68 replies to this topic

[ardbeg]

I think most people at top positions within F1 and FiA are bright people. Still they make a lot of foolish decisions. That must mean that they are not always bright and these quotes from Toto Wolff proves that:
 

"We know why the double points came, and it made sense in the world to make it spectacular for the audience, the fans and the viewers.

"But now we are in a situation where it could change the outcome."

 

So... if the idea behind double points was not to have a situation where it could change the outcome? When they agreed to the idea, did they not realize it could change the outcome?

I admit I laughed loud. My greatest wish, when it comes to F1, is that someone puts a hidden camera in the room of one of those meetings and puts it on Youtube. I want to see, to hear, their brains turn into turnips, to see how Bernie turns them in to newts (they apparently got better).
 

But I can not take a sport seriously when the big minds behind it proves to be this sensitive for environmental changes.

 

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/116603

Edited by ardbeg, 04 November 2014 - 17:46.

[Nonesuch]

'The' outcome? Which one would that be? Does Wolff know something we don't?

 

But indeed: it's a rather silly statement. Keeping the WDC undetermined as long as possible was precisely the point of this silly new rule.

[sopa]

Well this exact quote is indeed a pretty bad demagogy. I think the problem is that they live in a different world to ours, which means they are too committed to fine details in finance, regulations, technical matters, etc. Obviously they are very smart in these things, but if you live too much in those details, you may slightly lose sight of the outer bigger world.

[Dolph]

'The' outcome? Which one would that be? Does Wolff know something we don't?

 

But indeed: it's a rather silly statement. Keeping the WDC undetermined as long as possible was precisely the point of this silly new rule.

 

Obviously he doesn't want Lewis to lose. Kind of a strange statement coming from a person who should be impartial. I'd hate to be Rosberg right now. Your team boss thinks its bad for the sport if you win. Wow.

[mercedessurearepopularnow]

'The' outcome? Which one would that be? Does Wolff know something we don't?

 

But indeed: it's a rather silly statement. Keeping the WDC undetermined as long as possible was precisely the point of this silly new rule.

Also it was to try and stop teams abandoning development of the car mid-season meaning the last couple races would just end up being the same result.

Edited by mercedessurearepopularnow, 04 November 2014 - 18:08.

[uffen]

I concur. A completely empty statement from Wolff. Except that he sounds like he wants Lewis to win, as was pointed out.

The whole purpose of the double points was to change things. Sheesh.

[OO7]

Obviously he doesn't want Lewis to lose. Kind of a strange statement coming from a person who should be impartial. I'd hate to be Rosberg right now. Your team boss thinks its bad for the sport if you win. Wow.

No it is not obvious in my opinion.  Lewis could DNS in Brazil and finish second to Nico in Abu Dhabi without double points influencing the final result.

[pingu666]

why are we assuming they are clever when they keep making bad choices ?

[DS27]

Of course intelligence and common sense are two entirely different things.

[P123]

Obviously he doesn't want Lewis to lose. Kind of a strange statement coming from a person who should be impartial. I'd hate to be Rosberg right now. Your team boss thinks its bad for the sport if you win. Wow.

That's a very imaginative way to interpret that quote!

[Lights]

It's a very interesting quote indeed. I was lost for words as well when I read it. Lately most figures are saying it was a bad idea anyway, but I just keep wondering how it ever got introduced then.

[jonpollak]

https://twitter.com/...158220469366784

[GoldenColt]

'The' outcome? Which one would that be? Does Wolff know something we don't?

 

 

Obviously he doesn't want Lewis to lose. Kind of a strange statement coming from a person who should be impartial. I'd hate to be Rosberg right now. Your team boss thinks its bad for the sport if you win. Wow.

 

 

Except that he sounds like he wants Lewis to win, as was pointed out.

 

[P123]

I concur. A completely empty statement from Wolff. Except that he sounds like he wants Lewis to win, as was pointed out.
The whole purpose of the double points was to change things. Sheesh.

Well no, the purpose was to keep the championship alive as long as possible. Now, demonstrating their lack of foresight and recognising the unpopularity of the double points (90%+ against on here alone), we have a tight championship battle in which these points may directly alter the outcome as acknowledged as a potential negative of their introduction. Duh, I think we could all have told him that. Where that comes to Wolff preferring a Hamilton victory belongs in the assumption that Nico will need double points, which isn't a given yet.

[Risil]

https://twitter.com/...158220469366784

 

Still true.

 

And lots of credit to Jonathan Noble for calling the double points idea bullshit as soon as it was announced. It was always a bad idea. There are many bad ideas in F1 but at least this one isn't treated like Gospel.

Edited by Risil, 04 November 2014 - 21:06.

[grahamshevlin]

Sometimes the best response to head in the sand statements like the latest gems from Toto Wolff is to say "you mean it took you 6 months to work this out?"  This confirms my long-held suspicion that many senior people in F1 live in a bubble, unconnected to anything that the rest of us would recognize as reality. 

[Risil]

I don't know about that but his comments are a total U-turn, without any new evidence or developments having come to light.

 

It makes you wonder what F1's so-called strategy meetings are like, doesn't it?

Edited by Risil, 04 November 2014 - 21:38.

[EvilPhil II]

It makes you wonder what F1's so-called strategy meetings are like, doesn't it?

 

Bernie "So, Abu Dhabi race promoters have offered to double the prize money of their event to the teams on condition of their being twice as many points awarded"

 

Teams "Yep." 

[BullHead]

From the start, it lowered my opinion of all those in at the top level, especially those I thought had a sense of heritage and sporting integrity. Some like Wolff have come out since I think to try and wash their hands a little in public before the flak really hits. I've been even more disappointed with the pundits' lack of questioning and criticism of it. Certain figures should have come out and shouted 'how dare they' from the outset, but didn't, even lauding it (EJ, shame on you).

[ensign14]

Obviously he doesn't want Lewis to lose. Kind of a strange statement coming from a person who should be impartial. I'd hate to be Rosberg right now. Your team boss thinks its bad for the sport if you win. Wow.

 

Six months ago he wanted Rosberg to win.  Because then it would be all about Mercedes winning, rather than the driver.  Hamilton is a bigger name in F1 than Mercedes.

 

Now though he surely wants Hamilton to win.  Because if Rosberg wins, despite being dominated all season, nobody will notice Mercedes at all, all the media attention will be on how much of a joke the championship is.

[P123]

I don't know about that but his comments are a total U-turn, without any new evidence or developments having come to light.
 
It makes you wonder what F1's so-called strategy meetings are like, doesn't it?

Not quite a total U-turn:
 

Wolff said after Tuesday's preseason testing that F1's strategy group had decided to maintain the double points at its last meeting.

But, Wolff said, "99 percent of spectators and fans thought it was the wrong move. So maybe it is time to revisit it."

Wolff said that there were "some arguments for" the double points.

"If we have the same power situation you could add some spice," said Wolff. "When audiences drop, you have to do something.

Several drivers agree with Wolff.

Mercedes' driver Nico Rosberg said "it's not good" as far as fairness goes, while acknowledging "maybe by the last race it keeps things exciting."

[Bloggsworth]

F1 is full of rational people behaving irrationally and totally lacking in enlightened self-interest; self interest, yes; enlightened, definitely not. For a start, if what's left of the non-teams pulled out, the 100 year agreement would be null and void, Bernie and CVC would have the ball taken away from them, which would allow for a fresh start, or the total disappearance of F1 as we know it. Stock blocks and cylinder heads, common gearbox etc would go a long way to lessening costs - Look at the success BMW had with their 1.5 litre stock-block...

[bourbon]

Rosberg wasn't dominated all season.  If he wins he is a worthy champion under the regulations and rules of the 2014 season - same for Lewis.

 

The time to put up a big stink was at the start of the year.  Fans tried, but teams were in and drivers did not.  So now all must live with the decision they made to participate and/or watch.

 

You have to feel for the fans that have advocated against it from the start - but the matter is now done and dusted.

[santori]

why are we assuming they are clever when they keep making bad choices ?

 

Yes, I don't see that much evidence of great intelligence in F1. Most of the leaders, from Bernie down, seem to be ruthless and driven and energetic but not unusually bright.

[ensign14]

Rosberg wasn't dominated all season. 

 

OK, he did better at Austria.  Even Barrichello beat Schumacher sometimes.  At least when he was allowed to.

 

But that apart Hamilton has monstered Rosberg. 

[ultrapro]

I'm also against double points but the statement isn't as stupid as you're all making out. There was a likely scenario in which double points kept the title in question for longer (i.e. not over by Spa) but still ultimately didn't run the risk of affecting the final outcome going into the last race. This is in the context of the 2013 season which was won by 155 points.

Again I'm not supporting it but most of you seem to be suggesting that double points was only ever going to change the outcome, which is clearly not the case.

Edited by ultrapro, 04 November 2014 - 22:56.

[KnucklesAgain]

Obviously he doesn't want Lewis to lose. Kind of a strange statement coming from a person who should be impartial. I'd hate to be Rosberg right now. Your team boss thinks its bad for the sport if you win. Wow.

 

[KnucklesAgain]

I'm also against double points but the statement isn't as stupid as you're all making out. There was a likely scenario in which double points kept the title in question for longer (i.e. not over by Spa) but still ultimately didn't run the risk of affecting the final outcome going into the last race. This is in the context of the 2013 season which was won by 155 points.

Again I'm not supporting it but most of you seem to be suggesting that double points was only ever going to change the outcome, which is clearly not the case.

 

What? It was not hard to foresee that this one and many other even more stupid scenarios would be a distinct possibility.

[ultrapro]

Did you read what I wrote?

[EthanM]

I'm also against double points but the statement isn't as stupid as you're all making out. There was a likely scenario in which double points kept the title in question for longer (i.e. not over by Spa) but still ultimately didn't run the risk of affecting the final outcome going into the last race. This is in the context of the 2013 season which was won by 155 points.

Again I'm not supporting it but most of you seem to be suggesting that double points was only ever going to change the outcome, which is clearly not the case.

 

In the last 10 years we 've had 5 dominant or semi dominant titles (2013-2011-2009-2005-2004) and 5 nail biters that went to the final race (2012-2010-2008-2007 and I guess 2006 with Schumi's comeback). You can't have nailbiters every year. Some years you will just get F2004s, RB9s and F1 W05s that are head and shoulders above the rest of the field.

Sometimes trying to fix something that aint broken is stupid. The only "logic" behind double points was Abu Dhabi was willing to buy better odds of hosting the title decider race, nothing else. And we're all stuck with the stupidity that their money bought.

[Kimble]

What's really brought it home to roost is that the WDC is only between their two drivers now so it's 100% their problem. This weekend again showed that Lewis deserves the title and Toto is really not relishing dealing with the fallout from a mechanical failure influenced championship.

[Clatter]

Also it was to try and stop teams abandoning development of the car mid-season meaning the last couple races would just end up being the same result.

I don't think that was ever an aim.

[Clatter]

Sometimes the best response to head in the sand statements like the latest gems from Toto Wolff is to say "you mean it took you 6 months to work this out?"  This confirms my long-held suspicion that many senior people in F1 live in a bubble, unconnected to anything that the rest of us would recognize as reality. 

To be fair it's not the first time he has said it's wrong.

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/115090

 

It would have been fun to hear his view if another team\driver were at the top of the table and Merc were the ones to need double points,

[P123]

I don't think that was ever an aim.

Nope, but the only fun thing about the double points is that it may cost some of those that championed them the odd $10m or so if they suddenly get knocked down a WCC place because of them.

[Clatter]

Nope, but the only fun thing about the double points is that it may cost some of those that championed them the odd $10m or so if they suddenly get knocked down a WCC place because of them.

Did any of the teams actually champion it? Or did they just nod in agreement to BE's wishes without really thinking it through?

[payinkind]

On the positive side, thanks to the double points, this year's championship will go down to the wire. If we had Bernie's medals, the championship would have been over by Japan.

Edited by payinkind, 05 November 2014 - 00:18.

[PlatenGlass]

"We know why the double points came, and it made sense in the world to make it spectacular for the audience, the fans and the viewers.
"But now we are in a situation where it could change the outcome."
 
So... if the idea behind double points was not to have a situation where it could change the outcome? When they agreed to the idea, did they not realize it could change the outcome?

Yeah, it's idiotic. You can't on one the one hand want to contrive it so that the championship battle has more chance of going to the final race, and yet on the other think it would be really bad if it changed the outcome. If the championship battle goes to the final race as a result of this, then there's a really big chance it will also affect the outcome! If you have a chance of winning going into the last race, it's always going to be a reasonable chance.

Also, that nonsense about making it spectacular for the audience - it really shows the ivory tower they're living in not crediting the audience with any sort of thinking capabilities. As if all we want is the championship to go to the last race. Well screw you.

[Clatter]

On the positive side, thanks to the double points, this year's championship will go down to the wire. If we had Bernie's medals, the championship would have been over by Japan.

He would have just introduced double and triple medal races.

[Seano]

The people that deserve the condemnation are Jean Todt and the FIA - they alone are responsible for the sporting regulations, not the promoters or the participants.

 

If Nico didn't enjoy the booing, lucks this Championship and chooses to pick it up, he'd better get ready for it for the rest of his career.

 

Its a real poison chalice.

 

Seano

[Disgrace]

On the positive side, thanks to the double points, this year's championship will go down to the wire. If we had Bernie's medals, the championship would have been over by Japan.

 

Does anyone really care that it goes down to the wire? It's a nice luxury, but not a necessity. Prost vs. Senna in '89 and '90 took place at the penultimate rounds, yet remain set in historical stone. Another example would be Schumacher vs. Hakkinen at Suzuka in 2000, also at the penultimate round.

[johnmhinds]

Yeah, it's idiotic. You can't on one the one hand want to contrive it so that the championship battle has more chance of going to the final race, and yet on the other think it would be really bad if it changed the outcome. If the championship battle goes to the final race as a result of this, then there's a really big chance it will also affect the outcome! If you have a chance of winning going into the last race, it's always going to be a reasonable chance.

Also, that nonsense about making it spectacular for the audience - it really shows the ivory tower they're living in not crediting the audience with any sort of thinking capabilities. As if all we want is the championship to go to the last race. Well screw you.

It's not what the fans wanted, just what the teams and circuit promoters wanted, the fans weren't even consulted, just like the standing restarts idea for 2015.

Btw what happened to the idea that was brought up a few weeks ago about the teams doing some more market research to find out what the fans want from F1? Oh yeah, it was another completely forgotten sound bite and nothing was done about it...

The people running the sport are so dysfunctional.

Edited by johnmhinds, 05 November 2014 - 01:17.

[Clatter]

It's not what the fans wanted, just what the teams and circuit promoters wanted, the fans weren't even consulted, just like the standing restarts idea for 2015.

Btw what happened to the idea that was brought up a few weeks ago about the teams doing some more market research to find out what the fans want from F1? Oh yeah, it was another completely forgotten sound bite and nothing was done about it...

The people running the sport are so dysfunctional.

Didn't the FIA do a fan survey and then ignore the findings?

[ensign14]

On the positive side, thanks to the double points, this year's championship will go down to the wire. If we had Bernie's medals, the championship would have been over by Japan.

 

So?  If a driver is as dominant over the season as Hamilton has been, the title ought to be over by Japan.   Then one can enjoy the remaining races as races rather than episodes in a larger narrative.

[BlinkyMcSquinty]

The journalists cannot seriously question dumb decisions, if they do their access to races disappears and they are out of a job.

 

As pointed out, the decision-makers are good at their self-interest, but not enlightened self-interest, the kind Bernie displayed when he parked the fan car, the Brabham BT46.

 

But one big problem is that any meetings is a gunfight between Alpha males, all self-confident, self-assured, and financially secure. They all believe they know better than the rest, and no one is going to bully him. So there is a lot of head-banging and loss of mutual confidence, to the point where major issues get forgotten and trivial ideas are debated endlessly.

[velgajski1]

Rule is idiotic and they obviously didn't thought of  another consequence and that is that Brazil race is now almost meaningless. Going from medals to last race double points just shows how they are totally clueless on what they even want to achieve (given that medals and last race double points actually achieve opposite things), let alone on how they want to achieve it.

[KnucklesAgain]

Did you read what I wrote?

 

Yes

[BullHead]

The people that deserve the condemnation are Jean Todt and the FIA - they alone are responsible for the sporting regulations, not the promoters or the participants.

 

If Nico didn't enjoy the booing, lucks this Championship and chooses to pick it up, he'd better get ready for it for the rest of his career.

 

Its a real poison chalice.

 

Seano

 

This could well be true. And on recently stating he would be fine with winning by the skewed numbers, rather than on track, he is lining himself up for it. Boo ing is distasteful IMO, but more than ever I would understand it in this case.

 

And yes, possibly a poison chalice that will stand out it in the records for the rest of F1 history - the driver that won only because of that...

That's the staining of the heritage bit that I don't get some of the people involved actually being ok with it.

Edited by BullHead, 05 November 2014 - 08:36.

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

The solution is that easy that maybe brilliant minds such as Toto cannot see it. He is in control over his drivers, he doesn't seem to like a change of the outcome of the driver championship because of the double points. And i'm sure both drivers of Mercedes do not want to lose the title because of the double points, too.

 

So, Toto, all you have to do is talk with your drivers before the race and make it clear that this race will be treated as if only 25 points would be available for the win. If the double points would change who becomes champion than the drivers are told via radio "Currently X is champion by Z points, while under the old single points system Y would be champion!"

 

This is the sign for X to lose as many positions to have Z points less. Problem solved, reputation gained for Mercedes to actually better the image of the sport!

 

So sad it is even necessary to think about it.

[Rinehart]

It must be a combination of a "goldfish-bowl" syndrome, plus being overcome by commercial, political, promotional and regulatory issues together with self-interest that leads the FIA, FOM and teams to act collectively as such a bunch of twits. Because as others say, we're talking about many very intelligent individuals here. Yet the sum of the parts couldn't run a bath. 

 

Some of the things they come up with and say are just astonishingly stupid. They make Bernie's sprinkler idea sound like a moment of clarity!  

 

There root cause, it seems, is that there is no shared consensus on the ranking of what are the important principles, traditions, structures, complexities and features of F1.

 

The only thing they seem to have in common is a capacity to fight over the largest share of the pie. 

Edited by Rinehart, 05 November 2014 - 09:34.

[HP]

'The' outcome? Which one would that be? Does Wolff know something we don't?

 

But indeed: it's a rather silly statement. Keeping the WDC undetermined as long as possible was precisely the point of this silly new rule.

If there is a predetermined outcome, that seemingly favours LH, then why not do the following? Next race, have LH's car develop a problem and retire, so NR leads the championship, and in Abu Dhabi LH can the claim the title with double points. All the geniuses are then happy, We fans are sc***** either way.

 

F1 sometimes looks as it has itself too far attached from reality.