F1 points and costs on WMSC agenda

Posted on | Author Keith Collantine

The FIA is proposing radical cost-cutting measures to attract new teams
The FIA is proposing radical cost-cutting measures to attract new teams

The World Motor Sports Council meets today and will consider, among other things, FOTA’s proposal to increase the number of points scored by the winner in F1 races to 12.

Plans to further reduce F1 costs will also be considered. But which proposals will get the FIA’s stamp of approval?

Changing F1 points

FOTA wants to change F1’s points system from 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 to 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1 – giving two more points to winners, and one more to the drivers who finish second and third.

As they have been at pains to point out, this has the backing of all ten of the F1 teams and, they claim, the majority of the sports fans. The FIA will have to have a good reason not to pass it if they don’t.

This move would go against the decision made in 2003 to reduce the points difference between first and second. This was a (poorly thought-out) reaction to Michael Schumacher winning the 2002 world championship on July 21st – the earliest it had ever been done in a season.

I would like to see the FIA go much further than what FOTA recommended and make the percentage difference between first and second much closer to what it was in 2002. For example:

2002: 10 points vs 6 points (Second place worth 60% of a win)
2003-8: 10 points vs 8 points (Second place worth 80% of a win)
2009 (FOTA proposal): 12 points vs 9 points (Second place worth 75% of a win)
2009 (my proposal): 15 points vs 10 points (Second place worth 66% of a win)

Cutting F1 costs

It seems you can’t put two F1 people in a room together right now without them talking about how to make the sport cheaper.

Today we could find out just how far Max Mosley is prepared to push his cost-cutting agenda. In essence, we’re likely to see the ‘customer cars’ argument re-visited, albeit with slightly different terms and a different name too. Mosley wants to make sure the USF1s and maybe even the Prodrives of the world can step in shore up the grid.

A very brief statement from the FIA hinted at what to expect:

If adopted by the World Motor Sport Council, the new regulations will enable a team to compete for a fraction of current budgets but nevertheless field cars which can match those of the established teams.

Allowing teams with smaller budgets than the manufacturers to keep up with them on the track? You have to ask yourself how many car makers will be willing to go along with that. And so it’s not difficult to read this statement as the FIA admitting it expects to see more manufacturers leave the sport.

Already this week we’ve heard how the Toyota board considered pulling its F1 team and has slashed its budget for 2009. F1 costs clearly need to get under control and it’s not clear whether enough has been done yet.

There are two significant things Mosley could do to ease the teams’ financial burden: he could agree to FOTA’s proposal that the teams use standard Kinetic Energy Recovery Systems in 2009 – backing down on his previous desire for F1 to become a test bed for KERS development. Conversely, he could demand Ecclestone gives more money to the teams.

Either of these would be controversial and surprising. Let’s see what comes out of the meeting.

But what we definitely don’t want is the FIA agreeing to FOTA’s nonsense idea that F1 races should be shorter.

Read more

32 comments on “F1 points and costs on WMSC agenda”

Jump to comment page: 1 2
  1. While I like the thought that someone who had the most wins gets the title, what happens if the driver who ties the champion loses the tiebreak, and ends up not finishing second in the rankings?

    1. Good point, that sure would be embarrassing for the sport.

      And how do they order the standings after each race? Order by wins first then points? The casual viewer will be confused seeing someone with say 20 points from 2 wins & a DNF listed above someone with 22 points from 1 win and 2 second places…

      Make the stupid little dwarf go away mummy, please!!

  2. The $30 mil optional buget cap is ridiculous and I cant believe they are doing it. Lets say hypothetically that Ferrari wins the constructors championship in 2009. That would mean that for 2010 they would have a pretty good car (as far as the ‘standard’ regulations are concerned anyway). So then they could opt to go with the budget cap in 2010, and spend the 30 mil enhancing an already fast car in these areas of greater “technical freedom”. On the other hand, a new team would have to start from scratch and develop a competitive car from the ground up for 30 million? NO WAY. We will not get any more new teams in F1 like this. Secondly, the FiA has implied that this technical freedom is variable, in order to keep things equal between budget-capped and non-budget-capped teams. So in essence they can change the rules if they think a team is winning too much??!! Please tell me this is a bad dream…

    1. What Hallard said is really make sense!

  3. Yeah I’m with Hallard on this. This rule is absolutely rubbish. This statement doesn’t make sense:

    “The FIA has the right to adjust elements of these freedoms to ensure that the cost-capped cars have neither an advantage nor a disadvantage when compared to cars running to the existing rules”

    So, if Force India, a capped team in 2010 presumably, discover some significant engine performance and clock up race winning pace, doesn’t that leave that at an advantage over non capped teams? What will the FIA do then?

    These rules are vague. If anything, it should benefit the cost capped teams as thats what the sport is vying for, reducing costs. In time, as the economy picks up, the major manufacturers will be in positions to pump money into the sport once again. So why would Ferrari, BMW and Mercedes ever want to go for the cost cap?

Jump to comment page: 1 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.