77 replies to this topic

[rabbitleader]

I have an idea (might be crazy) but we should challenge the status quo sometimes:

A 'racing incident' does not attempt to apportion blame to either driver by FIA so why not share the points between the two drivers when one car is a DNF. Once could say that both had some culpability otherwise there would be s stewards investigation with a penalty to one driver if there was negligence by one of the drivers. So it's unfair to the driver with the DNF while the other continues in the race and may collect points.

Under the current rules, it is a heavy penalty for the car with a DNF and we shrug our shoulders and say "tough". We also say "you should have been more clean with your overtaking" but these are quite contoversial comments when the car that is the DNF was the car being overtaken by another and was defending their position. And it sends a negative signal about encouraging driver to try and overtake. I don't want see procession racing!

So what if a driver's points are shared with the another driver when it is involved with a DNF resulting from an overtake and when it is deemed a 'racing incident' ?

[Captain Tightpants]

Because there's no way to prove the driver would have finished the race without it. Say Hamilton and Webber had both gotten away scot-free - it's entirely possible that Hamilton could have retired ten laps later with a completely unrelated incident. Awarding equal points to two drivers for a racing incident only devalues the position of the person who finished the race.

[Kelateboy]

The idea sounds OK but the implementation will be a nightmare.

A no go!

[Massacrator]

Imagine in last race, Singapore, where Massa started in the back of the grid.

Imagine that Massa crashed with Senna at the first corner, Senna DNF and Massa finishes the race winning it (with a lot of luck).

Should Massa share the points with Senna? Would be fair a HRT car to have 12.5 points while doing nothing?

Just an example of why this would be totally impossible to put in practice. Also, if you get into managing driver's luck, you should manage ABSOLUTELY all the luck they have, leaving no room for luck anymore.

Edited by Massacrator, 29 September 2010 - 09:20.

[A Wheel Nut]

Two drivers, one cup?

[rabbitleader]

Because there's no way to prove the driver would have finished the race without it. Say Hamilton and Webber had both gotten away scot-free - it's entirely possible that Hamilton could have retired ten laps later with a completely unrelated incident. Awarding equal points to two drivers for a racing incident only devalues the position of the person who finished the race.

Two points in response:

These days, mosts cars are reliable unlike compared to say even ten years ago. With the exceprion of some very new teams, most cars are reliable so it would be safe to assume that a DNF car would have have gone on to complete the race had it not been for a racing incident.

Devaluing the position of the driver that completes the race is the whole point because they contributed to the DNF of the other driver.

[rabbitleader]

The idea sounds OK but the implementation will be a nightmare.

A no go!

This rule could be limited to two car or three car incidents deemed a 'racing incident'.

[Bloggsworth]

Don't be silly, the NET isn't big enough to accommodate the reams of vitriol any decision would generate....

[rabbitleader]

Imagine in last race, Singapore, where Massa started in the back of the grid.

Imagine that Massa crashed with Senna at the first corner, Senna DNF and Massa finishes the race winning it (with a lot of luck).

Should Massa share the points with Senna? Would be fair a HRT car to have 12.5 points while doing nothing?

Just an example of why this would be totally impossible to put in practice. Also, if you get into managing driver's luck, you should manage ABSOLUTELY all the luck they have, leaving no room for luck anymore.

Using your example, one could say that Massa was very lucky to be the car that did not DNF as there is huge randomness in the way cars collide creating damage. So all the rest of his great driving is predecated on that initial crash and good luck!


I concede one negative effect unrelated to your example and that is, it could potentially create a negative incentive for lower placed teams with much less hope of acquiring points to manufacture a racing incident but they would need to be racing for position for them to be able to achieve that.

Edited by rabbitleader, 29 September 2010 - 09:32.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Two drivers, one cup?

booo....

[Lifew12]

What a daft idea. It would simply encourage drivers to be more reckless. Two drivers hit each other, one doesn't finish, tough. It's racing.

[rabbitleader]

Don't be silly, the NET isn't big enough to accommodate the reams of vitriol any decision would generate....

That happens anyway whenever there is a racing incident with two drivers racing for the WDC and one is a DNF.

[Jimisgod]

Two drivers, one cup?

Seriously, do not say that with an avatar like yours

Might as well split points with teammates if their car happens to fail through no fault of their own.

Edited by Jimisgod, 29 September 2010 - 09:51.

[A Wheel Nut]

Seriously, do not say that with an avatar like yours

Didn't even think of that!

[Captain Tightpants]

Two points in response:

These days, mosts cars are reliable unlike compared to say even ten years ago. With the exceprion of some very new teams, most cars are reliable so it would be safe to assume that a DNF car would have have gone on to complete the race had it not been for a racing incident.

Devaluing the position of the driver that completes the race is the whole point because they contributed to the DNF of the other driver.

I'm sorry, but there's no other way to say this: it's an absolutely stupid idea. The entire point of a racing incident is that no-one is to blame for it. It's just a consequence of hard racing. If you award points to the driver who retires, you're assigning blame to the driver who didn't have an accident. Take Hamilton's Monza DNF for instance - it was clearly his fault. So why should Massa have take the blame for it by assigning the same points to Hamilton?

To be honest, I suspect you're a Hamilton fan who thinks the championship is slipping away from him and you're looking for ways to keep him in the championship battle.

Edited by Captain Tightpants, 29 September 2010 - 10:10.

[KateLM]

I have an idea (might be crazy) but we should challenge the status quo sometimes:

A 'racing incident' does not attempt to apportion blame to either driver by FIA so why not share the points between the two drivers when one car is a DNF. Once could say that both had some culpability otherwise there would be s stewards investigation with a penalty to one driver if there was negligence by one of the drivers. So it's unfair to the driver with the DNF while the other continues in the race and may collect points.

Under the current rules, it is a heavy penalty for the car with a DNF and we shrug our shoulders and say "tough". We also say "you should have been more clean with your overtaking" but these are quite contoversial comments when the car that is the DNF was the car being overtaken by another and was defending their position. And it sends a negative signal about encouraging driver to try and overtake. I don't want see procession racing!

So what if a driver's points are shared with the another driver when it is involved with a DNF resulting from an overtake and when it is deemed a 'racing incident' ?

Er...no.

[Massacrator]

To be honest, I suspect you're a Hamilton fan who thinks the championship is slipping away from him and you're looking for ways to keep him in the championship battle.

+1

[Clatter]

I have an idea (might be crazy) but we should challenge the status quo sometimes:

A 'racing incident' does not attempt to apportion blame to either driver by FIA so why not share the points between the two drivers when one car is a DNF. Once could say that both had some culpability otherwise there would be s stewards investigation with a penalty to one driver if there was negligence by one of the drivers. So it's unfair to the driver with the DNF while the other continues in the race and may collect points.

Under the current rules, it is a heavy penalty for the car with a DNF and we shrug our shoulders and say "tough". We also say "you should have been more clean with your overtaking" but these are quite contoversial comments when the car that is the DNF was the car being overtaken by another and was defending their position. And it sends a negative signal about encouraging driver to try and overtake. I don't want see procession racing!

So what if a driver's points are shared with the another driver when it is involved with a DNF resulting from an overtake and when it is deemed a 'racing incident' ?

One of the worst thought out ideas for a long time. It's right up there with Bernies medals.

[Fastcake]

No. You crash? Tough. This is racing, not primary school sports day.

[Dunder]

Sometimes racing is unfair and luck plays a part.

A) In the case of the Webber/Hamilton incident one was lucky and the other was not.

B) Think also however about the safety car in Valencia where Vettel was lucky (got through before SC was deployed), Button was lucky (was able to pit on that lap) and Hamilton was lucky (overtook the safety car but penalty was mitigated due to length of time taken). The Ferraris on the other hand were stuck in no mans land and lost a lot of places and ultimately points by not being able to pit on that lap.

I don't really see why we should be looking to 'alter' the results because of A) but just accept B).

[shunt]

Yeah.... Nah.

[goldenboy]

I have an idea (might be crazy) but we should challenge the status quo sometimes:

A 'racing incident' does not attempt to apportion blame to either driver by FIA so why not share the points between the two drivers when one car is a DNF. Once could say that both had some culpability otherwise there would be s stewards investigation with a penalty to one driver if there was negligence by one of the drivers. So it's unfair to the driver with the DNF while the other continues in the race and may collect points.

Under the current rules, it is a heavy penalty for the car with a DNF and we shrug our shoulders and say "tough". We also say "you should have been more clean with your overtaking" but these are quite contoversial comments when the car that is the DNF was the car being overtaken by another and was defending their position. And it sends a negative signal about encouraging driver to try and overtake. I don't want see procession racing!

So what if a driver's points are shared with the another driver when it is involved with a DNF resulting from an overtake and when it is deemed a 'racing incident' ?

well at least I know not to tke anythinh u say seriously from now on. thx for flushing yourself out!

[Lifew12]

Ive thought about this and have come to the conclusion it's not a daft idea - it's great. The TV companies would love my take on it, so here goes: after each race all drivers - DNF or otherwise- meet around a table and discuss who did what, when and where, and among them work out who should have a proportion of who's points for their part in certain incidents during the race. For example, say Alonso wins yet was a bit tough at the start; Vettel, who he was tough on (and who, for the purpose of this example didn't finish after a later crash with Hamilton) could argue that he deserves five of Alonso's points. They agree on this one. Alonso, though, wants a good bunch of Button's points (he finished fourth) as he was released in front of him at the pit stops - unfairly in Ferrari's view. Button agrees, and offers Alons three points. Vettel, meanwhile, is in a discussion with Hamilton (who finished second) about some of his points thanks to the aforementioned accident that ended his race, and Hamilton - generously - agrees to give him five of his. Schumacher, at the same time, is refusing to agree with Sutil that he should hand over all the points he got for sixth position after he punted the Force India driver, quite blatantly, into Alguersuari, who also wants some of Schumi's points. The drivers agree to bring de la Rosa in to arbitrate, and he agrees that all of michaels points should be awarded to the two other guys, and that any points scored by heidfeld should go to him, Pedro, because Nick's a bastard.

All in all, it woul be quite a spectacle, and very simple for the fans to understand.

[shunt]

after each race all drivers - DNF or otherwise- meet around a table and discuss who did what, when and where, and among them work out who should have a proportion of who's points for their part in certain incidents during the race.

1000 X

It's like putting the leader of every religion in the same room and asking them to come up with a new religion that suits all of them!

[Stormsky68]

award points for crash style

[flyer121]

Imagine Alonso and Lewis collide - Alonso DNFs.

Last lap .
Lewis wins ..
Camera cuts to Alonso ...
Guess what .... he is cheering like crazy !

Edited by flyer121, 29 September 2010 - 12:12.

[Mary Popsins]

Is that Ecclestone's last fantasy?

[flyer121]

Another scenario
Imagine Alonso and Lewis collide - Alonso DNFs.

Last race .
Webber DNFs on his own ..
Alonso on 190 WDC points / Webber on 200 / Lewis out of running ...
Lewis leading on Last lap .....
If Lewis wins then Alonso wins the title , If he doesn't then Webber is the champ .....

What should / would Lewis do?

[Classic Ferrari]

wow its like Socialist Motorsport.

[Captain Tightpants]

wow its like Socialist Motorsport.

No, it's Hamiltonist - the OP is clearly designed to keep Hamilton in the title fight when he crashes out. A racing incident might be just that, but if you have to apportion blame for it, then you have to blame Hamilton for cutting in too early.

[Dunder]

Another scenario
Imagine Alonso and Lewis collide - Alonso DNFs.

Last race .
Webber DNFs on his own ..
Alonso on 190 WDC points / Webber on 200 / Lewis out of running ...
Lewis leading on Last lap .....
If Lewis wins then Alonso wins the title , If he doesn't then Webber is the champ .....

What should / would Lewis do?

Pull into the pits and stop at the Ferrari garage before crossing the line in second place.

[rabbitleader]

well at least I know not to tke anythinh u say seriously from now on. thx for flushing yourself out!

It's far easier to sit back and be an armchair critic is n't it rather than to ever try and make a positive contribution.

[expert]

Ive thought about this and have come to the conclusion it's not a daft idea - it's great. The TV companies would love my take on it, so here goes: after each race all drivers - DNF or otherwise- meet around a table and discuss who did what, when and where, and among them work out who should have a proportion of who's points for their part in certain incidents during the race. For example, say Alonso wins yet was a bit tough at the start; Vettel, who he was tough on (and who, for the purpose of this example didn't finish after a later crash with Hamilton) could argue that he deserves five of Alonso's points. They agree on this one. Alonso, though, wants a good bunch of Button's points (he finished fourth) as he was released in front of him at the pit stops - unfairly in Ferrari's view. Button agrees, and offers Alons three points. Vettel, meanwhile, is in a discussion with Hamilton (who finished second) about some of his points thanks to the aforementioned accident that ended his race, and Hamilton - generously - agrees to give him five of his. Schumacher, at the same time, is refusing to agree with Sutil that he should hand over all the points he got for sixth position after he punted the Force India driver, quite blatantly, into Alguersuari, who also wants some of Schumi's points. The drivers agree to bring de la Rosa in to arbitrate, and he agrees that all of michaels points should be awarded to the two other guys, and that any points scored by heidfeld should go to him, Pedro, because Nick's a bastard.

All in all, it woul be quite a spectacle, and very simple for the fans to understand.

Thread worth it for this post.

[flyer121]

Pull into the pits and stop at the Ferrari garage before crossing the line in second place.

Wouldn't be amazed if Alonso then started pushing Hami's car physically to the line while Lewis is pushing on the brakes as hard as he could.

May the stronger driver win !

Edited by flyer121, 29 September 2010 - 14:44.

[Sausage]

Ive thought about this and have come to the conclusion it's not a daft idea - it's great. The TV companies would love my take on it, so here goes: after each race all drivers - DNF or otherwise- meet around a table and discuss who did what, when and where, and among them work out who should have a proportion of who's points for their part in certain incidents during the race. For example, say Alonso wins yet was a bit tough at the start; Vettel, who he was tough on (and who, for the purpose of this example didn't finish after a later crash with Hamilton) could argue that he deserves five of Alonso's points. They agree on this one. Alonso, though, wants a good bunch of Button's points (he finished fourth) as he was released in front of him at the pit stops - unfairly in Ferrari's view. Button agrees, and offers Alons three points. Vettel, meanwhile, is in a discussion with Hamilton (who finished second) about some of his points thanks to the aforementioned accident that ended his race, and Hamilton - generously - agrees to give him five of his. Schumacher, at the same time, is refusing to agree with Sutil that he should hand over all the points he got for sixth position after he punted the Force India driver, quite blatantly, into Alguersuari, who also wants some of Schumi's points. The drivers agree to bring de la Rosa in to arbitrate, and he agrees that all of michaels points should be awarded to the two other guys, and that any points scored by heidfeld should go to him, Pedro, because Nick's a bastard.

All in all, it woul be quite a spectacle, and very simple for the fans to understand.

Yeah, and we need some sort of audience phone in for a +10 extra viewer championship points. Imagine a billion people calling in at a rate of $1 per call. Bernie will love this

[Sardukar]

Lets just give all the drivers participation awards and everyone can feel warm and fuzzy after each grand prix. Is this a serious idea? like really?

[Rich]

wow its like Socialist Motorsport.

The workers must control the means of deciding the championship.

[robefc]

I don't think your idea is either correct in theory or workable but I am interesting in changing the odds so that the risk/reward nature of overtaking is shifted.

Over in the JB v LH thread I was querying whether the points system where you dropped your worst races was successful in encouraging 'racing'. Someone came up with the idea of keeping your best 15 results from a season of 20.

Incidentally I am a hamilton fan but it's the realisation he'd have been better off cruising to 4th places in monza and singapore which is leading my thoughts in this direction, the risks associated with overtaking near the front don't seem to be worth it for an extra 3 points or whatever and that's not good from a spectator's point of view.

[Hairpin]

Two drivers hit each other, one doesn't finish, tough. It's racing.

That is not racing. What planet are you from? Racing is to reach the whatever finish line ahead of as many others as possible. Two drivers hitting each other is an accident.

[as65p]

That is not racing. What planet are you from? Racing is to reach the whatever finish line ahead of as many others as possible. Two drivers hitting each other is an accident.

And what are accidents? Just maybe... part of racing?

Amazing how a single unfortunate DNF from a particular driver makes people wish for the whole game to be redefined.

[oultondon]

I think this is a brilliant idea. You could have the designers make the cars like bumper cars, you could crash into the top 10 drivers then pull over and pick up half points for each position!

[Hairpin]

And what are accidents? Just maybe... part of racing?

It is an unfortunate part of the game, but it's not racing. When you do it right, there is no accident.

[Lights]

You can't be serious while starting a thread like this.

[Atreiu]

It is an entirely absurd idea, it's barely revolting.

[Rob G]

"Felipe, Fernando's engine is failing. Do you understand?"

"*sigh* Yes."

WHAM!!! Two Ferraris go flying off the road...

[Nustang70]

Wouldn't that make Lotus, Virgin, and HRT drivers want to get into an accident with the Mclaren, Red Bull, and Ferrari drivers?

[Massacrator]

Wouldn't that make Lotus, Virgin, and HRT drivers want to get into an accident with the Mclaren, Red Bull, and Ferrari drivers?

They would make their cars like paper tissues. These cars would fall in pieces as soon as they get the air generated by a Ferrari overtaking them

[deanfrancis]

Racing should be done on the track, not in a boardroom after the race is done. The less interference with the result post race the better. Already there is far far too much.

[Craven Morehead]

I'd say that the entire premise of this thread could be described as a solution looking for a problem..

[Lifew12]

That is not racing.

yes it is. It's part, and parcel, of racing. You and I have had this discussion before, and if you can't accept that where there is an element of risk, which is always going to be present when two very competetive individuals in high powered and rather nifty motor cars try and get an advantage over each other, there will always be a chance of collisions then you really shouldn't bother watching. But you don't anyway, so that's ok. Your view that overtaking manouvres more often than not end in a collision is wrong, and I think it's that which is adding to your misguided view.