Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

New Thought: Qualy style WDC


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

Poll: Qualy Style WDC (52 member(s) have cast votes)

Is this a format worth exploring?

  1. Yes, has potential. (4 votes [7.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.69%

  2. Nope, it is doomed. (48 votes [92.31%])

    Percentage of vote: 92.31%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 RubalSher

RubalSher
  • Member

  • 1,565 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:48

There is a recent thread discussing the current WDC system and how fair it is. Many ideas have been suggested & debated.

 

So, I thought I would pitch in with an idea I borrowed online, do some leg work and present it to you.

 

So here goes. How about splitting the 19 races of this season into 3 rounds, something very similar to the current qualy format. After the first 7 races, 6 drivers get eliminated from the title fight and can only from there on compete for places 17-22. After another 6 races, eliminate 6 more drivers from the title fight and lock them in positions 11-16. The last 6 races will be for a title fight between the top 10 drivers at that point.

 

At the end of every round, drivers who have passed the round would have their scores reset to 0 for the next round. Drivers who get eliminated in a particular round will not lose their score and will compete with those who got eliminated on the basis of their cumulative score starting from the round they get eliminated in.

 

Here is a snapshot of how it would look this season now that we have completed the first round of 7 races.

 

2zpth60.jpg

 

Positions 17-22 and the guys in yellow will now only compete for these positions. Since they were eliminated in the first round, all 19 races would count towards their battle within positions 17-22.

 

The other 16 guys would now compete for elimination between Austria and Italy and their score would be reset to 0. So everyone in the top 16 starts with a clean slate.

 

At the end of the Italian race, 6 more drivers get eliminated, the top 10 have their scores reset to 0 and they will compete in the last 6 races for the title based on the points they score only in the last 6 races. The drivers who get eliminated after Italy will have their score counted all the way from Austria till the last race for deciding positions 11-16.

 

The WCC points however stay the same and the benefits that results from WCC points (including money) stay the same. This will ensure that teams try their best every weekend even though they may have cleared a certain round.

 

Advantages:

1. The title fight is not a foregone conclusion. The driver who scores the maximum points in the last 6 races is the WDC. For example, plenty of fans are already writing off this season because of the Merc domination. That would no longer be true.

2. Teams will not stop developing their cars and the competition will be intense every year till the very end.

3. Individual races will be more exciting as drivers and teams try to make the cut off if they risk elimination.

4. Drivers will likely need to perform well in all 3 rounds to be champion. So consistency will be rewarded.

 

Disadvantages:

1. You could argue that the races earlier on the calendar dont count for the "actual" title fight and may generate lesser interest.

2. Teams may not go all out in earlier races (but see the point above for WCC).

 

Your thoughts?



Advertisement

#2 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 2,451 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:55

You've watched too much Nascar. In your world Vettel would have been champion five times, in five boring seasons, because Red Bull ruled the last races. It isn't a fair championship either, the small teams have no chance at all to finish high up, because they would have been out developed mid season. I see no need to change the system because this new systems have more flaws or show elements than the old one, which is much more straight forward. If you perform the whole season, you will win  



#3 meddo

meddo
  • Member

  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:58

But, but, he just said that his system will make everybody push until the bitter end. That means, no more diverting resources for the next season in april.

Otherwise, idea just needs a little bit more tweaking.



#4 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 2,451 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:01

But, but, he just said that his system will make everybody push until the bitter end. That means, no more diverting resources for the next season in april.

Otherwise, idea just needs a little bit more tweaking.

 

and, and what happens when everybody push to the end smaller teams have no chance for a good result, a two horse race at least, Ferrari in 2012 and 2010 were pushing to the end, but didn't have a change against RedBull, they needed they gap built up, mid season/early season like Brawn in 2009



#5 meddo

meddo
  • Member

  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:05

and, and what happens when everybody push to the end smaller teams have no chance for a good result, a two horse race at least, Ferrari in 2012 and 2010 were pushing to the end, but didn't have a change against RedBull, they needed they gap built up, mid season/early season like Brawn in 2009

OK. You¨re right. Tweet to pass seems like a good idea. 



#6 RubalSher

RubalSher
  • Member

  • 1,565 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:05

@1Devil1

 

You cannot compare previous years or this year to this format simply because this format is not in place. If this format was in effect, it is likely that Vettel wont have won all those titles as easily as he did.

 

You will have 10 drivers (at least 5 teams) in with a WDC shout in the last 6 races. You have to assume that under this format, more teams will be pushing as hard as they can till the very end and the competition between the top teams will actually grow.

 

As regards the lesser teams, yes they are likely to be eliminated sooner but they mostly get lapped every race, so being eliminated early is appropriate.



#7 meddo

meddo
  • Member

  • 1,445 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:08

Rubal, I don¨t like the idea of completely eliminating lesser (smaller) teams. There must be some other way. After all, you can't negotiate a sponsorship deal when you don't know if you¨ll be eliminated after first or second round. 



#8 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 880 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:20

 

 

Your thoughts?

 

I hate knockout qualifying, and I hate knockout Championship even more. 



#9 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,835 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:32

The worse the quality of racing in any given series, the more important the points system, to cover its ass. 



#10 ardbeg

ardbeg
  • Member

  • 940 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:40

Well, why not? Unless you are a fan of Rosberg or Hamilton, this season is already at the stage where many fans choose the BBQ in the garden instead of watching the race.



#11 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,035 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:43

It's just the NASCAR chase system, but done twice. I prefer for a championship to be decided equally throughout the season. It doesn't mean much if you could only scrape 10th in the champion after 2/3 of the season only to win at the end. It's unlikely, but it is possible. After all, Alonso was the highest scorer in the last 6 races of 2008, and Button did the same in 2006.



#12 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,189 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:46

I don't really have much against the idea. I mean, I think the way it is now is fine and works well, but this would be an interesting alternative if they wanted to do something different(which of course will put many people off as different = bad).

I think it could add a bit of drama to things and the end of each 'round' would feel like a mini-championship finale in itself for many teams and drivers.

Cool idea.

Edited by Seanspeed, 10 June 2014 - 13:47.


#13 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 10 June 2014 - 14:26

I think the main problems of F1 need to be addressed, not try to adapt to a flawed F1. Many band-aid solutions have now proved counter-productive. Give them a stable set of rules for the long-term, address the main racing-related problems, figure out a way to give smaller teams a better chance and keep tweaking with intelligence every season and you'll eventually get a better F1.

 

Having said that, I'd look into giving them the possibility of discarding races so as to eliminate the randomness of DNFs and make the WDC closer and more interesting. Eliminating driver penalties for changes of PU, gear box, etc. would also contribute to this.



#14 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,759 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 10 June 2014 - 15:06

Way too farfetched.



#15 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 682 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 10 June 2014 - 20:51

All these complicated solutions to the scoring system.

 

If you want to make the WDC more interesting, get rid of the WCC. That will force the teams to think early about favoring one driver for the championship and use the other to support that objective.



#16 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,189 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 11 June 2014 - 06:57

All these complicated solutions to the scoring system.
 
If you want to make the WDC more interesting, get rid of the WCC. That will force the teams to think early about favoring one driver for the championship and use the other to support that objective.

Which we don't want, right? Having to assign a no.2 role for a driver due to being out of the championship fight is an unfortunate necessity, not a valued entertainment prospect. Doing this too early always runs the risk of being unfair as well. Drivers should be not be held back if they still have a reasonable chance.

#17 Cesc

Cesc
  • Member

  • 726 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 11 June 2014 - 07:16

Too many "creative" ideas to make interesting and entertaining something that should be entertaining without all those "creative" ideas. I loved the old F1, simple qualis (60 minutes although I would accept two 20' knocked-out sessions to avoid huge traffic at the end of the last one), 10-6-4-3-2-1 points system, and no big changes every 4 years.... 


Edited by Cesc, 11 June 2014 - 07:16.


#18 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,189 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 11 June 2014 - 07:18

Too many "creative" ideas to make interesting and entertaining something that should be entertaining without all those "creative" ideas. I loved the old F1, simple qualis (60 minutes although I would accept two 20' knocked-out sessions to avoid huge traffic at the end of the last one), 10-6-4-3-2-1 points system, and no big changes every 4 years....

So glad all that stuff is gone.

#19 RubalSher

RubalSher
  • Member

  • 1,565 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 11 June 2014 - 13:04

Rubal, I don¨t like the idea of completely eliminating lesser (smaller) teams. There must be some other way. After all, you can't negotiate a sponsorship deal when you don't know if you¨ll be eliminated after first or second round. 

 

The smaller teams like everyone else still competes for WDC and WCC and this format is not drastically going to alter the end result. It just ensures that teams & spectators dont give up too early in the season and that we have more excitement in terms of 3 mini rounds that all compete to get through.



Advertisement

#20 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,202 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 11 June 2014 - 13:53

1. The title fight is not a foregone conclusion. The driver who scores the maximum points in the last 6 races is the WDC. For example, plenty of fans are already writing off this season because of the Merc domination. That would no longer be true. And that's a good thing, why? The fact that you can have safely eliminated 20 of the 22 drivers from the WDC equation after the first race doesn't make the entire season a write-off in most people's book. You could have safely eliminated 16 of them before a wheel was turned. There's more to F1 than the WDC battle.

2. Teams will not stop developing their cars and the competition will be intense every year till the very end. They will if they get knocked out.

3. Individual races will be more exciting as drivers and teams try to make the cut off if they risk elimination. If you like desperation, I suppose. And drivers crashing on purpose to prevent their team-mate from being knocked out, a la Nascar.

4. Drivers will likely need to perform well in all 3 rounds to be champion. So consistency will be rewarded. Except, if you have the car to win the championship, you'd have to be mighty bad to miss the cut, surely? You could still be moderately bad for 2/3 of the season and win it on the strength of a few good results at the end. So it won't reward consistency as much as the current system does.

 

More generally, I'm unsure what specific problem this idea is designed to overcome? Why do we need it? What's wrong now? If the idea is to keep people who only care about the WDC watching until the end, it might work, but surely it runs the risk that those people won't bother watching the first two-thirds of the season? Because it would be a pretty safe bet that the big name drivers would not be eliminated, right? And if a big name driver were to get knocked out, maybe the casual but partisan viewer might not bother to watch at all that season...



#21 FerrariV12

FerrariV12
  • Member

  • 344 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 11 June 2014 - 14:56

No for me.

 

The analogy is made with the knockout qualifying format. The thing is the knockout qualifying was brought in to solve an actual problem and a problem that even someone like me who liked and likes the old format can appreciate - that of an empty or near-empty track for the first 20/30 minutes of the session.

 

I even had no issue with the change to the current points format - even if it is less memorable than the 10-6-4-3-2-1 that rolled off the tongue so easily, as again it solved, well in this case two clear problems - firstly the insane bulletproof reliability of modern F1 cars restricting points scoring opportunities, and then also the problem of the intermediate 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 not rewarding wins enough.

 

Any issues with the current championship format could be solved with a tweaking of the points structure - and lets face it the "wins are/aren't rewarded enough under the current system" is very much a matter of opinion - well all things are, but this one is far less cut and dried than the 3 examples above. And in my opinion it's not big enough of an issue to sacrifice the integrity of all races counting and counting equally (well apart from the Abu Dhabi joke, cheers Bernie) towards the final points.


Edited by FerrariV12, 11 June 2014 - 14:57.


#22 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,189 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 11 June 2014 - 16:04

1. The title fight is not a foregone conclusion. The driver who scores the maximum points in the last 6 races is the WDC. For example, plenty of fans are already writing off this season because of the Merc domination. That would no longer be true. And that's a good thing, why? The fact that you can have safely eliminated 20 of the 22 drivers from the WDC equation after the first race doesn't make the entire season a write-off in most people's book. You could have safely eliminated 16 of them before a wheel was turned. There's more to F1 than the WDC battle.
2. Teams will not stop developing their cars and the competition will be intense every year till the very end. They will if they get knocked out.
3. Individual races will be more exciting as drivers and teams try to make the cut off if they risk elimination. If you like desperation, I suppose. And drivers crashing on purpose to prevent their team-mate from being knocked out, a la Nascar.
4. Drivers will likely need to perform well in all 3 rounds to be champion. So consistency will be rewarded. Except, if you have the car to win the championship, you'd have to be mighty bad to miss the cut, surely? You could still be moderately bad for 2/3 of the season and win it on the strength of a few good results at the end. So it won't reward consistency as much as the current system does.
 
More generally, I'm unsure what specific problem this idea is designed to overcome? Why do we need it? What's wrong now? If the idea is to keep people who only care about the WDC watching until the end, it might work, but surely it runs the risk that those people won't bother watching the first two-thirds of the season? Because it would be a pretty safe bet that the big name drivers would not be eliminated, right? And if a big name driver were to get knocked out, maybe the casual but partisan viewer might not bother to watch at all that season...

I think you're kind of treating it way more serious than it is. I don't think he's stating this system as a 'fix' for any big problem, just a more dramatic, alternative system.

Shouldn't really change anything drastically. Consistency will be rewarded, just in a different way. Nobody is going to be purposefully crashing into each other(where did this come from? lol). And teams still have something to play for if their drivers get knocked out. I don't think he's suggesting this change the WCC system.

I imagine it could actually work. People would freak out at first, cuz its different, but I think people would get used to it, just like they got used to knockout qualifying.

#23 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,202 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 11 June 2014 - 16:50

I think you're kind of treating it way more serious than it is. I don't think he's stating this system as a 'fix' for any big problem, just a more dramatic, alternative system.

Shouldn't really change anything drastically. Consistency will be rewarded, just in a different way. Nobody is going to be purposefully crashing into each other(where did this come from? lol). And teams still have something to play for if their drivers get knocked out. I don't think he's suggesting this change the WCC system.

I imagine it could actually work. People would freak out at first, cuz its different, but I think people would get used to it, just like they got used to knockout qualifying.

 

If it's not meant seriously, that's fine of course. I'm just trying to think it through, and I reckon there's a number of problems with this format.

 

Basically, rather than viewing this proposal as analogous to knock-out qualifying, it's really more analogous to a Nascar race where you're guaranteed full course cautions. Because as you say, the knockout element won't make much difference in WDC terms as the people getting knocked out wouldn't have been serious title contenders under a more traditional format anyway. But what it would do in respect of the serious title contenders, is close up the field by eliminating the points leads and deficits. What that does in Nascar races is reduce the need for drivers to maintain strong pace throughout the race, as long as they stay vaguely in touch with the leading group, and can make the period between the start and the final full-course caution incredibly tedius. And it's not fair.

 

In F1, for a long time pace/safety cars weren't used as they were regarded as unherently unfair, then eventually, mostly as a way of avoiding red flags and appeasing broadcasters, they were brought in, but some of us are still deeply uncomfortable with the idea that the pack should be artificially closed up just for the sake of the show. I'm happy for it to be done if it's genuinely necessary for the safety of the marshalls and it saves a red flag, but not for the sake of the show, because that damages the integrity of the race. As far as I'm concerned, if somebody builds up a lead, they deserve that lead and they shouldn't have it arbitrarily taken from them.

 

Thinking of the current title fight, the OP argues it would make it more interesting in that one could not discount the possibility that another team would improve enough in the last 6 races to challenge for the title in the end. There's a serious question about whether that's even a little bit fair, but there's also a flip-side to the OP's contention, which is that the Hamilton-Rosberg battle which has already provided a considerable amount of tension and drama this season, would at this point be almost entirely irrelevant. Rosberg would be able to sit back and wait for his new brake discs to be baked, and not worry in the slightest if he came home second every race, because he would be able to afford to lose 7 points to Hamilton every race knowing that any points deficit would be imagined away at a given point in order to bring him back into contention. His only focus would be to try to find some more pace by race 14, not to try to battle for points and wins now. Similarly Hamilton wouldn't need to worry about the odd DNF, for the same reason. I prefer it when drivers know that if they make a mistake and cost themselves a few points now, it could end up costing them the title at the end of the year. That keeps the pressure on them far more effectively than the proposed system

 

Also, if I understand rightly, a driver of a midfield car could finish first in a race late on in the season, perhaps on merit, and be classified 11th because he is not allowed to compete for positions higher than that. I question the fairness of that as well, and I also question the notion that a championship contender finishing second on the road in that race would get 25 points for his afternoon's work, just as much as he would have done if he'd won. And I think there would be even more temptation than there already is for teams to use their second driver to interfere with their first driver's WDC rivals' races - if your second driver has been knocked out and can't get a decent result for himself anyway, you could tell him to do his best and bring home the WCC points, but on the other hand you could only put 40KG of fuel in his car, get him to the front, and get him to back up the other cars so his team-mate can overtake, then retire him just before he runs out of fuel. By keeping the knocked-out drivers in the race, you invite them to run strategies designed purely to ruin other people's races.

 

So in my view, wiping out the points from the first 13 races and deciding the WDC on the strength.of the last six just has too many drawbacks to be worth exploring.



#24 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,189 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 11 June 2014 - 17:00

Its meant seriously, as in a serious suggestion, but you were overthinking it and making mountains out of molehills over the smaller details.

That said, you have brought up a good point with your analogy to a NASCAR race that that the incentive to do well for a driver in a top car early on in the season is lessened. The Lewis/Nico battle in Bahrain would have likely never happened under this system as both drivers wouldn't want to risk crashing when there's really nothing to gain by it in the end.

I think that's probably enough for me to say the system wouldn't work.

Sounds like you're like me in that you try and think an idea through, see if there's anything wrong with it before ok'ing it. Sounded to me like you were being overcritical at first, but you definitely discovered a pretty fatal flaw there. Nice work, cuz I couldn't think of anything. Sorry Rubal - kudos for the effort, though. I think you've gotta admit that this point is probably hard to argue against, though.

#25 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 880 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 11 June 2014 - 19:34

Total elapsed time for the season.  If you don't finish on the lead lap, you get your last recorded gap at the line, plus the number of laps back multiplied by the leaders average lap time.  Lewis would be about 2 hours behind Nico at this point.  He shouldn't be so hard on his cars. 



#26 27gilles27

27gilles27
  • Member

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: May 14

Posted 12 June 2014 - 01:15

F1 is already too complicated. Scoring should be simple & straight forward to reach a wider audience. Put the money behind the drivers championship with the results of the wcc becoming a by product. All money to the teams should be equal, big or small. Big tyres, more mechanical grip. No pay drivers allowed! Discarding races doesn't work (On points Prost was actually the 1988 champion but had to drop high scores). At the end of the day lets get back to racing, pure and simple and watch the tv ratings rise.

#27 maximilian

maximilian
  • Member

  • 365 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 12 June 2014 - 01:30

Keep score for us, and let's see how it will work out for this season... interesting exercise, if nothing else.



#28 masa90

masa90
  • Member

  • 128 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 12 June 2014 - 05:52

Oh god no.

Way too artificial.

 

Just hope that people in charge stop messing with the rules and get proper racing back!



#29 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,597 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 12 June 2014 - 08:12

My thoughts are that it is fine as it is.



#30 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,018 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 12 June 2014 - 10:52

A non championship round of reverse the grids would be a fantastic idea. Maybe twice in the year. 25 laps.


Edited by ViMaMo, 12 June 2014 - 10:52.


#31 RubalSher

RubalSher
  • Member

  • 1,565 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 13 June 2014 - 11:39

 

 

If it's not meant seriously, that's fine of course. I'm just trying to think it through, and I reckon there's a number of problems with this format.

 

Every format has its problems and I could easily cite to you the drawbacks of the current system, if I dug into it. Your points below are valid too and there was a time when qualy was an hour long deal with all cars on track and yet the knock out system with all its drawbacks in qualy makes sense today. This WDC points system could make sense too and will have its drawbacks but it does bring with it benefits that are lacking right now.

 

What that does in Nascar races is reduce the need for drivers to maintain strong pace throughout the race, as long as they stay vaguely in touch with the leading group, and can make the period between the start and the final full-course caution incredibly tedius. And it's not fair.

 

You got to be kidding me. F1 has brought in cheese tyres, no refueling, run offs to name a few that have made sure that the drivers for a few years now are just out for a stroll every Sunday. Add to it the fact that points for every race count, most drivers on all Sundays just settle in to a position without needing to bother with who is around them. The racing has been quite boring except when there are SCs or rain or mechanical glitches like the Merc had last race. If you are worried about tedious racing, most of the fans have long settled for it. They could not make it any more tedious even if they tried.

 

In F1, for a long time pace/safety cars weren't used as they were regarded as unherently unfair, then eventually, mostly as a way of avoiding red flags and appeasing broadcasters, they were brought in, but some of us are still deeply uncomfortable with the idea that the pack should be artificially closed up just for the sake of the show. I'm happy for it to be done if it's genuinely necessary for the safety of the marshalls and it saves a red flag, but not for the sake of the show, because that damages the integrity of the race. As far as I'm concerned, if somebody builds up a lead, they deserve that lead and they shouldn't have it arbitrarily taken from them.

So you are saying that F1 already follows the practice of SCs that wipes out leads in individual races and this system of wiping out leads over races wont be new to the sport. Yes I get it that you dont like it but the rules of the sport can be changed if there is a good reason to do so, irrespective of whether it is fair or even liked.

 

Rosberg would be able to sit back and wait for his new brake discs to be baked, and not worry in the slightest if he came home second every race, because he would be able to afford to lose 7 points to Hamilton every race knowing that any points deficit would be imagined away at a given point in order to bring him back into contention.

Au contraire or whatever that French saying is. Rosberg settled for 2nd this race and would have settled for 10th if he had to only because of the current points system and because he knows that every point counts. If he knew he was already through to the next round, the Mercs could have probably given us a mega race in Canada that never materialized.

 

His only focus would be to try to find some more pace by race 14, not to try to battle for points and wins now. Similarly Hamilton wouldn't need to worry about the odd DNF, for the same reason. I prefer it when drivers know that if they make a mistake and cost themselves a few points now, it could end up costing them the title at the end of the year. That keeps the pressure on them far more effectively than the proposed system

So a while back you were complaining about tedious and now you are arguing they should pussyfoot the races coz their mistakes should be punished every race. There is too much focus on finishing within whatever points you can make every race and that is killing the racing. I would rather that the drivers of the top teams put up a show for us on most races assuming they would mostly make the cut for the next rounds or have already done so.

 

Also, if I understand rightly, a driver of a midfield car could finish first in a race late on in the season, perhaps on merit, and be classified 11th because he is not allowed to compete for positions higher than that. I question the fairness of that as well, and I also question the notion that a championship contender finishing second on the road in that race would get 25 points for his afternoon's work, just as much as he would have done if he'd won. And I think there would be even more temptation than there already is for teams to use their second driver to interfere with their first driver's WDC rivals' races - if your second driver has been knocked out and can't get a decent result for himself anyway, you could tell him to do his best and bring home the WCC points, but on the other hand you could only put 40KG of fuel in his car, get him to the front, and get him to back up the other cars so his team-mate can overtake, then retire him just before he runs out of fuel. By keeping the knocked-out drivers in the race, you invite them to run strategies designed purely to ruin other people's races.

Not sure I follow entirely but you may have gotten the message wrong here. If a driver has been eliminated in the 2nd round, he can still win races and score 25 points for them. He is only locked in not being able to compete for higher than 11th place in the WDC standings but whatever points & wins he scores are his to keep.

 

So in my view, wiping out the points from the first 13 races and deciding the WDC on the strength.of the last six just has too many drawbacks to be worth exploring.

Both systems have equal benefits and drawbacks. Two sides of the same coin really.



#32 RubalSher

RubalSher
  • Member

  • 1,565 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 13 June 2014 - 11:44

That said, you have brought up a good point with your analogy to a NASCAR race that that the incentive to do well for a driver in a top car early on in the season is lessened. The Lewis/Nico battle in Bahrain would have likely never happened under this system as both drivers wouldn't want to risk crashing when there's really nothing to gain by it in the end.

I think that's probably enough for me to say the system wouldn't work.

Sounds like you're like me in that you try and think an idea through, see if there's anything wrong with it before ok'ing it. Sounded to me like you were being overcritical at first, but you definitely discovered a pretty fatal flaw there. Nice work, cuz I couldn't think of anything. Sorry Rubal - kudos for the effort, though. I think you've gotta admit that this point is probably hard to argue against, though.

 

Thanks Sean... But the point is there is nothing to lose either. So we had Nico make a few attempts in Bahrain, a track where it is relatively easier to get by and yet he could not. Maybe he did not risk it that extra bit because there is a lot to lose if it did not come off... In my system, he is already through to the next round and can risk it all for a race win!

Similar story in Spain or Monaco or Canada... Both drivers have so much to lose every race that they cannot really put up a show for us.

If they had nothing to lose, I feel the racing would have been way more exciting in Spain and Monaco and Canada.



#33 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 880 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 13 June 2014 - 18:06


 

Rosberg would be able to sit back and wait for his new brake discs to be baked, and not worry in the slightest if he came home second every race, because he would be able to afford to lose 7 points to Hamilton every race knowing that any points deficit would be imagined away at a given point in order to bring him back into contention.

Au contraire or whatever that French saying is. Rosberg settled for 2nd this race and would have settled for 10th if he had to only because of the current points system and because he knows that every point counts. If he knew he was already through to the next round, the Mercs could have probably given us a mega race in Canada that never materialized.

 

Two different ideas of the outcome of the same situation.  Let's be honest about the situation at hand.  With the engine regulations as they are, Merc had nothing to gain by running.  If the goal is to win the championships and I were in charge, the drivers would have done the minimum number of laps possible for the race weekend.  0 in practice, 3 (out/hot/in) in qualifying, and 3 in the race (pit-grid, warmup and 1 race lap).  Save the engine for when it is needed later in the year.  

 

 

Thanks Sean... But the point is there is nothing to lose either.

 

There is one huge thing they lose: engine life.  There is absolutely no incentive for the Merc to race each other if it doesn't affect the title.  Their engineers would have them drive as slow as possible to minimize engine stress while ensuring a 1-2 for the team.  They'd gradually take the gap to the other teams up to 20 seconds to cover the pit stops, and hold it there the rest of the race.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, I looked at the 2012 season.  Felipe Massa would have finished the season in 3rd place, ahead of Raikkonen, despite the fact that RAikkonen scored 85 point more than Massa over the season.  In fact, Raikkonen, Hamilton, Button and Webber could have all sat out the last 6 races (your 3rd session) and still outscored Massa over the whole season, yet Massa would have finished ahead of all of them in the final standings in your system. 


Edited by Frank Tuesday, 13 June 2014 - 18:54.


#34 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,202 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 13 June 2014 - 22:07

Every format has its problems and I could easily cite to you the drawbacks of the current system, if I dug into it. Your points below are valid too and there was a time when qualy was an hour long deal with all cars on track and yet the knock out system with all its drawbacks in qualy makes sense today. This WDC points system could make sense too and will have its drawbacks but it does bring with it benefits that are lacking right now.

 

You got to be kidding me. F1 has brought in cheese tyres, no refueling, run offs to name a few that have made sure that the drivers for a few years now are just out for a stroll every Sunday. Add to it the fact that points for every race count, most drivers on all Sundays just settle in to a position without needing to bother with who is around them. The racing has been quite boring except when there are SCs or rain or mechanical glitches like the Merc had last race. If you are worried about tedious racing, most of the fans have long settled for it. They could not make it any more tedious even if they tried.

 

So you are saying that F1 already follows the practice of SCs that wipes out leads in individual races and this system of wiping out leads over races wont be new to the sport. Yes I get it that you dont like it but the rules of the sport can be changed if there is a good reason to do so, irrespective of whether it is fair or even liked.

 

Au contraire or whatever that French saying is. Rosberg settled for 2nd this race and would have settled for 10th if he had to only because of the current points system and because he knows that every point counts. If he knew he was already through to the next round, the Mercs could have probably given us a mega race in Canada that never materialized.


So a while back you were complaining about tedious and now you are arguing they should pussyfoot the races coz their mistakes should be punished every race. There is too much focus on finishing within whatever points you can make every race and that is killing the racing. I would rather that the drivers of the top teams put up a show for us on most races assuming they would mostly make the cut for the next rounds or have already done so.

 

Not sure I follow entirely but you may have gotten the message wrong here. If a driver has been eliminated in the 2nd round, he can still win races and score 25 points for them. He is only locked in not being able to compete for higher than 11th place in the WDC standings but whatever points & wins he scores are his to keep.


Both systems have equal benefits and drawbacks. Two sides of the same coin really.

 

Ah, I see, so it wouldn't be the individual race results that would be corrupted, but only the WDC positions. It's an idea, I guess. When we had dropped scores, it did cause some controversey when the WDC was not won by the driver with the most points, and I think it would probably cause quite a lot of controversey also if a driver only scored a handful of points early on, got knocked out, and then got a big result that would have moved him way up the WDC order but for the fact that he's ineligible for the top 10 WDC positions. I guess it could be lived with, but again it's not truly comparable to the qualy format, is it? Because we don't see people who are knocked out in Q2 going out in Q3 and setting times that would have put them right at the sharp end of the grid, and then having to start 11th anyway.

 

Regarding tedium, the tedium I was referring to in long oval races with guaranteed full course cautions, is that amonst the drivers that can realistically win the race, it really doesn't matter who's fastest in the first 75% of the race distance, as long as they don't fall off the lead lap. Because the race is determined only by performance at the end, after the field has been artificially closed up. By analogy, I'm saying that if you are a WDC contender then, under your proposed system, as long as you're not missing the cut (and you'd have to have a pretty torrid time to miss the cut in a championship-challenging car), any points lead or deficit you accrue versus your main rival(s) in the first two thirds of the season is of no consequence, because you know it will be wiped out.

 

If you're concerned that drivers aren't currently sufficiently bothered about whether they're first or second, as long as they get a decent points haul, then how much worse is that going to get when you implement a system where it literally makes no difference to them if they get 25 points or 18. The notion that they will become less conservative and more care-free under those conditions ignores the fact that, for a driver of a competitive car, the only thing that could threaten their making the cut at the end of the first or second round, would be a run of DNFs. So avoiding DNFs would become their primary concern. They will not just assume they will make the cut and start showboating.

 

At least under the current system all the drivers know that, while 18 points is a lot better than none, it is nowhere near as good as 25. And they know if they can convert a second place into a win, not only do they bank an extra seven points, they deny their rival seven points, so there's a 14 point swing, which is huge deal at any stage in the season. By giving progressively more points for each finishing position, from lowest to highest, and making sure every last point scored at any point in the season counts in the final reckoning, you incentivise the drivers to fight for every position. Your system says something quite different to the top drivers. It says, for the first two thirds of the season, just keep racking up reasonable points finishes, anything in the top four or five is fine, a points finish is a points finish, and so if you're lying in a position that pays decent points, it's not worth challenging the car ahead.

 

And regarding safety cars, you've picked up on the fact that I don't like them, which is true but irrelevant, and seemingly missed the point that they can be justified if they're deemed necessary to provide a period of safety for marshalls to work on or near the track, but not on the grounds that they make for an exciting finish to a race. By analogy, your proposed system closes up the WDC at 1/3 and 2/3 distance, not because it's necessary on safety grounds, but because it would provide a closer finish. To me, that's not justified, because it creates avoidable unfairness. To me it's in the same category as when they throw a full course caution 12 laps from home in a Nascar race because there's a crisp packet blowing across the track. That's the kind of thing that makes me not want to watch Nascar.



#35 RubalSher

RubalSher
  • Member

  • 1,565 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 08 July 2014 - 11:30

Updated Post Silverstone

 

2zywg35.jpg