39 replies to this topic

[mach4]

The team and the drivers' F1 championships can often be at odds with each other, as highlighted by discussions of the prospects of Ferrari's line up next year.

I thought it would be interesting to propose alternative scoring systems that would remove the need for any team to prioritise one championship over the other.

Here's my simple suggestion:

WCC: points are scored as is, with both cars contributing.

WDC: points scored as is until the end of the year when the driver ahead in the intra-team standings gets all of the team's points, from both cars.

Implications of this system:

1) The WCC and WDC team will always be the same (that seems actually fair to me).

2) Team orders to swap positions will not be necessary anymore.

3) Teams will be compelled to take the strongest pair of drivers they can find.

4) The driver who loses his intra-team battle might find it unfair his teammate will get all his points. However he can't complain too much as he will have lost a straight fight in equal machinery.

5) Drivers will have an interesting problem, they will want a fast teammate who can take lots of points for them but not too fast that they might lose to. This will probay result in evenly matched teammates.

6) The WDC won't be decided at least until the WCC is decided, which is often later in the year as more points are in play. Even if the WCC has been decided, the WDC might still be in play. So in general the drivers' championship battle should last longer.

[EvanRainer]

This is actually an interesting idea.

[GT Racing Online Magazine]

The slogan of this rule change could be "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

[PayasYouRace]

I don't see how it's fair to give a driver points he didn't earn.

 

Also I don't see how it's unfair for a driver to win the WDC and a different constructor to win the WCC.

 

Points 2 and 4 don't work. It won't stop teams favouring one driver over another. As the intra-team points battle still determines who wins, then if a team wants a particular driver to win the WDC they will favour him by swapping positions when possible.

 

If anything I prefer ensign14's idea of only giving WCC points the lower placed team car.

[Arska]

So the driver that didn't score the most points might be WDC? Doesn't seem great to me, more like stupid.

[mach4]

Points 2 and 4 don't work. It won't stop teams favouring one driver over another. As the intra-team points battle still determines who wins, then if a team wants a particular driver to win the WDC they will favour him by swapping positions when possible.

That might still happen but it certainly would reduce the number of reasons for swapping positions. Would Ferrari really have bothered taking away Massa's win in Germany 2010, knowing that Alonso would get those points anyway?

If anything I prefer ensign14's idea of only giving WCC points the lower placed team car.

Sounds like an interesting idea too but you would still have the problem with team orders.

[DampMongoose]

So you end the year with a World Drivers Champion based not on merit but the ability of his teammate?  I'd prefer a championship for both drivers and constructors that is based on number of wins, with no points for anything else.  Best driver is the one who wins the most races, best team is the one who can provide their driver with a car capable of winning more times than the rest!

[mach4]

So the driver that didn't score the most points might be WDC? Doesn't seem great to me, more like stupid.

Well that probably is the biggest issue with this points system. It elevates the importance of the team and that is one of the side effects.

It would make it more complex but you could reduce the chance of that problem with an extra condition:

The leading driver in the team only inherits his teammate's points from races where he finished directly behind him.

This would make it more like retroactive team orders, which already exist now anyway.

[Amphicar]

If you think that the WCC winning team should always be the same as the team of the WDC winning driver, you don't need a points system for the WCC - just award the constructors championship to the team that the World Champion drove for. However, to me that defeats the purpose of the WCC - might as well scrap it completely. After all, there was no WCC from 1950 to 1957.

[mach4]

So you end the year with a World Drivers Champion based not on merit but the ability of his teammate?

How is it not merit if the driver will have had to beat this very teammate? If the teammate is fast and adds a lot of points then more merit for beating him.

[ensign14]

Easy way to sort out the alleged conundrum is to give WCC points according to where the second car finishes.  It's meant to be the team award.  So, if a team puts all its focus on Driver A, who keeps winning, but Driver B keeps finishing 14th, then as a team they are not as successful as a team that finishes 2nd and 3rd.

 

There are two ways to deal, really - either just focus on Car 2, or add up the times of both cars and dish out points accordingly.

 

Then it's up to the teams whether they get behind 1 driver or 2.  And as money talks...

[mach4]

Easy way to sort out the alleged conundrum is to give WCC points according to where the second car finishes.  It's meant to be the team award.  So, if a team puts all its focus on Driver A, who keeps winning, but Driver B keeps finishing 14th, then as a team they are not as successful as a team that finishes 2nd and 3rd.

 

There are two ways to deal, really - either just focus on Car 2, or add up the times of both cars and dish out points accordingly.

 

Then it's up to the teams whether they get behind 1 driver or 2.  And as money talks...

 

But as I said above this wouldn't help with team orders to swap positions. If one driver starts to get ahead in the championship or is perceived to have more chances, the team is compelled to let him through. Whereas with my system both drivers in a team can fight equally throughout the year, with no fear of "throwing away points".

[DampMongoose]

How is it not merit if the driver will have had to beat this very teammate? If the teammate is fast and adds a lot of points then more merit for beating him.

 

If the driver who earns the most points (under the current rules) by beating all the other teams and drivers, doesn't have a successful team mate or he has one who was unlucky and suffered several retirements he won't win the WDC despite proving he was quicker than everyone else based on his OWN results. 

 

Ok let's say Button blows everyone into the weeds and wins every race next year (say 20 races) and gets 500points, Vettel finishes a distant 2nd every time with his new team mate obediently in 3rd, Perez unfortunately has several DNF's and Grosjean or Maldonado knock him off in several others and he barely scores.

 

Under your system Vettel would win the championship despite Button winning everything...yeah sounds like Seb won it on merit doesn't it?

Edited by DampMongoose, 13 September 2013 - 11:08.

[Seanspeed]

The big, huge problem with this is that the WDC can only ever come from the WCC-winning team if I understand correctly.

 

Which, sorry to say OP, is just not even worth considering.

[ApexOversteer]

Interesting, yet a stupid idea.

[apoka]

I think the problem is not big enough to introduce complex solutions, which the average fan does not understand (or has to be explained over and over).

 

There is already a penalty in WCC and, therefore, money, when a team hires a "bad" second driver. That's already an incentive to line up a strong second driver. This incentive could be increased by increasing the prize money gaps in WCC or by having 3-car-teams, but that's a different topic.

[PayasYouRace]

That might still happen but it certainly would reduce the number of reasons for swapping positions. Would Ferrari really have bothered taking away Massa's win in Germany 2010, knowing that Alonso would get those points anyway?


Sounds like an interesting idea too but you would still have the problem with team orders.

 

I'm not trying to solve the "problem" with team orders. I don't see it as a problem, but a part of the sport.

[spacekid]

So the best driver loses if his team mate is a bit crashy, or just not very good?

 

Sorry, can't get on board with this at all.

[DampMongoose]

Like PAYR says team orders are part of F1 and generally have been for the majority of it's history.  I haven't got any problem with them really...

 

Under this scheme of mach4's, if the drivers of Red Bull cars are 1st and 2nd, the team are happy (lots of points for them), the leader is also happy (lots of points are on the cards) but the driver in 2nd place isn't because he's leading the championship and is desperate to beat his team mate in this race, because he knows can't be WDC if he doesn't keep his advantage. Do you think the team are happy to have him attack the guy leading and risk taking them both off?  So they issue team orders to either allow him past or tell him to hold position to prevent any potential problems... like they do now!

[Enzoluis]

If you think that the WCC winning team should always be the same as the team of the WDC winning driver, you don't need a points system for the WCC - just award the constructors championship to the team that the World Champion drove for. However, to me that defeats the purpose of the WCC - might as well scrap it completely. After all, there was no WCC from 1950 to 1957.

 

There was no WCC or there was no WDC? At that time drivers change cars with team mates during the races.

[PayasYouRace]

There was no WCC or there was no WDC? At that time drivers change cars with team mates during the races.

 

And the drivers would share the points if they did that.

[DampMongoose]

As a result Behra led the 1956 championship after the opening race despite finishing 2nd. 

[Rinehart]

My solution would be that the car driven by the WDC wins the WCC, second goes to the next driver in the WDC with a different car and so on. Simples. 

[Lights]

Poor idea, besides the things already remarked by others, what you forget is that it only multiplies the effect of how important the car is. 

 

I too actually like the idea of the WCC being granted to the team with the highest placed second car.

[sesku]

Stupid Idea.

[MMandi]

My solution would be that the car driven by the WDC wins the WCC, second goes to the next driver in the WDC with a different car and so on. Simples. 

 

Yeah I would have preferred that but maybe it's too complicated, especially if a driver decides to leave a team

[Tonka]

Easy way to sort out the alleged conundrum is to give WCC points according to where the second car finishes.  It's meant to be the team award.  So, if a team puts all its focus on Driver A, who keeps winning, but Driver B keeps finishing 14th, then as a team they are not as successful as a team that finishes 2nd and 3rd.

 

There are two ways to deal, really - either just focus on Car 2, or add up the times of both cars and dish out points accordingly.

 

Then it's up to the teams whether they get behind 1 driver or 2.  And as money talks...

 

The WCC is already run on that system.  If one driver never scores points, the team isn't going to do well in the championship.  No top team has ever had a pair of drivers so far apart in ability - unless their 2nd driver is unable to race, as happened to Massa in 2009, when he was replaced by Luca Badoer and Giancarlo Fisichella, who only managed to score 3 points in 7 races.

 

Whatever, the WCC is a private battle to see which team gets the most dosh out of Bernie.  Few people know or care who wins the WCC, it doesn't affect the WDC very often - if ever.

 

The current WDC & WCC points system works and should be left alone.  There's no need for contrived scoring systems, medals or other nonsense, that would only confuse the casual viewer and most of the commentators.

[Collombin]

No top team has ever had a pair of drivers so far apart in ability

 

Dave Walker's results versus Emmo at Lotus in 1972 might make you think so though.

[Collombin]

There's no need for contrived scoring systems, medals or other nonsense, that would only confuse the casual viewer and most of the commentators.

 

But every scoring system is contrived in some sense. The medals system is surely the easiest of all of understand, even if not necessarily the most appropriate.

[Tonka]

Dave Walker's results versus Emmo at Lotus in 1972 might make you think so though.

 

You picked that one out, must have taken you hours.

 

 

David Walker remains the only driver not to score a single Formula One Championship point in the same season his team-mate won the driver's title.

...Walker claimed Lotus gave him inferior equipment and gave far more attention to Fittipaldi's needs than his...

 

That was back in the dark ages, when there could be 30+ qualifiers, with 25 or more starters, also points stopped at 6th place.  Not a comparison at all is it.

 

As it happens in 1972, 22 drivers ended the season on zero points, 3 of them were future or past WDCs.

[RealRacing]

What I find not ideal is penalizing a driver for a car problem, like engine or gear change, and a system that penalizes the team in the WCC and not the driver giving him grid penalties would be better.

 

As far as trying to make teammates race as much as possible, the F1 driver´s assoc. should get together and demand a clause in every contract stating that they are free to race until one of them is mathematically out of the WDC. It would improve racing and still allow a driver to support his teammate close to the end of the championship but not too soon.

[Collombin]

You picked that one out, must have taken you hours.

 

  That would mean I read your post long before you wrote it. If I had skills like that I wouldn't be wasting time on internet forums.

 

It's actually quite a well known example.

[garoidb]

That might still happen but it certainly would reduce the number of reasons for swapping positions. Would Ferrari really have bothered taking away Massa's win in Germany 2010, knowing that Alonso would get those points anyway?

 

Massa's win? There was a third of the race to go. Alonso would have attacked again and again. 

 

So, this proposal is basically to give the WDC to the highest placed driver in the WCC team. It would not ring true as a drivers championship if the driver with the best results over the season did not get the WDC. We can debate the best way of awarding points etc, but only points actually scored by a driver should count for him in the WDC IMO.

[KnucklesAgain]

WDC vs WCC is another conflict they have to balance, in a game that is full of balancing contradictory needs. It's how it should be.

[Amphicar]

There was no WCC or there was no WDC? At that time drivers change cars with team mates during the races.

The FiA World Drivers Championship began in 1950 but there was no World Constructors Championship until 1958, when Vanwall won.

[DampMongoose]

That would mean I read your post long before you wrote it. If I had skills like that I wouldn't be wasting time on internet forums.

It's actually quite a well known example.

[DampMongoose]

It's the same example I gave in the other thread on the topic within seconds/minutes but some people don't remember or don't read books!

[ensign14]

Dave Walker's results versus Emmo at Lotus in 1972 might make you think so though.

 

And of course then the constructors' title ran under the truly idiotic rule that only one car could score points.  Supposedly to prevent a British GP 1955-style lockout of the points, but it meant it rewarded one car teams.

 

As it is, I would suggest Brabham in 1981 had an even wider driver disparity. 

[Rinehart]

WDC vs WCC is another conflict they have to balance, in a game that is full of balancing contradictory needs. It's how it should be.

Good point.

[beute]

?!
 

Lets assume the following:

 

Hamilton 160 points

Rosberg 140 points

Vettel 200 points

Ricciardo 90 points

 

 

So, how would it be fair to award the WDC to Hamilton in this case?

Vettel pays for ricciardos lack of points? that doesnt make sense...

It doesnt reward the best driver, but the best team work... the WCC does that already.(lets assume everyone drives an equally fast and reliable car)

 

2) Team orders to swap positions will not be necessary anymore.

 

so what?

we will still get "maintain the gap" calls...

and now this might not just mean sacrificing 2 points for the sake of the team.. this time it can mean sacrificing ALL YOUR points for the team AND the other driver.

Drivers wont be careful with their teammates anymore, which will cause even more "maintain the gap" calls.... which result in even more drivers disobeying and so on.

Edited by beute, 16 September 2013 - 13:25.