Jordan slams F1 ‘gold medals’ proposal
Former team owner Eddie Jordan has slammed Bernie Ecclestone’s proposal to introduce an Olympic Games-style ‘medals’ scoring system for formula one.
During a press conference in London on Wednesday, F1 chief executive Ecclestone reiterated his plan, revealing that the teams are also fully supportive.
But Jordan, who sold his Silverstone based team at the end of 2004, told the BBC: “I think (the proposals) are a nonsense.
“I can’t possibly believe he’s thinking straight, especially on this one. His focus must be on cost-cutting and nothing else. The rest is just dressing it up.”
Jordan disagrees completely that scrapping the current points system, expanded from the top six finishers to the top eight some years ago, is a good idea.
“I was one of the team principals who advocated the points should go down to eighth place because one point is as important to those teams as a win is to McLaren and Ferrari,” he said.
“He is tinkering with something on which he has lost the understanding. He thinks only wins matter.
“There has not been enough thought put into this and for him to say that it comes with the full approval of all the teams — I’m sorry, I just don’t believe it.”
This is a news story from the GMM agency. Looking to trim down your F1 Fanatic feed so you don’t receive news? There’s now a feed that does just that - get the link here.
Read more: Bernie Ecclestone is right: ‘Gold medals’ would make F1 more exciting
I’m having difficulty understanding the proposed gold/silver/bronze system and I’d be grateful if someone could explain it.
At the moment it seems to me that under the new system 1st gets Gold, second gets Silver and third gets Bronze. Apart from that no driver gets anything.
And at the end of the year, the driver with most golds is to get the Championship.
So if driver A scores second places in every race, but driver B scores two Golds and nowt else, driver B is the World Champion?
Under the new system is it correct that drivers from fourth to twentieth will get no points? If that’s the case, the only fight on the track will be over third place. Anyone lower that say, fifth or sixth place at the end of lap one might as well save the petrol and go home.
How will the new system motivate drivers in the lesser teams? How will a driver in a Honda or Force India, even Toyota be motivated to fight over tenth place if they are seven places behind the last scoring position.
Normally Bernie is a clever bloke, but I can’t really understand how this new points proposal will increase competition and overtaking, or that “all the teams are in favour of it.”
Explanations please.
I think it’s being referred to as a ‘medals’ system for ease of explanation, but I don’t expects positions fourth and lower would be ignored. That would make little sense, as it’s not unlikely at all that two drivers could end the season with the same number of first, second and third places.
Does Eddie Jordan that the constructors’ title will still be scored under the current points system?
I warmed to the medals system after reading your articles on it Keith but one thing that struck me while reading the Autosport report about it was this quote from Ecclestone:
Specifically the part about overtaking having nothing to do with the track…has he gone totally crackers?
Surely the track is one of the most important factors in over-taking.
A medals system with the driver winning the most goals becoming champion is a novel idea and it’ll be interesting to see how Bernie sees it working in practice. Such a system could have quite a significant impact on F1.
Since 1950, the driver who wins the most races in any given season is usually the world champion. But in about one year in six a driver with fewer victories than one of his rivals has lifted the crown - 1958, 1964, 1967, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1989 and 2008. By my reckoning, if applied retrospectively to all seasons from 1950 on, the medal system would have a significant impact on F1 history.
Working on the basis that the driver with most race wins takes the title (and using seconds and thirds as tie breakers) we’d have three new world champions but lose six existing winners. Three drivers would have been multiple world champions, two would have been four time title winners and Alain Prost would be next to Fangio in the record books as a five time champion.
Prost’s career would look rather different, with nearly a decade between his fourth and fifth titles. The 1980s would have seen the most upheaval, followed by the 1960s. The first turbo-powered world champion would have been Prost in a Renault, not Nelson Piquet in a Brabham-BMW.
Winners:
Felipe Massa (2008), Didier Pironi (1982) and Stirling Moss (1958) would all have been world champions. Alain Prost would have been a five times world champion (1981, 1983-85 and 1993). Ayrton Senna (1988-91) and Jim Clark (1963-65 and 1967) would both have been world champion four times. Nigel Mansell would have been world champion three times (1986-87 and 1992). Mario Andretti (1977-78) and Alan Jones (1979-80) would have both been world champions for two years running.
Losers:
Niki Lauda would have only been world champion once (1975), losing to Andretti in 1977 and Prost in 1984. Nelson Piquet, Jody Scheckter, Keke Rosberg, Denny Hulme, John Surtees and Mike Hawthorn would never have won the world championship.
Of course, any analysis of this sort is full of holes as changing the destiny of a world championship could often have had far reaching changes. For example, had Prost not been fired by Renault after failing to win the title in 1983 he probably wouldn’t have gone to McLaren the following season and been able to challenge for the championships in 1984-85, etc.
Another part of Jordan’s quote on another site read as follows:
There was a huge controversy! Is he seriosly arguing that we shouldn’t change the championship system because sometimes the stewards get decisions wrong? Surely we can all agree that is a ridiculous argument.
Mark - I’m not sold on the overtaking thing, I just think it’s a better concept than having points.
Tim -
Trying to argue ‘X would have happened’ or ‘Y wouldn’t have happened’ is a total fallacy to begin with. Consider how Massa might have acted differently had the medals system been in use when Hamilton passed him at Hockenheim, or whether Hamilton would have been as conservative at Singapore.
Yeah I agree with you that it could well be a better system. That quote just made me wonder whether Bernie’s all there.
Absolutely, which is why it was just an exercise in looking at how many world championships have been won by the driver who won more GPs than any of his rivals. The answer is a significant majority of them.
It is entirely correct to point out that drivers would behave differently if wins were virtually all that counted. Your Hockenheim 2008 example is a good one, another would be the most recent GP at Interlagos where fifth would have counted for nothing.
However, aside from 2008, the most recent year where the champion won fewer races than one of his rivals was nearly 20 years ago. So I’m not quite sure why Bernie thinks that this is such a big problem - it’s not as if we’ve seen lots of recent “cruise and collect” world champions with low numbers of wins.
Have any of the drivers or team principles been in print or otherwise to say they support the idea? Until at least one is quoted, I don’t believe Bernie’s statement that they are all in favour.
And Kieth, so far it is only speculation that Bernie really doesn’t just mean Gold, Silver and Bronze and nothing else. Again, nowhere has he said ‘and we will be keeping the scoring down to 8th as usual’, unless I’ve missed it.
I don’t see how this makes a driver want to overtake any more than now. They all want to win races and championships, and they all want to overtake the opposition whenever they can to do it. Whether they get points, a trophy or a medal won’t matter at the end of the weekend!
I’ve just had a thought - does Bernie really mean that instead of getting all those nice Sponsor’s trophies at the end of a race, they will only get tinny FOM medals?
Is this FOM ‘costcutting’? What will the like of Monaco, Britain and Austrailia racing bodies think of that kind of insult to their motor racing heritage?
I don’t think anyone’s going to get medals. As Keith said, it’s just a convenient name for the system because it’s based on the way countries are ranked in the Olympics.
I can’t argue too much with this medal awards suggestion. For better or worse, it might change the face of F1. I do also believe it will thus dispense with its history as its puts to question several past championships.
My only fear now is if no effort is made to temper the overzealousness of the current stewarding, then we are going to embrace a new era of controversial championships, because I find it odd that the excuse put forward by Ecclestone, which was the drivers unwillingness to overtake, fails to take into consideration, the willingness of the stewards to penalize even the most benign of overtaking mishaps.
I just wonder how it will look, if a driver wins the first 2 races, then comes second in the 3rd race and then goes on vacation missing the next 15 races. Meanwhile another driver wins 2 races, and also comes 3rd in the following 16 races, yet loses out on the championship. In other words, 2 wins and a second is greater than 2 wins and 16 3rd positions
See how Eddie Jordan justifies the BBC signing him up as a pundit! Whether you agree with medals or not (I don’t), Eddie tells it how it is. And in a very easy-to-understand way!
Great stuff Eddie, you tell ‘em. I’m looking forward to hearing more no nonsense opinions from Eddie Jordan on the beeb next year.
Can anybody please explain to me how the money gets distributed to the teams with this proposed new medal system. Surely this system makes it even more unfair to cars that traditionally sit in the lower half of the grid and the money they get for very few points obtained. I would have thought it is more demoralising for them.
Sometimes I think Bernie’s more interested in re-arranging the deck chair whilst CVC sinks rather than tackling serious issues.
You could argue that, under the ‘medal system’ the first driver wouldn’t have gone in vacations for 15 races, specially after his rival got the two wins. And if the second driver, in spite of not having to compete with the first, couldn’t get a 2nd place in 15 races then maybe (and I say MAYBE) he doesn’t deserve the championship…
Point systems are just that: point systems. Drivers will always accommodate to the system in use and, at the end, almost every time the driver that gets the championship will ‘deserve’ to have it, under any system (and, of course, there will be one or two others that also ‘deserved’ it, but you can only reward one)
In a world of health and safety and being “green”, whatever is proposed or put through will never last and it never does.
In 59 Formula 1 seasons the sport has produced 30 odd different champions. There’s a fine line between Formula 1 and Grand Prix Racing, and i think this goes to show how much Grand Prix Racing does actually take place.
So what was wrong before? After three consecutive seasons of the championship going down to the wire, what is there to complain about?
There’s always going to be boring races, no matter what anyone does, but I think it’s imporant people focus on what happens on the track. Look at Suzuka 2005, Belgium 2008(ignoring the controversy) or Brazil 2006 when Schuey tore through the field like a man possessed - and there’s many more examples, so the racing is there. So why people aren’t happy I just simply do not understand.
Ecclestone couldn’t care less about more overtaking, who won the championship or indeed the general publics opinion. But I do think it’s clear he’d quite happily reap the profits for himself if he gets half a chance.
It’s already obvious less people will watch if a medal system is introduced. Just because the back markers are small teams it doesnt mean they do not have fans.
With a grid of 20 individuals, the idea of racing for the first 3 places is ridiculous. Maybe some results would mean something to the team, but what would it mean to the individual?
If it’s viewers hes after, broaden the points system. Make more places across the grid of more value instead of decreasing the value of it.
I fear for the mentality of the drivers who are only able to turn up to Grand Prix’s. Even now theres always hope of points for everyone, but with only 3 places meaning something, the back markers are going to turn up at Grand Prix’s knowing they have no chance.
I do however believe it will succeed in reducing costs in F1 though. Absolutely… When struggling teams all drop out because they can’t see the point anymore.
Oh my god! I cannot stand Eddie Jordan most of the time, but this is the first time I have ever agreed with him.
This proposition to move to a medals system is too far fetched even for me. It serves to only create a “upper tier” within F1 because the medals will only be handed out to the top 3/4 teams, and only serve to be important to the top 2 teams, the rest, it appears are now not even worth bothering about as the are very unlikely to get regular medals.
If you listen to Bernie’s comments on this matter (there is a video on the BBC web site) he states that the current points system does not invite drivers to take risks or “do some thing silly” in order to get an 2 extra points.
Is this what he wants - drivers going off or doing silly things just to get a extra place/medal? If so it seriously contradicts the governing body’s stance on what is the correct standard of driving with in F1 - is he now going to reward incidents like SPA or punish them? . Do we want drivers lunging in to try and overtake knowing that if they take the fellow driver out, the likelyhood is that both won’t score points/medals - A Sh*t or bust approach.
I also think Bernie is wrong on another point he makes in justifying the move to the medals - It IS the circuits and it IS the cars that make over taking so difficult, to imply that the driver just simply don’t try is garbage in my opinion. These guys have been brought up competing all their life, why would they just not bother to try and over take now they are in F1.
The cars need reduced down force and to lengthen the braking areas - this would have a positive impact on the chances to over take in my opinion.
Bernie should be worrying about other things than messing about with the points system.
To me, there seems to be a perfectly rational compromise - Up the gap between the points issued to the top 3 drivers. say 25 points for a win - 15 for second, 10 for 3rd and then back to the normal scoring that we use at present. why sacrifice the method that we have used to gage the history of the sport for this ludicrous medals system and the sooner it goes away the better in my opinion.
Well -its definetly the start of the looney season - bernie is mabe in pre divorce settlement shock and just shooting from the lip - or maybe the ferrari cheif has had a word in his shell like?
No I dont agree with the medal system it stinks - out of the top three - no one is going to get anything? - pack the whole lot in now teams can save their money and the others fia/bernie can retire - they should be anyway or shot like old horses(ferrari) - fed up of ru;le changes for the sake of it and really they couldnt give a toss for any one other than their self financing selves. ps it’s great having more content Keith - but it’s watering down the topics we want to get involved with!!
I would say it’s more the cars than the circuits. Thing is, it’s not just about overtaking. The present system imbues a conservative mindset on anyone who wants to win the championship. And watching people points-gather is not good television. As NASCAR is learning with Jimmie Johnson.
I am totally against this idea. A race is not just about teh winner its about everyone competing and striving to do teh best they can. This medal system does not respect the efforts of anyone other than those at the very top.
They should follow MotoGP points system & reward winning more, and have it scaled down to last place. That way, everyone is always trying to pass the person in front, even the backmarkers.
If most of Bernie & Max’s “solutions” go through, we’ll soon be seeing a handful of rich manufacturers running in front for the “medals”, and the remaining teams (if any) become the manufacturer’s “B teams” parading at the back just collecting data for the big teams… And soon we’ll see the top 10 drivers are top drivers, while the rest are “sponsor friendly” amateurs.
Please Bernie & Max, do the right thing and retire to enjoy your fortunes. We need leaders who listen, with proper foresight, and make the right “changes”. If I’m running CVC, I wouldn’t panic with the mounting debt. I’d be much more worried with these 2 silly old men hitting F1’s self destruct buttions time and time again.
I don’t agree with a medals system, they should just redo the points system to give more or a bonus for the winning etc.
Thanks for poster No.5 Tim for the using the medal system on previous seasons I liked seeing how it would of affected previous championships. However it must be remembered that drivers would race to the systems in use at the time and would not of risked more than they had to. The most recent examples are that Hamilton was obviously only racing for 5th at Interlagos and not trying to get his best possible result (a tactic he was criticised for not using at previous races), and also that Massa admitted that when the rain started falling at Spa he didn’t push as he didn’t want to risk chasing down a potential 2nd or 1st as he thought it too much of a risk and settled for 3rd.
By the way can anyone either tell me all the different point systems F1 has had in it’s history or post a link if this has been done on a seperate article. I know about the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 current system and the 10-6-4-3-2-1 1990s system but before the 90s I am not sure I think that the 80s had only 9 for a win and in some seasons only the top X result were counted for each driver.
Keith, I don’t think I understand the point you are making here:
The reason we are with the current points system is because we did not want to have drivers who have a car advantage racing away with the championship - like in the Schumacher/Alonso days - wrapping the championship up in September.
I think the last couple of seasons have worked out well with the current system because the top two teams have been fairly equal. Next year there is a massive amount of change to the design of the car, and I am sure we will see a bigger margin between the cars this year as some teams have had a good few months concentrating on the 2009 car - like BMW & Honda, and some have been developing the 2008 car right up until the last few rounds. My point being there is a greater chance of one team really nailing the new regulations and running off with the championship early on while everyone plays catch up. The best system to account for this is the current points system.
F1 is not just about Winning gold medals/races, there is so much more to it, it is a marathon throughout the year not a sprint, and there needs to be attention throughout the field not just at the front - which I cannot see the medals system creating.
Addressing you point on conservatism, I feel there will aways be a balance between losing what you have and what you could gain and that won’t change in F1 with the the new medal’s proposals.
I know you hate these Keith but….If Silver’s and Bronze’s are going to be counted up towards the final standings, then a driver in second place in a race with 2 more golds than the race leader knows that he can stay in second and still pick up a good result towards the championship as he has that cushion, the motivation won’t change? Particularly if the cars are still providing too difficult to overtake and means over taking is high risk and would gamble his race away. The Medal system will only work if it is counted up on Gold medals and nothing else at the end of the day, to make it really worth the risk.
Your comparison to NASCAR is a bit odd. F1 does not have an equalization system like NASCAR, it did run a similar points scoring system before 1991 where only the top 10 points scores counted, that meant that drivers could account for higher risk taking, but that was scrapped as it meant that drivers could crash or fail to finish many times and still snatch the championship. NASCAR artificially creates a situation of excitement buy using it’s “Chase for the Cup” and it is them that should perhaps change their scoring policy not F1.
The medals system is shortsighted. It’s the worst possible way to decide the championship and rank the drivers. It’s wrong on so many counts that it’s mind boggling that there isn’t more resistance against it.
Especially since a much less destruptive option is available in simply restoring the previous points distribution.
Depressing. That they need to mess things up first to see that they are being stupid. Again!