WDCs being decided on the last day

I've always wondered if a simple shakeup of the calendar would assist this.

Some tracks favour certain cars, sometimes predictable year on year. So having them in different slots might allow different teams to thrive at different parts of the season than we expect.

Obviously weather and logistics dictate, but I can think of at least a quarter of the season that could easily swap if nothing more than nostalgic positions.

Heck, the weather changes might actually be good for a shakeup too. Easter Silverstone anyone? September Barcelona? Early summer Melbourne finale?

Ultimately a good car will always win in the end. But at least thr above magicians trick would feel less induced than the likes of double points at the last race.

I think extending points to all finishers should be added too. The likes of Russell would be racking up loads for consistency versus a lucky one off 8th by a rogue Haas that crashes 5 out of 4 weekends a month. 

Edited by danmills, 05 November 2019 - 22:02.

On the otherhand, with the points gaps the way they are, it works to sort of smooth out any inconsistencies caused by poor stewarding....

You would hate to have it go to the last round, and then get a lame stewarding decision to influence the result.

Sometimes what wraps up a championship ahead of the final race isn't dominance, reliability, or even dumb luck, but another team with potential to keep the fight going royally mucking it up. After all, the last two seasons saw Ferrari much more competitive and leading the championship for parts of the season. If a succession of self-inflicted errors didn't hit both Vettel and the team, the championships could have gone longer.

Of course there's probably another year or two where that was the case. But nonetheless, the past decade had the potential of more last race deciders than it actually did.

Just brainstorming:

If having fewer races helps, then have 2 championships a year, one until the summer break, one after it.

If a driver wins the championship early, then it means that he was clearly the most deserving of a title that year.  To change the system so that this driver would have to win the championship at the last race means running the risk of awarding the title to the wrong driver. 

It's okay for races to be a little unpredictable, but I think it's paramount that the championship title should go to the most deserving driver if there is one.  If in some year someone is clearly dominating, then so be it, let him take it with a few races to go.  You don't want to go the NASCAR route, where watching the championship being decided is like watching a stranger play roulette;  you don't know what the outcome will be, but you also have no reason to care.

Teams have their own fuels, oils, rear wings

Don't worry, Liberty and the FIA will soon solve that...

Let everyone drop their worst 20 results. 

More testing for teams who are 10% adrift the championship leading team mid season.

Bring back team specific tires. And multiple tire companies. Teams have their own fuels, oils, rear wings, so why not tires?

Bring back team specific tires. And multiple tire companies. Teams have their own fuels, oils, rear wings, so why not tires?

Tires by nature make a huge difference in performance and everything else is strictly regulated. Most of the performance differentiation would come from outside the teams. Much like the early years of current engine formula.

They are the ones who can least afford to go testing.

Tires by nature make a huge difference in performance and everything else is strictly regulated. Most of the performance differentiation would come from outside the teams. Much like the early years of current engine formula.

Tires by nature make a huge difference in performance and everything else is strictly regulated. Most of the performance differentiation would come from outside the teams. Much like the early years of current engine formula.

Abu Dhabi must be so annoyed. I reckon they paid a lot to get it last race of the season.

Abu Dhabi must be so annoyed. I reckon they paid a lot to get it last race of the season.

I reckon the Adelaide organisers feel the most short changed. They only got two out of eleven potential showdowns.

FIA can upgrade only certain local tracks to avoid flying.

I wonder what the recent stats would look with an 80s style point system where only a % of the races count towards your points total    I imagine that with the ridiculous reliability these cars have now, it wouldn't change that much.

I think someone did this a few years back using all sorts of point systems. 

IIRC Alonso won a lot more titles. I think even Schumacher ended up a ten time champion. 

I think mathematically it is because there are more races. Also, because everyone apart from Hamilton is rubbish.

But F1 isn't too bad historically for it. We had four out of five from 2006-2010, and six out of nine from 2006 to 2014. Compare that to MotoGP, which off the top of my head is four last round deciders since the turn of the century. I think it adds a nice impetus to the end of the season, but it isn't make or break. I wouldn't and haven't supported methods designed specifically to create such a situation - the most important thing is for the best to win. 

i think the thing is, if its contrived, its contrived and everyone knows it.

im not sure it even works that well for "reality tv" contests, one of the very few i watched was won by the girl who was in the face off nearly every week ( glow up ). so she was in the bottom 2 the most , but still won.

but seeing how early marc marquez could win the title was kinda interesting too this year

I wonder what the recent stats would look with an 80s style point system where only a % of the races count towards your points total I imagine that with the ridiculous reliability these cars have now, it wouldn't change that much.

It';s very important that the championship/s go to the last race because that means the season is exciting, but that also means that we should have closer performance between different cars. Mercedes dominated the first half of this season and that played a huge part in them winning again this year.

Edited by Ramon69, 07 November 2019 - 07:07.

I wonder what the recent stats would look with an 80s style point system where only a % of the races count towards your points total    I imagine that with the ridiculous reliability these cars have now, it wouldn't change that much.

https://formula1.mar...l.com/simulator

Too many races. With reliable cars and over 20 races the fastest driver is likely to win most of the time. 

You could split the season into two. After the first sixteen races the drivers best eight results are used to set the championship standings. Last five races decides the championship.

This would be the standings after 16 races. Sure Hamilton still has a massive lead but he’s deserved it being the dominant driver this year. The others have been bunched together nicely for the final shoutout.

Hamilton - 8 wins - 200

Bottas - 2 wins, 6 seconds - 158

Leclerc - 2 wins, 2 seconds, 4 thirds  - 146

Verstappen - 2 wins, 1 second, 3 thirds, 2 fourths - 137

Vettel - 1 win, 3 seconds, 3 thirds, 1 fourth  - 136

Edited by crooky369, 07 November 2019 - 08:51.

Too many races. With reliable cars and over 20 races the fastest driver is likely to win most of the time. 

 

You could split the season into two. After the first sixteen races the drivers best eight results are used to set the championship standings. Last five races decides the championship.

 

This would be the standings after 16 races. Sure Hamilton still has a massive lead but he’s deserved it being the dominant driver this year. The others have been bunched together nicely for the final shoutout.

Hamilton - 8 wins - 200

Bottas - 2 wins, 6 seconds - 158

Leclerc - 2 wins, 2 seconds, 4 thirds  - 146

Verstappen - 2 wins, 1 second, 3 thirds, 2 fourths - 137

Vettel - 1 win, 3 seconds, 3 thirds, 1 fourth  - 136

That's essentially the system used in the 1970s, where drivers had to drop scores in the first half of the season (and the second) with an unhealthy mix if NASCAR Chase thrown in. But here's the thing about the 1970s system, it produced the fewest last race title deciders of all decades.

I feel I need to quote this again.

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?

Clearly it doesn't matter much how many races there are, but if there's on thing we can draw from it is that splitting the season is more likely to decide the championship early.

Thinking about, it's probably because it locks in an advantage in either half of the season more than in any other system.

Clearly it doesn't matter much how many races there are, but if there's on thing we can draw from it is that splitting the season is more likely to decide the championship early.

Maybe it does matter how many races there are but the influence of growing number of races has been counterbalanced by something like, for example, increased reliability? That was surely making things a bit more random in the past.

Let everyone drop their worst 20 results. 

It is worth noting that prior to 1990, the best 10 or 11 results only counted. That allowed for the driver of a fast but less reliable car to still be in with a shout. It also meant drivers were more likely to overtake because a 5th place might simply not count in the final standings when a 3rd or 4th probably would. 

But it was dropped as apparently too difficult for us to comprehend....

It is worth noting that prior to 1990, the best 10 or 11 results only counted. That allowed for the driver of a fast but less reliable car to still be in with a shout. It also meant drivers were more likely to overtake because a 5th place might simply not count in the final standings when a 3rd or 4th probably would. 
 
But it was dropped as apparently too difficult for us to comprehend....

Edited by FirstnameLastname, 07 November 2019 - 11:19.

Last race should always have a x10 multiplier on the points. Would make it much more exciting and Guarenteed the championship went to the wire each year.

F1 loves ‘out of the box’ thinking... they can have this one for free.

Or...

20 drivers

When there’s only 20 races left, the driver in last place gets eliminated. Every round, the next driver at the bottom of the table is eliminated. So at the final round, there’s 2 drivers left ‘in contention’.

The one who finishes ahead, wins.

Dropping scores would be a terrific antidote for this horrific ultra-reliability era. Best 17 scores count, that's it.

Dropping scores would be a terrific antidote for this horrific ultra-reliability era. Best 17 scores count, that's it.

I agree. Dropped scores is better when there's ultra-reliability because it punishes settling for lower points positions.

I agree. Dropped scores is better when there's ultra-reliability because it punishes settling for lower points positions.

An alternative option I've been weighing up is segmenting the championship into legs or zones like V8 Supercars separates out the sprint and enduro championships. Then you could give bonus points to teams/drivers who win a leg. E.g. Asia Pacific, Americas, Euro One, Euro Two, etc. 

Why two Euro groups? I'd be looking to make some of the classic races longer (think 100km longer) and then award more points for those legs. Monza is a pretty short race the best of time, Spa is usually better for whatever reason, etc. Those are races I'd probably want to be longer format anyway because they tend to be more interesting or are arguably too short.

Then you bowl up to the last event of the season with double-points on offer. There'd always be an incentive to push. 

IDK, if you're going to have so many races then the linear championship seems kind of boring, and this could be an interesting compromise if you aren't going to drop results.  

Dropping scores would be a terrific antidote for this horrific ultra-reliability era. Best 17 scores count, that's it.

I have not really thought it through, but how would this effect the tie breaker rules if at all? It's a very interesting idea. 

Edited by ARTGP, 09 November 2019 - 01:01.

I have not really thought it through, but how would this effect the tie breaker rules if at all? It's a very interesting idea. 

There was an interesting discussion recently because it appears to have been counted differently at different times in the past, going by the way the championship deciders of 1958 and 1962 were set up, even though the points situations were similar.

It wouldn’t be a problem though. It would just need to be decided when the rules changed.

There was an interesting discussion recently because it appears to have been counted differently at different times in the past, going by the way the championship deciders of 1958 and 1962 were set up, even though the points situations were similar.

Dropping scores would be a terrific antidote for this horrific ultra-reliability era. Best 17 scores count, that's it.

Somewhat weird take on the subject in Autosport+:

F1 needs radical points change to stop limp endings

Weird because:

1. "Limp." Ew!

2. The author advocates double points, but then dismisses objections to the one, rubbish, time it was tried by saying "all changes to F1 are criticized". If only there were some way of analysing an event in spite of the fact that there may be conflicting interpretations.

3. The twist here is that you get double points for the last 5 races or so. They only list the possible benefits of this change, without addressing the negatives. (Wouldn't 2009 and 2012 have likely been big anticlimaxes, as Red Bull would've simply outdeveloped everyone by the races that really mattered?)

4. Any remaining problems with the proposal are waved away by the argument that reversed grids would be worse. So would cholera!

5. The author correctly recognizes that the root cause of titles being wrapped up early is too many races. He then says it's irrelevant because Liberty are going to do it anyway. Pass me that golden goose, I think I can shoot a few more rounds into it.

Any points system that makes it easier for a second placed driver to stay in contention is equally easy for a dominant driver to pull away.

Close championships come from close competition, not from trying to fudge the maths. I stopped reading when they said, “There probably is some mathematical model that can estimate some concrete numbers behind the relationship between number of races and the closeness of the title battle, but I don't think big mathematical equations are particularly necessary here. Instead, it's enough to look at two extreme examples.”

It’s just code for not being bothered to look into the facts and just present you with whatever I think is the right answer.

Any points system that makes it easier for a second placed driver to stay in contention is equally easy for a dominant driver to pull away.

Close championships come from close competition, not from trying to fudge the maths. I stopped reading when they said, “There probably is some mathematical model that can estimate some concrete numbers behind the relationship between number of races and the closeness of the title battle, but I don't think big mathematical equations are particularly necessary here. Instead, it's enough to look at two extreme examples.”

It’s just code for not being bothered to look into the facts and just present you with whatever I think is the right answer.

I must be missing something here. If the dominant driver always wins then they will obviously pull away, but if the points per position were closer it would take longer.

But if the gap is larger it makes it easier for the other guy to catch up when the leader doesn’t win.

Any points system that makes it easier for a second placed driver to stay in contention is equally easy for a dominant driver to pull away.

Try 1000 - 999 - 998...

Any points system that makes it easier for a second placed driver to stay in contention is equally easy for a dominant driver to pull away.

I stopped reading when they said, “There probably is some mathematical model that can estimate some concrete numbers behind the relationship between number of races and the closeness of the title battle, but I don't think big mathematical equations are particularly necessary here. Instead, it's enough to look at two extreme examples.”
 
It’s just code for not being bothered to look into the facts and just present you with whatever I think is the right answer.

 

Close championships come from close competition, not from trying to fudge the maths.

Amen .

I'd go full socialism - strict cost cap, equal budget for every team, drivers get paid by a Fia controlled fund based on results .

That would shake things up nicely - no more top drivers in top teams only, no more dominant teams !

Winners benefit from ad revenue and get bragging rights , drivers and teams alike .

Technical regulations are handled as they are now, so we can still have a proper constructors fight, just without the unfair advantage of massive investments only few teams can afford .

Edited by Bartonz20let, 15 November 2019 - 09:28.

I cant say I understand the desire to spice up the show, it's like an obsession amongst F1 fans that it's never quite good enough.

As someone who was subjected to hours if test cricket and cycling as a kid, I find F1 plenty exciting and could definitely absorbe more.

If I could change one thing however, I'd bring the midfield and tail end closer to Merc and Ferarri, I'd love to see Racing Point or Alfa taking wins away from the big boys and it would make a championship that bit harder to win.

I don't think spicing up the show is an obsession amongst F1 fans, it's an obsession for Liberty that some F1 fans understand and debate. Liberty are a commercial operation. They need to grow the sport and increase their revenue. Also, teams are commercial operations and they, too, need to grow and increase their revenue. Existing F1 fans are happy with the existing product. There are ideas that can be used to increase the value of those existing fans. But to grow further they really need to attract new fans.

That's where the 'spice it up' idea comes from. It's simple - just ask the question why are there so many people out there who are not F1 fans? Is it because they just need to be educated in what F1 is or is it that F1 does not provide what they would like?

Here's a thought.

The more likely the WDC is decided at the final race, the less likely it is that the worthiest driver wins it.

Which is logical as someone who is "obviously" the best driver (or at least beast driver/car combo) in the field will wrap the thing up long before the season's end.

If it goes to the last race, then the most obviously best driver has not been able to rack up enough points for one reason or another.

And, indeed, if one looks at the overall WDC, the stats seem to bear it out.

Fangio lost a title at the final race to Farina.

Moss lost titles at the final race to Hawthorn and Brabham.

Clark lost titles at the final race to Graham Hill and Surtees.

Stewart lost a title at the final race to Graham Hill.

Prost lost titles at the final race to Piquet and Lauda.

Hamilton lost titles at the final race to Raikkonen and Rosberg.

I think in all of those cases there's a pretty strong argument that the "wrong" driver took the tile.

Whereas the converse is not always true.  Fangio won one over Ascari, and another over Collins, which were plainly right; also Hamilton over Massa and Rosberg (both artificial thanks to FIA meddling).  Also there was a justice in Prost over Mansell/Piquet (in terms of driver alone).  But normally the "right" driver wins by a street.  Clark's two titles, two of Fangio's, all of Stewart's, two of Lauda's, some of Schumacher's.  And with some other years (e.g. 1979-82) it's not that obvious who "should" have won.

And it's pretty rare the wrong driver galumphs to a title and they tend to be freakish circumstances.  Phil Hill in '61 or Button in '09 being the most egregious.  Not sure if Mansell counts, Senna was obviously better but Mansell palpably deserved one. 

So, if you want a last race showdown, it ought to be between two equal drivers (Senna/Prost, Alonso/Hamilton), rather than the sort of external circumstance-induced closeness (Lotus reliability).