driver vs driver duel and they finished first and second. Difference of 10 point gap vs 2. The best driver performances of all time have been ones like Mansell at Silverstone 87 and Hungary 89.
- Obviously it encourages the driver to win and not just settle for podiums. I'm Alonso's greatest Australian fan, but how tame was the back end of the 2005 WDC? How much better would it have been if that championship was decided on wins?
Complain about this comment
Regardless of intent it is a bad idea for so many reasons.
F1 is not just about the classy drive from pole to win, it is about the gritty ride of a title contender from a rubbish grid slot(penalty, mechanical or whatever) to get a foot on the podium and some points.
I think we will see contenders with bad grid slots putting in a cautious 20 laps and retiring with an 'electrical' problem.
First or nothing is a recipe for cavalier maneouvers.
Complain about this comment
Is Bernie Ecclestone Andy Warhol in disguise?
Complain about this comment
OK once again just another ridiculous idea from Bernie Ecclestone. One minute he's blasting Lewis Hamilton for trying to overtake drivers to win races and next he's changing the system to promote overtaking!!! Now does BE simply hate Lewis Hamilton or is he just another unpatriotic idiot. Another point (no pun intended) is that if by the last race a driver is 2 wins in front of all others how is that going to make any difference to that of the Brazil 2008 race???? IT WONT! Just leave the bloody system alone, and if you feel you must mess with F1 BE then how about sorting out the stewards!
There...rant over
Complain about this comment
Do engines still have to last 2 races?
Last year it better to finish both races with, say, 2 3rd places, so engines were tuned accordingly. This year it will be better to finish 1st in one race and not finish the 2nd. Top teams will split the drivers so that they have their new engines in alternate races, so effectively only half the championship contenders will be racing at any time.
Complain about this comment
I don't like that 2nd place has been devalued. I've seen many races where circumstances have made the drive for 2nd a better drive than for the win and I now fear that this change will mean that the drivers will adopt a "Win it or Bin it" mentality where only first is a result. Title contender A could spin off on the first lap for a DNF while title contender B could have a great race and finish 2nd. Contender B has gained no advantage over contender A who has been drinking tea all afternoon as neither of them got a win. Contender B in this position has to make a move in 1st place even it results in both of them crashing out as a result, 2nd is nothing to him, he might as well risk ruining somebody else race to see if he can get the win. I think this will result in unsporting behaviour or demotivation to anybody not 1st. It will be changed back but Bernie likes to court controversy and to hmi the 'Show' is prime and sport secondary.
Complain about this comment
i'm not liking the points idea myself (it's actually completely crazy), but that's not to say we couldn't have a championship going down to the last race as last year - although no last lap drama!
as for the split-level championship thing, imo there will be teams who pull out of f1 if this idea - or something similar - is not implemented. If a team has to cut their budget and therefore would race at the back of the grid what would be the point?
Complain about this comment
Like so many other people writing here, i was actually looking forward to this season and how the drivers would cope with the new "toys" and the increased chance of overtaking due to slick tyres and decreased reliance on downforce.
The most wins system I'm afraid has spoilt it for me. It doesn't reward the driver who is most consistent and has a car that does well on the majority of tracks. Take this as an example: Massa wins 7 gp, but dnfs all of the remaining races. Hamilton wins 6 and finishes 2nd in all of the remaining races. Other wins are spread amongst the field. Massa would be crowned world champion, when Hamilton is clearly the more consistent driver. Is that really fair? It's a crazy idea. No longer does team tactics, fuel stops, tyre selection and car set up really matter.
Ecclestone and Mosley between them ought to listen to the people who make them so much money for once. Perhaps its time for a change of guard at the FIA and FOM, as the system the teams proposed: 12 points for a win, 9 for second etc, was thrown out. A much better idea that rewards a driver for finishing first, but not taking others out the entire game completely.
Please stop this. I go to Silverstone every year and enjoy it thoroughly. Only this year, i don't think i actually believe in how the championship will be awarded, so i'll probably find the GP2 series more interesting.
Complain about this comment
This all stems from Bernie's irational hatred of Lewis Hamilton.
"A driver who finishes 5th should win the title"....He finished 5th in 1 race, and he'd earned the right to do that by being consistant the rest of the season & having a 7 point lead. In fact it should have already been tied up were it not for the nonsence that was Belguim. Absolute joke.
Complain about this comment
Obviously that was meant to say "A driver who finishes 5th shouldn't win the title"...
Complain about this comment
With the new rules and point scoring system, Bernie and Max have just waved two fingers up at the race fans. Despite this, I bet you any money millions of people around the world will still spend large amounts of cash on tickets, or tune in. This will go to show that Bernie and Max can do what the hell they like, and I assure you they will as long as the fans keep turning up in their millions.
Complain about this comment
I was thinking when this was first annouced how stuoid a system it is. I had a thought that technically, a driver could win say four races over a season, but crash out or brake down in every other race, thus only actually getting the forty points for those four wins. Other dirvers could perfom more consistantaly but only win two or three races with a majority of poduim finishs, thus accruwing far more points than the driver with four wins and not tie or surpass the four wins, and as such loose the championship, despite performing better and, more importantly, consistanly over the year.
Surely the idea is to reward the driver and team with the most consistant reults over the year with the championship, not one idiot who goes for broke. How on earth are people supposed to compete for a championship decided purely on the number of wins?
As for budget control, I have to agree with a cost cut. I enjoy F1 greatly, and was looking forward to a cracking and wide open 2009, until the points news of course. For this enjoyment to continue, F1 needs to continue and as such costs need to be cut. However, imposing a voluntery budget cut is not the way to go. The thing to do is to implement compulsary budget cuts, over a number of years, aiming for an overall lower budget to be reached and manitained. For example, over a five year period you could introduce budget cuts of 20 million a year, say from a limit of 120 million, to 100 million to 80 million to 60 million, arriving at 40 million which could then be the permanent cap. this would allows teams to steadily develop a method of working under these constrains whilst keeping a level playing field and not requiring the FIA to interfere in any way.
The major problem is that, although the FIA runs its fan survey, unlike the FOTA it doesn't listen. Instead it chooses bow down at the feet or mr ecclestone and what ever his lastes money making idea is. what they fail to realise is that there is no money without the fans, because if no one watches F1, the sponsors wont be interested. Also, when things like this happen there is no way for fans to make their opinions known, that I know of anyway, by way a a patition or the like that can be sumitted to the FIA to make them listen.
my current feeling is that the FIA should adopt a new slogan, something along the lines of " It ain't broke, but we will fix it anyway".
Complain about this comment
Man, some of the arguments here doesn't seem very credible.
Some have written that if a season is being dominated under the wins system, then the championship will be over sooner. Who cares?? If they're dominating the season they'll be champion no matter what.
Others have written extreme examples like oh what if so-and-so wins the first X number of races and then scores nothing for the rest of the season whilst driver B scores 15 second places. Well, driver B should finish first if he's champion material.
Some of you talk up Kubica last season for his consistency. I like the guy, but his raw speed was nothing special in my view, except for the outstanding drive at Japan. That which he was in the title hunt until China was mainly due to cockups from Hamilton and Ferrari.
The only argument I would accept so far has been the one about drivers starting back of the grid or midfield having a reduced incentive. Otherwise the wins system could be the best thing for F1 and cut drivers who always finish 2nd out of the race for the title which should be awarded to the best!!
Complain about this comment
at first i didnt agree with the points system !
but now i do! i have been thinking about it and i think this will lead to more exciting racing which at the end of the day is what we all want isn't it ? more drivers will go tyre to tyre this season thats for sure!
i remember being disgusted when Emilio Alzamora won the 250cc bikes championship without winning a race in the whole season. I thought to myself what kind of a champion was that? one who doesnt win! a champion needs to win so i guess apart from that fact, the racing will also be more exciting !
I dont understand the other 2 steps in a podium though..
Complain about this comment
so if for example with 3 races to go alonso has 4 more wins than anybody else but was 10 points ahead under the old system he says ive already won the championship i cant be bothered anymore this season will bernie find that more exciting?
Complain about this comment
The Bernie and Max show continues, is it not time for some young blood to come in and consider what the fans want. With the new budget proposals, this surely will confuse most fans. I can now understand why Richard Branson and Dave Richards backed away from joining the GP Circus, who would want to enter this arena with such confusing ground rules, which may change if Bernie decides to throw his teddy out if opposed.
Concerning the medal awards, why change the current set up when we have had 2 excellent seasons, I am sure that most GP drivers given the opporinity would go for a win, but how many realisticaly have that opportunity.
Lets give a bit more thought to what the real fans want.
Complain about this comment
i think we should wait and see! For all we know, it could still go down to the last race, and create more exciting racing, or it could be over just over half way.........i think time will tell if this is a good idea or not! i am just going to wait and see what we get!
Complain about this comment
Like i said in a previous post I still think they shud make 3 seperate Championships. Medals, Drivers, Constructors. This would give everyone what they want (Including Bernie and Max).
Complain about this comment
Also I think the BBC shud be ironic and choose ABBA - The Winner Takes It All song at the end of the season when they show the season highlights haha
Complain about this comment
This is the most important season in Formula One for a very long time in many ways - like the guy said about snooker - this one has to be a cracker to keep the new fans (in this country alone the last race got 5 or 6 million more viewers) watching etc.
This wins count for most system will not help. It is beyond comprehension why they felt that this would be a fairer way to decide the championship or make for more entertaining races.
But the damage will be done I think. By the time they realise it isn't as interesting for the 2010 season, too many of these new fans will have turned away.
Complain about this comment
Add your voice to this petition.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/cancel-the-fia-approved-wdc-selection-criteria-for-f1-world-championship-2009
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I personally am so happy these rules have come through. Last year was bizarre and i honestly thought the quality of driving, as well as communication through the team there really should have been only one winner. The amount of critical errors by Lewis Hamilton in his driving compared with Massa last year makes me feel that Hamilton was not the best driver last year.
With these rules drivers and teams will be encouraged to race for wins, which on a race basis will make the racing more intense. While on a season long basis it will avoid what happened last year. The end of the race last year was something remarkable in the history of F1. It seems to me to be a bit of a let down when 5th place winning the title once the amazment of Hamilton winning on the last corner.
I am not taking anything away from Hamilton as the final table shows he had the most points at the end of the season, but just his driving throughtout the year and the way he approached the last race at Brazil was just not what i have come to expect from the champions i've seen.
2009 will be my 10th year of watching formula 1 (without missing a race) and looking through the champions Hakkinen, Schumacher, Alonso and Raikkonen, they had the following
1998 - Hakkinen 100 points/ 20 in last two races.80 points from wins
1999 - Hakkinen 76 points/ 14 in last two races. 50 points from wins
2000 - Schumacher 108 points/ 40 in last four races. 90 points from wins
2001 - Schumacher 123 points/ 18 in last two races. 90 points from wins
2002 - Schumacher 144 points/ 18 in last two races. 110 points from wins
(Every race finished on podium)
2003 - Schumacher 93 points/ 20 in last three races. 60 points from wins
2004 - Schumacher 148 points/ 10 in last two races. 130 points from wins
2005 - Alonso 133 points/ 16 in last two races. 70 points from wins
2006 - Alonso 134 points/ 18 in last two races. 70 points from wins
2007 - Raikkonen 110 points/ 36 in last four races. 60 points in wins
2008 - Hamilton 98 points/ 24 in last four races. 50 points in wins
At least half the points of a champion come in wins!
Take into account in 2008, the championship was lost in the first two races.
Going into the grand prix of Bahrain
Hamilton had 14 points/ Massa had 0 (one of which was driver error but the other was engine failure.)
Unlike seasons previously the team won the drivers title more than the driver's ability.
Taking the first two races out of the equation
Hamilton had 84 points, while Massa had 97.
I hope 2009 goes down a completely different route. The radical aerodnamic and technical specifications of the cars will, i think, show the smoothest and overall fastest driver come out on top. There are three drivers i think can win this year. Alonso and Raikkonen and Massa. The technical spec of the cars does not credit Hamilton's driving style.
Lets see what happens :) Enjoy the F1 season.
Complain about this comment
We could still get a situation where a driver would settle for 5th on the last day of the season and still win the championship, it all depends how the rest of the season pans out, as it does with the normal points system.
Complain about this comment
If F1 was wheel to wheel racing then I think this rule would be ideal. As F1 is more often than not the guy who gets off the line first wins it is utterly pointless.
Complain about this comment
Last year Hamilton was slated for taking too many risks???? and accused of dangerous driving! So how does this work? Its a joke thats what it is. I have a feeling there willbe a lot of pot kettle black going on this season!
Complain about this comment
This is ridiculous IMO. They had already messed around with the points system twice - once to make wins more valuable, and once to make them much less so - what are they trying to achieve? The problem wasn't with using points to decide the championship, it was with the scale itself - 10 for first, 8 for second just didn't provide enough of an incentive to go for the win. 10/6/4/3/2/1 was by far the best method they have used. If they wanted to give points down to 8th, then something like 15/9/6/5/4/3/2/1 would have been the way to go, preserving the premium for winning.
Complain about this comment
What exactly did Bernie thing was broken that required "fixing"?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Ferrari driver didn't win last year's WDC.
Complain about this comment
At 7:23pm on 18 Mar 2009, Fabbyulous wrote:
"Can't think of any more on the top of my head but Last Season the Stewards were fair and reasonable in every way possible."
Hate to go over old ground but Masa collided with Sebastien Bourdais at Fuji as Bourdais came out of the pits. Bourdais was later adjudged to have been at fault and handed a retrospective 25s time penalty, handing the Ferrari driver a crucial extra point.
It was almost universally agreed (except by the stewards) that Bourdais had done nothing wrong, but Masa stilled gained an extra point.
If this hadn't happened Hamilton would still have been champion even if he'd finished 6th in the last race.
Stuff like this gets forgotton about but the biggest threat to fair play in 2009 is the total NON-TRANSPARENCY of stewards decisions, not points v wins.
Why for instance were the stewards not willing to explain their decision about Hamilton's penalty when it went to court even though it was judged McClaren couldn't appeal?!
Complain about this comment
What they should do!
It was a good move to award more drivers points, so that should stay.
Problem is that finishing first is not awarded well enough. It does not matter that match if you finish first of second.
So.
Award 12 points to first place
8 to second. Keep the current system for the rest.
That would be fair.
It is not fair to award the world title to the driver with less points.
Complain about this comment
Great article. These new rule changes are very upsetting. I've been looking forward to this season so much and now I'm dreading a situation where we know who's won the championship half way through the race calendar.
As has been pointed out, a performance as consistently brilliant as Kubica's last season would go utterly unrewarded now.
It seems clear to me that Bernie and Max do not have the best interests of the sport, the drivers, the teams or the fans at heart. The past couple of years have been so exciting in F1 but the FIA just can't leave well alone. And I agree that it probably has a lot to do with kissing-up to Ferrari. It's just such a shame.
Complain about this comment
The point that really needs hammering home here is the one about team orders. Only ONE CAR is rewarded with a step towards the championship in each race. That means each top team has a spare driver in each race. What do you think they will do with him?
On a points system, teams can afford to let their drivers race each other properly, at least until a clear leader emerges. But if I were a team principal right now, I would be deciding which one of my drivers had the best chance of winning the championship, and setting up my team so that the other driver does everything in his power to get that guy to the top step of the podium.
Any team not making this decision RIGHT NOW must already know they won't win the drivers' championship.
An indication of what effect this will have on racing can be seen from the history of the sport - remember when Senna and Berger were at McLaren? I always thought Berger's name was very apt, meaning shepherd in French (yes, I know he's Austrian and it's probably just a linguistic coincidence). He did indeed shepherd Senna round the track, only racing properly when Senna had either won the title already or retired from the race. The prospect of 5 teams trying this tactic all season fills me with horror.
Complain about this comment
'The best justification for the new system is that, had it been in place for the entire history of F1, it would have left a list of champions that is more satisfying to the purist than the actual list.'
Are you sure? Surely the drivers then drove to the rules in front of them. And who are these la-dee-da purists? A win is a win.
If Hawthorn could do it, so could Moss.
As Webber says:-
'And he said that it was wrong to apply the system to past championships and make value judgements about who would or would not have been champion.
"What I hate is the comparisons to what Stirling Moss or Lewis Hamilton or whoever might have done in the past - because that wasn't the rules you were racing with," Webber said.
"We know what the rules are for this year and people will race accordingly. The people who won the championships in the past deserved them and the same will be the case in the future." '
More recently, the points system was tweaked when Schumacher was brushing aside all before him; now they're tweaking it possibly because Massa (despite the stewards awarding him Hamilton's win) didn't get there in the end? Is it fiddling with a system till they get the winner they want?
Better to watch Nascar.
Complain about this comment
this means that someone can win the championship after 9 races
Complain about this comment
PorterRockwell is right
Complain about this comment
THis all shows how rediculous F1 is becoming. The powers that be in the sport really need to stand down before they completely ruin the sport beond repair. Firstly the new championship system. It is clear to anyone with an ounce of sense that you have to reward wins and consistant points scoring. Looking at this year with new rules. If the Brawn F1 team as an argument came out with the best car for the first half of the season and won the first 9 races. Then are caught and overtaken by other teams. There is little or no chance of anyone else winning the championship. Team orders will come into force earler if a driver has a few wins. (Lets not pretend that teams don't use team orders).
Secondly rule changes. KERS. This is obselete before it is even launched. How viable is this for future road car use when the Hydrogen fuel cell is obviously the way forward. The whole development is pointless and irelevant to future car design. They have been changing the rules for years to make cars have less mechanical grip and rely more on aerodynamic downforce. Wasn't it obvious that to improve racing they should have been increasing the mechanical grip and reducing aerodynamic grip for the last 15 years, as they are finally starting to do?
Thirdly, Circuits. Everyone knows that this year will be the last British Grand Prix. This is why I will no longer be watching F1 BBC coverage or not. Eclestone has even said that it will create a problem if Donnington is ready for 2010 as there will not be a place in the calender. He has already removed the British race as far as he is concerned! Why is it necessary to have all of these boring new circuits with their overly extravigant facilities. Any race fan would rather watch a race from Silverstone or Spa than Barain or anyone of these soleless places.
Complain about this comment
Maybe they should introduce the rule retrospectively to hand Massa last year's title. An attempt to favour Ferrari seems to be the driving force between most of these pointless regulation changes.
Complain about this comment
Catastrophic decision for F1 by the Charisma Twins, Bernie and Max, all you need is a run-away start to the season by one of the usual suspects, grabbing 7 or 8 wins on the bounce (it's happened before) and it's pretty much curtains for the season, as where is the likelihood of 1 other driver winning all the remaining races to make it a 2 horse race?!.
Also consider we're late in the season and a driver is going for a win but in doing so it hands the championship to a rival driver in another team instead of his own team mate, this could easily happen and so we have team orders and 'strange retirements' deciding F1 again.
Also also consider (sorry) a driver behind his closest rival late in the season and all it takes to win the championship is the other guy not winning the race?, who wouldn't feed him to the scenery at the next corner......I would, Senna and Prost did to win championships and they're Gods.
Time to go Bernie, time to go....
Complain about this comment
Great Article.
But if the FIA really wants to inrease overtaking and challenging for top positions, this is the wrong move.
The best thing is to even up the cars. Let the contructors and engine suppliers build their cars accordingly and also to sell to other teams more freely (the so famed customer cars chassis and engines).
Only you have to place regulations to avoid the big distance in development between teams.
So in the end most cars will have similar performances (unless some team comes with something new... they may win and deservedly...) and the title will be decided by the best set (driver + car).
Nowadays, with endless budget and developments, the top level is always limited to a couple of teams and, if one of those has the best driver or find a new package, there's no match.
With the present changes, a team may win the title "on a run" developing their car with an year in advance and avoiding other teams to catch up during the season.
Or, as already said, the championship may end by the time we are half way through the European season of it and render the otehr races as worthless.
The FIA also forgets that overtaking also DOES take places in lower positions (points or not), not only up front.
While top guys are fighting up front, the others are not simply having a spin around the circuit.
If our favorite driver cannot win, we still want to see him diong action even it means on 16th position after a spin or a dodgy pit-stop!!
Even up the cars and budget (even if over the GBP 30m) and avoid aerodynamic packages that prevent slip stream racing.
Also, adjust/eliminate dodgy circuits like Hungary that naturaly prevent overtaking and create procession races.
With more excitement throughout the whole pack in all races, the F1 will never dry out of audience and sponsorship.
Complain about this comment
These new rules were brought about because of Lewis Hamilton, The FIA is worried that Lewis might become the face of formula one, I don't think they like the idea very much, that is why they will keep fiddling with the rules as long as Hamilton stays in formula one, and drives for McLaren.
Complain about this comment
I doubt someone woke up one day and said, 'hmmm I think I'll change the rules today, I think I'll trrrryyyyy (finger circling round) - this.'
Right or wrong, this will have been debated and talked through for a while.
It got their dormant business into the press for one.
Second, they would not have done this had there been one dominant driver for the last couple of seasons. In such a scenario comments that fans would switch off half way through the season would have been founded. However, I think they are betting on the probability of an evenly fought battle, maybe between three or more drivers. In which case Mark Webber's comments of plenty of overtaking at the front of the pack - where it matters and the cameras usually are - will be founded also.
Complain about this comment
If Bernie's worried about a lack of cars on the grid why doesn't he just increase the team size to 3 cars? Leave the drivers championship alone and revise the constructors championship using Bernie's medals. The team that get's two cars to the finish first gets the gold, and the next team to get two cars to the finish Silver etc. With only two cars in each team it will be little more than a reliability contest, but with three cars most teams should be able to get two of them to the finish.
Complain about this comment
When I first read about the changes on teletext, I was quite astonished. Maybe because I've become accustomed to the points system, not that I follow F1 much at all these days because it is pretty boring and I've become disillusioned with it since way back when Damon Hill was treated with utter disrespect. I was immediately left wondering how previous titles would have been different, this excellent article answered that for me. But the fact that the new system would have changed who won in the past doesn't necessarily make it the best system. Had the system been in place back then, who knows if the individual race results would have stayed the same or drivers would have had a shift in mentality that might have affected some of the races.
Surely a better solution would be to increase the points for the winner? It would have basically the same effect, reward winning races, but not stop racing for places as well. I remember when Rugby Union was four points for a try and two for a conversion. They changed it to five for a try so that a converted try was worth more two penalties. I'd have gone a bit further, make a (unconverted) try worth seven points and therefore make a converted try worth three penalties. Of course the alternative is to award less kickable penalties or change the awarding system for penalties, but that's another story for a different sport.
A while back I tried to rate countries for achievements at the football World Cup. It is quite tricky to balance it with a meaningful points system. If you give 10 points for winning the World Cup, how many do you give for finishing Runners-Up? If someone wins a World Cup, how many Runners-Up finishes are equal or better? Point being (excuse the pun), perhaps the problem isn't with using a points system, just that you need to review it every now and again to make sure that it fairly reflects the importance of (in rugby) tries against penalties or (in F1) winning against finishing 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc.
I would say winning is the objective so should be worth more than double finishing 2nd. 2nd is not the be all and end all, so the gap between 2nd and 3rd should be less hefty. Something like
1st : 25 points
2nd : 11 points
3rd : 7 points
4th : 5 points
5th : 4 points
6th : 3 points
7th : 2 points
Other Cars : 1 point for finishing
As well as putting more emphasis on winning, it rewards reliability and drivers who put in consistent performances. In that points system, pretty much off the top of my head by the way so please consider that, this would equate roughly
Finishing 1st gains more points than finishing 2nd twice
Finishing 1st gains more points than finishing 3rd three times
Finishing 1st gains as many points as finishing 4th FIVE times
Finishing 2nd twice gains more points than finishing 3rd three times
If I had the time or inclination I might be fascinated to know how some previous Championships would have changed given such a points system. But it is primarily only for example purposes, not to be a "definitive" solution
Complain about this comment
Was it the Clown who initiate this concept just because the red didn't win conclusively on track? Don forget, was Hamilton race wasn't sabotaged or fixed off track by their buddies, the circus manager & ringleader, Hamilton would have champion much earlier.
However, now that Hamilton make the clown eat their dust, they finnaly take the clown's cue & make it easier to fix championship?
Hmmmm.....
Complain about this comment
IF YOU ARE AS HACKED OFF AS I AM....
PLEASE SEND A COMPLAINT TO THE FIA ABOUT THIS RULE CHANGE TO:
FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DE L'AUTOMOBILE
8, Place de la Concorde
75008 Paris
France
Complain about this comment
I don't understand why they don't just change the points system i.e. give more points for first position than you get for 2nd at the moment. This would balance it out as drivers would have to go for first to gain the greater points if they are needing them for the world championship. It also means the championship is also decided on consistency.
Complain about this comment
Too ALL those that feel that this is against Lewis Hamilton and McLaren: PLEASE CHECK YOURSELVES IN THE MIRROR!!!
Two things:
a) This is NOT retro-active. What happened already happened and nobody is taking Hamilton's (deserved, by the way...) title away!!! It has not and will NOT changed. This is NOT the intention regardless if the rule is good or bad.
b) Do you you in your smallest thinking would not consider that, shold this be the rules in the previous year, not only Hamilton & Massa but ALL the drivers and teams would devise different approach and strategy for each race??? can you work this out? Maybe LH would be so above all that he would have finished the title by half of the season rather than the last drop of rain in Brasil!
Enough of those folks that feel that whatever is done is only to prevent LH and McLaren to win it. I bet 100% of the teams and all directly involved not even thought about this aprt from the media the the postings here.
Next year, with the new rules, will come new approach form ALL drivers and teams that hav a chance to crack on the title one way or another!!
Forget the past and enjoy the future regardless if you like or not.
Complain about this comment
Hi you have all got it wrong! Its going to be a game of dodgems. If you are not leading and your team mate is second you accidently pull out taking out the leader - remember Hill and Schuey.
Seriously this points scoring is a farce and I cannot see how its going to increase overtaking or keep us paying fans interested. I for one will not be looking at attending a GP this year until I am sure its going to be interesting enough for all.
Complain about this comment
I feel this change is awfull for years ferrai has dominated f1 esy michael. i was glad when he retired, reason it was now open for any 1 to win he was a great driver but got boreing that he kept winning all the time. i now feel this change is bad it shud still go on points i feel. look at the bottoms teams in f1 like bmw,red bull, etc they have been unable to win more than 2 or 3 races in a season so i feel they now have a worse chance of winnign the title where as ferrai and maclaren have a great chance and renault as they have a good winning races success, i was glad hamilton won last year he should of won the first one but that would of been sneaky first year first world champion it would of been great but hamilton is goin to go far in this sport as long has he has the speed and the car to do so, at the moment there are worrying times for ferrai and mclaren as there timings in test sessions have been poor due to all changes with cars wich may benifit other teams. THE BEST THING ABOUT F1 THIS YEAR IS IT IS BACK ON BBC 1 AT LAST SO WE HAVE NO ADVERTS WHAT A GREAT RESULT. 10 days to go and counting to the first race of 2009 who could win it its a big question no body no's untill 9days when quali is on.
Complain about this comment
I can see why Bernie wants to change the points system, but I don't think the changes he's made will help. I think if it gets to the end of the season and it turns out the crowned champion has less points than the 2nd or even 3rd placed driver, there will be an outcry and it'll get changed again. I really don't think it does need changed.
If the point of it is to encourage more overtaking at the front, I don't think it'll do the job. Many times last year we were in the position where the front 2 or 3 cars drove off into the distance, and then seperated too far apart from each other to get close enough to try and overtake. Changing the points isn't going to stop that happening, although I suppose the technical changes may stop that from happening as much.
As for the budget cap, it's not inconcievable that a team on a budget cap could win the championship with a faster car. Look at what Matt Neal did in the touring cars when he won the championship with a privateer team, on far less budget than the factory teams.
Complain about this comment
Is their really any F1 fan that wants to see cars that are only differentiated by colour, look at the lack of success in A1GP. Sorry Bernie & Max but despite what you did for the sport in preceding years your days are done.
F1 without innovation & development is not F1. By all means use rules to encourage fuel efficiency and low carbon footprints but what is the point of budget capping with encouragement for innovation if that innovation is to be penalised when successful.
As for the points system, I am sure many Brits of my age would appreciate the changes that would have resulted in the 20th century but under the new system we could see teams simply not bothering to be competitive for the last 5 races of the season as they had already won 6 races and the championship was thus already decided. Another short-sighted rule change that, given the down to the wire finishes in recent seasons, was not required!!
Complain about this comment
There are a number of reasons this plan is stupid. Firstly it encourages manufacturers to push their cars to their absolute performance limits, even if that means reducing reliability (and therefore inevitably safety). There is no point in coming second so if the car breaks down fairly often (say half the time) it doesn't matter as long as it is the fastest car the other half of the time. Secondly it encourages reckless attempts at overtaking because if you are second with a lap to go you might just as well crash because coming second isn't worth anything and the person in first is more often than not doing well in the championship. Thirdly, it means that freak results (such as those caused by outrageous weather conditions) take on unfair levels of importance, e.g. the field gets caught out with slicks in a down pour and one driver from a slower team happens to have gambled on wets because they started at the bottom of the grid, so most of the field crashes and the driver gains a minute on the rest of the field and holds on to win. Another driver from a similar team gets 8 4th to 6th place finishes, but somehow is rated as worse than the first driver who finishes outside the points in every other race. Totally stupid!
Complain about this comment
Once again after a exciting and open season it's time to ring the changes! For why......mere mortals like us may never know but change we shall none the less!
I have to agree with the vast majority of folk here that the sport aint broke and don't need fixin!
If there was a desire to place more emphasis on the 1st place then award 15pts for the win!!
To create more of a competitive ground rather than capping of spending I would like to see a one car limit for teams! How many times do we see 2nd/3rd place slowing the whole race to protect his teamate ahead!?
Complain about this comment
It devalues the rest of the competition beyond the 3 or 4 drivers who can win a race. What motivation is there for the teams lower down the order who at least had a target to aim for knowing they could pick up a point here or there by finishing in the top 6. With no chance of them winning a race due to inferior cars, they might as well not bother turning up.
Complain about this comment
On a side issue, you state that the reason Prost would have won the championship in 81 is becuase of count back, as they both had 3 wins. but form my understanding of the new rules, Piquet would still have won, as if the number of wins are tied it is decided by the number of points accumulated of the season - Nowhere does it say the deciding factor will then be Number of 2nd places. Hence in 1981 Piquet still won.
Oh and as for the Piquet / Mansell / Prost, well given that (even with the new rules) Mansell would have only won the championship with Williams when he had clearly the best car - similar to Prost at Mclaren & williams, yet Piquet managed to win 2 championshps in a Brabham, which was not streets ahead of the field like Mclaren & Williams where.
the new system ay not have favoured Piquet, but he was one of the most consistent drivers there was, and did an extremely good job of gettin ghis car to the end of the race - look at his perfromances years later in a Bennetton, when distance wise, he had done more than any of the championship contenders.
Complain about this comment
I'm really sure that racing can/will be more exciting, but there's one prerequisite:
The stewards/FIA have to let people race, not bring the spectacle into disrepute (like the recent trend) by docking points or giving stop-go penalties etc., just because people look at each other in a 'funny way'....
Complain about this comment
Isn't about time that all of us F1 fans put a stop to this nonsense.
We have a sport that currently offers spectacle in abundance and yet every time it gets exciting the rules are changed. If those changes are made on the grounds of safety, so be it, we all want the drivers, stewards and fans to make it through the season in one piece. If those rules are changed because of held interests on the part of those who make the rules it creates an untenable situation.
The power of boycott has been removed since this announcement was made AFTER the majority of races had sold out of tickets. Surely we should have had a clear indication of what we were attending before we shelled out a huge amount of money. Much is made of contractural obligations in F1 but it would seem this is a one way street. We underlings who basically fund the sport (Not necessarily by attendance but by being the global audience who are advertised at) have no voice, whilst two people at the head of two organisations can do as they please.
How can we make a stand?
Perhaps Silverston could be a sea of banners this year that firmly state who is not welcome in our sport?
Complain about this comment
How can you even consider introducing a system where, potentially, the world champion could be a driver who competes in and wins the first 5 races of the year (50 points), then never races again all season, whilst the runner up scores 4 wins and 14 second places (152 points)! Absolute, sheer lunacy. We all want to see wins rewarded so why not 20,15,10,5,4,3,2,1 points? That would be a huge incentive to get on the podium and to win.
Complain about this comment
I dont know why im suprised by this, Bernie always gets what he wants in the end. To leave it so close to the start of the season to announce the rule changes is typical, they knew the reaction this would have as Bernie has already run an opinion poll for the fans about the idea, strangely the results were never mentioned !
Complain about this comment
Absolutely ridiculous.
Decathlon etc would be rather boring if it was just winners of events that went on to eventually win the title.I'm afraid it's just another example of the poison dwarf throwing his weight around as usual.
A better idea would be to increase the points for the Winner to 12 against 8 for second.
Complain about this comment
Why try to fix what's not broken? Strange that the only beneficiaries in recent times would have been Ferrari!!
Complain about this comment
When Ferrari drivers have given way in the past to let their team mate through to win a race it was heavily critisised. Now surely it would be unthinkable for team mates not to act this way in similar circumstances!
Complain about this comment
The recent decisions to make wins the ultimate decider of the championship winner is appalling in terms of rationality and from viewers perspective; I don't see the reasoning, fairness or logic behind the implementation of such a ludicrous thing. This just ruins the classic formula 1 that we are all so used to and love so much, this takes away so much of the excitement and compelling driving further back in the grid. Schumacher’s, Hamilton’s, Alonso’s and many others great drives from far back in the grid into point positions is to be admired and are what makes racing and f1 for me, the recent implementation of winner takes all diminishes any point to close fights further back in the field between top contenders.
The new rules will also kill any competition between then top 5-10 drivers, which existed and made such watchable and tense TV. This was epitomised by last season, with a very close season at the top of the leader board, Hamilton, Massa, Kubica, Heidfild, Räikkönen, Kovalainen and Alonso all where in contention and where very close points wise within last season. The new rules within formula one will destroy this tense rivalry and eradicate many drivers having the possibility to win the drivers’ championship due to the new winner takes all system, which had previously spurred these drivers and most importantly their fans, making for a great sport. This is what makes a sport, not a two horse race which is decided by unjustness and potentially luck.
The points system previously in place made for a fair system and good viewing, I’m a supporter for change for improvement and trialing new point systems, but this newly installed system is horrendous and hurts the sport in my eyes incredibly, advocating less competition in an effort to create more, as it takes the majority of drivers out of contention for the title, advocating a two or if we’re lucky, three horse race for the title.
The teams need a bigger say in this sport, the FIA has too large a vice on the sport, and is strangling it, if further detrimental changes come to the sport I have watched for my entire life, I and many others may simply stop watching. Schumacher, Alonso and Flavio Briatore have spoken out clearly against the new rules implemented, and likely many more behind closed doors. Schumacher arguably the greatest f1 driver of all time, and definitely the figurehead of the sport in recent times, why his, other drivers and the team’s views have been shammed and the oddity of a person which is Max Mosley’s have prevailed I have little hope in understanding. I hope this system is reversible and we can return to a more effective points system of 12-9-7.
I don’t entirely agree with the proposition of a 30 million euro cap on teams either, it seems too far, although I encourage and will hope to see an increase in independent teams in formula one which this aids, although a cap to this extent and the manner it has been designed in seems inadequate. I have been looking forward to the start of the season since the welcomed BBC advertisement has started reminding me of the start of the 2009 season, and with the new competitive changes to cars and brawn GP’s potential strength in the coming season, it looked potentially like the best and most unpredictable season for a long while. However the points system refurbishment has cast a shadow over this hope and has annoyed me deeply, if you didn’t already gather, I’m sure many others share similar opinions, so please reverse these god awful changes to a sport which was previously on the rise. Mosley seems untouchable at the moment (no pun intended), and needs to have a lesser role as well as the rest of the FIA in decision making in F1.
Complain about this comment
This ludicrous and utterly farcical ruling is destined to blow up in Bernie & Max's respective faces big time.
I cannot think of any other credible, and important word here is CREDIBLE, sporting spectacle than can revamp it's points scoring structure a mere two weeks before the start of a championship, and still be viewed by the outside world with any seriousness whatsoever. It all really beggars belief, and suggests that the two of them really have lost touch with reality. This all seems like an extreme knee-jerk reaction to Lewis winning last seasons championship after finishing 5th in the last race, which Bernie was apparently none to happy with.
How is it that these rules can be introduced without any agreement with the teams themselves is also something I simply cannot comprehend. FOTA's suggestion of upping the ante on the points scale seemed completely reasonable, so how on earth can we end up here?!?
If a driver considers himself a serious title contender, this new system essentially makes racing for any position other than 1st academic, and may result in instances where a driver might just pull over to conserve his engine if he feels he has no realistic chance of winning a race. You're also gonna see drivers looking so completely unconcerned with the silver & bronze medals hanging round their necks on the podium, you'll wonder if they'd just crawled out of bed to collect them.
And as for this £30m cost capping system - on what grounds has Mosely come up with figure in the first place? It seems like an utterly arbitrary figure that again, has no real bearing on the real current costs of developing a truly competitive F1 car. More of that on another day, as it's just another sign these old boys have well and truly lost the plot, or are more importantly, just caught up in their own.
Complain about this comment
Without the teams and without the fans, F1 is nothing. So why do Bernie and Max never listen to them - if they want to change the rules every day and play with F1 like some kind of toy then they should buy a scaletrix. This all seemed to stem from the fact Lewis Hamilton only had to finish 5th at the Brazilian Gran Prix to win the championship, but really who cared about that when we had one of the most thrilling finales ever witnessed. Yes it might encourage more crazy moves at the front of the field, but in my book the problem with F1 was never a supposed lack of overtaking, but it is the constent changing of the rules that only ever achieves one thing - confusing new viewers and alienating the current ones. What really angers me is how much i was looking forward to this championship and now I just feel totally deflated and hope the teams do something drastic to stop this from becoming a reality. If not ile probably start watching moto gp instead!
So please Bernie and Max, ask the people who actually keep this sport going from year to year and that really isn't you two!
Complain about this comment
I'm not an avid motorhead but I do watch the F1 periodically during the season. It's usually great entertainment, but maybe does need spicing up a little to attract the everyday man in the street. The idea of the driver that wins the most races in a season, rather than points average, seems dangerous. I agree with some of you that this could lead to intentional crashes as drivers jostle for position.
Probably discussed before, not a feesible idea, and excuse me if there's something that I don't know about that would make it impossible to happen, but how about this for a scenario to attract more interest from the general public. Non motor sport fans in particular:-
The drivers are rewarded for their eventual positions, but this is paid out by F1 itself and not a salary from the teams ( currently the richer teams attract the best drivers ). The teams can invest as heavily as they want in their cars / technology and are in a seperate league of their own.
The drivers race each car throughout the season ie 15 races, 15 drivers, each race the drivers change cars. It would certainly be absolute on who is seperately the best driver, and the best team.
Looking at the leader board would be like looking at the title leaders in the premier league and working out what teams they have to play, this way, it would be what cars the leading drivers have left to race.
Imagine Lewis racing a Minardi on the last day of the season!
The input from the experienced drivers to the lesser teams would be invaluable and should be shared as it would be in the drivers interest to help position himself up the table. It would also help to keep the teams closer on the technology front. It would erase the "fastest driver = best car" scenario, which, to the everyday man, does get little tedious as the season progresses.
Complain about this comment
For the record? I'm a McLaren fan
To me? This is just another chapter in Max and Bernies plan to ruin F1! On a quick note? Slick tyres.......here we are! Back to slicks again. Fantastic in my opinion! But think,how much money the teams and tyre suppliers would have saved over the years? Too much to mention! Also,this years front wings? Look a similer height and width to what they were 1994/95(before changes). And no winglets are allowed on the body(towards rear) As back in '94/95. Just a few changes Max and Bernie pushed for over the years. And here we are,14 years later. Back to slicks,etc. If they had reduced engine size first? Down to 2.4 V8 back in '95? Maybe they would have left things alone for a while. Because that's where i think we're almost at today. Think of the money teams spend to keep up with all these changes in order to be Champions Over the years. It must be astranomicle! I could go on all day! lol
As for 2009? Jeez! Medals. Medals!?! lol For eg- If Kimi wins the first 6 races of the year? Championships's over! When you finish 2nd and get points awarded? That keeps you close to the leader in the Championship over the season. Keeping you on the edge of your seat untill it's finally decided,near the end of the season. With this new system,it's win or nothing! Not 6 points,or 4 points,2 even! It kinda takes the shine of it don't you think?
When we talk about Brazil 2008,when Lewis took the title? To finish 5th and take the title? All part of a teams strategy is it not? Was Lewis so nervious that he couldn't push for the win? He wasn't on for the win even if it was the 3rd race into the season! From the outside? It looked to me that he had a bad weekend! If it wasn't for Timo Glock staying out on slicks when it rained? His lack of traction coming out the last corner,running uphill? Fellipe would have taken the title last year.
It was only luck in Lewis/Mclarens favour that day i think.
Bernie and Max want close racing,including lots of over taking. In order to increase viewing numbers on TV. Isn't that where alot of cash comes from? TV rights? And who benifits from that.........Wouldn't be Bernie would it?
I am looking forward to this years racing. Great chance for other drivers to win races i think. Who knows who'll take the title this year! I'll bet we'll be talking about it through out the season.
Complain about this comment
why change the scoring system after the most exciting and nail biting end to a season ever in the history of F1 i admit i'm a hamilton fan always have been (how can u blame me hes awesome) the only reason why they changed the rules is so that Lewis doesn't win the world championship again, the mclarens are off form at the moment and therefore making these changes makes sure that the mclarens can't win the world championship because relieability won't be a factor. They say it'll encourge the overtaking mentality but Lewis has always had that mentality so once again the rule just happen to work against him the FIA must think the fans are stupid if they honestly think they can't see whats going on.
Complain about this comment
further to Post 241
The gospel according to Bernie and Max:
'And it came to pass that a vision came to Bernie, and a voice spake unto him, saying "Verily I say unto you, from henceforth, the FIA shall become the Ferrari Improvement Association, for there is but one Formula One team and that is Ferrari. If they win not, let the stewards intervene, and if they still win not, let the rules be enhanced for their benefit, even unto the very foundations of the sport, for without the supremacy of the Prancing Horse there is no purpose in the sport.'
Complain about this comment
Bernie and Max do not care one iota about the fans - that has been proved time and time again.
Instead of the changes of rules - they should be changed!!!
Complain about this comment
Good article. But the only solution is to scrap F1 completely. It is not competitive, hardle any of the races have any entertainment value, and then to top it all you have silly little pip squeeks like Hamilton making absurd comments. To boot, in todays economic climate do we really give a pink flying fairy for a bunch of overpaid pansies with over-inflated ego's?
Complain about this comment
So the stewards get to decide the winner of the championship now then, they seem to have it in for certain drivers so if they are winning more races they'll just take them away!
Why change something that doesn't need fixing, i have been watching the sport for 16 years and the last two cahmpionships have been the most exciting yet. I think the new rules will make drivers take unnecessary risks to get wins and at what cost!
Bloggs 101, couldn't have put it better myself!
Complain about this comment
Clearly not an F1 fan then ih8mnuts.
My primary concern is that with the new 'Races won' situation...a driver who has won ten races can meander at the back of the grid for the rest of the season without worrying about him losing the championship. Races will become pointless after someone wins just over half the season. For example Massa wins 10, so thats 100 points (he wins the championship under these rules) but Lewis comes second in all races up until Massa gives up because he wins (so 10 2nd places and 8 1sts = 160!) Thats a whole 60 points over and above the Chamipion. Completely ridiculous and not thought through!
A1 racing is now looking a lot more attractive than F1 to be honest because there aren't 2 idiots governing the whole thing.
I sincerely hope they don't destroy F1, and if they do, someone should have the power to step in and take Max and Bernie out of it, and shoot them at point blank range.
Complain about this comment
I a gruffmeister
If a driver dominates the first half of the season and win after 10 races, surely the teams are just throwing money away taking part in the other races as there is nothing to actually race for! No one wants to watch GP's to decide second or third place.
Complain about this comment
Rule changes like these could spell the end of F1 as we know it. Theoretically, the next world champion could win the championship if he only finished in two events and won them both !!!. F1 will end up on the scrapheap and will probably be a victim of the credit crunch ( thank God ).
Complain about this comment
@ih8mnuts I think that could be the most ridiculous comment I've ever read. But put it forward to Bernie, he might just buy it :D
Complain about this comment
I'm generally a fan of Bernie as he's usually on the side of the fans & the racing spectacle but the winner takes all ruling is just wrong.
I just can't agree with a system where the driver with the most points doesn't necessarily win the championship. It should have been a simple case of increasing the points difference between 1st & 2nd positions to either 3 points or 4 points, as was the case before Michael Schumacher's dominance got too much for large parts of the viewing public.
Let's face it, the catalyst for the change was the manner in which Lewis won the title last year with a 5th position. But the history of F1 is littered with drivers having to play the points game to achieve their ultimate prize. (And no, I don't believe that Felipe Massa would have automatically won it as McLaren would have chosen a different strategy.)
Great F1 drivers are not made from a few wins here or there. They are drivers who can win races (obviously) but also perform at the top of the sport consistently, which is where the points system works in producing great champions.
I keep my fingers crossed that this stupid change gets reversed with the same haste that it was introduced i.e. before the season starts.
Let's not forget that part of what makes F1, which is a sport renowned for its rate of change, so special is its links with history & the greats of the past.
Complain about this comment
@ih8mnuts, you write like you utterly hate F1 - to the extent of not seeing why its entertaining?
Strange. I have no time at all for football, and can see every part of your comment relating exactly to that sport, yet I don't take the time to pass sarcastic comments in the discussion threads for football.
Please, find something useful to say, or don't say it.
Complain about this comment
The first problem with winner takes all is that the 2008 championship would have been decided by the notorious decision of the Belgium GP stewards - I see no proposals to prevent a repeat of this.
The second is that it will create a conflict between teams interested in points (for the constructors championship)and their drivers, at least amongst the front runners - F1 is still a team event as well!
Lastly, last minute change is the sort of thing which you expect from amateur organisations not entirely sure what they are doing - not professional sports councils!
Complain about this comment
F1 Sport and The New Changes. Is It a Gamble?
I was always saying these weeks, before the start of the new 2009 F1 season, just SIT BACK and RELAX. And to “WARM – UP” for the coming F1 action… Looks though we (and nobody) simply just CANT DO THAT. So many changes and they keep coming all the time; plus we can say for very limited time. We don’t talk here only about confusion (as many stated and expressed their opinion); here even is more – WE JUST CANT KEEP UP WITH THE “ACTION” behind the scenes. And I cant say this is the REAL ACTION, because that’s not the F1 SPORT. Action supposed to be on the track and at the back in the garages; factories, etc.
Change is good; we WELCOME IT; but not to that extent!! It became CHANGES. PLURAL AND TOO MANY IN ONE GO!! FIA and some “powerful” people just wont stop. Like in one film they said – “It is complete metamorphose – I am not sure I like it”. (that was said for too many changes and in not the very positive way they influence EVERYTHING).
It is like F1 is becoming “attention seeking” for new fans, etc. And this is not necessary at all as it has one of the most loyal and consistent fan base compared to other sports!! (they didn’t change the tennis rules, because the only dominant figure for many years first was Sampras and then in recent years Federer… And it is better not to mention the women!!! Just remember Navratilova and her Wimbledon titles; then Steffi Graff, etc…Change the tennis rules and they may lose a lot! Or everything!)
And when it comes to F1 I just don’t know CLEARLY what are the REASONS especially for the latest (BIG) change…Can Bernie and Mosley give any justifying reasons. Except everybody to start TALKING about it and WRITING and COMMENTING about it and just few weeks before the season starts…
I / we don’t know what the REAL AND CLEAR reasons behind this entire are. Circus maybe?! (Excuse me for my language here…)
Ok, it is not a complete CIRCUS maybe!! But what I may say THIS IS A COMPLETE GAMBLE – and especially if the reason for these MASSIVE CHANGES is to ATTRACT (more) FANS to the F1 SPORT and make it MORE INTERESTING and INTRIGUING.
GAMBLE – it may work and it may be a complete “disaster”…But we know very rarely Gamble means WINNING FORMULA. We will see, but now we just hear the negative comments of the very people involved in the F1 racing – the drivers and the teams. And we don’t talk and mention here THE FANS…
When CHANGE is introduced there supposed to be a CLEAR REASON and GOAL of ACHIEVEMENT with it. And then its TOTAL IMPACT on everything around and everybody involved – it includes drivers, teams, TV, other media, fans, etc, etc.
Otherwise what we get as a RESULT is worse than purely gamble!
237. At 8:38pm on 19 Mar 2009, Fletcheroo wrote: …..
--------------------
Fletch,
Very fair and complete review and comment! And one thing will be true and reality for sure this year in F1 – we will DEFINITELY MISS the COMING BACK THROUGH THE GRID!!! What will be the point of ANY TRYING to do so as you will, for sure, GAIN NOTHING!
It will KILL ONE OF THE BEAUTIES of the F1 sport – THE TRYING… THE TRYING TO GAIN SOMETHING, no matter how small it may look, BECAUSE IN THE LATER STAGES this little gain may BECOME THE WINNING SUCCESS!!! (Who was hands pushing his car many years ago, after it run out of fuel, in order just to get a single point?! And then that point won him the Championship later! Was it Mansell? Sorry, I am just guessing the name : ), forgot as usual : ); and cant speak with my “source” just now. But you may help me with the facts. And most importantly you got my point…Thanks!)
And to finish with this (at least I / we may finish : ) at some point) – WHAT NEXT?! Anymore changes in F1 for this year? Still there is time for a “new thing” – 8 / 9 days to go…So, the “changing people” still have time to introduce something else too. Or to stop and be REASONABLE.
And for me / us STILL my little thing now - SIT BACK, RELAX and ENJOY (if anything is left…). We will see that pretty soon…
PS.
At 12:57pm on 18 Mar 2009, Dannyb2009 wrote:
--------------------
Just read your comment … (was reading backwards : )). Correct and true!
(“but for who? clearly not existing fans. Not everything has to evolve just for the sake of change!”)
Complain about this comment
254. At 2:28pm on 20 Mar 2009, Julietalz wrote:
--------------
“Was it Mansell? Sorry, I am just guessing the name : ), forgot as usual : ); and cant speak with my “source” just now”.
----------------
WRONG as I was guessing : ) Forgive me for forgetting. As usual : ). It WAS Allan Prost, pushing his car. Vs. Mansell! : ). The other way round at the end: )
I managed to spoke with my “source”…Shame for me though, because keep forgetting when I know I can ask again : ). Plus my rate when it comes to 50 % vs. 50 %, I always got it wrong : ). No luck at all!!!
Ok, back to work now and the very busy Friday…And this is “a bit of a shame” too : ). But get on with it – finish the job!
Complain about this comment
Ecclestone & Mosley brain-storming :) this is really funny. What were they thinking. What will happen if the winner is decided after say 10-14 races. Who will buy a ticket or watch the race in the telly after we know who is the champion (imagine the financial effect to it, in this global crisis).
Now all the organizing cities will want to be among the first races of the calendar. To solve this, Eccl & Mosley, can introduce (FIFA's) "rotation" rule. See if that has effect, if not, just make another rule and another and another.
Meanwhile my son will walk in the room while I am watching F1 and ask me to explain some F1 rules... and to save me time i will just answer: Son you wouldnt understand this. its COMPLICATED.
I just dont think that all these changes are for the good of this sport.
Complain about this comment
I can't see this rule change lasting more than 2 seasons
As it's been pointed out already the stewards need looking at first and maybe the rules of racing need to be clarified more, I had no problems at all with how lewis drove (and hopefully continues to drive) last year, he can be an agressive driver but so is alonso and we all know about schumacher, these guys get paid to race so let them.
With regards the cost something had to be done somewhere, but i'm not sure about this $30million cap don't think that will happen,
Really looking forward to the new season, from pre-season testing about 6 drivers could win the title, hopefully we will have some close racing and bernie and max will get there house in order and stop messing around with a bloody great sport
Complain about this comment
Every system invented is designed to make us think that money does not win races, drivers do. None actually do this. The only way to take the biggest budget out of the winners circle is to resort to a spec formula like the old Formula V. This series produced the most boring racing known. Maybe Bernie ought to take the old technical way of a long list of technical restrictions that ensure safety but stay out of team budgets. When we then saw grids of nine or ten cars, we might get a new organization.
Complain about this comment
Your news must report on the FOTA statement that has just been released - see link http://www.teamsassociation.org/press-release/2009-03-20/fota-statement
They are going to fight this on a legal point.
I hope BBC News covers this.
Complain about this comment
just seen a news flash that FOTA are gonna challenge the points system for the new season
so i was wrong it might not even last this season
what are the chances of this dragging out all week and we still won't know what's happening come race day
F1 politics briliant
Complain about this comment
The most idiotic rule change ever. The FIA want drivers to race more (as if they don't already), for what? To disqualify them?
One possible result is we could have a driver with three wins and no other finishes being crowned world champion while other drivers who finish consistently in the points or on the podium are not allowed to be champion by virtue of less wins (maybe only one less) but more finishes and points. In that case why bother with second and third places and all that stuff on the podium which will be meaningless. And what are the points for?
The stupidity if this rule change beggars belief. Honestly there are so many potential farcical situations now just waiting to happen. Why didn't they just consult a bunch of nursery school children... or maybe they did!
Complain about this comment
do not worry it will never happen when mclaren and ferrari realise they cannot catch honda[ revamped] they will withdraw anyway lol
Complain about this comment
I simply do not think that the medal system will make for better racing. True Massa won the championship last year but did he deserve to? I get that he won more races but that doesn't make him the better driver.
What this is doing is taking away from the consistency factor of the drivers. It is all fine and good that a driver wins six races and his closets rival has only won five, but what about consistency. It the driver with six wins DNFs the rest of the races but the driver with five completes all the races, it seems to me that he is the better driver.
Winning is great and its good to see drivers win races. On the other had consistency is important too. I think the question that really need to be asked is if it is better to have the winner of the championship be the driver that DNFs 60% of the time but wins 40%, or the driver that finishes 60% and DNFs 40%. I really hope that the former with be the answer that is come to in the end of this mess.
Complain about this comment
What makes me laugh (or cry nearly) is that this is supposed to "Benefit the spectators and TV viewers" What a load of tosh. Anyone who has sat at Silverstone from 5am on race day on a patch of grass or concrete in rain wind or baking Sun to watch the sport they love, while being robbed for second rate greasy food, being treated as a herd of "Baldricks" while the sponsors woo the celebs and powerful (who dont pay a penny and arrive half hour before the race and leave ten minutes afterwards.)
You never see a driver apart from the parade lap when the drivers talk to each other or a TV interviewer on the back of a flatbed truck going at speed. They don't give a stuff for the purists or fans - its all about making money.
The only winner is Bernie
Complain about this comment
This idea of wins determining the champion is terribly foolish. Had the system been in place last year, Robert Kubica, who drove his heart out and found himself near the top of the leader board halfway through the season, would have been considered a non-factor because he had only a single win to his name.
Consider also the Brawn GP team this year. It is conceivable that they'll jump out of the gates like jack-rabbits and rack up wins early on, but with a very small budget and limited sponsors you can expect their performance to fall off as the season progresses in comparison to BMW, McLaren, and Ferrari. If that's the case F1 may have a situation where the "Champion" racks up early wins but is invisible for the latter half of the season and that does not improve the spectacle of racing.
Bottom line: wins should be used as the tie-breaker and not the other way around.
Complain about this comment
Winner-takes-all is history. And with Max & Bernie looking to blame each other, they're looking more and more like spiteful clowns. Perhaps they'll be trying to rename the FIA as "Billy Smart's" next...
In their ingracious press release, the FIA have only given in as far as postponement to 2010, but I think you can guarantee that the 2010 system won't be *anything* like this one.
Now we just have to sort out whether they really did ban the rule-bending diffusers of Brawn, Williams or Toyota. Presumably any late rule tweaking by FIA is just as illegal on that front too...
Complain about this comment
Why would the TV cameras follow the lower order if they cannot win and why would we be interested in watching if they did?.
Maybe Mosley should have a few more cups of tea with the girls it might revive his addled mind.
Complain about this comment
The ability to favour the Championship towards the driver who wins more often can be made by allocating more points to the winner. That solves the problem Bernie wants to solve, but without any of the very obvious flaws that his system has.
Unusually for Bernie, this idea wasn't very well thought through.
Complain about this comment
I think you people are to critical of the new rules most wins, wins title.The truth is driver's settle for second, third etc to easily, so really there's only 3rd of the race witch is contested.I don't think it will change the driver's mental approch too much simply because if they tie on wins then the driver who scored most points wins.In that case if it's such a minor change why change it, maybe it's because were always moaning that F1 lacks wheel to wheel racing.In my opinion the racing hasn't got better over the last couple of years it's just that the points have been alot closer which has masked the problem to a certain extent. Honestly think about it the only excitng races have been when it's rained or the order has been shuffled by a saftey car.We want change in the sport but when they try we just complain more, it's time to give it a chance simply because the changes are for our benefit and ours alone.
Complain about this comment
well not just ours but you catch my drift
Complain about this comment
I find it simply unbelievable that even after the ridiculous decision the FIA took in implementing part of Bernies idea they are still set to put this rule in place for the 2010 season. It proves once again how much Bernie Ecclestone and his gang are out of touch and from his recent comments he seems to be oblivious to the goings on over the past few days and the upset caused. The solution is simple, award the winner of a race with extra points. This suggestions has been repeated over and over again by fans and members of the sport since this fiasco started. I sincerely hope that common sense prevails over the coming months and that FOTA and fans continue to protest a rule that will be very damaging to F1 if brought in.
Complain about this comment
why dont they come out and admit they are all ferrari fans.
The whole idea of the point system is to award consistancy. If Massa for example won 5 races with the new point system and came last in the rest of the races and Hamilton won 4 races but came second in the rest how does that make Massa the better driver. Not only this but now as many have mentioned that the season could be decided mid way through, who will want to watch the second half? Just when the sport has taken a massive step in the right directon with last year seeing only a gap of 1.5 sec splitting the entire pack the likes of the smaller teams giving the big guns a run for there money. now Bernie and Max are of on a power trip to run an increasingly popular sport back into the ground its about time they both stepped down.
Complain about this comment
272. At 7:20pm on 22 Mar 2009, sharkbiscuit wrote:
why dont they come out and admit they are all ferrari fans.
The whole idea of the point system is to award consistancy. If Massa for example won 5 races with the new point system and came last in the rest of the races and Hamilton won 4 races but came second in the rest how does that make Massa the better driver.
------------------
On your first point….
Wow! That’s very DEFINITE STATEMENT to say…I am a fan of different teams; sportsmen, etc. But not a “blind” fan…SPORT, etc. it is more important than everything. It means if I see or feel the team or the athletes, sports people, I support they put less effort than me supporting them; it is normal for the true sports fan to step back a little. Especially when we see and feel they DON’T CARE for the efforts and the sport but only for the fame, money, etc. Do you still support them FULLY and whole heartedly then?! Me – no. Why “waste” the energy and all the efforts of true supporting and involving in the game, the race, the match if they don’t care at all? It is two ways – you have the PASSION to support a driver, team, etc because on the first place THEY HAVE THE PASSION to succeed and LOVE their sport (it mean they put that extra effort too).
And besides I don’t think it is true. At all!! (About your first statement). Many reasons – one of them. I keep repeating myself in other forums; but here I go again. Many many changes over the years had been introduced ACTUALLY TO STOP Ferrari, because”they were so dominant and the sport was becoming boring…”. (I have an amazing article from Ross Brawn at the end of the very difficult 2003 season about the matter. Not from Michael Schumacher, but from Ross Brawn. Michael was only doing the job then…Which he LOVES! Can you ACCEPT that?).
And then my “favourite” story about 2005 season. The one after 2004 when Ferrari WERE winning like crazy (I didn’t mention any driver, cos IT IS STILL A TEAM’S SPORT…). ONE SET OF TYRES…You just cant add anything to that. I still think that was a SAFETY ISSUE even!! One set of tyres for both qualifying and the WHOLE RACE!. How long it lasted? – Only one season. Because there was a different winner and that was the only solution to STOP Ferrari…
At all costs Ferrari fans? Don’t think so… Cant be.
The “CONSISTENCY” point is RIGHT. But in your example you may simply REVERSE the names and the positions. And even why don’t change the name of Massa with that of Alonso! Then what?
Besides, we all know “there is a new kid on the block”…What Ferrari? (I would never imagine RULES TO BE CHANGED in order to STOP HAMILTON; various reasons, one of them simply is ADVERTISING and the “NEW FACE” of Formula 1…Nobody can beat that. It is MONEY, it is PUBLICITY. Massa, Alonso, Kubica cant beat him in this. We saw it the last two seasons. Plus you can add McLaren as a team behind Hamilton. Winning formula.)
-----------------------
268. At 07:25am on 21 Mar 2009, GodalmingYellow wrote:
The ability to favour the Championship towards the driver who wins more often can be made by allocating more points to the winner. That solves the problem Bernie wants to solve, but without any of the very obvious flaws that his system has.
Unusually for Bernie, this idea wasn't very well thought through.
------------------
Very simple and will be working suggestion!!! Problem solving with simplicity and effectiveness. You should contact Bernie (I reckon he listens and accepts good and working ideas.). Think about contacting Mosley though – too much unneeded “POWER” and politics. Run away from that…Never works.
PS. Again for all those odd question marks, etc. and to get the clear point of the post and no misunderstandings, please, click on my username…Thanks and all the best.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS