83 replies to this topic

[fastlegs]

From ITV-F1 article;


Bernie Ecclestone says he wants to see the Formula 1 scoring format abolished and the championship title given to whoever wins the most races.


Quotes from Bernie;

"I got a bit waylaid last season, what with all the business with McLaren and Ferrari, but it is my intention to push this idea through in the coming weeks,"

"The key word in motor racing is 'racing', and right now there are not enough overtaking manoeuvres in the sport because drivers are happy not to take risks and claim second place because it is only two points less than winning the race."

"What I want to see is the winner of the most number of races as world champion, and second places only to be used if the top two finish the season with the same number of wins."

"The constructors would keep the existing system."



Personally, I agree with Bernie. I think the driver with the most wins should become the WDC. What do you think?


Full article: http://www.itv-f1.co...e.aspx?id=42020

[Domination]

I don't think Ferrari fans would be very happy lol.

[jokuvaan]

Negative side of this would be that top teams(even Mclaren) would have to decide beforehand who is aimed to be champ.

In todays situation, if Heikki gets 8 points and Hamilton 10, its almost meaningless in tittle fight. You can always compensate points, wins are much much harder to get.

So because of this reason, I dont believe that Bernie's system will put in use.

[Jones Foyer]

Absolutely stupid. I don't need to go any further.

[undersquare]

So for the drivers who can't win on that day, what is there to race for?

Some of the great drives have been saving some points from disaster, remember MS stuck in 5th?

[UPRC]

While Max's ideas are good in theory but bad in reality.... Bernie's ideas are just plain bad.

[StefanV]

Hopeless idea. And Max want the drivers to swap cars. I think they are both completely fed up with F1 and just want to do everything they can to turn it into something else. Increase the difference in points between places Bernie, that is all that is needed. Winner 15 points and second place 10 maybe? The 7, 5, 3,2,1 and maybe half a point, or pint, for 8th place.

[1george]

Originally posted by fastlegs

Personally, I agree with Bernie. I think the driver with the most wins should become the WDC. What do you think?


Full article: http://www.itv-f1.co...e.aspx?id=42020

So the FIA should give 12 or 14 points to the winner and 8 to the second, but the FIA choose to give a two points difference because is a chance to have an exciting championship until the final round. Contradiction.

[Sakae]

Originally posted by fastlegs
From ITV-F1 article;


Bernie Ecclestone says he wants to see the Formula 1 scoring format abolished and the championship title given to whoever wins the most races.


Quotes from Bernie;

"I got a bit waylaid last season, what with all the business with McLaren and Ferrari, but it is my intention to push this idea through in the coming weeks,"

"The key word in motor racing is 'racing', and right now there are not enough overtaking manoeuvres in the sport because drivers are happy not to take risks and claim second place because it is only two points less than winning the race."

"What I want to see is the winner of the most number of races as world champion, and second places only to be used if the top two finish the season with the same number of wins."

"The constructors would keep the existing system."



Personally, I agree with Bernie. I think the driver with the most wins should become the WDC. What do you think?


Full article: http://www.itv-f1.co...e.aspx?id=42020

According to this theory we could have following situation;

A-driver - 2 wins, 15x sits at home
B-driver - 0 wins, 17x second place
C - X drivers - each one win each, and than fading to 3rd, and lower

Yet driver A gets WDC and driver B gets nada.

Sounds fair to me; brilliant, Bernie.

[fastlegs]

Originally posted by undersquare
So for the drivers who can't win on that day, what is there to race for?

I assume there would be some sort of standing to acknowledge their placements. However, the main point that I feel Bernie is making is to see the WDC decide on most wins.

He doesn't want a driver coasting along in second or third place to just to rack up points rather than going all out to battle for the win.

[Frank Booth]

I haven't seen it mentioned but he also said the WCC point system should stay the same. This combined with the change in the WDC point system is a good idea IMO. That way the drivers still have an incentive to push even if they aren't going to win. I think we forget that the drivers are mainly there for the team not for themselves, although it seems to be different these days.

[fastlegs]

Originally posted by Frank Booth
I haven't seen it mentioned but he also said the WCC point system should stay the same. This combined with the change in the WDC point system is a good idea IMO. That way the drivers still have an incentive to push even if they aren't going to win. I think we forget that the drivers are mainly there for the team not for themselves, although it seems to be different these days.

I agree.

[angst]

I think this is one of Bernie's better suggestions. It makes absolute sense. I can't believe how myopic so many race 'fans' really are. This weekend has been a real eye-opener for me. First, that so many could find Massa responsible for DC's bonehead move and then this set of responses. Do you guys even want racing ?

The idea is simple. Rather than building up a safe set of points and adding to that by driving for positions, the drivers will have to race for wins. It'll be no good racking up second place after second place after fourth place while another driver is pushing for wins. The emphasis on wins will mean that teams will push the envelope on performance again...... Just a fabulous idea.

Just out of interest. How do you think other sports are judged? Are gold medals handed out for best average position over a year? Is the World Cup won by the team which has most consistently picked up points?

[fastlegs]

Originally posted by angst
I think this is one of Bernie's better suggestions. It makes absolute sense. I can't believe how myopic so many race 'fans' really are. This weekend has been a real eye-opener for me. First, that so many could find Massa responsible for DC's bonehead move and then this set of responses. Do you guys even want racing ?

The idea is simple. Rather than building up a safe set of points and adding to that by driving for positions, the drivers will have to race for wins. It'll be no good racking up second place after second place after fourth place while another driver is pushing for wins. The emphasis on wins will mean that teams will push the envelope on performance again...... Just a fabulous idea.

Just out of interest. How do you think other sports are judged? Are gold medals handed out for best average position over a year? Is the World Cup won by the team which has most consistently picked up points?

Well said.

All the negative response to Bernie's proposal so far in this thread surprises me.

[Fatgadget]

Bernie and Max are exhibiting the onset of senile dementia thats for sure.

[pRy]

The Autosport article has this paragraph which points out this is the case now anyway. But I can see Bernies fear with the 2nd place points rule. Perhaps he fears this years title will go to the 2nd place man.

"Despite Ecclestone's comments, the Formula One title has gone to the driver with the most race wins in the championship in every year since 1989."

[StefanV]

Originally posted by angst
I think this is one of Bernie's better suggestions. It makes absolute sense. I can't believe how myopic so many race 'fans' really are. This weekend has been a real eye-opener for me. First, that so many could find Massa responsible for DC's bonehead move and then this set of responses. Do you guys even want racing ?

The idea is simple. Rather than building up a safe set of points and adding to that by driving for positions, the drivers will have to race for wins. It'll be no good racking up second place after second place after fourth place while another driver is pushing for wins. The emphasis on wins will mean that teams will push the envelope on performance again...... Just a fabulous idea.

Just out of interest. How do you think other sports are judged? Are gold medals handed out for best average position over a year? Is the World Cup won by the team which has most consistently picked up points?

The obvious problem is the one pointed out by jokuvaan - with "the winner takes it all" a team might need to decide already at the first race which driver they support for the championship. Had Heikki and Lewis been 1-2 at the beginning of the last lap, Ron would have had to make a decision which one them that can become a World Champion and which one should do the support. A further side effect of that is that by having one driver assigned as "support" already in the beginning of the season it is not unlikely that they will start to take their supporting role more literally.

And how would Bernies idea go together with the "no team orders" rule ;)

[fastlegs]

Originally posted by StefanV
Had Heikki and Lewis been 1-2 at the beginning of the last lap, Ron would have had to make a decision which one them that can become a World Champion and which one should do the support.

How about letting them race each other. Isn't that what "real racing" is supposed to be about?

[kismet]

I'm sure the only-wins-count system would bring its own problems and potential for dubious race tactics but I have to say I've got pretty bloody tired of the so-called bigger picture dominating the coverage practically from the word go. There's something very, very wrong with the sport when we get "Are so-and-so's title chances already over?" threads after race 5 when so-and-so is driving the joint-fastest car on the grid and only trailing the WDC leader by something like 12 points with 12 races to go. Or when people start coming up with complicated permutations that would allow someone to claw back a 9-point lead in 7 races - only to conclude that it'll be very, very difficult and that the WDC is practically decided already.

[Tigershark]

I don't like this idea because it diminishes the efforts of people like Michael Schumacher who went from 22nd to 5th in Monaco to score some points. Apart from the extremely unlikely scenario that he ends up finishing the season tied on 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th places this would mean nothing under Bernie's new system. However, I'm all for making wins more important than they are now. The fact that the reward for a win is only two more championship points than second, and only four more than third is terrible and makes for seemingly impossible catch-up math games like Schumacher had to do in 2006, and Raikkonen did in 2007.

So keep the points system, but change it to make winning far more rewarding.

[StefanV]

Originally posted by fastlegs


How about letting them race each other. Isn't that what "real racing" is supposed to be about?

Heh... F1 is a team sport, remember? The drivers are payed to drive for the team and I do not think any team boss would be partcularly pleased with their drivers doing kamikaze moves with their high performance mechanical conveyances. With Bernies suggestion you would need to change F1 in it's core. Coincidently, Max seem to be on the same track with the swap drivers idea.

[Crazy Canuck]

Originally posted by Domination
I don't think Ferrari fans would be very happy lol.

Kimi had most wins last year.....

CC

[MONTOYASPEED]

No thanks.

[undersquare]

Originally posted by fastlegs


I assume there would be some sort of standing to acknowledge their placements. However, the main point that I feel Bernie is making is to see the WDC decide on most wins.

He doesn't want a driver coasting along in second or third place to just to rack up points rather than going all out to battle for the win.

I think the wins-or-nothing approach would have all sorts of problems, like drivers in 2nd/3rd/4th NOT racing in order to save their engines for the next race.

Bearing in mind that, as it is, in fact every championship since 1989 has been won by the driver with most wins.

All it needs is a revision to the points allocation, 12-9-7, 15-10-8 or whatever. Second should still be worth more than third, and so on. There were reasons why Bernie originally extended the points-paying positions from 6 to 8.

I think in general the top drivers see themselves as being served by the team, rather than the other way round, so I don't think the teams' points are enough of a motivator.

But maybe Bernie is taking a leaf out of Max's book, and starting with an extreme that he will compomise on.

[fastlegs]

Originally posted by undersquare
All it needs is a revision to the points allocation, 12-9-7, 15-10-8 or whatever. Second should still be worth more than third, and so on.

If nothing else, I'd like to see the points allocation changed to, as you suggested, a minimum 3 point difference between 1st and 2nd.

[John B]

Interestingly, up through 1989 WDCs not having the most wins was pretty common: 89, 87, 86, 84, 83 (and in 88 Prost had the most points but one win less than champ Senna thanks to the 11 races rule).

I actually don't mind the idea. It would be interesting to see a major series where driving conservatively for points isn't a consideration. Did Bernie approve of the change cutting the points from 10-6 to 10-8, which goes against his current philosophy?

[Frank Booth]

Originally posted by undersquare
I think in general the top drivers see themselves as being served by the team, rather than the other way round, so I don't think the teams' points are enough of a motivator.

I think your comment is really the essence of the problem. The drivers are employees of the team, the team should always come first. Maybe they should abolish the WDC altogether and award co-WDC to the drivers for the team that wins the constructors championship

[rolf123]

Bernie has the right thoughts.

If you look at racing through the centuries, it has always been about winning on the day.

The championship in many ways is secondary to race day.

Racers live and breathe to win on the day. Sadly this fact seems to have been lost on many fans in the last few years probably because the points system doesn't reward going for the win.

The point system has to change. If it changes to reward the wins more, then usually the person who wins the most races will win the championship.

I suggest a similar ratio to before when we had 10-6-4 etc. where a 2nd and a 3rd are needed to equal a win.

I suggest changing the points for a win to 14. Even so, getting 4th 5th or 6th will still give you disproportionately more points than you would have got under the pre 92 system so I don't see the problem.

[rolf123]

Originally posted by Frank Booth


I think your comment is really the essence of the problem. The drivers are employees of the team, the team should always come first. Maybe they should abolish the WDC altogether and award co-WDC to the drivers for the team that wins the constructors championship

I hope you're being sarcastic. I hope F1 never sees that day. We need to give more power back to the drivers instead of giving it to the money driven constructors. Can't you see the negative effects of globalisation?

[undersquare]

Originally posted by Frank Booth


I think your comment is really the essence of the problem. The drivers are employees of the team, the team should always come first. Maybe they should abolish the WDC altogether and award co-WDC to the drivers for the team that wins the constructors championship

Interesting idea, extremely radical I think. Instead of super-egos...super-servants.

Which drivers would have been ~champions in the past? Prost? Hill? MS?? Probably not Senna, Mansell, Piquet...

Hmmmmmmm!

[Enzoluis]

Bernie got the point, probably his idea need to be a little more definition. May not the title to the driver who win more races but may be a 10 or 20 point bonus at the end of the season.
But thos thing needs to be addresed, drivers race only until the first pit stop, then they cruise to the end.

[the9th]

I understand Ferrari´s point (via Bernie).
For me, at the end of the day (championship), the guy who scores more points should be at the top of the table. It's probably easier, when you have the best piece of machinery, the best strategy and preferred treatment, to win more races, even if you're somewhat erratic and inconsistent.
If winning isn't all that important now, then it's obvious that finishing fourth and third isn't all that bad either and that makes for an action packed race. We know that the guy who came fourth can be the man of the race, because the middlefield is much tighter.
I'm not totally against Bernie's philosophy, but you can't change the rules after the championship has started. Teams take all that into account when they build their cars.

[cartman]

Just give 12 to winner.

It really is ridiculus than you can win 4 times, retire once and have the some amount of points as the guy who was the first loser 5 times.

[Frank Booth]

Originally posted by rolf123


I hope you're being sarcastic. I hope F1 never sees that day. We need to give more power back to the drivers instead of giving it to the money driven constructors. Can't you see the negative effects of globalisation?

No sarcasm at all. Without the constructors you would have a 22 guys sitting on their butts. I sure wouldn't pay to go see that or stay up late to watch it live.

[noikeee]

I'm all up for a new points system that doesn't put so much emphasis on reliability and so few in winning, but this is too radical for me. It works for the first few places in the WDC, but is absolutely random for all the other drivers: from the 4th or 5th strongest team onwards all it matters is who gets a lucky podium in a wet or safety-car-crazy race. Example: last year Kovalainen, Wurz(!!) and Webber would all be placed ahead of Kubica, even though Kubica finished ahead of them almost every race, and only failed to score a podium due to bad luck.

[Jhope]

What if, for example, uhm, season is over by the British GP? Then what do we do for the next 6 races? And what if there is a tie? Do we count points?

[Orin]

Originally posted by Domination
I don't think Ferrari fans would be very happy lol.

Why not? A win in court is still a win.

[Collombin]

Originally posted by John B
Interestingly, up through 1989 WDCs not having the most wins was pretty common: 89, 87, 86, 84, 83

And 1981 and 1982 as well! Although in 1983 Piquet would still have been champ in reality, as I can't see him gifting Patrese the win in Kyalami under this rule, as it would have meant him losing the title, rather than winning it!

I hope it happens, I'm a huge fan of the idea. Yes, you can dream up hugely unlikely scenarios that make the idea look stupid, but the same is true of any alternative system.

I think it is the best system for determining the champion, although paradoxically it is arguably less fair in determining the lower championship positions, I think Wurz would have ended up ahead of Kubica in 2007 under this system for example, thanks to one good finish versus a good consistent season. As far as the champion is concerned though, it should be all about the wins.

[p261brm]

Why not go the whole hog? only the car that wins is awarded points towards constructor's championship. The little man is at it again, just making sure all those involved in F1 know who is in charge. The hope the foootball league might get his attention seems to have floundered some what, a very great pity indeed.

[MrAerodynamicist]

Originally posted by Jhope
What if, for example, uhm, season is over by the British GP?

Before I nail my colours to the mast, whatever system you go for, it should be the 'fair' one, the one that rewards the best driver. Selecting the system to reward certain game plans (be it getting drivers to push for wins, or to reward consistency) To even consider 'the show' (in terms of closeness between competitors) as an important factor is wrong.

Then what do we do for the next 6 races? And what if there is a tie? Do we count points?

On a tie, you decide it on the number of second places. Under the system, Alonso beat Schumacher with 7 wins and 7 seconds to Michael's 7 wins and 5 seconds.

I've made my positive views on 'most wins' plenty of times before, in the AQUA threads. I suggest people take a read of those, so many of the points raised have been discussed before.

AQUA 2004, AQUA 2005, AQUA 2006, AQUA 2007, 1950-2003.

This all reminded me of something Roebuck wrote last year here.

"How the hell," he said to me once, "can you drive a race car, fight with people - and think all the time about points for a bloody championship? How can you settle for a 'safe' third place or something, because it's four points...? Jesus, people like that should be accountants, not racing drivers..."

How can I not prefer a system that favours the Gilles of the world, and not the Nelsons

[ClubmanGT]

Allow me to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, but now that Hamilton seems to be dominant, the rules brought in to stop one team (Ferrari) dominating are to be repealed? I know there's nothing in it, but still....TIFOSI RAGE!

[COUGAR508]

Whilst Bernie's idea has its merits, I personally cannot see much difference between drivers who win, say, three or four races in a season. In addition, a driver may have produced a couple of drives from the back of the grid, or in adverse circumstances, to finish second or third. These drives can be as noteworthy as a lights-to-flag victory.

[chrisj]

I'd be happy if they just increased the winner's points to 12 or something, or increased the point gap between each position to encourage overtake attempts. Seems simple enough.

[Atreiu]

Originally posted by undersquare
So for the drivers who can't win on that day, what is there to race for?

Some of the great drives have been saving some points from disaster, remember MS stuck in 5th?

Exactly.
Add that to the cost saving intent and make everyone except Ferrari and McLaren not race at all. That ought to save a lot.

[F1Fanatic.co.uk]

Bernie wants wins to decide WDC

He's right.

What's next?

[ensign14]

Originally posted by p261brm
Why not go the whole hog? only the car that wins is awarded points towards constructor's championship. The little man is at it again, just making sure all those involved in F1 know who is in charge. The hope the foootball league might get his attention seems to have floundered some what, a very great pity indeed.

Bernie's always wanted wins to decide the title. Quite right too.

As far as the constructors' title is concerned, the first car of each constructor to finish should be ignored. Any team can get a 50% finish rate - a PROPER team gets a 100% finish rate and looks after its second car as much as its first. The real measure of a TEAM performance is to see where its lantern rouge is.

[le chat noir]

Originally posted by undersquare
So for the drivers who can't win on that day, what is there to race for?

Some of the great drives have been saving some points from disaster, remember MS stuck in 5th?

No reason you can't have wins and points.

We currently look at points first, then wins, seconds..., so if they are tied on points, it goes to larger number of wins, seconds... - see LH/FA 2007

Instead, it can be decided on wins, and if tied, look to points accumulated.

Simple enough.


In Brazil last yeah LH would have had to win to get WDC instead of mid-points finish. If he'd won he'd tie on wins, then win WDC on points.

Would make for more high-tension finishes to the season possibly.

[Collective]

Despite Ecclestone's comments, the Formula One title has gone to the driver with the most race wins in the championship in every year since 1989.

This is the whole thing. I don't understand why aaaaaall the bashing on drivers cruising for points when the above quote is true.

I remember all the Alonso bashers in 2005 claiming for a rule like this. What happened? He won the most races at the end!!!!

If you want wins being more deciding, let's return to the 4 point difference between 1st and 2nd.

[angst]

Originally posted by StefanV

The obvious problem is the one pointed out by jokuvaan - with "the winner takes it all" a team might need to decide already at the first race which driver they support for the championship. Had Heikki and Lewis been 1-2 at the beginning of the last lap, Ron would have had to make a decision which one them that can become a World Champion and which one should do the support. A further side effect of that is that by having one driver assigned as "support" already in the beginning of the season it is not unlikely that they will start to take their supporting role more literally.

And how would Bernies idea go together with the "no team orders" rule ;)

That decision isn't going to be made any differently by the teams than it is now. Some teams (Ferrari, Scumacher era), Renault (Alonso) made the choice pretty much pre-season, while others (Williams and McLaren) allow their drivers to race and then decide.

After one race you think that RD is going to decide who wins McMercs races? What if Hamilton suffers problems later in the season and Kovalainen starts winning, or if he turns out to be quicker?

[angst]

Originally posted by Tigershark
I don't like this idea because it diminishes the efforts of people like Michael Schumacher who went from 22nd to 5th in Monaco to score some points. Apart from the extremely unlikely scenario that he ends up finishing the season tied on 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th places this would mean nothing under Bernie's new system. However, I'm all for making wins more important than they are now. The fact that the reward for a win is only two more championship points than second, and only four more than third is terrible and makes for seemingly impossible catch-up math games like Schumacher had to do in 2006, and Raikkonen did in 2007.

So keep the points system, but change it to make winning far more rewarding.

But it's a team sport. Those points for fifth might make all the difference for Ferrari, so the drive is still great (whether points are awarded or not, frankly) and the effort is rewarded.