FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[billindenver]

If Bernie wants more emphasis on winning...give the winner of each race a one place bump on the next race's starting grid....or two places.

Or let the winning team take a wizz on the 2nd place car.

Or allow the winner of last race to put 5 more gallons of fuel in their car after the next quali.

Or how about the winning driver sleeps with Bernies wife or whips Mosely's bare arse live on the tele.

Or maybe...we just let them race and see who wins.

[f1usa]

If Bernie wants more emphasis on winning...give the winner of each race a one place bump on the next race's starting grid....or two places.

Or let the winning team take a wizz on the 2nd place car.

Or allow the winner of last race to put 5 more gallons of fuel in their car after the next quali.

Or how about the winning driver sleeps with Bernies wife or whips Mosely's bare arse live on the tele.

Or maybe...we just let them race and see who wins.

Agreed, just them race and get the win on track. And if Bernie is p***ed off, he should have a chat with Alan Donnaly. Lewis Hamilton did win 6 races and won the WDC. Massa was awarded the Spa win on paper only, everybody watched the race and saw Hamilton get checkered flag. What part of "win" doesn't Max, Bernie and Alan understand.

[rleggett]

From itv-f1.com:-

"The FIA analysis notes that the Brabham team would have lost the titles it won with Piquet under Ecclestone’s ownership."

Absolutely beautiful!

[SarahB62]

Surrrreeee. I still think Rupert would be a good choice.

Hmmmm - nope, still not biting
Anyway he is on his 3rd wifelet now so maybe he will learn new tricks, like not to stray!

Maybe he could borrow Maxwell's old boat and loan it to Bernie for a swim then we would all be spared his crazy ideas.

[deMuRe]

Bernie, you changed the points system in the first place, you w***er. Go croak.

The reason he changed it was also because he felt the championship battles were not lasting long enough; in other words, he wanted more money.

Schumacher was too good. It will kill you to say it won't it?

[nsaqam]

It looks as though Stirling Moss thinks that Bernie's medal system may be acceptable as long as the present point system remain in place alongside it.
Just as I said, you still need the points system to give the teams further down the grid a meaningful measure of success and to provide goals and incentives to those teams.
Quite crucially IMO though, the medal system would truly reward WINNING race rather than chasing for points.
Motorsports is about winning after all.

[zurich_allan]

Personally I don't think Bernie has a clue what he's talking about. Unlike the days of pay-per-drive drivers, which thankfully are in the past (Jean Denis Delatraz anybody?), nowadays every one of those drivers on the grid have been racing in some formula or other for year after year after year before setting foot on a F1 track. Each and every one of them want to win the race whether they are in a McLaren, Ferrari or Force India. To suggest that anybody (last race and unnecessary risks aside) wants to settle for second or third place in general is a lot of cr*p.

The reason for the lack of overtaking is not down to driver motivation, but purely down to the way the cars have been developed over the past decade or so. Hopefully with the aero alterations (regressions) this year, there may be some improvement (although we've been saying that every season for some time now I suppose).

As for the points system? I wouldn't mind seeing an alteration slightly in favour of first place, but personally I'd rather see it slightly tweaked than radically overhauled. F1 statistics are already on the verge of being meaningless after the change from 9 points per win to 10, the increase in points for 2nd / 3rd and the inclusion in the points position of 7th and 8th placed finishers. Arguments are always wheeled out for whoever is 'statistically' the best driver at any given time, and it's a lot of tosh. Comparing great drivers can only be done qualitatively, not quantitatively unless the same system in place now, is the same as ten years ago, and the same as twenty years ago etc. It is not, and therefore statistical comparison is not valid.

To maintain any possibility of being able to at least maintain some heritage I'd therefore rather see points as 10, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. No points for fastest lap or pole (I like it in GP2 and other formula, but not in F1). A slight change in favour of winning, but not too great to totally discredit the sport's history.

[darwin dali]

Personally I don't think Bernie has a clue what he's talking about. Unlike the days of pay-per-drive drivers, which thankfully are in the past (Jean Denis Delatraz anybody?), nowadays every one of those drivers on the grid have been racing in some formula or other for year after year after year before setting foot on a F1 track. Each and every one of them want to win the race whether they are in a McLaren, Ferrari or Force India. To suggest that anybody (last race and unnecessary risks aside) wants to settle for second or third place in general is a lot of cr*p.

The reason for the lack of overtaking is not down to driver motivation, but purely down to the way the cars have been developed over the past decade or so. Hopefully with the aero alterations (regressions) this year, there may be some improvement (although we've been saying that every season for some time now I suppose).

As for the points system? I wouldn't mind seeing an alteration slightly in favour of first place, but personally I'd rather see it slightly tweaked than radically overhauled. F1 statistics are already on the verge of being meaningless after the change from 9 points per win to 10, the increase in points for 2nd / 3rd and the inclusion in the points position of 7th and 8th placed finishers. Arguments are always wheeled out for whoever is 'statistically' the best driver at any given time, and it's a lot of tosh. Comparing great drivers can only be done qualitatively, not quantitatively unless the same system in place now, is the same as ten years ago, and the same as twenty years ago etc. It is not, and therefore statistical comparison is not valid.

To maintain any possibility of being able to at least maintain some heritage I'd therefore rather see points as 10, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. No points for fastest lap or pole (I like it in GP2 and other formula, but not in F1). A slight change in favour of winning, but not too great to totally discredit the sport's history.

There are ways to standardize points across eras. But that's rarely an issue since most quantitative comparisons are not based on points (partly because of this issue), but rather on race wins, poles, championship titles and percentages taking career length (number of races participated) into account. Those parameters don't change with point scale alterations.

[zurich_allan]

Personally I don't think Bernie has a clue what he's talking about. Unlike the days of pay-per-drive drivers, which thankfully are in the past (Jean Denis Delatraz anybody?), nowadays every one of those drivers on the grid have been racing in some formula or other for year after year after year before setting foot on a F1 track. Each and every one of them want to win the race whether they are in a McLaren, Ferrari or Force India. To suggest that anybody (last race and unnecessary risks aside) wants to settle for second or third place in general is a lot of cr*p.

The reason for the lack of overtaking is not down to driver motivation, but purely down to the way the cars have been developed over the past decade or so. Hopefully with the aero alterations (regressions) this year, there may be some improvement (although we've been saying that every season for some time now I suppose).

As for the points system? I wouldn't mind seeing an alteration slightly in favour of first place, but personally I'd rather see it slightly tweaked than radically overhauled. F1 statistics are already on the verge of being meaningless after the change from 9 points per win to 10, the increase in points for 2nd / 3rd and the inclusion in the points position of 7th and 8th placed finishers. Arguments are always wheeled out for whoever is 'statistically' the best driver at any given time, and it's a lot of tosh. Comparing great drivers can only be done qualitatively, not quantitatively unless the same system in place now, is the same as ten years ago, and the same as twenty years ago etc. It is not, and therefore statistical comparison is not valid.

To maintain any possibility of being able to at least maintain some heritage I'd therefore rather see points as 10, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. No points for fastest lap or pole (I like it in GP2 and other formula, but not in F1). A slight change in favour of winning, but not too great to totally discredit the sport's history.

There are ways to standardize points across eras. But that's rarely an issue since most quantitative comparisons are not based on points (partly because of this issue), but rather on race wins, poles, championship titles and percentages taking career length (number of races participated) into account. Those parameters don't change with point scale alterations.

But those aren't the only parameters & variables that are relevant in a quantitative analysis. Differences in technology, dominance of a particular car, reliability in an era, safety regulations, strictness of rules, strength of the field at the time, altering track surfaces, weather conditions, number of drivers competed against etc.

With so many variables potentially possible it does make a conclusive quantitative study impossible. Doesn't mean to say it can't be indicative, or interesting, just means that it can never be conclusive.

[bud]

Bernie, you changed the points system in the first place, you w***er. Go croak.

The reason he changed it was also because he felt the championship battles were not lasting long enough; in other words, he wanted more money.

Schumacher was too good. It will kill you to say it won't it?

no his competition wasnt good enough had alot of hard battles Schumi eh

you know the funny thing is if Bernie was right about drivers not going for the win then why did Lewis try and pass Kimi in Spa? he could have settled for second place beat his main rival in Massa by two points and only lose two to Kimi who was further behind at that stage.

and if you take away points then whats the point of the rest of the grid racing around the track they may as well retire and save their engine for the next race in the hope they may fight for a win. in which case would lead some teams to may as well leave the sport as they will never fight for wins

[darwin dali]

Personally I don't think Bernie has a clue what he's talking about. Unlike the days of pay-per-drive drivers, which thankfully are in the past (Jean Denis Delatraz anybody?), nowadays every one of those drivers on the grid have been racing in some formula or other for year after year after year before setting foot on a F1 track. Each and every one of them want to win the race whether they are in a McLaren, Ferrari or Force India. To suggest that anybody (last race and unnecessary risks aside) wants to settle for second or third place in general is a lot of cr*p.

The reason for the lack of overtaking is not down to driver motivation, but purely down to the way the cars have been developed over the past decade or so. Hopefully with the aero alterations (regressions) this year, there may be some improvement (although we've been saying that every season for some time now I suppose).

As for the points system? I wouldn't mind seeing an alteration slightly in favour of first place, but personally I'd rather see it slightly tweaked than radically overhauled. F1 statistics are already on the verge of being meaningless after the change from 9 points per win to 10, the increase in points for 2nd / 3rd and the inclusion in the points position of 7th and 8th placed finishers. Arguments are always wheeled out for whoever is 'statistically' the best driver at any given time, and it's a lot of tosh. Comparing great drivers can only be done qualitatively, not quantitatively unless the same system in place now, is the same as ten years ago, and the same as twenty years ago etc. It is not, and therefore statistical comparison is not valid.

To maintain any possibility of being able to at least maintain some heritage I'd therefore rather see points as 10, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. No points for fastest lap or pole (I like it in GP2 and other formula, but not in F1). A slight change in favour of winning, but not too great to totally discredit the sport's history.

There are ways to standardize points across eras. But that's rarely an issue since most quantitative comparisons are not based on points (partly because of this issue), but rather on race wins, poles, championship titles and percentages taking career length (number of races participated) into account. Those parameters don't change with point scale alterations.

But those aren't the only parameters & variables that are relevant in a quantitative analysis. Differences in technology, dominance of a particular car, reliability in an era, safety regulations, strictness of rules, strength of the field at the time, altering track surfaces, weather conditions, number of drivers competed against etc.

With so many variables potentially possible it does make a conclusive quantitative study impossible. Doesn't mean to say it can't be indicative, or interesting, just means that it can never be conclusive.

Again, differing point scales don't change all that you list, so your point about the point system making it harder to compare drivers is not a biggie - that's all I'm saying here.

[zurich_allan]

Fair enough. I'd just personally prefer the current winning points remain at ten, that's all.

[GarethStr]

Alternatively get Bernie and Max to f*** and get better people in to fix it nd perhaps rejuvenate the sport. They are getting too old now.

[headless]

Fastest lap and pole could get a point. That'd be fine.

[dant]

I like the idea of giving a point for pole.

I think that the current points structure is fine the way it is, the medals system would ruin the racing not make it better, granted the person who wins the most races would win the championship, but it would leave the smaller teams fighting for absoloutly nothing.

Weve had it suggested that the medals are brought in but also keep the points for the constructers title, but again i disagree with this.
Racing to me, is about racing, not always about winning, but being consistent throughout the season.

Now if somebody is going to say that they think that somebody who wins 2 races in a season deserves to finish higher in the WDC than a driver who has been consistent and has finished in the top 3 all season (granted, it doesnt really happen but it could), then they are talking absoloute tosh.

Like this past season, a lot of people had Alonso down as the best driver of the season, yet he finished a good 40 points behind Lewis and Massa, the reason for this, he is a consistantly good driver.