WDCs being decided on the last day

An interesting piece in RaceFans about something I guess we'd all vaguely noticed - there seem to be fewer F1 championships being decided on the last day than there used to be.  Keith Collantine suggests it's for a few reasons:

• Perception: the late nineties were unusually last-day heavy.


• Single team domination: fewer likely challengers


• Points system changes: wins worth more relative to second place [I confess I don't see how this one is inherently helpful to winning titles early. Obviously it could be, but couldn't it also help the title challenger?]


• More and more race: greater chance to rack up the necessary big lead

Original Interactive graphic here: 

I'm not sure what if anything can be done about this so I guess we can just discuss it. Is it a problem that needs fixing? Do you miss last race title deciders? Would you bring back double points or similar to increase the odds? Personally I'm all for the obvious solution  - have fewer races so it's harder to build up massive leads but that's as much as I think there's too many races anyway.

The root of this problem is one team dominance. They should work hard on bunching up the field and stopping dominances, its that simple.

1950s: 5/10
1960s: 4/10
1970s: 2/10
1980s: 5/10
1990s: 5/10
2000s: 4/10
2010s: 4/10

Seems about average. Also seems ironic that the ultra-competitive 1970s only had 2 final race showdowns in 1974 and 1976. I wonder if that was down to the split season scoring system of the time?

Having more races probably has a bit of an influence, but CART had 20-race seasons in 1999-2001 and they went down to the wire two out of three seasons, with 2001 being decided at the penultimate round. The difference there was that in CART it wasn't that hard to get your hands on the best equipment, meaning that you could have ludicrous situations like in 2000 when with two rounds to go there were still 9 drivers mathematically in contention.

I think it's just that Hamilton and Mercedes have won too many races. Since 2014 Lewis has won the most races every season. Only in 2016 did his nearest challenger win anywhere near as much (Hamilton 10, Rosberg 9) -- every other year he won at least four more races than anyone else. Given how the years 2014-19 have played out, it would be weird if the championships had been any closer. Because they sure weren't on the track. It would've been outrageous (well, maybe a bit funny too) if Rosberg had clinched the 2014 title on double points.

Somebody is bound to be able to crunch the numbers about when a championship would've been decided if you arbitrarily ended it at round 16 but I think Hamilton would still have won them all comfortably.

 

• 
  
• Points system changes: wins worth more relative to second place [I confess I don't see how this one is inherently helpful to winning titles early. Obviously it could be, but couldn't it also help the title challenger?]

Usually even in a close championship there is a car that is a bit quicker, thus more likely to win more races. What then usually causes close championships regardless is the driver in the slower car scoring plenty 2nd and 3rd places. If 1st is worth much more than that, then you are chanceless even with this.

It's the main reason why Schumacher won the title once in July for example.

1950s: 5/10
1960s: 4/10
1970s: 2/10
1980s: 5/10
1990s: 5/10
2000s: 4/10
2010s: 4/10

Seems about average. Also seems ironic that the ultra-competitive 1970s only had 2 final race showdowns in 1974 and 1976. I wonder if that was down to the split season scoring system of the time?

It would be nice to have them go down to the wire, but if the races up until whenever the WDC is decided have been great to watch, I don't mind it being decided earlier. 2011 was a borefest in terms of the WDC, but it had plently of really exciting races.

Having more races probably has a bit of an influence, but CART had 20-race seasons in 1999-2001 and they went down to the wire two out of three seasons, with 2001 being decided at the penultimate round. The difference there was that in CART it wasn't that hard to get your hands on the best equipment, meaning that you could have ludicrous situations like in 2000 when with two rounds to go there were still 9 drivers mathematically in contention.

I think it's just that Hamilton and Mercedes have won too many races. Since 2014 Lewis has won the most races every season. Only in 2016 did his nearest challenger win anywhere near as much (Hamilton 10, Rosberg 9) -- every other year he won at least four more races than anyone else. Given how the years 2014-19 have played out, it would be weird if the championships had been any closer. Because they sure weren't on the track.

 

Somebody is bound to be able to crunch the numbers about when a championship would've been decided if you arbitrarily ended it at round 16 but I think Hamilton would still have won them all comfortably.

In the notebook on Sunday, Ted asked Lewis where he reckoned this season was won, was it the decisive run from Spain onwards? And Hamilton just looked blank and confessed much the same as I was thinking, namely 'I don't remember these at all.' Too many victories to keep track of!

Edited by SophieB, 05 November 2019 - 14:20.
'won' not 'run'

In the notebook on Sunday, Ted asked Lewis where he reckoned this season was run, was it the decisive run from Spain onwards? And Hamilton just looked blank and confessed much the same as I was thinking, namely 'I don't remember these at all.' Too many victories to keep track of!

Makes you think about the phrase "A memorable win"...

I wonder how many of his memorable wins he can remember.

I can really only remember Hungary and France without trying.

Makes you think about the phrase "A memorable win"...

I wonder how many of his memorable wins he can remember.

I can really only remember Hungary and France without trying.

He had some brilliant battles with Bottas and Vettel in Bahrain. Passing the latter around the outside put him into a position to benefit from Leclerc's misfortune. He made a one stopper in Monaco work on a tyre that was dead for quite a while before the end of the race, leading to contact with Verstappen when the dutchman tried to pass. He pressured Vettel into a mistake in Canada after hunting him for the entire race.

He had some brilliant battles with Bottas and Vettel in Bahrain. Passing the latter around the outside put him into a position to benefit from Leclerc's misfortune. He made a one stopper in Monaco work on a tyre that was dead for quite a while before the end of the race, leading to contact with Verstappen when the dutchman tried to pass. He pressured Vettel into a mistake in Canada after hunting him for the entire race.

Plus Hungary and Mexico alternative tyre strategies.

In the notebook on Sunday, Ted asked Lewis where he reckoned this season was run, was it the decisive run from Spain onwards? And Hamilton just looked blank and confessed much the same as I was thinking, namely 'I don't remember these at all.' Too many victories to keep track of!

Somebody is bound to be able to crunch the numbers about when a championship would've been decided if you arbitrarily ended it at round 16 but I think Hamilton would still have won them all comfortably.

2019: Hamilton in Italy (Race 14 of 16) - unchanged
2018: Hamilton in Singapore (Race 15 of 16) - one race later
2017: Hamilton in Malaysia (Race 15 of 16) - one race later
2016: Rosberg in Malaysia (Race 16 of 16) - unchanged (lol, imagine this as the final race) <- though if you make this a 17 races championship the title would've been decided before the final race

2015: Hamilton in Russia (Race 15 of 16) - two races later
2014: Hamilton in Russia (Race 16 of 16) - unchanged
2013: Vettel in Korea (Race 14 of 16) - two races later

2012: Vettel in Korea (Race 16 of 16) - unchanged
2011: Vettel in Italy (Race 13 of 16) - one race later

2010: Webber in Japan (Race 16 of 16) - unchanged, but different champion

It definitely helps, although you would still end up with same number of races going down the wire as they eventually did.

Edited by Marklar, 05 November 2019 - 14:18.

I suppose you could more or less guarantee the title going down "to the wire" by awarding 10000 points to the winner, 9999 to second place, 9998 to third and so on. But that would be rather artificial and silly. The points system is designed to give a little more weight to race victories, in order that drivers push for a win rather than settle for second...and in order that the achievement of a win is fully appreciated, valued and celebrated. 

The fact is that even with RBR and then  Mercedes being dominant, we've had our fair share of close title battles in the last 10 seasons. We had no "down to the wire" seasons for seven years on the trot 1987-1993 but most of those years were pretty exciting, some very much so. I don't think that titles being decided in the final race are necessarily part of F1's intrinsic entertainment value. It's also nice to have the pressure of a title off for a couple of races and see what happens without that pressure, and possible team orders. 

Where there could be a less artificial difference made is in the number of races. I still think 16/17 is the optimum...perhaps because 15-16 was the norm when I was growing up and following F1 religiously....but I do think that more races can have the effect of diluting the excitement rather than increasing it. 

2016: Rosberg in Malaysia (Race 16 of 16) - unchanged (lol, imagine this as the final race) <- though if you make this a 17 races championship the title would've been decided before the final race

Oh my god, imagine! Even though from a fan point of view I'm ride-or-die for Lewis, from purely a dramatic point of view I'm now wistful this didn't happen.

What do you know, Sophie was right!

F1 needs fewer races. I think it's a bit of a problem when there's routinely a three or four race stretch at the end of the year when the championship is over.

I'm pretty sure it was the dead rubber races of recent years that Bernie used as justification for double points. Circuits didn't like the idea of the championships already being decided. I personally genuinely also do see each race as an event in its own right as well as a building block in a title (even though they plainly don't always live long in my memory).

Reliability must play a part. There are far less breakdowns, and if you also have a dominant car, your just about guaranteed big points every race.

I haven't crunched the numbers but I am going to stick my neck out and agree with this. 

I suppose you could more or less guarantee the title going down "to the wire" by awarding 10000 points to the winner, 9999 to second place, 9998 to third and so on. But that would be rather artificial and silly. The points system is designed to give a little more weight to race victories, in order that drivers push for a win rather than settle for second...and in order that the achievement of a win is fully appreciated, valued and celebrated.

The fact is that even with RBR and then Mercedes being dominant, we've had our fair share of close title battles in the last 10 seasons. We had no "down to the wire" seasons for seven years on the trot 1987-1993 but most of those years were pretty exciting, some very much so. I don't think that titles being decided in the final race are necessarily part of F1's intrinsic entertainment value. It's also nice to have the pressure of a title off for a couple of races and see what happens without that pressure, and possible team orders.

Where there could be a less artificial difference made is in the number of races. I still think 16/17 is the optimum...perhaps because 15-16 was the norm when I was growing up and following F1 religiously....but I do think that more races can have the effect of diluting the excitement rather than increasing it.

What do you know, Sophie was right!

F1 needs fewer races. I think it's a bit of a problem when there's routinely a three or four race stretch at the end of the year when the championship is over.

I disagree, i would like to see more races, perhaps by abandoning the provincial summer break a few more races could be included, that way when fans are on their summer vacation they could attend a face or two?

If you are hell bent on eliminating races lets start with some of the boring and uninteresting locations such as Monaco and Paul Ricard.

The fact remains that when one team dominates there is always the possibility and reality that the winner(s) will be determined before the end of the season and Formula 1 isn't the only sport where this is seen. If you feel the need for the series, regardless of the sport, to keep you in suspense until the final event then perhaps start looking at more competitive teams or some sort of way to allocate more points for the latter events. Of the two I much prefer the first option.  

I disagree, i would like to see more races, perhaps by abandoning the provincial summer break a few more races could be included, that way when fans are on their summer vacation they could attend a face or two?

 

If you are hell bent on eliminating races lets start with some of the boring and uninteresting locations such as Monaco and Paul Ricard.

 

The fact remains that when one team dominates there is always the possibility and reality that the winner(s) will be determined before the end of the season and Formula 1 isn't the only sport where this is seen. If you feel the need for the series, regardless of the sport, to keep you in suspense until the final event then perhaps start looking at more competitive teams or some sort of way to allocate more points for the latter events. Of the two I much prefer the first option.  

I'd look at the points system. I'd give a single point for for each position only. I believe that one of the problems is that a team that dominates at the start of the season can rack up a huge haul and lock out most others from the outset. If every place counted and the difference between 1st and 5th was just 4 points, then things would end up a lot closer towards the end of the season.

You don't get to decide when you take your holidays then?

I would like to think your response is a well thought out and logical response but it isn't, it's merely an attempt to change the direction of the dialog.

I disagree, i would like to see more races, perhaps by abandoning the provincial summer break a few more races could be included, that way when fans are on their summer vacation they could attend a face or two?

 

If you are hell bent on eliminating races lets start with some of the boring and uninteresting locations such as Monaco and Paul Ricard.

 

The fact remains that when one team dominates there is always the possibility and reality that the winner(s) will be determined before the end of the season and Formula 1 isn't the only sport where this is seen. If you feel the need for the series, regardless of the sport, to keep you in suspense until the final event then perhaps start looking at more competitive teams or some sort of way to allocate more points for the latter events. Of the two I much prefer the first option.  

You can add more races, sure, but mathematics tell the more races you add, the less likely you will see a championship decider in the final race. Any advantage for one team, however marginal it is, will be magnified in the long run as the more races you have, the less random variables come at play.

If we had a hypothetical 100 race season and Mercedes was on average 0.3 seconds faster than competitors, then a Mercedes driver would almost certainly win the championship. With 16 races, things like circumstances and luck come more into play, which gives the underdog a chance.

Edited by Celloman, 05 November 2019 - 16:01.

I disagree, i would like to see more races, perhaps by abandoning the provincial summer break a few more races could be included, that way when fans are on their summer vacation they could attend a face or two?

 

If you are hell bent on eliminating races lets start with some of the boring and uninteresting locations such as Monaco and Paul Ricard.

 

The fact remains that when one team dominates there is always the possibility and reality that the winner(s) will be determined before the end of the season and Formula 1 isn't the only sport where this is seen. If you feel the need for the series, regardless of the sport, to keep you in suspense until the final event then perhaps start looking at more competitive teams or some sort of way to allocate more points for the latter events. Of the two I much prefer the first option.  

More races is great for a young fan without much in the way of life commitments, but it's an increasing problem for those who are a bit older and have much more to try to work F1 around. But more importantly, more races is an increasing strain on the race teams themselves, and team personnel who are already spending enough time away from their homes and their families are going to be pushed to breaking point. Unless the teams go to the extra expense of doubling up on all race team personnel which will be very expensive.

How about a qualifying style knockout come the end of the season?   

You can add more races, sure, but mathematics tell the more races you add, the less likely you will see a championship decider in the final race. Any advantage for one team, however marginal it is, will be magnified in the long run as the more races you have, the less random variables come at play.

 

If we had a hypothetical 100 race season and Mercedes was on average 0.3 seconds faster than competitors, then a Mercedes driver would almost certainly win the championship. With 16 races, things like circumstances and luck come more into play, which gives the underdog a chance.

I didn't say that adding more races would result in the championship being decided at the last race, if you reread my post I suggested more competitive teams in the series.

What we could well see over the hypothetical 100 race season is more unpredictability entering the equation and could likely see more/different underdogs having a better chance at points and podiums.

It's impressive when someone wraps up the title early, and exciting when it goes down to the wire - who wants it to be the same every year?

I would like to think your response is a well thought out and logical response but it isn't, it's merely an attempt to change the direction of the dialog.

More races is great for a young fan without much in the way of life commitments, but it's an increasing problem for those who are a bit older and have much more to try to work F1 around. But more importantly, more races is an increasing strain on the race teams themselves, and team personnel who are already spending enough time away from their homes and their families are going to be pushed to breaking point. Unless the teams go to the extra expense of doubling up on all race team personnel which will be very expensive.

First and foremost F1 is a form of entertainment. F1 personnel knew when they signed up they were entering an occupation which performs in an international environment and international travel is required.

I am not sure about your "young fan" example and life commitments. I don't see how having more events in a sport deters from fans following or being interested in the sport. If you have family/work commitments conflicting with an event you can DVR it or catch the highlights or read about it later. In fact I would say older fans would be use to the "catch up" version because back in the day we had very little live coverage and relied on print format news arriving in the paper or magazine.

Cost is an issue which is difficult to discuss, granted more races would reflect a cost increase but would (should?) also reflect a higher reward in the form of prize money. Discussing a different allocation of prize money is a different subject.

Depends, really. I'd say yes, it does matter to me, but then I wasn't terribly enthused by the 2014 or '16 finales. Maybe that was more to do with the fact that it was just one team in contention, and two drivers that I didn't particularly want to see either win.

2012 was great, with two drivers from different teams. 2010 was even better - just a pity it took place on such an uninspiring track as Abu Dhabi.

It's a shame we've not had a proper title shoot out between drivers from rival teams for well over half a decade, and I sincerely hope that is something the 2021 regs address. I'd also urge caution against adding more races. I don't get why the sport needs to have 25 races, it's far too many. And, as this season, has proven, when you have a runaway championship leader a long season just feels like it drags on forever. We knew that barring some exceptionally freaky circumstances, Lewis Hamilton was going to win the championship from before the summer break. Where's the motivation to watch each individual race when that's the case?

I do like big sporting occasions, whether it's the Super Bowl or the Stanley Cup Final. But I'd hate to see any artificial measures introduced to force the championship to be decided in the last race. It's like game sevens in the Stanley Cup playoffs. If it happens, great, but don't force it to happen. That's where NASCAR has gone so wrong over the years.

More races is great for a young fan without much in the way of life commitments, but it's an increasing problem for those who are a bit older and have much more to try to work F1 around. But more importantly, more races is an increasing strain on the race teams themselves, and team personnel who are already spending enough time away from their homes and their families are going to be pushed to breaking point. Unless the teams go to the extra expense of doubling up on all race team personnel which will be very expensive.

Exactly why would this be very expensive? The same number of people would be involved - it would just be different people. Team personnel would get a better work-life balance, but the downside would be that they would not be paid as much. So, it would be slightly more expensive, because there are more races to cover. But it need not be very expensive.

Edited by pdac, 05 November 2019 - 17:15.

An increase in the total number of races doesn't seem to make any difference. If you look at the last twenty years on Sophie's chart, the number of races may have increased, but the championship has not been decided any earlier. The overall average over those twenty years is the two or three races from the end that we have seen over the last three years.

The height of the Prost-Senna rivalry (1988-90) ironically didn't produce any last race title showdowns, but were obviously much more compelling than most other early years and probably add to the perception of that era.

Voted I prefer it and hell no.

Sure its nice to have the WDC going down to the final race but it's not vital really, I certainly wouldn't change anything to try and encourage it.

I love a good final day.

However, I wouldn't want it to be artificial. I absolutely despised Abu Double in 2014, and would hate things like that in future. Part of what makes a great final day is that it's a natural conclusion of a season, and if that is diluted then the final day would mean less.

Exactly why would this be very expensive? The same number of people would be involved - it would just be different people. Team personnel would get a better work-life balance, but the downside would be that they would not be paid as much. So, it would be slightly more expensive, because there are more races to cover. But it need not be very expensive.

It wouldn’t be the same number of people. It would be almost double the number involved in the race team. That’s another set of salaries to be paid. Yeah, they’d now get a better work life balance, but the teams would have the extra expense. It’s one of the main reasons in season testing was eliminated, as it meant the teams didn’t have to have test teams in place.

It wouldn’t be the same number of people. It would be almost double the number involved in the race team. That’s another set of salaries to be paid. Yeah, they’d now get a better work life balance, but the teams would have the extra expense. It’s one of the main reasons in season testing was eliminated, as it meant the teams didn’t have to have test teams in place.

The number of man-hours increases. Any sensible business would employ enough people to cover the man-hours and not very many more. They would need double the number if the number of races doubled. Otherwise you would operate a rota system so that no one had to work too many hours.

If you wanted to keep the same people together, then you would need two full teams of people. But then, they would not be working as much, so you would reduce the pay-rate to cover that.

Edited by pdac, 05 November 2019 - 18:47.

Usually even in a close championship there is a car that is a bit quicker, thus more likely to win more races. What then usually causes close championships regardless is the driver in the slower car scoring plenty 2nd and 3rd places. If 1st is worth much more than that, then you are chanceless even with this.

It's the main reason why Schumacher won the title once in July for example.

2002 you refer to als was because of the fact that Schumacher was the only driver who had scored points in every race up till that moment he clinched the title. In France he had 94 points but the numbers 2-5 in the championship were close with 34-30 points. Everyone else had at least three retirements or non point scoring positions. Rubens had by then already 6 (!) retirements or non point scoring points. That 2002 was decided so early was not only because of the used point scoring system it was also because MS scored points in every race and only once a mere 4 points but in general at least 6, if not 10.

And no-one else even remotely having his kind of reliability.

Well you can always introduce a play offs system and then you have your artificial final like NASCAR.

Right --  Vettel could get a break with a late race safety car/VSC pit stop and be crowned the 2019 WDC based on a single race result.

I was completely spoilt in my early years of watching F1. 
 

1997 - Jerez finale down to the wire, high drama and controversy

1998 - that epic Suzuka build up and Schumacher’s stall, some absolutely iconic images

1999 - plucky underdog Irvine takes Hakkinen down to the wire

then - shock - Schumacher wraps it up a race early in 2000, but that was ok I guess. Then 2001 onwards (2003 aside, which was never really the same level of epic finale) it’s like “remember when the title battles used to go down to the last race? Me neither”

As a young F1 fan I think those finales made a huge difference, they felt like these epic set-pieces, winner takes all. I’ll never forget getting up in the early hours to watch the 1998 finale, so full of excitement I couldn’t cope. It’s a shame it happens so rarely now, but I think single-team domination is probably more to blame than the sheer number of races. Red Bull, then Mercedes. Unless the #2 driver has an amazing year it ain’t going down to the last race. 

WDC being decided in the last race of the season is nowhere near the top of factors that decide whether I enjoy the season or not. For example 2007 had one of the best WDC fights ever but I couldn't wait for it to end, because the pecking order was stale and there were not that many interesting races, baring some rain or SC craziness. In 2009, however, the title was decided before the last race but it's still probably my favourite season ever because the pecking order was so fluid that even practice sessions were interesting to follow. For example Toyota went from a front row lock-out in Bahrain to a last row lock-out just 2 races later in Monaco. Every weekend was interesting because you simply didn't know what was going to happen. And even a brief period of one-team dominance is less bothering when that team was a total underdog, like Brawn.

So to sum it up, the key for me is the ability to enjoy a season race by race and that can be done regardless of championship fight. Being excited to find out who will win or podium just that single race is enough for me to happily sit down to watch the final race of the season, even if the championship had been decided before.

Any measure to specifically encourage WDC to be decided in the last race seems like a bad idea. I can't think of anything that doesn't feel artificial or unfair in some sense. Having rules that ensure the pecking order is not stale and the field spread is not too big, like fair share of TV money and budget caps, will do just fine. It doesn't bother me if someone escapes with a title a few races early by being the most consistent over the season if we're getting some variety from race to race and from year to year.

I was completely spoilt in my early years of watching F1. 
 

1997 - Jerez finale down to the wire, high drama and controversy

1998 - that epic Suzuka build up and Schumacher’s stall, some absolutely iconic images

1999 - plucky underdog Irvine takes Hakkinen down to the wire

If we're talking about being spoiled, the first two F1 title deciders I have watched were 2007 and 2008. And then we had 2010 too, just one year after a little bit less exciting 2009.

Edited by Anderis, 05 November 2019 - 21:38.

It would be interesting to see what might happen if they adjusted the season so that the last few races were all European ones (maybe they could put the Dutch GP last).

If we're talking about being spoiled, the first two F1 title deciders I have watched were 2007 and 2008. And then we had 2010 too, just one year after a little bit less exciting 2009.

First two I saw were 92 and 93.... hmmm, yes! Having said that the first part of 93 was pretty amazing as a Senna/Mclaren fan, despite all the talk of the Williams' dominance it really looked like Senna could actually challenge for the WDC. A bit better reliability and a few more mid-season wet races and he might well have taken it.