FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[thehitman]

think there's too much fuzz about this, in the vast majority of the cases the pilot with most victories wins the championship!

not only changes can be reverted, but as I see it this is a way of adding some variability and not allow a pilot ahead in the championsion via points to sleep over the distance and let himself drop to below podium positions just for points...

of course smaller teams will never ever get a title shot even if they are consistent, but when that last happened?

again, rules can be reverted, so let's wait to see what happens this season!

[zurich_allan]

think there's too much fuzz about this, in the vast majority of the cases the pilot with most victories wins the championship!

not only changes can be reverted, but as I see it this is a way of adding some variability and not allow a pilot ahead in the championsion via points to sleep over the distance and let himself drop to below podium positions just for points...

of course smaller teams will never ever get a title shot even if they are consistent, but when that last happened?

again, rules can be reverted, so let's wait to see what happens this season!

Finally some common sense!! A shame that others seem to lack it...

[Jamie]

could work in our favour
drivers will strive for a win more

[Gaz]

Obviously I'm going against the grain here, but I genuinely don't see the problem the more I think about it. I have to admit that my first reaction was similar to most here (i.e. that it was a ridiculous idea), but think about it.

A lot are saying; 'The title could be decided by just over half way through the season'.... well, no it couldn't, unless one team utterly dominates a la McLaren 1988 or Ferrari 2004. And even if one team DID dominate like that, it wouldn't make ANY difference if the championship was decided purely on points (as previously) or on race wins (as the new system) - the result WOULD STILL BE THE SAME!! That dominant team would STILL be the only one that would win the title unless there was the biggest turnaround of a team in the sports' history.

If the field is fairly even between two or three teams then potentially there could be two or three drivers still in the title hunt late in the season so long as each of them has won at least two or maybe three races. In fact, potentially there could be MORE people in the hunt than there are at present. Think about it - last season Alonso managed to get back to back wins at a stage in the season where Hamilton and Massa only had around 4 / 5 wins each. with only a few races left in the season, under the new system a driver could potentially catapult themselves into contention with a late surge, or with good development of the car through the season. That couldn't happen under the present system, so upper mid-grid teams such as BMW, Red Bull and Renault may have MORE incentive in the middle of a season to keep working on their present cars rather than giving up and moving onto 2010... Oh, and to say that lower constructors have nothing to fight for doesn't make any sense either, as by that argument, they don't have anything to fight for at present either. Once again - IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE!

I could go on, but I'm sure people wouldn't be bothered reading much lengthier than what I've just written. I just wish people would stop spouting out kneejerk reactions; it's called resistance to change, and it doesn't really make any sense...

I agree with what your saying about the fact if its a close season between one or two teams then it will be same and in Brazil Lewis would of had to go for the win - Fine would of made it really exciting.

However..

What if its a really really close season between 5 teams and we get alot of diffrent winners and the 5 teams drivers are getting podiums and points but only 2 wins each

then one driver lets say sutil gets 3 wins and nothing else then hes wdc

I think the points system would of been better rather than a diffrent system for the champion and then points for everyone else.

Rember if LH had his win upheld in SPA then the championship would of been over in China under this points system.

[EwanM]

Obviously I'm going against the grain here, but I genuinely don't see the problem the more I think about it. I have to admit that my first reaction was similar to most here (i.e. that it was a ridiculous idea), but think about it.

A lot are saying; 'The title could be decided by just over half way through the season'.... well, no it couldn't, unless one team utterly dominates a la McLaren 1988 or Ferrari 2004. And even if one team DID dominate like that, it wouldn't make ANY difference if the championship was decided purely on points (as previously) or on race wins (as the new system) - the result WOULD STILL BE THE SAME!! That dominant team would STILL be the only one that would win the title unless there was the biggest turnaround of a team in the sports' history.

If the field is fairly even between two or three teams then potentially there could be two or three drivers still in the title hunt late in the season so long as each of them has won at least two or maybe three races. In fact, potentially there could be MORE people in the hunt than there are at present. Think about it - last season Alonso managed to get back to back wins at a stage in the season where Hamilton and Massa only had around 4 / 5 wins each. with only a few races left in the season, under the new system a driver could potentially catapult themselves into contention with a late surge, or with good development of the car through the season. That couldn't happen under the present system, so upper mid-grid teams such as BMW, Red Bull and Renault may have MORE incentive in the middle of a season to keep working on their present cars rather than giving up and moving onto 2010... Oh, and to say that lower constructors have nothing to fight for doesn't make any sense either, as by that argument, they don't have anything to fight for at present either. Once again - IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE!

I could go on, but I'm sure people wouldn't be bothered reading much lengthier than what I've just written. I just wish people would stop spouting out kneejerk reactions; it's called resistance to change, and it doesn't really make any sense...

I think the major flaw in this whole situation is the old antidote - "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" and certainly that was the case with the points system. Fair or unfair they usually kept the title battle alive.
For Midfield teams I feel it will be very hard for them to win. Kubica only won in Canada due to Hamilton and Raikkonen playing dodgems, Alonso only won in Singapore and Mount Fuji also due to similar idiotic moments from the leading teams. However in the case of Kubica he was able to plug away and finish strongly in the points and thus keep his title chances open. Under the new proposals consistency isn't the key For arguments sake: What if Alonso's Renault cannot challenge for wins again, but did catapult back into the winners circle in the latter part of the year. And lets just say he had somehow won the remaining races - would he really deserve the title? It would be a rather hollow victory. Why should a driver win the title on the back of a minority of result while others (who may well outscore him) lose out because they weren't able to win.
I have to agree with bud, drivers 99% of the time will always try to win, their determination is never deminished. Im sure Hamilton would have preferred to have won in Brazil, but that just wasn't possible.

think there's too much fuzz about this, in the vast majority of the cases the pilot with most victories wins the championship!

not only changes can be reverted, but as I see it this is a way of adding some variability and not allow a pilot ahead in the championsion via points to sleep over the distance and let himself drop to below podium positions just for points...

of course smaller teams will never ever get a title shot even if they are consistent, but when that last happened?

again, rules can be reverted, so let's wait to see what happens this season!

Finally some common sense!! A shame that others seem to lack it...

Kubica could easily have remained in the title race till the very end. Had he not spun out in the wet British Grand Prix or had that fuel pen in Singapore he would have scored some good points - more than likely.
Also it isn't about teams its drivers. Remember Frentzen in 99 he was in the title race for so long with a slower car because he kept finishing while the others floundered.
The best known case is Keke Rosberg (ok it was turbo v normally aspirated) but he didn't have the fastest car for most of that season, just a reliable points scorer.

[Jag Racing]

Its Stupid! bernie needs to be stuffed and mounted!

I liked the proposal put forward by the drivers - 12,9,7 for the first 3 positions.

[zurich_allan]

When we get a season where five teams each have two wins, and a driver such as Sutil manages to get three wins but nothing else then I'd say it's time to re-examine the system. However that's certainly not happened in living memory of recent F1 times, and I's say - again adopting common sense - that it's highly highly unlikely to happen in the near future. the highest amount of teams we're likely to have with multiple wins is three, with potentially one or two other teams getting a one off such as Torro Rosso last year. We could come out with countless 'what if's', but the reality is that it won't happen. I'm quite confident in that.

To try something new and constantly monitor the championship or scoring system is not a bad thing. To let it stagnate is. Let's all hold on and see how it goes this season and THEN decide if it's worked.

It's pointless to do anything else anyway as the decision has been made; the new system is here like it or not. So we have two choices - either we bitch and moan about it, or we sit back and enjoy the racing for what it is. This argument can then be taken up again in November...

I know which option I'll be taking...

[EwanM]

When we get a season where five teams each have two wins, and a driver such as Sutil manages to get three wins but nothing else then I'd say it's time to re-examine the system. However that's certainly not happened in living memory of recent F1 times, and I's say - again adopting common sense - that it's highly highly unlikely to happen in the near future. the highest amount of teams we're likely to have with multiple wins is three, with potentially one or two other teams getting a one off such as Torro Rosso last year. We could come out with countless 'what if's', but the reality is that it won't happen. I'm quite confident in that.

To try something new and constantly monitor the championship or scoring system is not a bad thing. To let it stagnate is. Let's all hold on and see how it goes this season and THEN decide if it's worked.

It's pointless to do anything else anyway as the decision has been made; the new system is here like it or not. So we have two choices - either we bitch and moan about it, or we sit back and enjoy the racing for what it is. This argument can then be taken up again in November...

I know which option I'll be taking...

From 1991-2003 the 10,6,4,3,2,1 system worked perfectly well. Yes Schumacher's dominance was one of the reasons it changed, but nobody complained with Mansell or Prost's dominance in 92/93. And in that decade the title went to wire in 91,94,96,97,98,99 - which is a rather decent number of title deciders. It should never have been changed.
Unfortunately (imo) it was and I can see the pros and cons.

As you say it is decided now and we can debate it all we want, but nothing will change. However at the end of the year if a driver loses the title even though outscoring every one else, I feel it will be unfair. Yes they aren't playing "the game" but I can guarantee FOTA/FIA tensions will emerge (whether over the points system or not)

[zurich_allan]

Without quoting everything that you said EwmanM, (it would make the post far too long! ), I can understand that to an extent. But no - I don't agree that somebody consistently finishing say 2nd - 5th deserves the title. A lot of the time they inherit even those results as the leading pair may take each other out, or have some other incident in the race that promotes those below them.

I fully understand that every driver on the grid wants to win, and that with the cars having gotten to the stage where they were so technically advanced aerodynamically and mechanically that overtaking had become incredibly difficult. What this has also done is taken the human element out of the pit stop strategies. Pit strategies until around 2000-ish were decided by the pit crew and driver. Now they are decided by a software package, resulting in boring predictability. Does anybody remember the seasons 1994 - 1996 just after refueling was brought back? Some of the gambles from Schumacher, Berger and Hill off the top of my head were fantastic and threw curve balls at the rest of the field.

The changes that were announced yesterday may - just may - see teams taking more gambles away from their computers which is what I personally want to see!

Safety aside (as another debatable point), I DO want to see more drivers diving for corners, going late on breaking, taking interesting lines, attempting overtaking on the outside, rather than waiting for one chance that may never come. This might end up being brilliant, or it may end in disaster. But out of that disaster another driver might grab the chance given to them.

This is how I see it. And whilst I agree that the old system wasn't broken, I also don't think it was by any means perfect. As I said previously, let us wait and see how it pans out. I genuinely think that people coming out with all sorts of hypotheticals need to think more clearly and realise that the strong likelihood is that it won't actually make a difference.

[Jamie]

u will over al have to see what the out come is by Nov 2009
if this loses them rating etc.
I'm sure Bernie will be the first to drop the whole thing.
As we know he can't lose any of the Billions he's made??


-VB

[EwanM]

Without quoting everything that you said EwmanM, (it would make the post far too long! ), I can understand that to an extent. But no - I don't agree that somebody consistently finishing say 2nd - 5th deserves the title. A lot of the time they inherit even those results as the leading pair may take each other out, or have some other incident in the race that promotes those below them.

I do go on abit and I do apologise. Althought a driver finishing 2nd-5th place all the time will never win the title. A situation will arise in the future where a deserving driver loses the title on race wins, because although he has outscored everyone else, he maybe has won one race fewer.

I fully understand that every driver on the grid wants to win, and that with the cars having gotten to the stage where they were so technically advanced aerodynamically and mechanically that overtaking had become incredibly difficult. What this has also done is taken the human element out of the pit stop strategies. Pit strategies until around 2000-ish were decided by the pit crew and driver. Now they are decided by a software package, resulting in boring predictability. Does anybody remember the seasons 1994 - 1996 just after refueling was brought back? Some of the gambles from Schumacher, Berger and Hill off the top of my head were fantastic and threw curve balls at the rest of the field.

The changes that were announced yesterday may - just may - see teams taking more gambles away from their computers which is what I personally want to see!

As much as different fuel strategies did prove to be very exciting, it will not be a factor in this years championship. The FIA have ruined the excitement option for this year by publishing the cars weights after qually. Rivals teams will now be able to prepare to combat these "surprises", unlike before.

[Jamie]

Medals instead of tophies though?
i think we should have IRL trophies




-VB

[eddy rok]

I have read many of the posts and most people agree that this is a shocking decision by the FIA.
My biggest worry is that with there power to retract race wins from drivers for "questionable rulings" ,i (already a believer in FIA conspiracies) dread to think what they might have up there sleeves.

[Jamie]

Well Ferrari do have them in the back pockets
i think BE doesn't like LH, so that could work in our favour.
Shame.......But in this world $$$$$$ pay

-VB

[EwanM]

I have read many of the posts and most people agree that this is a shocking decision by the FIA.
My biggest worry is that with there power to retract race wins from drivers for "questionable rulings" ,i (already a believer in FIA conspiracies) dread to think what they might have up there sleeves.

Welcome to the forum.