468 replies to this topic

[Knowlesy]

Imagine, if you will, the following scenario:

Lewis Hamilton dominates in Sochi, Texas and Interlagos leading home a Mercedes 1-2 each time. The Brit ace holds a 31 point lead over teammate Nico Rosberg.

We get to Abu Dhabi. Engines are tight and this power track does little to help matters. Mercedes #44 pulls to the side of the track early in the race in a cloud of smoke. Race over.

In the other car, Nico strokes the car home to a feeble second place behind a jubilant Bottas (hey wouldn't that be nice?). His radio crackles into life. "Nico Rosberg, 2014 WORLD CHAMPIOOOON! Well done mate, you deserve this!"

In the Mercedes motorhome, overcome with frustration, Hamilton bludgeons Roscoe to death with his iPod. It scatters on the floor, irreparably damaged, skipping faultily through the back catalogue of Nicole Scherzinger. He crumples into a nearby settee, tears staining his face. And his large peak cap is sitting on his head a bit wonky now as well.

Outside, the champagne sprays and Nico and Keke share a hug that only a father and son who have both scraped fluked world titles can truly understand.


"You made a pig's ear of that son."

"I know dad. I know."

And you can understand Hamilton's frustration. With eleven wins to Rosberg's four, this is a year he has dominated absolutely. He has barely made a mistake in the races. Sure he has had two extra retirements through no fault of his own, but that shouldn't have swung it the other way completely. But thanks to the vagaries of a points system that rewards the wrong characteristics and a double points bonanza in the finale nobody will remember that.

Well, could happen couldn't it? And what a sad day for the sport it would be. Double points will be gone next year, but the real culprit is the system used in the other races. How could a driver potentially string runs of four and seven victories together and still go into the last race biting his nails? Madness.

Come on Bernie. Let's have the 10-6-4-3-2-1 back.

[d246]

The thought crossed my mind yesterday. Although not with the dramatic imagery! F1 could be sleepwalking into a situation which completely ruins the credibility of the sport.

[kraduk]

you dont need that, just give the winner 30 points not 25

[The Kanisteri]

Come on Bernie. Let's have the 10-6-4-3-2-1 back.

 

I disagree with this.

Backmarkers are even currently struggling with no point runs from GP to GP, from season to another.

It's not very appealing for sponsors or team share holders to make them statements like "Our team beat rival by finishing in one race 11th which is better than our closest competitors six 12th positions."

 

Well, you can easily say it's their fault to not perform better. That is also true, but would you then like to see just few cars on grid to have adequate change of winning Grand Prix?

Even Formula One needs their losers, without them winning is worth of nothing.

 

I would grant every car and driver who finishes the race at least one point.

[bourbon]

Life's hard.  Wear a tinfoil hat.

Edited by bourbon, 06 October 2014 - 07:04.

[hittheapex]

Don't even need the old pre-2003 system back. Just one that scores each race equally. Agree with another poster above re: backmarkers. Back in the day a top 6 was still a realistic aspiration if a backmarker team had a perfect day because reliability wasn't what it is now. So I would say 2003 system or the revision that took points down to the top 10. It was working fine until they brought double points in. 2010 and 2012 seasons plenty going on both with the title battle and up and down the grid. Don't want to go into all the permutations again of why double points is tied for the worst idea with the chocolate fireguard and PVC formal wear.

[apoka]

Come on. Not another Rosberg bashing thread just because he had a bit less unlucky than his team mate (if he were really lucky, the WDC would be over already). Hamilton does some good drives and dozens of posters praise him like god and declare Rosberg an unworthy WDC. Poor style.

[ensign14]

Welcome to ensign world.  The points system is asinine, and the world championship itself is a marketing tool which Bernie uses to sucker in the braindead.  "Oooh look!  There are 2 points between them!  Isn't this exciting?" 

 

The two best drivers in F1 are Alonso and Hamilton, I wouldn't put a gnat's crotchet between them, and any "championship" that falls outside those two is an insult.  And has been since 2008.

[Knowlesy]

I disagree with this.Backmarkers are even currently struggling with no point runs from GP to GP, from season to another.It's not very appealing for sponsors or team share holders to make them statements like "Our team beat rival by finishing in one race 11th which is better than our closest competitors six 12th positions." Well, you can easily say it's their fault to not perform better. That is also true, but would you then like to see just few cars on grid to have adequate change of winning Grand Prix?Even Formula One needs their losers, without them winning is worth of nothing. I would grant every car and driver who finishes the race at least one point.

Finishing last is finishing last, no matter how many points you have.

Sponsors care only for exposure.

Edited by Knowlesy, 06 October 2014 - 07:12.

[Knowlesy]

Welcome to ensign world.  The points system is asinine, and the world championship itself is a marketing tool which Bernie uses to sucker in the braindead.  "Oooh look!  There are 2 points between them!  Isn't this exciting?"  The two best drivers in F1 are Alonso and Hamilton, I wouldn't put a gnat's crotchet between them, and any "championship" that falls outside those two is an insult.  And has been since 2008.

100% correct.

Hello by the way!

[sopa]

The two best drivers in F1 are Alonso and Hamilton, I wouldn't put a gnat's crotchet between them, and any "championship" that falls outside those two is an insult.  And has been since 2008.

 

So why do we even have races? Let's decide who the best drivers are and nobody else is allowed to win since they are "unworthy"?

 

Sports competition is not based on some fan's criteria of who is worthy or who isn't. Winning a race, a championship, a qyalifying session, Whatever. Winner is a winner. In F1 the one who crosses the line first. And it doesn't matter if the best drivers finished 3rd and 5th.

Edited by sopa, 06 October 2014 - 07:28.

[BullHead]

Why double points is senseless and anti sporting.

Still gobsmacked that any of the teams actually signed up for this. I thought some of those guys respected the sport and had a sense of heritage.

[SinStorm]

Come on. Not another Rosberg bashing thread just because he had a bit less unlucky than his team mate (if he were really lucky, the WDC would be over already). Hamilton does some good drives and dozens of posters praise him like god and declare Rosberg an unworthy WDC. Poor style.

"Hamilton does some good drives" is an understatement and even some of LH's staunchest critics would agree. He's pulled off what I feel is the season of his career race-wise and his win tally reflects that. Rosberg, on the other hand, has been lightning in qualifying but has seldom converted those poles to wins. This thread highlights the lunacy of double points considering the performance of both drivers and I agree with the OP wholeheartedly.

[Paul Prost]

I recall that the points system changed from 10-6-4 etc to 10-8-6-4 etc during the mid 2000's in a bizarre attempt to stop Schumacher from winning the championship by the middle of the seasons.

 

The current points system seems to be an extension of that.  Double points is completely stupid of course and I fear that Knowlesy's scenario could play out. You don't necessarily have to win the most races to be most deserving champion but 11 to 4 would be a bit crazy.

[teejay]

If he got to the last race 31 points ahead, and I was Mercedes, I would throw brand new engine/box/ecu everything in the car. Let him start last from pit lane. In 10 laps he is in the points anyhow.

[sopa]

I recall that the points system changed from 10-6-4 etc to 10-8-6-4 etc during the mid 2000's in a bizarre attempt to stop Schumacher from winning the championship by the middle of the seasons.

 

The current points system seems to be an extension of that.  Double points is completely stupid of course and I fear that Knowlesy's scenario could play out. You don't necessarily have to win the most races to be most deserving champion but 11 to 4 would be a bit crazy.

 

Schumacher won 2003 title by 6 wins to Raikkonen's 1, which in terms of ratio is even crazier than 11-4. And Schumi only won by 2 points.

 

If he got to the last race 31 points ahead, and I was Mercedes, I would throw brand new engine/box/ecu everything in the car. Let him start last from pit lane. In 10 laps he is in the points anyhow.

 

And then it turns out this new tech package was... a faulty one let out of the factory.

[The Kanisteri]

Finishing last is finishing last, no matter how many points you have.

Sponsors care only for exposure.

 

I don't argue about that. But there's difference if for example 6 consecutive 12th positions are worse than one 11th by pointwise.

System you suggested makes things even more worse if just 6 cars of 22 would score points. Lot of teams could then think again if it's worth to stay in F1 or go just fishing.

[Retrofly]

Just remove double points, everything is fair gain. Failures are part of all motorsport and always will be.

[robefc]

Double points is a complete farce, I think everyone is agreed in that.

I also quite like the idea of the WDC going back to some sort of 'drop your worst x number of results' to reduce the impact of mechanical failures. Of course it would also benefit the win it or bin it approach over consistency but perhaps that isn't a bad thing? However, I imagine it would feel strange to see a driver with the most points over a season not win the championship.

Awesomely evocative post by the way OP!

[paipa]

No love for the best X results system? It's far superior to every other system that ever graced Formula One. X used to be 11 in the '80s but they had 16 or so races, so I'd go for 15 or 16 today.

[Jamiednm]

Just remove double points, everything is fair gain. Failures are part of all motorsport and always will be.

 

Sense, plain and simple.

[Seanspeed]

Double points is a joke, I agree.

But everything else? No. Points system is better than ever.

The main difference is that this year, 1st and 2nd is consistently being traded among the same two people. That *usually* doesn't happen, at least not in more recent times. We shouldn't change the points system just to accommodate this one scenario. The 10-6 points system is extremely lacking in other ways and in no way is covering this one specific scenario more important than all the other drawbacks it comes with.

Frankly, I think the 10-6 points system was a joke. I have no idea how that went on so long.

[Cesc]

Well, it may be unfair, but there has to be a points system (the double points in the last race still is crap). But do you remember that back in the 80's when only the 11 best results were taken for the standings? Without that, Prost would be 1988 WDC for example...unfair? Well, that's the points system that we have and they race well aware of it.

[sulgpallur]

Where is the Gold medal system when u need it

[GrumpyYoungMan]

I know what the OP was getting at when they posted this topic, but you seem to be over looking that LH may also benefit from the double points... and he would become World Champion,

 

I totally agree that the double points finale is total rubbish but have what can we do? Maybe all the teams agreed to it as it was the better of two evils?

[Cesc]

Where is the Gold medal system when u need it

 

And two Gold medals for the last race as well (somethig like an special offer 2x1)?  

Edited by Cesc, 06 October 2014 - 08:28.

[TimRTC]

I think a lot of the issue is that the drivers are on the same team. If it was Hamilton battling Vettel for the championship, for example, any failures could be put down to the teams battling hard and this being a team sport. But when both drivers are in the same team, it makes failures seem less excusable, particularly if one driver gets more than the other.

 

I just hope the title is not decided by the double-points, that would utterly destroy the validity of the year's WDC, which would be a real shame for both drivers.

[septerra]

I'd actually appreciate a scoring system that awards points for the top 15 cars; with diminishing returns the lower you are of course.

[kraduk]

A double points weekend if fine <ducks>, as long as you have two races. I cant see many fans complaining about that.

[Mart280]

In 87 Mansell won twice as many races as Piquet but Piquet won the title, I would like a race win to garner more than 25 points, like someone else said 30 would be good, as for double points in Abu Dhabi I'm praying for a once in a lifetime freak rain storm in the desert, race red flagged and half points awarded ie normal points

[Gorma]

So any points system is bad unless Lewis wins the WDC? The double points are a bad idea, but it's not a bad idea because Nico might win.

[Nonesuch]

Well, could happen couldn't it? And what a sad day for the sport it would be.

 

Not really, let alone that it would be a doomsday scenario. Consistency has always been part of the game. After all, didn't Massa win six races to Hamilton's five in 2008? There's nothing wrong with that. The drivers don't have a lot of influence on how reliable their cars are, of course, which is exactly why the WDC is much less important than the WCC. The former is great for marketing, though.

 

Since the Abu Dhabi Double Points Bonanza was announced I've said that it would be hilarious if it ends up deciding the WDC. It'd be great to see the people responsible for this ridiculous scheme try to explain it.

[Jackmancer]

If it happens it'd be a farce like the 1988 championship, where Prost scored more points yet Senna won the championship.

[ensign14]

So any points system is bad unless Lewis wins the WDC? The double points are a bad idea, but it's not a bad idea because Nico might win.

 

In a season in which Hamilton has already won twice as many races as Rosberg, despite suffering twice as many win-costing problems, then yes, any points system that gives Rosberg the WDC at Hamilton's expense is bad.  Indeed, worse than bad, it's the sort of system that anyone with the intelligence of slime mould would look at and say "how in the name of a little blue pig did anyone come up with that?"

 

But of course the points system is nothing to do with the championship or the better driver/team or anything like that.  Its sole raison d'etre is to keep the Great Unwashed as interested as possible for as long as possible so they all tune in and make Bernie money - and then by throwing in a double pointer makes it nearly guaranteed that the Great Unwashed have to tune in and watch a slave trading nation glom a load of positive publicity by paying a load of bankers billions.

[ensign14]

If it happens it'd be a farce like the 1988 championship, where Prost scored more points yet Senna won the championship.

 

The one in which Senna won more races?  In which Senna led home 1-2s seven times, Prost three?  Hardly a farce.

[apoka]

"Hamilton does some good drives" is an understatement and even some of LH's staunchest critics would agree. He's pulled off what I feel is the season of his career race-wise and his win tally reflects that. Rosberg, on the other hand, has been lightning in qualifying but has seldom converted those poles to wins. This thread highlights the lunacy of double points considering the performance of both drivers and I agree with the OP wholeheartedly.

 

But if that is really the season of his career and Rosberg manages to stay close (even if you increase the gap by 20 points because of reliability), then there is no need to bash him and call his potential title a "fluke".

 

(Btw. 3 races ago there was quite some criticism on Hamilton, which has now swung to the opposite direction. That's why I used the phrase "some good drives".)

[Gorma]

In a season in which Hamilton has already won twice as many races as Rosberg, despite suffering twice as many win-costing problems, then yes, any points system that gives Rosberg the WDC at Hamilton's expense is bad.  Indeed, worse than bad, it's the sort of system that anyone with the intelligence of slime mould would look at and say "how in the name of a little blue pig did anyone come up with that?"

 

But of course the points system is nothing to do with the championship or the better driver/team or anything like that.  Its sole raison d'etre is to keep the Great Unwashed as interested as possible for as long as possible so they all tune in and make Bernie money - and then by throwing in a double pointer makes it nearly guaranteed that the Great Unwashed have to tune in and watch a slave trading nation glom a load of positive publicity by paying a load of bankers billions.

A points system cannot be setup so that there is distinction between mechanical retirements and "driver related" retirements in a teammate battle for the WDC. What if Lewis had more DNF due to some idiotic driving? Should he still win the championship? What if they weren't teammates? It's a team sport after all. You could argue that Hamilton has worse team for producing a less reliable car. 

[Ducks]

A double points weekend if fine <ducks>, as long as you have two races. I cant see many fans complaining about that.

 

You called?

[ensign14]

A points system cannot be setup so that there is distinction between mechanical retirements and "driver related" retirements in a teammate battle for the WDC. What if Lewis had more DNF due to some idiotic driving? Should he still win the championship? What if they weren't teammates? It's a team sport after all. You could argue that Hamilton has worse team for producing a less reliable car. 

 

My long-held view is there is no need for a championship.  Just have the races.  They don't have a points championship for tennis or golf.  Winning the big ones is reward enough.

 

A team championship makes some sort of sense as you can objectively do an overall measure of which team does the best job.  Albeit not a single points system for that has ever done the job properly.

[Gorma]

My long-held view is there is no need for a championship.  Just have the races.  They don't have a points championship for tennis or golf.  Winning the big ones is reward enough.

 

A team championship makes some sort of sense as you can objectively do an overall measure of which team does the best job.  Albeit not a single points system for that has ever done the job properly.

Personally I would like a golf style approach. Some races are worth more (money) than the others with a couple of majors like Spa, Monaco, Silverstone, Monza and Abu Dhabi (just kidding). All could have varying distances and some sort of match play qualifying would be a nice addition.

[Jackmancer]

The one in which Senna won more races?  In which Senna led home 1-2s seven times, Prost three?  Hardly a farce.

 

Senna won 8, Prost 7. Senna collected 94 points, Prost 105.

[ensign14]

Personally I would like a golf style approach. Some races are worth more (money) than the others with a couple of majors like Spa, Monaco, Silverstone, Monza and Abu Dhabi (just kidding). All could have varying distances and some sort of match play qualifying would be a nice addition.

 

It works in golf because anyone who is everyone turns up for the Majors.  Why should X GP be worth more than Y GP when they have the same entrants?

[Sausage]

Well if Rosberg and Hamilton were men they'd make a pact today simply saying they won't recognize the championship if won by the double-points BS and thus will act accordingly (ie park it), but let's face reality: both wouldn't mind at all winning in that way.

 

Races and retirments have always been the same, it may be "unfair" but finishing 2nd is and should be worth it too. Mechanical problems are a thing you deal with in this sport, you could only nullify it a bit like the old system where only the X best results were counted.

[Kraken]

To play devils advocate though if the title had been sewn up this weekend people would be complaining like mad that the rest of the season is pointless.

[Cesc]

If it happens it'd be a farce like the 1988 championship, where Prost scored more points yet Senna won the championship.

That's not fair.

At the beginning the points system is established and everyone knows how it works. There are amny championships that would have a different champion if the points system was different, but this is what it is and these are the rules. So in 1988 were the bes 11 results...so be it.

Also, if the points system was the one we have now back in 1988, maybe Senna would taken a different approach in some races being more conservative. You never know.

[Jamiednm]

To play devils advocate though if the title had been sewn up this weekend people would be complaining like mad that the rest of the season is pointless.

Idiots would. Sensible people who appreciate sport wouldn't.

[Collombin]

If it happens it'd be a farce like the 1988 championship, where Prost scored more points yet Senna won the championship.

You actually couldn't be more wrong.

Several titles in the 80s went to guys who didn't truly deserve it, but 1988 was emphatically not one of them. The years sandwiching it were.

[Jon83]

What if Rosberg dominated the next 3 races, with Hamilton finishing further down the grid (I know it won't happen) and then the scenario you desribe above happens?

 

Is that still a doomsday scenario?

[Seanspeed]

I'd actually appreciate a scoring system that awards points for the top 15 cars; with diminishing returns the lower you are of course.

Same. Lower positions are not well represented.

[Kraken]

Idiots would. Sensible people who appreciate sport wouldn't.

 

 Facts are that when the title is sewn up the ratings plummet. I bet the audience for Abu Dhabi will be high.

 

As an F1 fan I don't agree with double points one bit but I completely understand the commercial pressures and until F1 learns to operate at real world budgets this sort of thing will keep happening.