Bernie Ecclestone is right: ‘Gold medals’ would make F1 more exciting
Lewis Hamilton would have a harder job at Interlagos if I was in charge...
It’s that time of year when we look ahead to the final round try to figure out who needs to finish where to win which championship.
Long-time readers of this site know I don’t think very much of points systems and think they should be scrapped.
Bernie Ecclestone thinks so too, and when you look at how close this year’s championship would be if we did I think it’s hard not to agree.
Here’s the championship situation as it currently stands:
Lewis Hamilton 94
Felipe Massa 87
Explaining all the permutations by which the drivers’ title might be resolved next week is rather complicated. And if you want a real headache, try doing the same for the constructors’ championship. And when there’s more than two drivers or teams involved it gets quite painful.
Bernie Ecclestone recently repeated as suggestion of his (which he first brought up years ago) that the F1 championships should do away with points and mimic the Olympics’ medals leaderboard instead. So the drivers’ championship would instead look like this:
| Driver | First | Second | Third |
| Lewis Hamilton | 5 | 2 | 3 |
| Felipe Massa | 5 | 2 | 2 |
Now that would make things a lot more straightforward: whichever driver wins the final race wins the title. Were Massa to finish third with Hamilton outside the top three, then fourth places could be used to determine the champion, then fifths and so on.
This isn’t as radical a proposal as you might think. In fact this exact system would be used to determine the champion were the two to end the year tied on points. So why not just dump points to begin with and make the whole thing easier?
One of the usual responses to this suggestion is that prioritising wins in this way would do too little to reward consistency.
But do we really want to reward consistency as much as we do now? I found watching Lewis Hamilton site behind David Coulthard for lap after lap at Singapore because he didn’t want to risk a safe six points rather tedious. In my scenario he’d have been 4-5 down to Massa on wins and I bet he’d have been pushing rather harder to pass Coulthard.
We need to give drivers the maximum incentive to push for wins. Simply boosting the winners’ points haul to 12 or more isn’t enough. Racing to win is the essence of F1 and the championship structure should reflected that.
That’s my opinion anyway, and I’ll continue to hold it until someone convinces me otherwise. Over to you…
Here are some earlier articles where I’ve made the same argument, with examples from past F1 seasons and other championships:
would be intresting to see what the top 6 of the championship would be like if f1 used your system.
presumably alonso would be ahead of kubica, and vettel ahead of heidfeld??
I agree with you on this one. A medal tally, rather than points, would make things so much more interesting. Perhaps this really is something F1 management need to look into. Are/have there been any Motorsport championships that work with a medal style tally rather than points?
The problem is that to alter the system so radically would represent a serious break with the history of the sport. Yes, the present system can be complex at times, especially at this time of the year, but the system proposed here would not really make it any simpler to the casual observer. F1 is a complex sport - and we should beware of dumbing it down too much. Whilst there is something about the simplicity of the ‘medal table’ concept that is appealing, it also devalues any position outside of the top three - which is not right. I actually do think that in these days of high reliability it was the right decision to aware points down to eighth place - it gives the smaller teams something to fight for and something ‘tangible’ to show for their efforts.
I think that generally the right driver becomes champion, it would be hard to say that any driver who has won the championship is undeserving - though there are isolated cases (’58 and ‘87 spring to mind) where a driver who genuinely deserved the title failed to secure it.
Fact is, once again we have a close championship - being fought out at the last race of the season. I’m not complaining.
But is that because of or in spite of the current system? Under ‘91-02 points Massa would only be five points behind Hamilton. I think the ‘gold medal’ system would keep some championship battles alive longer - it would have in ‘05, for example - and be fairer.
How will the Constructors Championship work in this case? I assume the points system in use now would still apply?
The big issue here is rewarding drivers who don’t have cars that can contend for podiums, never mind wins. How do we reward good performances from them? While we can look at the number of 4ths, 5ths, 6ths, and so on, it’s much more difficult to look at it than a consolidated points system.
Also, if a driver is dominant in the first half of the season and wins the first 9 out of 17 races, then the title race is over by round 9. But what if a completely different guy dominates and wins the next 8 races? It wouldn’t mean anything anymore: he can’t be champion because he can’t beat the other guy’s win total.
I say: continue using a points system. Add more points for a win (from 10 to 12 in the current system), but that’s it, no other changes.
No reason why it would have to - just use the same system.
The current system doesn’t do that very well either - look at the Force India drivers for example.
But at least the current system rewards the Williamses and Hondas (and before their recent renaissance, the Toro Rossos) of the world; the gold medal system wouldn’t do that anywhere near as well.
Which also explains why a WCC will not work with a medal system. If, as has happened in 2000, only Ferrari and McLaren win, it would be pretty hard to track who’s 3rd on down in the WCC.
I guess to work that out we’d have to go back through the results of previous seasons and work out how the championships would have wound up! While I’d have loved to see the ‘05 championship go on for longer, Kimi and McLaren did conspire to throw away an awful lot of big points - for which the championship standings punished them. I’m not sure that’s unfair. What I do think is unfair at the present moment is that without a ridiculous penalty at Spa Massa wouldn’t be going into the last race with a sniff of the title. Lewis would be 11 points clear - with six wins to Massa’s five. And all of this would be academic.
I normally agree with you Keith - so I’m not being difficult for the sake of it! I just think of all the things that need addressing in F1 this is probably one of the last on the list. I also think that in the last few years we have enjoyed some fantastically exciting races and championships and that all of this talk over a lack of entertainment is rather overblown.
the medal table system is surely a much better and clearer way of settling the upper echelons of the championship, however it does little to encourage the lower teams for whom picking up a point or two from 7th or 8th is a big deal - was this not the reason that post-’02 the points sytem was changed to include 7th and 8th?
if you extend the ‘medals’ table down to 8th to counter this you simply end up re-complicating your system with the added factor of working out who has what 6ths/7ths/8ths etc.
it also opens a whole kettle of fish regarding the constructors championship which is a measure of reliabilty and consistency as well as all out pace.
i have to say, i think the current system is working well for the sport.
Why is this not a points system?
If you consider only 3 places (assuming no more than 9 races in the reason).
1. First place gets 100 points.
2. Second place gets 10 points.
3. Third place gets 1 point.
If you consider up to 20 places.
1. First place gets 10^20 points (10^20 is 10 to the power 20).
2. Second place gets 10^19 points
..
20. Last place gets 1 point.
They are all points system. The question is how you distribute the points.
I think it should be like golf.
Come the end of the year, you add up your race-finishing positions.
Lowest score wins.
I like the idea, it definitely gives more incentive for a driver to push for the win. However at the moment only 3 or 4 teams are actually able to win races on a regular basis so as others have said, it seems a little unfair on the lower teams.
If next years regs make it easier to over-take (which would give the lower-down teams a more realistic chance of getting near the front) then your medal system could work, but if it’s the same as this year then it would only work for the top teams.
it would be easy enough, and still simply to follow, to have a table with top 8 places. Medals for the top three… peanuts for 4th-8th but atleast they are on the table (a top 8 place currently is only relevant to get your transport costs paid for by FOM i belive).
Also i think Bernie has shown previously that it wouldnt change any of the recent champions. I would love to see the retrospective medals table… Keith, one for your stats pages…
The last driver to settle for consistent 2nds was Alain ‘the professor’ Prost because he didnt want to risk anything. Meanwhile Mansell went kamikaze for everything and was amazing to watch.
I know which i prefer… so bring on the medals and lets see no-holds-barred racing.
It’s a very neat idea Keith. Would certainly remove any tendency among top drivers and teams to play the numbers game….but….
In the harsh economic situation we are heading into at the moment ( and today’s news is even more scary ! ) many of the current teams will be operating on the edge of a financial abyss over the next several years. Some are not going to be able to avoid falling to destruction. It’s going to get very nasty out there.
And to remove even the slim rewards of an occasional win or podium finish from these vital components of what F1 is supposed to be about will often be just enough to tip some very worthwhile and potential first-class teams over the edge. Like refusing dried crusts to a starving man.
It’s a very dangerous premise in late 2008.
Aj, as I’m bored I worked out what the championship would look like with the “golf” scoring from the results on Wikipedia. With a retirement being 20th position. Here’s the top 5 (as long as I haven’t made any mistakes):
1.Hamilton 90
2.Heidfeld 107
3.Kubica 107
4.Massa 116
5.Alonso 141
That would mean Hamilton would have pretty much wrapped up the championship, only having to finish 18th or higher to take it.
Kubica is below Heidfeld because he’s had more retirements.
I think the gap points difference between the positions should be greater… Something Like in MOTO GP. Cause now you can come First for 5 races and then Lose one race and lose your 10 point Advantage you had..
Now you have explained the thinking I can see that the ‘medal’ approach would be quite a sensible and simple idea to work with.
The positions do reflect all the way down the scale too, but you would need to cut off at 5th or 6th place or it would get too confusing for the press etc…
So you could end up with a driver having:
First 3, Second 2 Third 2 Fourth 0 Fifth 5 Sixth 2 Not Classified 1 DNF 2
And it would just carry over into the Constructors Championship too, since no team can have two Firsts at the same race.
I can see this as a way to make the drivers want to get a position and not just settle for points, which is what I want to see in a race, after all….
I think its a great idea. Last week I mentioned that I was fed up with drivers being rewarded for mediocre results, and this may go someway to changing that.
You are absolutely right Keith that the incentive should always be victory. I am embarrassed when I see a driver on the podium celebrating a third place finish as if he has just won the championship. True ‘drivers’ only celebrate winning, second is to be the first of the losers.
In light of “Stewardship Irregularities” as recently experienced by nearly everybody irrespective of which team or driver you support, surely a points system as at present could absorb slightly more of these without adversely affecting the outcome of the season? Changing the motivation of drivers from sailing to safety as cited with Lewis in Singapore to perhaps a more focussed effort to gain a top three position for a medal may invigorate those races that tend to be rather processional. However, certain circuits would not necessarily be able to offer the overtaking opportunities required and the cars would also need an aerodynamic overhaul to be in place (as promised for 2009).
Sometimes the worthy “Driver of the Day” may well not be one of the top three finishers and if scrapping rewards to the drivers from 4th place down, perhaps kudos could be provided to nominate one of the field for this accolade? Admittedly on some occasions this would fall to one of the top three in addition to their “medal”. Perhaps a tally of these could be considered should there be a tie?
At the end of the day, the current system does not always provide rewards to the most deserving. Whether you go for points or medals, eight places, three places, fifteen places are all academic. Those with the best car and the best budget to create the best car and have a half decent person to drive it are going to be higher than those that don’t. What would be more entertaining is to have three, four or more manufacturers at that level than just two.
That’s why I think you can’t have a medal table too.
Win 9 out of 17 and then you can just stop. Championship over! Even if another driver came 2nd in each of those races and then won the remaining 8 he would never be champion.
Plus, given the problem with overtaking, pole at Monaco would be even more important. Or are we assuming more riskier moves would be made?
That leads onto, the current state of the stewards and issues drivers have with overtaking….
But then Monaco is near the start of the season, so why risk a move then. Taking bigger risks at overtaking would only happen near the end of the season, like it is now.
I fail to see what is so complicated about the present points system. It has worked for decades, almost always providing us with a worthy champion, and only requires one or two points more for a race win to make everyone happy.
If you insist on an argument to persuade you that the medals system is completely unnecessary, Keith, let me ask you one question:
Would you take away the championships of John Surtees and Keke Rosberg?
Drivers Championship
HAM 5 2 3
MAS 5 2 2
RAI 2 2 4
ALO 2 0 0
KUB 1 3 3
KOV 1 1 1
VET 1 0 0
HEI 0 4 0
ROS 0 1 1
PIQ 0 1 0
GLO 0 1 0
TRU 0 0 1
COU 0 0 1
BAR 0 0 1
Constructors Championship
FER 7 4 6
MCL 6 3 4
REN 2 1 0
BMW 1 7 3
STR 1 0 0
TOY 0 1 1
WIL 0 1 1
RBR 0 0 1
HON 0 0 1
FIF 0 0 0
I hate the idea but that’s how it would look this year. It would throw up silly results like Renault ahead of BMW. STR ahead of Toyota. If Alonso had come home third in every race of the season (102 points) he’d finish behind Piquet (8 points).
I preferred when the second place got 6 instead of 8…
Clive - Drivers fighting for championships will always tailor their efforts to the parameters of the competition - precisely as we saw in Singapore with Hamilton this year. For example, some people complain that Prost ’should’ have been champion in 1988 because he would have accumulated more points than Senna but for the ‘best 11 results count’ rule. But the fact is that rule was there, Senna knew it, and conducted his approach to the championship accordingly.
If you ask me if, in principle, the driver with the best results should be champion, then of course I agree with that and the ‘gold medal’ system does a much better job of doing it.
But should we go back a re-assign championships in accordance to new criteria? Of course not. That would be like the FIA coming up with a new definition of a driving standard and using it to retroactively strip a driver of a race win. Which would be appalling…
Matt -
You can come up with a ‘potential’ scenario to undermine any system - I think we have to ask ourselves how likely that scenario is.
Keith -
Of course, but I think the scenario’s afforded by this system are much worse than in the current (or old) points systems. Instead of Alonso finishing 3rd in all 17 races, let’s just say he finished 3rd in Singapore and Japan, which judging from his/Renault’s pace in these grands prix, would have been a reasonably accurate outcome had the races been ordinary. He would currently be 11th in the world championship, still behind his team mate, a team mate he heads in qualifying at a count of 16-0.
I think this medal scoring system is too simplistic. A driver who has come second in all races should not lose to a driver who came first only once and didn’t finish the rest of the time.
There is some merit to coming second. Less than coming in first, but it should not be overlooked almost entirely (only as a tie breaker when number of first places is the same).
Points systems are there to rate performance as a whole. Basically just looking at wins is not a fair way to rate performance.
I do think there should be more points difference between 1st and 2nd and then to third than there is now. Maybe back to how it was before?
I also liked that drivers could drop one result in the nineties. This meant they can take more risk and if they spun, they could remove that score (or lack of score)
It has just occurred to me that this would also be able to rate the ‘Fastest Laps’ and ‘Pole Position’ criteria as well, since a car which gets Pole doesn’t always win the race, or even finish, and a car which finishes 10th may have set the Fastest Lap. I for one want to see kudos given to those drivers as much as the top three finishers - otherwise it does not reflect the outcome of the race, and may add a little to the ‘Pedigree’ of the drivers. So a Drivers ‘Scorecard’ would have:
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th N/C DNF FL PP
Which you see now I know, but it would mean more to everyone (including the driver)
noo…
it wud mean that only the winner takes it all…
after the 3rd place what happens? wud be a little
unjustified… from my pov
I’m just going to paste my forum discussion post, minus the constructors championship as thats been discussed, as my opinion on this hasn’t changed. I’d rather see the win bolstered to 12 points or more than see the medal system awarded - that being said, I do want to see winners being awarded their due, and more fights for the lead where it actually matters:
You could win a lot of races, but screw up quite often. Lets say you won the first 9 races out of 17 (entirely theoretical!), making it mathematically impossible for anyone else to get more wins, but royally screw up the rest of the 8 races, not even getting a Silver or Bronze. Is that the marque of someone we want to call champion? We do want some degree of consistency, right? I would still like to see someone, who has it all to lose, have that sort of pressure where they still need to get the job done. Nobody wants to see the championship wrapped up by the time Spa comes round, right?
I’m still in favour of the points system, alot of sports work this way, and that there’s nothing wrong with it - it’s just F1 might not have it right. I’m in big favour of the old 6 points paying positions awarding 10-6-4-3-2-1.
Bearing in mind a big reason why we have 8 points paying positions instead of 6 nowadays was because Schumacher and Ferrari were dominating too much, and this helped closed the deficit. Indeed, thanks to this points system the championship went down to Brazil last year, and at one point there were 4 Championship contenders at nearly half way through the season. However, it also meant there was much less incentive for being P1 - which is similar to the issue Bernie is talking about.
What it does encourage is consistency, and this is perhaps what the medal system discourages - going for the most wins is certainly the goal everyone has, but on the days you can’t win sometimes it shows up a drivers abilities and psyche that they don’t really deserve to be champion?
I think the points should be reverted back to 10-6-4-3-2-1, or if they were to keep the 8 points paying positions, then 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. I’m sure I’ve written this on one of the blog posts before as well. But I hate how someone can come first, and gain such little from he who came 2nd.
F1 needs to address on awarding the winner their due. But not make it easy for them to wrap up a championship, at the same time.
I dont mind the point system.
I dont like the point system in motoGP or australian v8 supercars where u get a billion points for winning a race. It devalues the importance of a single point. And because of that i dont think the medals would work. Some of the great moments in f1 were when struggling teams grabbed a point. What are the rest of the teams racing for when medals are only rewarded to 1st 2nd and 3rd??
the trouble with the medals system, is that if say Hamilton won every race up to the German GP (using this season as an example) & Massa fininshed 2nd in those first 10 races, then the season would effectively be over in July!
I think it’s a bad idea keith. What about the other teams like Williams, Honda, Force India??
And for someone who finish 4th or 5th it is very ‘cruel’ not to give him any points
Also the point system and the trophies is a tradition , you cannot just replace it.It’s one of the few things which remain still good enaugh in F1
*It would be better if the winner gains more points
@10 It’s not a points system because in a medal system the number of nth places is only relevant if the number of n-1th places is tied. In a points system all ‘counted’ places are relevant, just with various weightings.
I strongly prefer points. Most of the challenges listed by people can be solved by varying the weightings, I always liked the 10, 6, 4…. system and would prefer to see our current system changed to reflect the fact that finishing first over second should be worth more than finishing second over third.
People sit on either side of this depending on how they answer this question:
If a driver, A, wins one race and DNFs the other 17 and Driver B finishes second 18 times, who would you like to see become champion?
If you answer A then you prefer the medal system, B, you prefer points.
I think we have way too much emphasis on consistency but to say that we should go to the other extreme and reward Driver A (in my admittedly extreme example above) wouldn’t improve things.
As I’ve said elsewhere on this site: 20, 15, 13, 12, 11….. would be OK by me, or double each one if you want to reward the winner even more but leave it as a points system, please.
(One other advantage of the points system: It makes the championship table a lot easier smaller and and a lot smaller)
I’m not saying people who finish below third should not be ranked, I just listed the top three places in the table above as an example.
So for the drivers who have no firsts, seconds or thirds we look to who has the most fourths, then who has the most fifths and so on.
Again, this is all allowed for in the current rules in circumstances were two drivers have the same number of points. For example, look at Vettel and Button’s positions in the championship last year: both had the same points, Vettel ranked ahead because his best finish was fourth, Button’s was fifth.
@33 last line should read:
championship table a lot easier TO READ and a lot smaller.
Keith,
I think a hybrid system would be best. In other words, count 1st, 2nd and 3 places only but assign weights. In my mind it is a lot more difficult to win a race than simply taking 2nd place. A race win is the altimate goal and as such, a 1st-place finish should be rewarded accordingly, as compared to a 2nd and 3rd place finish. This is precisely what I suggested in my letter to the FIA last year. It is true that in certain years it won’t really make a difference as to which system is used, but I would like F1 to stay on principle, and that is that a race win should carry a lot of weight towards winning the title. For example, with the current system, we almost had Lewis win the title last year w/ one less race win than Kimi, and if that happened I would have an issue w/ it, regardless of which driver stood to benefit or be on the other end of the deal.
If they did switch to a medals system, does that mean McLaren will want to keep all those won by their drivers as well?
They’ll be saving a hell of a lot of space storing medals.
How about returning to the “best 11 results only” system? Under a 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system with best 11 results only, I believe the pre-Interlagos table would be:
LH: 88 points
FM: 85 points
Lewis has already had 11 finishes at 5th or better, so another 5th place or below would be worthless as it wouldn’t be one of his best 11 results. For him, 4th place in Brazil would gain him 1 point, 3rd - 2, 2nd - 4, and win 6 points. For Felipe, 5th in Brazil would gain him 1 point, 4th - 2, 3rd - 3, 2nd - 5, and a win 7 points.
The only downside i see is that this is a slightly complicated for Joe Public. But the positives are that it makes the championship more exciting, incentivises drivers to push for higher places, and maintains a points system - thus reducing anomalies such as Renault beating BMW and STR beating Toyota.
Under this system, if Massa were to win in Brazil, Lewis would need to finish second (as opposed to the 5th he currently needs) to be WDC.
(I realise that if this had been the points system in place, drivers would have behaved differently all year and thus would probably not be on the same points as they are now, but the three advantages I specified remain valid.)
I don’t know, the ‘medal’ system means that safety car produced results (step forward Renault) have an even bigger impact. Also the scrap for lower points would largely disappear.
21 - Clive - the voice of sanity. I couldn’t agree more.
This medal table would be ideal for next year when presumably all vehicles are suppose to be running with similar engines.
This points system was favoured because of the wild cards it produces esp those with inferior vehicles.
I think it would be interesting to see how the metal system would have played out over the last 5-10 years in a points vs. medals chart of some type. Drivers actual racing for the WIN that’s a concept I can really appreciate. I for one am tried of seeing mediocrity rewarded day after day. Brazil has the potential to be a truly boring race where Hamilton can ride around the track listening to his ipod for 70 odd laps and take the title home. Assuming he doesn’t get punted off the track.
i dont think there will ever be a points system that caters to all the aspects in racing without being overly confusing.
i think this system is ok maybe they should add points for qualifying although some may argue that championships should not be won through qualifying points.
very hard to please everyone. this current system is ok
- bananaman’s system sounds interesting as well and would in theory promote more action on track as well.
12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 sounds fine to me. And possibly a point for fastest lap, as in the 50s.
I think a four point advantage for the winner, as used to be the case, is enough of an incentive to go for victory.
Formula 1 fans - perhaps more than fans of any other sport - love statistics, comparing drivers/teams from different eras using a points system that has changed little in the 58 years of the championship. I think it would be a real shame to see any drastic changes to the championship system.
“The problem is that to alter the system so radically would represent a serious break with the history of the sport.”
Like dumping the Canadian GP? Or showing obvious favortisim towards Ferrari? Or playing “who bids the most” for events? Or fining a team 100M without actually proving wrongdoing?
Please.
I usually agree with your ideas (banning re-fuelling etc.), but this doesn’t look like a good one to me, mainly because it would completely disregard anyone outside the top 3. Just looking of it from the perspective of someone who’s a fan of several drivers who haven’t had many chances to be on the podium this year, rewarding only first, second and third would seriously take the the joy out of watching what goes on beyond that. Of course there can be exciting battle outside the points as well, but where would be the motivation for drivers to fight for 5th instead of 9th let’s say, if neither position would give them any points?
Keith’s system would not disregard anyone outside the top three. Drivers would be ranked in terms of their best finish - whatever that might be. If two drivers have the same best finishing position, then the number of times they finish in that finishing position would be the differentiator. If both finished in that position the same number of times, the second-best finishes of each driver would be used.
So someone whose best finish in the year was fifth would rank ahead of all those who failed to finish fifth or better. So that fifth place would be worth something.
Bananaman:
So, in this year, Coulthard (who’s having what’s probably his worst season ever) would be ahead of Webber, or Piquet ahead of Alonso, had Singapore and Japan not occured. Or in last year Wurz would be ahead of Rosberg. It awards fluke results.
It would be handy to compare the actual tables with a medals system table for each season to see how it would have changed things.
I’m warming to the idea myself. One of my reservations was the “what if someone wins the first 9?” question, but in history when has this happening not meant the championship was over half way through the season albeit not officially? In the cases where there has been one driver dominating, how far into the season were they officially confirmed as champions? And when would they have been if you ignored their team mates points (Patrese in 92, or Barrichello)? Latterly, I’d suspect not too much after the half way point.
Also, I don’t see why the lower place finishers are being left out. How about if you only rank 1-8 finishes and anyone outside of that are considered level? Hence 8th would be something worth fighting for.
Why does it matter that if X fluked a result then he’d finish 6th above Y even though Y had 3 more 8th places? When do we ever remember who finished outside the top 2 or 3 in the championship?
The points allocation has changed many times over the years. I don’t see how doing it this way would mess around with the ‘history’ of F1.