The FIA has surprisingly announced it will introduce a variant of the medals system proposed by Bernie Ecclestone in 2009.
This comes despite the F1 teams association recommending a change to the points system which it claimed had the support of fans.
However the FIA will retain points to decide the other championship positions.
Many F1 fans on this website have voiced their disapproval of the medals system in the past. I still think the medals system has merit and have said so for some time, so I have somewhat mixed feelings about this outcome.
An FIA statement said:
The WMSC accepted the proposal from Formula One Management to award the drivers’ championship to the driver who has won the most races during the season. If two or more drivers finish the season with the same number of wins, the title will be awarded to the driver with the most points, the allocation of points being based on the current 10, 8, 6 etc. system.
The rest of the standings, from second to last place, will be decided by the current points system. There is no provision to award medals for first, second or third place. The Constructors’ Championship is unaffected.
The WMSC rejected the alternative proposal from the Formula One Teams’ Association to change the points awarded to drivers finishing in first, second and third place to 12, 9 and 7 points respectively.
Here are the World Motor Sports Council’s decisions in full.
More on the F1 rules changes
- Budget caps for F1 in 2010
- Qualifying fuel strategies to be revealed
- Which new rules will improve F1? (Poll)
Get the latest articles from F1 Fanatic for free via RSS or our email subscription service. Click here for more information.
Ronan
17th March 2009, 13:48
This is a joke, right?
K
17th March 2009, 18:17
Sadly not.
Kovy
18th March 2009, 0:12
I’m torn between supporting this, and not supporting.
It will definitely make drivers in the top three positions race more aggressively for the lead, but if one of those top drivers ends up in the mid field (perhaps because of a tyre puncture), they won’t race as hard, as a point or two will make little difference to their title challenge.
It’s good to have points still remaining, though, as it provides a little continuity with past seasons (mainly for the record books.)
In the end, I think I would prefer the point system Keith pointed out, with 15 for a win, 10 for a second, etc.
Katie
21st March 2009, 0:05
New medals system where championship winner is driver with most race wins is not being implemented this year after all. WHOOPEE
Motorsport’s world governing body FIA made the climbdown late on Friday in face of opposition from leading drivers such as Lewis Hamilton and the Formula One Teams Association (FOTA) who said it would challenge the decision.
“If, for any reason, the Formula One teams do not now agree with the new system, its implementation will be deferred until 2010,” FIA said in a statement, effectively bowing to the demands.
So all we need to hope for is that the powers that be see sense b4 next year.
GQsm
17th March 2009, 13:50
FFS
What a farce. The sooner Bernie and Max are gone the better for F1, FOTA should be running the show.
SYM
17th March 2009, 14:47
Bernie is loosing his grip on reality. His persuit of TV ratings is turning this sport into a farce:
“F1 is a happening, a show. If you want racing go to the horses”
Bernie Ecclestone
Amy
17th March 2009, 13:51
I hope they’re not starting the year as the plan to continue – with the majority of fans HATING THEIR DECISIONS!
MattJ
17th March 2009, 13:52
You’ve gotta be kidding me!!?
FIA to FOTA and Fans: UP YOURS!!
This is gonna be a mess
RichP
17th March 2009, 13:52
Have just seen this on BBC News. Can’t believe it. Ridiculous.
Keirde
17th March 2009, 13:53
That pretty much wipes away the excitement I had for the 2009 season. What an absolute joke.
Katie
18th March 2009, 12:29
The new rule to award championship to the driver with most wins is ridiculous. The current point system was perfect, when will these people realise if it aint broke dont fix it. Where does this new rule leave the smaller teams with not much hope of wins, on the points system they still had a chance if they could consistently pick up points. I Can assure you that when it becomes clear half way through the championship that one driver cant be beaten, viewing will drop drasticly and interest in F1 overall is gonna drop. We are gonna lose the nail biting finishes over the last few races. These rules will encourage TEAM ORDERS and will also reward aggresive and unsafe overtaking tactics. Absolutely ridiculous. About time F1 got rid of the FIA and there idiotic, self motivated rule changes. its time to show them the F1 supporters opinion matters. After 25years I am considering giving up on F1 altogether.
BaKano
17th March 2009, 13:53
Unbelievable!
maff
17th March 2009, 13:53
But they are also keeping the points to fall back on in case two people have the same number of wins, rather than awarding and adding up silver medals etc… so at the end of the championship you could well have the driver with the most points not winning. If they were going to swap, they should have swapped completley.. not this confusing mish mash.
Katie
18th March 2009, 23:30
Just had a look at the new regulations on the FIA website and they state that the championship winner will be driver with most wins, If two or more drivers have the same wins then it will be decided on a points system. So what if the driver with the most points is not one of the drivers with the most wins does this mean that technically he could claim the championship as his. This could be a possible legal technicality unless the full regulations go on to explain it in detail this could end in a court battle. It has become normal for races to be decided in this manner. About time FIA got a grip and realise that for us the fans F1 is about racing. Lets get on with it
Hugo Bourgeois
17th March 2009, 13:53
See, you shouldn’t do important decisions on St-Patrick’s day… they MUST have been drunk. Who actually thinks this is sensible? ARGH!!
Pete Walker
17th March 2009, 13:54
Its not quite the medals system – second place downwards in the championship is decided by points as it is now.
For a minute there it looked like the voice of the fans was actually being listened to. What a complete waste of time these surveys are if the proposals they lead to (by the teams) are rejected outright.
What a mess.
GQsm
17th March 2009, 13:56
hmm the autosport article says it is not based on a medal system but purely wins.
The current points system is still in place for the constructors championship and should 2 or more drivers have a equal number of wins then it will go on the drivers points tally.
SamS
17th March 2009, 13:56
bunch of Jokers
PJA
17th March 2009, 13:56
Do the FIA go out of their way to annoy fans of F1 or is it just a coincidence?
Part of me believes Max and Bernie would introduce a medals system just because FOTA preferred a change to the points system, to remind them who really has the power.
I am not looking forward to season as much as I was this morning that’s for sure.
Gman
17th March 2009, 18:33
Same here- it’s going to change the dynamics of following the sport. The new deal may create a few more battles for first place, but the quality of the season overall will be diminished in my opinion.
Joe
17th March 2009, 13:57
Do the idiots who run F1 actually realise that this is the exact opposite of what the people want to happen, I am absolutely furious – one of the worst decisions ever made.
Ronan
17th March 2009, 13:58
It’s NOT a medals system! It’s something much worse!
“If two or more drivers finish the season with the same number of wins, the title will be awarded to the driver with the most points, the allocation of points being based on the current 10, 8, 6 etc. system.”
“The rest of the standings, from second to last place, will be decided by the current points system.”
So what’s the point of giving out silver and bronze medals if points determine a tie???
Basicly there’ll be two championship tables, one for medals, one for points and the championship order will more or less depend on a combining of the two.
No danger of F1 being dumbed down here! They’ve just pointlessly complicated things.
Scott Joslin
17th March 2009, 14:28
I think they are just giving out 1 medal – that for coming first, no silver or bronze.
Ronan
17th March 2009, 14:34
Yeah, as it turns out it’s not really a medals system.
Rob R.
17th March 2009, 14:02
Wow. I was thinking for a minute there, they would actually do the sensible thing, and introduce the 12- points system…
*bangs head on wall*
KAB
17th March 2009, 14:03
It’s a good idea on paper, but in practice it is absolutely horrible. We’ve had close championships for the past few years…
2003, 2006, 2007, 2008. All these championships have gone down to the wire, and in 3 of them the champion only won by 1 or 2 points!! I wouldn’t mind the 12 – 9 – 7 etc system but this is jsut terrible
GQsm
17th March 2009, 14:04
Ronan – no it is not a medals, there are no medals.
And then I’ve just read about the £30m budget cap. Optional but with development perks for those teams that sign up. Not sure if that will work in practice. Seems to be too many ways round a budget cap to me.
Ronan
17th March 2009, 14:07
Ah I see that now! Autosport had the headline ‘Medals to be introduced’ which has now changed to ‘Wins to decided world championship in 2009’. So I wasn’t the only one to over react! :-)
F1Yankee
17th March 2009, 14:05
pathetic
ceedas
17th March 2009, 14:05
Not to mention budget caps and apparently a set of tech regs which allow lots more freedom. Messy. I’m surprised that I’m surprised.
Kris
17th March 2009, 14:06
So we could see a situation where the driver with the most points *doesn’t* win the championship?
How stupid is that?!
Ronan
17th March 2009, 14:06
Looks, like they got some things right: “The FIA will publish the weights of all cars after qualifying at each Event.” They should have done away with race fuel qualifying but this a big step in the right direction as far as I’m concerned.
ntski
7th June 2009, 15:57
biatch
Hugo Bourgeois
17th March 2009, 14:06
Explanation of Max Mosley on Autosport.com shows nothing short of a blatant rigging of the sport. No more, no less. If the FIA is allowed to do this, they shouldn’t have fined McLaren for rigging it either!
ajokay
17th March 2009, 14:06
OK, so… they’re going to do this, and they won’t back down, so lets see the positive in this.
If it works, we should see about 10 cars battling for the lead in each race. Can’t argue with that.
Ronan
17th March 2009, 14:09
Yes, on the bright side could you imagine races like Belgium 2008 with the new rules? There’d be so much more at stake.
Pete Walker
17th March 2009, 14:14
“If it works, we should see about 10 cars battling for the lead in each race. Can’t argue with that.”
No offence but thats totally flawed logic. It assumes that a) the performance of the top five or so teams will be equal and b) the drivers previously weren’t trying for a win.
We should be careful not to over-react, because at the end of this season, the driver with the most points is likely to have won the most races anyway, but it doesn’t seem right to make such a fundamental change like this after 59 seasons of a points-based champions and after the fans clearly voted against it.
Rob R.
17th March 2009, 14:19
Ronan, that race was already incredibly entertaining under the old rules. There’s no need to throw the traditions of F1 in the bin just like that, and exchange it for mindless gimmickry.
Ronan
17th March 2009, 14:20
I agree. I’m just trying to be positive!
ajokay
17th March 2009, 14:22
Ok, fair enough it may be flawed logic, but can’t we at least hope that that’s what will come of this?
Hugo Bourgeois
17th March 2009, 14:08
Moreover, we wanted to see more DRIVER profiling in F1, not more FIA profiling!
Leon
17th March 2009, 14:08
What staggering arrogance ! Ecclestone clearly held some sort of RPG to Mosley’s head. It has to have been a blackmail job ! Ecclestone is determined to reduce a serious, intelligently run sport to the equivalent of trip to the travelling circus on a wet weekend in November or a friday night bingo session on Blackpool Golden Mile. With about that sort of level of brilliance and expertise….ie ZERO !
Formula One Teams Association.. ?? Serious Fans….??
Utterly irrelevant as far as Ecclestone and Mosley are concerned.
mattclinch
17th March 2009, 14:10
this is diabolical.
what about this £30m budget cap option to? If you promise to use a budget of under £30m you get a more aerodynamically efficient (but standard) underbody; movable wings; an engine which is not subject to a rev limit or a development freeze
Ronan
17th March 2009, 14:14
So there’ll be two types of car? Expensive ones with custome floors, fixed wings and frozen engines and cheap ones with standard (but better) floors, moveable wings and developed engines? Am I understanding this right?!
mattclinch
17th March 2009, 14:19
that’s what it sounds like… i guess to persuade teams to run with cheaper costs. £30m is up to 90% cheaper. sooo.. it’s GP2 then?
mattclinch
17th March 2009, 14:24
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.
Scott Joslin
17th March 2009, 14:31
Hmmm, a two tier F1!! They might as well just have a Manufacturers Championship and a Privatiers Championship!
That line about the FIA having the right to adjust the equivolency is massively vague and open for coruption.
Ronan
17th March 2009, 14:32
This could get hopelessly contraversial and complex as the FIA seeks to find an update to the happy medium every year. In my opinion this is a much bigger story than the points thing.
We could effectivly have two types of F1 car, how stupid is that?
What was the point in changing the rules to encourage overtaking if a section of the grid are non-compliant to them next year?
Could this not just result in a situation where the type of car more suited a particular citcuit drives off into the sunset?
It could end up being (OK, not as big a difference as but) somewhat like GT1 and GT2 in sportscar racing.
JWRPayne
17th March 2009, 14:10
Methinks they’re trying to put all the eggs in one basket. Too much at once.
Really would be a better idea to just see how this years pans out, and then take the next step.
Its turning into one of those ‘Glory or The End of’ years.
Robert McKay
17th March 2009, 14:10
I’m with everyone else.
I don’t know how they do it, I really don’t. This system makes the medals proposal look, well, palatable.
Idiots.
TommyB
17th March 2009, 14:10
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!! :-D
Hounslow
17th March 2009, 14:11
So if driver A wins three races, but doesn’t even finish in the other races at all (points = 30), he wins the Championship against driver B with only two wins, but 14 second places (points = 132)?
More realistically, it’s going to be a driver with say, four wins and not much else winning the WDC against a driver with three wins and loads of seconds and thirds in the season (45 points beating 110, perhaps).
Overall, it’s stupid.
Why am I not surprised?
Scott Joslin
17th March 2009, 14:33
Perhaps using this logic then, Mclaren have a chance in this year Championship if they only need to luck in to a couple of wins!
Jay Menon
18th March 2009, 4:36
This is exactly the same as I thought. Maybe they should have gone back to the 1988 season style, where only the 11 best results count..or something like that?
SonyJunkie
17th March 2009, 14:11
/facepalm/
Jesper
17th March 2009, 14:12
Stupid!
*lost for words*
TommyB
17th March 2009, 14:12
Finally winning means something! Should hopefully see more people going for the win like Lewis/Alonso rather then settling for 2nd or 3rd. Wow, I guess its just a medal system, hope they still get trophies
Toby
17th March 2009, 23:15
Or 5th!
gaz
17th March 2009, 14:12
we have just seen what could have been the most open fought WC for years gone up in smoke.
bmw/renault/teamB must be gutted Ferrari on the other hand laughing..
Martin Bell
17th March 2009, 14:13
Oh dear, that’s the sound of a large amount of knickers collectively getting in a twist. Yes, it sounds crap, but we’ll get used to it. However, can’t help but agree with PJA, this seems to be more about the tedious power struggle between FOTA, FOM, FIA, etc. etc. etc. I am sooooooooo bored with the constant machinations of all this, all the sabre rattling these old men seem to have to do just to make themselves feel important. Never mind the budget cap, give us a length of service cap! (I’ve just looked up the word “bernieecclestone” in the dictionary, and the definition is “something which has far outlived it’s usefulness”) Can we file for divorce from him?
Spud
17th March 2009, 14:14
Very silly!!!! :P
keepF1technical
17th March 2009, 14:16
Keith, I think you have somewhat complicated this debate by saying they have implemented the medals system. They have not.
It is exactly the same as the last few years. The ONLY difference which COULD exist is the name at the top of the list being changed (potentially) to the driver with more wins but who is less reliable.
Lets not pretend this is more complicated, it really isn’t.
Clearly it is a snap decision and a bit half-measured (and unnecessary) by the FIA but isnt it actually in keeping with the fans desire?
Also, a point (no pun intended) not raised before is the fact that if the points system were to keep changing year to year it is impossible to compare total points tallies from over the decades. Yes there have been subtle changes to scores, but to go from 10 to 15 points for a win would totally sway the totals beyond any possible comparison.
and it might actually help Button this year… if he has a couple of inevitable reliability issues but wins hands down when the cars running…. I’m hoping.
Toby
17th March 2009, 23:35
Dead right. This isn’t medals, and it’s not complicating things. For me, it removes the thing I didn’t like about the medals system – that someone could luck into a podium (or even a win) and get an unrealistic position in the driver’s championship. I doubt that it’ll cause any issues, as long as the stewards don’t get penalty-happy, and I’m prepared to believe that this is not “1984”.
I personally think this is a more valuable system, because it rewards consistent winning, not finishing. There’s a line from an old satirical Australian comedy show that springs to mind – “Go out there and come third like a REAL Australian!”
Ben
17th March 2009, 14:16
I think this just wipes away all hope for consistent race finishers. Look at Heidfeld and Kubica last season, they were the most consistent drivers in the field with Kubica even being in with a shot at the championship. Yet he only won one race.
The championship should be awarded to the most consistent and talented driver, wether it be the most wins or the most consistently on the podium. The points system made this possible however the Medals system just walks all over it!
Matt Somers
17th March 2009, 14:18
Drivers are the ones that lose out as the teams don’t care so much if their driver comes 1st or 2nd just that they can accru the most points over the season via 2 drivers to win the Constructor’s championship….
gaz
17th March 2009, 14:18
but it’s not a bad thing really…..kind off looking forward to it
Martin Bell
17th March 2009, 14:18
For all you Hamilton fans out there (of which I am not one), perhaps under this system he would have fought for the win in Brazil, rather than become WDC by driving a scrappy race to fifth? Isn’t that what we all want to see?
mondo
17th March 2009, 14:27
I am a Lewis fan. But I really agree with you there. No more if this sitting back and having a chilled GP cos you know you have points in the bag.
It’s something I really don’t wanna see. I wanna see all drives driving as fast they can 100% of the time.
Sush Meerkat
17th March 2009, 14:31
call it a scrappy race if you will, but becoming champion on the last lap of the last race was edge of the seat stuff.
mondo
17th March 2009, 14:45
That’s very true. I even missed him crossing the line cos I thought Massa has won the title.
But if rules were in place like the ones being spoken about here, would it have really came down to that?
Adam
18th March 2009, 0:43
“perhaps under this system he would have fought for the win in Brazil”
If Lewis or any other driver gets to the point of the season when there is not enough races left for 2nd place driver to win all the GPs then they could do excactly the same for a potentially the last 8 GPs. Just trundle round any finish anywhere.
Kieth i dont think ive seen a reaction on Fanatic like this before. Id love to hear what you think…?
Adam
18th March 2009, 0:47
Ahhhh! stupidly i clicked “Notify me of followup comments via e-mail” Schoolboy error!!
Mussolini's Pet Cat
18th March 2009, 9:38
Are you saying the Brazil 08 wasnt the most thrilling end to a season ever??????????
skova265
17th March 2009, 14:20
You emagine that massa gets a gift again from FIA. Sorry 2 gifts
Matt Somers
17th March 2009, 14:21
So 4 race wins and 13 DNFS could give us a worthy champion for arguments sake? what a joke.
Scott Joslin
17th March 2009, 14:45
Not really, what if someone has 5 race wins and 12 points finishes they would win. You can argue it either way Matt. That’s an extreme reaction.
Take the current points system, someone can finish 3rd in every race, never try to win a race, and then end up winning the championship on 102pts. Where as another driver has worked hard and won 10 races is a runner up – Is that promoting attaking races?
Mouse_Nightshirt
17th March 2009, 16:04
Scott, what do you mean “never try”? Do you honestly think that drivers make a habit of “not trying” to win races?
Scott Joslin
17th March 2009, 16:07
Mouse_Nightshirt – Lewis didn’t try and win in Brazil, or Singapour did he? He knew the numbers were on his side.
The point I am making is it makes them more comfortable to play percentages and win a defensive championship rather than an always having an attacking one.
I was not implying that they don’t try.
Mouse_Nightshirt
17th March 2009, 16:18
There’s more to F1 than just the first two. Your point works both ways as well. Realistically, this system could lock out the championship much, much, much earlier. So then if, say, Felipe manages to win 10 races by race 14 or 15, what’s he doing to do for the rest of the season, he might as well not even race?
Scott Joslin
17th March 2009, 16:38
Mouse_Nightshirt – If massa wins the first 10 races of the season – he will probably go on to win the other races because in which case he has such a car advantage that he is unstoppable. Your points system would only serve to undermine this performance advantage and artifically create a championship battle where in reality there isn’t one.
mondo
17th March 2009, 14:24
Well. Whoever gets 1st most wins the season. Sounds fair to me. No more hanging back in 2nd place to take safe points. There will always be a fight for 1st. I think it will award the risk takers.
Could work out, could fail. I’m sure we’ll see the back of it in 2010 if it’s pants. I’m looking forward to the changes.
*bring on the hate comments*
d3cpo
17th March 2009, 14:24
This is just ridiculous..
Driver A consistantly is on the podium but only wins 4 races throughout the year.
Driver B has a few DNF and placed 4 or lower in a few races but wins 5 races though out the season
Am I to believe that Driver B is more worthy of the driver championship. I care to disagree in this case. The WDC should be awarded to the most consistant preformer for the entire season.. hence the most points.. what a joke
Scott Joslin
17th March 2009, 14:52
I think to make simplified retrospecitve examples like this doesn’t prove much at the moment, I have given a example above on Matt Somers example how we can simplify the argument against the current points system promoting drivers to be risk adverse and just cruse round hoping other people retire.
Rob
17th March 2009, 14:27
It makes the championship easier to fix :)
d3cpo
17th March 2009, 14:27
Even worse..
What if the second place driver has more points but not enough wins. What would that say about this flawed medal system
Scott Joslin
17th March 2009, 14:52
I would say he sound have gone the the win a few more times :)
Chris
17th March 2009, 14:28
With reference to the ‘budget cars’ –
“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.”
Is this similar to the approach taken with the WTCC? where the weights / specs will be constantly changed because of ‘unfair advantages’. I hope not…
aa
18th March 2009, 8:27
About the advantage nor disadvantage… this is the exact kind of crap I have to deal at work as engineer ^^ The boss cames in and says we’ll do a software which automatically does this or does that and will be smart enough to keep the problems under control.
Great words but absolutely futile if there’s no predefined plan to deal with the problems which will appear.
The problem with the new score system is not that after 10 wins may be over, the problem is that after 5 or 6 wins it may be over too (we’d have to have a look at every WC winner’s wins)
Gav
17th March 2009, 14:29
This is a load of rubbish
So lets say one driver wins 5 races but retires from every other race due to an over tuned car or something. And another driver wins 4 races and finishes second in all other races.
Driver no2 will not win the championship?
Rubbish and an absolute joke
Stoo
17th March 2009, 23:24
Abso-*****-loutely… this is a farse… I was so looking forward to this season, BBC coverage, Brawn GP doing so well in testing, etc etc… and Bernie <3 Max clan simply stuff it up... and can you see why? Maclaren are testing the new set up badly, will take them a while to get the wrinkles ironed out - by which time, they won't be able to win the chamionship... Why doesn't FOM and FIA just ban Ron's team???
Oh, and I'm not a Maclaren fan... just damn obvious how much they're hated by the management...
/sigh
ntski
7th June 2009, 16:00
ya right
negro
Sush Meerkat
17th March 2009, 14:29
GREAT! /sarcasm
I now get to explain to all my friends what the different scoring system means.
“but Sush, Heidfield had more points than Massa”
“but Massa has more golds!”
“so Phelps should win the drivers championship?”
Scott Joslin
17th March 2009, 15:10
:) – Who is Phelps racing for? Team Speedo?
Robert McKay
17th March 2009, 14:30
It’s not a case of “bring on the hate comments”. It’s a case of bring on the rational comments like d3cpo’s cirectly beneath yours that shows why “most wins” doesn’t make sense to most people and is simply too simplistic.
Katie
18th March 2009, 23:26
Just got one question, Just had a look at the new regulations and they state that championship winner will be driver with most wins, If two or more drivers have the same wins then it will be decided on a points system. So what if the driver with the most points is not one of the drivers with the most wins does this mean that technically he could claim the championship as his. This could be a possible legal technicality unless the full regulations go on to explain it in detail this could end in a court battle. After all it has become normal for races to be decided in this manner. About time FIA got a grip and realise that for us the fans F1 is about racing. Lets get on with it
Christian
17th March 2009, 14:33
Am I the only one here who likes these new regulations?
Of course, a driver with 4 wins and 13 DNFs could win the championship against a driver with 3 wins and 14 second places. But how likely is that? There are really not that many championships that would be changed.
Until last season it was possible that a driver with 17 second places wins over a driver with 13 wins and 4 DNFs…that would have been much worse (In fact, in 2003 Kimi almost won the championship with one victory compared to Schumacher’s 6!!!)
About the budget-cap cars: One of the best ideas for the last few years: F1 is turning away from the spec series that it was getting closer and closer to…There’ll finally be some engineering freedom again.
d3cpo
17th March 2009, 14:41
Christian,
I can see where you are coming from with you explanation.. My concern is that this Medal system contradicts the principle idea of the WDC.
Look at it this was. The WCC is based on the top preforming team of the season.. based on points. If your team’s car’s consistantly perfoms better than your rivals you are awarded the WCC.
This same idea should be reflected of the WDC.. unfortuately with this rule change it isnt the case. I would be happy with the idea of a consolation prize for the driver with the most wins but I honestly dont think that wins alone should promote a driver to World Champion.. Consistance should
Dan
17th March 2009, 14:54
Yes, but FIA retain the right to adjust the elements of the freedom. So say BMW go the budget capped route, design an amazingly fast engine…. FIA will just change their rules to ban it because it creates an unlevel playing field. And then BMW have wasted a large amount of their small budget making their amazing engine and therefore have no money to look down new avenues.
Atleast with the uncapped budget FIA are NOT allowed to change the rules mid-season because you gain an advantage. They can only ban illegal designs, so stick within the rules and do what Toyota/Williams/Brawn did, design a legal diffuser or what have you that gives an advantage and your sorted. Whereas with a budget capped team your constantly on a see-saw, FIA are at will to say what you can and can’t do and you (with your small, limited budget and shrunken team) have to comply straight away.
Uncapped but sensible budgets… the way forward.
Nayanesh
17th March 2009, 14:34
This is ridiculous!!
theRoswellite
17th March 2009, 14:35
????????????????? Autosport claims no medals????????????????
Gosh, for a second there I thought FOTA might bring a little reason into the policy making arena.
This is good actually, it just returns us all to the reality of the FIA being……………REALLY………….the guy (singular) in control. I can’t imagine how the gentlemen at FOTA must feel. Do they laugh or cry.
I hope the general public appreciates the fact that the FIA has chosen to change the point system for WC after two years in which the championship came down to the last race, and even the last corner! I guess it wasn’t dramatic enough?
I can’t help seeing Bernie Mosley’s (the two headed monster) hand in this. I don’t think he had an answer for the folks and fans at Ferrari who felt “cheated”. I certainly felt for Felipe, but I didn’t feel he was cheated in any way.
It will certainly be ironic if the ’09 WC is decided with perhaps as many as three races to go, Button as champion, but Massa ends up with more points. Let the wailing begin.
Dave Spurr
17th March 2009, 14:35
I can’t believe this… we had what was building up to be one truly exciting season, probably more exciting than years and now they go and ruin it… why?
Now all a team like Brawn has to do is plough all their effort into the first half of the season, if they can keep their advantage and one of their drivers winning then by half way through the season it’ll all be over, then they can cut right back and concentrate on doing the same in 2010. This really didn’t seem on the table anymore with everyone except from Bernie pretty much ruled it out as stupid? There is still just under 2 weeks for them to see sense before the season starts though.
Ton
17th March 2009, 14:36
I have two words, “Mickie Mouse”
Couse that is the feeling what i get from this decision….
so mayby this year the driver who has the most points is not the worldchampion i guess that man will be very unhappy (who ever it will be)
but for me the driver with the most points is the real champion (even if it’s not my favorit)
Chalky
17th March 2009, 14:38
Hmmm. Initially I thought this was daft.
However, look at it from a different perspective.
You still have the same points. Therefore most teams will stick to the same race strategy as before. Getting points for Force India is priority for example.
However, if the possibility of a win comes into play in the GP, the reward for going for the win will be greater for the driver.
Get a win and you’ll move up the drivers table.
This encourages top \ midfield teams to risk more in the GP if they feel they can win the race.
Either way, we’re stuck with the system so we might as well go with it. As long as we stop the “Massa would have been WDC last year if we used this system”. You drive each season related to each points scoring system.
Scott Joslin
17th March 2009, 14:58
Horah – someone with a calm perspective on things!
IDR
17th March 2009, 14:38
Sorry Keith but this is not Medal system.
The keep the same scoring system with the exception for the winner.
Wins the championship the driver with more race’s wins.
I would say that will be an incentive for not finishing 2nd or 3rd doing maths instead of racing.
Sasquatsch
17th March 2009, 14:41
I absolutely don’t like this system because consistency is not a major factor anymore.
Theoratically a team who uses 8 engines in a sort of qualifying mode can win 8 races and get penalties for every other race because he is already a champion.
Why fix a system that isn’t broken. Only because the FIA was not happy with Hamilton being champion while Massa won the most races. If the FIA was consistent in its ruling (in Valencia) Hamilton would have won the most races and be champion.
Nayanesh
17th March 2009, 14:42
When will FIA start thinking about the fans…
No more close championship this year
diseased rat
17th March 2009, 14:42
Yes Massa would have won last year under this system, but at what cost? It would have turned on one terrible stewards decision at Spa. If a driver loses out on a needed win due to bad stewarding then we will all be appauled.
paulsnoop
17th March 2009, 14:46
So we could see the next wdc crowned after the german gp?
lenny
17th March 2009, 14:47
This is the most stupid idea i have heard and that FOTA survey seems to have been done for no reason at all. Remember the shortening of races idea? I’d like to think what the drivers have to say though.
Clare msj
17th March 2009, 14:48
Oh my goodness where has this come from! I thought this idea had been abandoned ages ago! The 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1 idea was spot on and i thought that was the idea they were taking to this meeting????
It is going to be a complete disaster, it is giong to over complicate things and if someone wins the title with six wins and a large number of bad results over someone who has five and a whole bunch of strong results then there will be a stupid amount of backlash come the end of the year – and the whole sport will look stupid. Consistency should be rewarded along with wins and the 12-9-7 idea managed to combine the two quite well! A champion is not a true one if they can only perform over half a year – and that is something that could happen with this new system – under any of the old systems you had to do well over the whole year – even when the points gap to the win was bigger!
I reckon they will change this again by the end of this year.
This is a knee jerk reaction to Hamilton winning with less wins than Massa – but I had no problem with that, he was only one win short, and he had a fair number more second places than Massa did. Its not like he won the title with just one or two wins for goodness sakes!
Wow i am truly shocked at this, and rather darn outraged!
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
17th March 2009, 18:57
I think this goes a long way towards explaining why so many people have reacted against it so strongly. The feeling seems to be:
The teams suggest something they all agree on which the fans will probably like too – it gets ignored.
Bernie Ecclestone suggests something that hardly anyone likes the sound of – it gets approved.
Toby
18th March 2009, 6:48
Clare msj & Keith: I prefer this system to the previous points system, but I can’t deny that the system proposed by FOTA seems better than what’s being implemented, even though I don’t think FOTA went far enough. Said it before, say it again. 15,11,9,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 – with 24 cars.
Kris
17th March 2009, 14:52
This also makes 2nd place very confusing.
We could have 2 drivers fighting for the championship at the last race – Most wins determining the champion.
The losing racer, perhaps with 1 race win less could end up 3rd or lower in the championship as 2nd place is now determined based on points.
Clare msj
17th March 2009, 15:06
Thats a good point, I hadnt actually thought about that, I was so concerned with the outrageousness of it all for the actual title itself!
Thats going to make it even more confusing, and with the field looking quite tight this year, is something that could quite realistically happen!
I still cant quite beleive they have gone for this! I was sure they were going to use the 12-9-7 idea!
BS
17th March 2009, 15:14
Considering engine’s have to last not 2 but 3 races, no driver in serious contention for the driver’s championship will take ANY chance if there’s practically no chance of winning a race. So we’ll see all the fast drivers settle down, because it’s smart. The engine destroyer Monza provided some of last years most exciting overtaking by Hamilton, there’s no chance we’d see any driver’s championship contender do that from 15th on the grid, just to get 2 points back from their main rival(s). (I’m not a Hamilton fan and would have been just as impressed seeing Massa do the same in that position.)
So most of the effort to encourage overtaking will probably end up being overruled by strategic choices for those in serious contention. I’d love to think that in spite of these changes driver championship contenders would still race on the edge to score points, and I’m sure they’d love to, but considering the importance of strategy we’ve already seen up til now I doubt that’s how it will end up.
So a field in which the cars appear to be closer, there’s a surprise favorite (who might end up dominating the first few races and ruin the entire championship right away) and there are plenty of teams and drivers who (sometimes cautiously) voice their championship ambitions… somebody figured this might be a good idea.
Having a system that awards the first place(s) more points should provide enough incentive to race for a win. I really hope they accidentally announced this 15 days early.
Ibrin
17th March 2009, 14:56
Well I don’t do a lot of posting but:
“BOOOO!”
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Except it’s broken now! The ignorance and arrogance of it has stunned me…I’m robbed of my excitement.
Ton
17th March 2009, 14:58
And teamorders will get a complete new dimension. even satalite teams !!!
Midgster
17th March 2009, 14:58
I can see how this will affect racing for the lead, but what about other 19 places throughout the field, it wont encourage racing further down the field.
I’ve always wanted to see a scoring system like World Superbikes. Give every position points right down to 1 point for last place
Give a bigger incentive for finishing 1st, 2nd and 3rd by having a 4 pt difference between 1st and 2nd, then 2pts between 2nd and 3rd ie 22pts for 1st, 18pts for 2nd, 16pts for 3rd, then 15, 14 13 etc
This way you will get racing right throughout the field.
At the moment there is no incentive at all for the guy in 12th place to challange for 11th place.
This would surely benefit the teams as far as the sponsors are concerned too.
ON A SIDE NOTE…..
BRING BACK MANUAL H GATE GEARBOXES TO LOWER COSTS AND IMPROVE OVERTAKING CHANCES(DUE TO MISSED GEAR CHANGES COMING OUT OF CORNERS LIKE THE OLD DAYS) :-)
Jess
17th March 2009, 15:05
I am in the majority here. I dont like this. I think this has the potintial to cause unessary driving and wrecks. Yes wins are important but comeone last year had a champion come down to the wire. Why change something that works. Just because you win the most dose not mean you be a champion. Now if you win a few races are outside the points you could park and hey no worries. I love racing from stock to openwheel to sportcars but F1 is going two forward and three back I feel. We will see how the season gose but man this killed some of my excitment for this season. I agree with Kris on how this could affect second to. Bad Idea
moro
17th March 2009, 15:05
The new points system is total ********!!
Luke
17th March 2009, 15:06
It seems to me as if the FIA are engaging in wilful vandalism to spite the FOTA…
Ronman
17th March 2009, 15:13
any chance it will have a retroactive effect on last years championship??? i can just hear the what if’s and buts resonating through the F1 blogofanosphere. it’s a tricky one this…
in a situation like last year’s championship clincher, what would have happened?
my hopes were if they just give the winner a 4 point advantage over the first looser and keep the rest the same, what the heck, give the 9th half a point and Pole holder a 1 (no pun intended).
but as nice as this might sound in some cases, and definitely fair. most wins=championship. It doesn’t add up. Then most combination of second places and wins should dictate champ runner up, and same goes for second runner up. which brings us back to a points system that is flawed.
but you got to admit if this was in action last year, it would have given Hamilton (and Mc Laren) an extra boot in the rear to step on it and attempt a win rather than win it by finishing a lackluster fifth.
mirko_710
17th March 2009, 15:13
they should’ve put the 12-9-7… point scoring system. but this one isn’t the worst or ‘just plain stupid’ methinks…
more teams and drivers gunning for victories, taking more chances… hopefully it won’t come down on a stewards decisions. anyone in contention to be the champion in last few races won’t care much finishing 2nd or 3rd in the final standings.
the system is official and tactics will be adjusted to give teams the best chance for ultimate victory obiding new rules of the game.
BTW. consistency could still be rewarded. running strong in P3 or P4 and leaders in front of them can collide in battle for a win or abuse machinery tad too much…
rob
17th March 2009, 15:14
Im not afraid of change, and Im glad the winner gets medals. Winners should win, and not cowards.
Takuma Matata
17th March 2009, 15:15
Hmmmmmm. I don’t like the new system. For many aforementioned reasons, but also:
The teams value the constructor’s championship. They won’t want their drivers throwing away solid points by going for risky / reckless overtakes.
If one car had completely dominated winter testing, the FIA would not have pushed this through
I hope the cars this year stay at similar pace and the drivers are headstrong and go for risky wins, even though the teams might not like it. If not, then the FIA have shot themselves in the foot. Again.
Scott Joslin
17th March 2009, 15:15
I think we need to re program our interpretation of what the top performer is. Consistancy does not always = the most rewarding.
Does anyone else out there know of any other sport that might apply this concept of awarding winners an extra emphasis in their rankings. I know golf and tennis have a order of merit, but they don’t reward winners of events more than consistancy do they?
Clare msj
17th March 2009, 15:27
I agree, being consistent alone doesnt mean someone necessarily deserves the title, but neither does having the most wins if you dont have the other results to back it up.
If Kubica had had a couple more wins at the back end of last year and taken the title with only three wins say to Massa and Hamilton’s five apeice, would that have made him any less deserving than either of the other two?? He could have taken the title on being more consistently in the top few places and having little retirements, without necessarily having the most wins. That is in fact how Hamilton took the title – more consistently in the top three than Massa.
Chris
17th March 2009, 15:23
Another interesting part of this is that the manufacturers’ title will still be decided by points. We all know that drivers can be told to ‘hold position’ to secure points for the team, so we still have that element to the racing under this new system.
If however, the FIA had chosen FOTA’s proposal of ’12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1′, we would have seen drivers wanting to overtake for the win for their own championship, but also crucially for the teams championship aswell.
antonyob
17th March 2009, 15:23
i like it. its rules for f1 as it is now. there are 3-6 drivers who can win regularly and this ensures they go for it. if we get into a situation when another driver dominates then it can be changed again.
theres too many people who’s default response to anything max and bernie is “i hate it get them out squeal squeal”
theRoswellite
17th March 2009, 15:25
Keith we need a new thread on the budget cap proposal. It is a much more serious alteration of the present system than is the points change, and has the potential, for good or bad, to turn everything on it’s head.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
17th March 2009, 18:50
Just gone up: Budget caps for F1 in 2009
Maciek
17th March 2009, 15:26
I can’t say that I share the anger evident in most comments; I can can only roll my eyes at the misguidedness of bureaucrats. This was a bureaucratic decision, based on what people who spend their time in paperwork think will work – on paper. The intention is a good one, but the central, unavoidable problem here is that if the championship ends up going to anyone but the driver with the most points, the whole season will seem artificially decided. You see, the problem with bureaucrats is that they can’t tell the difference between real and artificial.
That being said, if a good deal of the wins are decided in close, dramatic fashion (and we can only hope they will be) then it may, after all, not seem like a bad idea in the end, no? However, no question that a bigger point spread between 1st and 2nd would have been a far easier and more logical way to stack the WDC odds in favour of the driver with the most wins.
Let’s cross our fingers and hope for a season of great racing with no fiascoes.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
17th March 2009, 18:52
I think that’s a good point – this is a poor compromise with too little thought given to how it will work in practice.
Ibrin
17th March 2009, 15:26
Having calmed down…
The new technical regs are I think the only way which we could get closer to something similar to the new Formula 20 in Japan. (standard monocoques, fixed budgets, lots of freedom)
I dislike the idea of having two types of car, but I don’t think it’s possible to do it any other way.
And on the budget cap – Drivers/team bosses plus members can earn more than the 30m through their sponsorship deals.
I think the FIA are just very bad at telling us their news, and they make us very nervous!
Dave Spurr
17th March 2009, 15:28
On further reflection after my initial reaction I still really dislike the idea. However who here thinks that any F1 driver when in with the opportunity to win a race wouldn’t be taking the chance already? The only things that hold them back are team orders and championship consideration towards the end of the season. Upping the points for a win would help with the second of those without causing the mess that winner takes it all will cause.
Ibrin
17th March 2009, 15:31
I would have been happier with a 5/10 pt bonus for the driver with the most wins…
Damon
17th March 2009, 15:31
2009 final standings:
1. Alonso 108 pts
2. Raikonnen 99
3. Kubica 97
4. Button 82
5. Massa 81
6. Hamilton 65
Message to the drivers:
Okey guys, all of you remain at your positions, according to your points. EXCEPT FOR YOU, Fernando. You go one step down. Swap with Kimi, please – he’s the champ and you are not. One more win, sorry.
——————–
This is ridiculous.
Jess
17th March 2009, 17:27
That could be how it happens too.
antonyob
17th March 2009, 15:31
plenty of drivers have gone for points rather than for wins dave spurr. ralph schumacher made a career out of it.
ve quite a good idea to see how it actually does pan out before deciding its a useless. theres always unintended consequences. lets see what they are.
schumi the greatest
17th March 2009, 15:32
well i really didnt expect that, but i suppose being a fan of f1 for over a decade now i should expect the unexpected when the fia make decisions.
Im not sure im 100% clear on the ruling. if someone could clear this up for me id be very grateful
Last year vettel finished with 1 win and 35 points, heidfeld however finished the season with no wins and 60 points. SO…if ive got the new system correct vettel would have finished above heidfeld in the standings even though vettel scored half as many points?
I know that really outside of the top 3 drivers no-one is really concerned who finished 5th 6th or 10th in the drivers championship but if similar circumstances happend further up the grid its going to look a bit stupid.
I think f1 should be a mix between speed and relaibility, if a team can build a superfast car that only finishes 50% of the races, thats not a very good achievment. The 12-9-7 points etc would have been better because it would give drivers who win more incentive becasue of the extra points difference between their rivals, and it would also promote consistency because winning 7 races a year and then finishing in the lower reaches of the points the rest of the time would lose you the tittle.
The fia had perfect chance to remedy a situation listening to what the TEAMS AND FANS had to say. Who gives a f**k about what bernie says we know what he thinks of, his pockets, nothing else.
stupid
Ibrin
17th March 2009, 15:37
Not quite – the medal idea is confusing the issue
Only 1st place will differ from the points standings.
Chris
17th March 2009, 15:37
No, Heidfeld would still have finished above Vettel. The wins only applies to determine the champion. The current points system still applies to determine 2nd, 3rd, 4th and so on.
Robert McKay
17th March 2009, 15:33
Hmm, what’s this? From the WMSC document.
lexis
17th March 2009, 15:36
HaHa
Please go FIA. If Brawn GP pace allows Button to win the 9 first GP then we will know the 2009 World Champion in July this year. Then the following GP is for fun …
Hounslow
17th March 2009, 15:37
I’ve just realised that at the end of the 2009 season, there will be three winners!
The Champion Team (calculated on points)
The World Champion (calculated on wins)
The Driving Champion (calculated on points)
SamS
17th March 2009, 15:38
According to the ITV site there are a number of changes including the posibility for teams to carry out 8 one day straight line tests throughout the season to test aerodynamics. Also there is a number of changes to driver availability during the race weekend for the media and fans including all drivers being available should htey have to retire from a race, which will be great if they were winning and had to drop out!
There are some good changes, and like the overhaul to the cars for this year changes that we are going to have to get used to. But personally, I think come melbourne we will be seeing a great season starting.
Roll on Melbourne!
Keirde
17th March 2009, 15:38
schumi the greatest:
All other places remain the same. Heidfeld would still finish ahead of Vettel. The points system is used everywhere except in the deciding of the driver’s championship. A driver could theoretically finish 2nd or 3rd in the points and be declared champion. Which is stupid.
Mig
17th March 2009, 15:40
When will that joke quit his job and let the fans of motorised sport enjoy it in full….
Somebody must do something before that ass kills Formula One and what’s coming nest….
It’s a joke… it’s a disaster… it’s … the end….
Mahir C
17th March 2009, 15:41
It is all Ferrari and Schumacher’s fault :). If only they let other teams win an odd race or two in 2002, they would have saved us from all those stupid rules to make F1 more “entertaining”.
Joking aside, can FIA introduce such a crucial change just 2 weeks before the beginning of the season without asking anyone. What was wrong with FOTA’s proposal, 12-9-7 system, apart from the fact that 10 points for the winner sounds much nicer cos it is rounded.
schumi the greatest
17th March 2009, 15:41
tanks for clearing that up for me keirde. well its not as bad as i had 1st thought then but…well i still dont think its the right decision.
Chalky
17th March 2009, 15:47
Ok I’ve put down a pro point for earlier.
Now my con point.
Last years season was very steward orientated.
Given that 2009 will be most wins, the decisions of the steward become more important.
In the past, small infringements or unjustified penalties could be rectified by drivers making the best out of a bad situation.
However, has any driver won a race with any form of penalty counting against them? I don’t think so? So any penalties pretty much rule out the chance of a driver winning a race.
Poor stewarding has not been fixed. This new point system may unfortunately build on last years calamity of decisions.
Richard
17th March 2009, 15:47
You know this will now mean more team tactics why would mclaren want kovalinen to win a race if lewis has 3 already per se.
Austria all over again.
Terrible decision and will completely destroy the sport
IDR
17th March 2009, 16:34
Maybe McLaren would want…. but I doubt Kovalainen could do it!!!!
James
17th March 2009, 15:50
Formula 1 is dead.
Scott Joslin
17th March 2009, 16:11
Oh please – looking at the amount of passion going on across the forums today, its very much alive and kicking.
Pete
17th March 2009, 15:54
Imagine the uproar if this system was in place last year when Kimi let Massa by in Brazil.
Richard
17th March 2009, 15:56
Exactly, this wont work and the FIA will be forced into a change for 2010, not the same as 2008 though by the fans and fota
toastboy
17th March 2009, 15:57
This decision is arrogant and abusive to fans and teams alike. I’d like to see all the teams boycott the first race in protest.
You can bet the only 2 cars not to respect such a boycott would be the red ones.
Damon
17th March 2009, 15:57
@ Richard
You are absolutely correct :(((
Kovalainen will not get to win a race.
And after a couple of races Ferrari will also decide if it’s Massa or Raikonnen who will be winning races.
Richard
17th March 2009, 16:00
Another issue, only cars good at a track can win, and to be honest i would say the tracks are currently better suited to Ferrari and if bernie gets to take more tracks to asia and the middle east it will be more of the same
Mouse_Nightshirt
17th March 2009, 16:00
What a load of complete and utter rubbish.
We could realistically see the person coming 3rd or 4th win the championship.
GST
17th March 2009, 16:03
This simply means that drivers need only win races. It doesn’t matter if they don’t get a point (or even finish) in any other race, for as long as they win more races than anyone else they will automatically win the championship, no matter how many points they have (or don’t have).
This is wrong.
I believe there is nothing wrong with the points system the way it is. This keeps things closer and the championship alive until the last race!
Richard
17th March 2009, 16:05
Another thing if a driver gets a penalty then under the (acceptable) engine rules of 3 ish per race, this will mean u could have half the field off the track if they know they cant win, whats the point in that
frank
17th March 2009, 16:05
perhaps a champion already the first 8 gp.
stupid idea
PJA
17th March 2009, 16:12
I know the FIA make the rules so if they break them nothing happens, but are there any rules saying when the Technical and Sporting regulations have to be finalised by.
In the past the qualifying format has been tweaked during the season so I would assume there isn’t a deadline for the sporting regulations but you would have thought there should be for the Technical regulations, because I read this on the Autosport report
“A number of further amendments were adopted for the 2009 Technical Regulations. Full details will be available shortly on http://www.fia.com.”
Changing the way the Drivers Champion is decided 2 weeks before the first race is bad enough, but changing the technical regulations as well is just stupid. The only sensible thing it could be would be a clarification to do with the controversial diffusers so it there aren’t appeals after the first race.
F1 is becoming a laughing stock. Max, Bernie and the FIA should be fined for bringing the sport into disrepute.
After one of the most exciting finishes to a season in sport they decide it should be changed.
I can’t see the proposed budget cap working either.
Damon
17th March 2009, 16:14
With those new rules, the 1982 Championship standings would look like this:
1. Didier Pironi 39pts, 2 wins
2. Keke Rosberg 44pts, 1 win
3. John Watson 39 pts, 2 wins
4. Alain Prost 34pts, 2 wins
Pironi and Watson have the exact same number of points and wins, but one of them gets the 3rd place in the WDC and the other one is advanced to get the Championship.
Or would they both be ahead of Rosberg (who was the champ in 1982)?
Either way, that’s ridiculous.
djdaveyp
17th March 2009, 16:14
utterly utterly utterly ridiculous. The biggest load of s**** ever! The points system wasn’t broke in the first place which is why we’ve had 2 last race deciders in a row! Winning a championship is about consistency, not winning half the races and retiring the rest!
Mouse_Nightshirt
17th March 2009, 16:18
TITLES THAT WOULD HAVE CHANGED
1958: Actual champion: Mike Hawthorne
Most wins champion: Stirling Moss
1964: Actual champion: John Surtees
Most wins champion: Jim Clark
1967: Actual champion: Denny Hulme
Most wins champion: Jim Clark
1977: Actual champion: Niki Lauda
Most wins champion: Mario Andretti
1979: Actual champion: Jody Scheckter
Most wins champion: Alan Jones
1981: Actual champion: Nelson Piquet
Most wins champion: Alain Prost
1982: Actual champion: Keke Rosberg
Most wins champion: Didier Pironi
1983: Actual champion: Nelson Piquet
Most wins champion: Alain Prost
1984: Actual champion: Niki Lauda
Most wins champion: Alain Prost
1986: Actual champion: Alain Prost
Most wins champion: Nigel Mansell
1987: Actual champion: Nelson Piquet
Most wins champion: Nigel Mansell
1989: Actual champion: Ayrton Senna
Most wins champion: Alain Prost
2008: Actual champion: Lewis Hamilton
Most wins champion: Felipe Massa
— Courtesy of the BBC
matt
17th March 2009, 22:45
wow, nelson piquet just lost all 3 championships.
SYM
17th March 2009, 22:49
you can’t include 2008. Hamilton had a win taken away from him and gifted to Massa!
gazzap
17th March 2009, 16:20
doesn’t this also mean that some teams will focus purely on fast straight circuits and throw the twisty slow races away completely. If they can just win the fast ones then they are champions (and vice versa). seems really against fairness and takes away any importance of consistency.
the final few races will almost certainly be dead races. the sponsors will hate that.
fans will be following their favourite driver, and if he is running in say 4th, then there is no point watching anymore. In the past, if he could get 3rd, you’d be willing him on to get 3rd. Now whats the point of overtaking other than at the very front?
Clare msj
17th March 2009, 16:32
The rest of the championship will be decided on points, so itll be worth going for the extra – second in the title will still require more points than third so for that reason, the trying to get the extra points will still happen, plus if the drivers are tied on wins come the end of the year the countback will be on points not seconds thirds fourths, so the extra points could help there too.
What I dont like is the fact that wins alone are rewarded with the championship, and completely ignoring consistency. I think it will encourage number one status within teams, certainly at the front, and it will mean that two/three/even four drivers fighting out for the title at the end of the year may not necessarily be the top four in the ‘points championship’ and could end up finishing much lower in the standings should they not win that crucial extra race. It makes it more complicated generally, let alone for the casual fan.
Also, as someone else has already said, if they were going to change it they should have changed it fully, not a half and half attempt, because the champion is decided on wins, yet 2nd-20th can be decided on consistency. Seems a little unfair.
Woffin
17th March 2009, 16:22
Gutted. Absolutely gutted. Cant believe these new changes. It’s not as if drivers havent been trying to win in the past, example Turkey 08 with hamilton. He was racing his **** off, going for it and could only manage 3rd. In that kind of situation, how is that fair?
Yesterday, I could hardly contain my excitement when talking to a friend about the new season. Now? I’m just completely disillusioned by those in charge and honestly dont care if I press the snooze button and sleep through the entire race come 6am at Melbourne.
John H
17th March 2009, 16:28
FAIL
carlos
17th March 2009, 16:28
So If he wins 9 races and accumulates 90 points, he could basically go to the beach for the rest of the season, no matter if someone else have 120 points…yikes
IDR
17th March 2009, 16:44
If somebody take 9 wins I think he’s a worthy champion, and I’m afraid his TEAM that will need his points for WCC, will not let him to go to the beach.
Mig
17th March 2009, 16:29
Just one more thing… after reading more material and the reactions here…
If I was the FOTA president, came March 30th, there would be no car standing on that nice little finish line in Melbourne. And the same until FIA and FOM (Mosley & Bernie) went managing some horse race track in London suburbia and people who really love Formula 1 and want to see a show, but within a sport, with “normal” rules, stand up to rule it – and I’m not saying the FOTA’s president, we already had a recent ‘Ferrari rules all’ era with Schumacher… Someone that would have in mind, not teams, not drivers, only the sport.
And other thing – mark my words – the TV ratings are going to drop down down down this season, that I would bet on!
Formula One needs salvation… and those two characters need to go to the Recycle Bin…
Green Flag
17th March 2009, 16:30
Actually, it’s very clever. The new title deciding system will make for much more interesting racing. The 3 or 4 drivers that will be contesting for the title – and realistically it’s never more than 3 or 4 – will be racing to win every race, and not settling for a points placing as is so often the case.
Chris
17th March 2009, 16:30
If driver wins first 4/5 races, he may take a 3 month vacation and still may not need to drive again this year..just come to Abu Dhabi to be crowned champion..
ch.pl
17th March 2009, 16:30
What a load of BS!
F1 is dying.
Bernie and Max out!
:[
gazzap
17th March 2009, 16:31
there were so many better ideas out there than this one. clearly there is a hell of a lot of bias in Bernie’s decision making, and its not for the good of F1 as a whole, but his pockets and I’d say Ferrari.
Some sort of boycott against Bernie/FIA by either the fans or teams needs to happen. if we all sit there and take this then it will carry on. we mustn’t let them win.
whats stopping the F1 teams breaking away? I know it’d be a massive thing but even the threat of it might make him listen.
Mig
17th March 2009, 16:34
I’m with you all the way – let them race together along the tracks – I bet the standings will be full and all TV will broadcast it… lol
'
17th March 2009, 16:32
That’s it, I’m not watching F1 any more. I won’t watch it again untill this rule change is reversed.
Scott Joslin
17th March 2009, 16:32
Ok lets move this on a bit, what do we think will be the golden target for race wins will be in 2009.
Considering that there are the following potential winners of which I think we can break them in to two tiers – The ones that might get a win and those that will win consistently.
Consistent Winners
Kimi
Massa
Kubica
Occasional Winners
Barrichello
Button
Alonso
Hamilton
Kovi
Vettle
Heidfield
I think of that second group they might get 7 wins between them, leaving 10 races between the top 3 drivers. Say they average 3 wins each – meaning that 4 wins could win it.
Obviously I don’t know what the real for of the drivers / teams are but just wanted to have a go a working it out.
Mig
17th March 2009, 16:41
Man, you guys are all eating up that McLaren test times thing all the way…
You put Kubica as a regular winner and Hamilton as a ‘might get a win”….
Dream on….
We’ll see all those insights going to smoke, on the 30th.
And I bet you one more thing – Ferrari will only REALLY back up one driver – if Kimmi continues his hibernation from last year, they have no choice to back up Massa … again… But if he rises up the occasion, Massa will be in Ferrari what Piquet is in Renault.
Clare msj
17th March 2009, 19:05
Scott I think thats quite a fair prediction, its roughly how I would have put it too, which means that instead of going into this season having about 6 or so drivers who most people thought would be in with a chance, its now about half of that. I know noone knows what is actually going to happen and how the teams will do, but i really didnt have a clue who i thought would take the title this year until today – now I think it will be a Ferrari driver. Disappointing for me given i was convinced BMW would have a really good shot with one of their drivers – now i see it more as an outside chance – goodness me do I hope I am proved wrong about it being less people in with a shout.
On the plus side, if the drivers all have a fairly similar amount of wins – say two apiece, we could have a title decider final race with about 5 or 6 people in with a chance! – Now that would be interesting! Maybe a little unfair given my like for consistency rewards – but interesting nontheless
SYM
17th March 2009, 22:53
I wouldn’t have Kimi so high up in the 1st group and i think Hamilton should be top of your 2nd
:)
JackB
17th March 2009, 16:32
This is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Bernie and Max out ASAP.
Alejandro
17th March 2009, 16:35
Wow, so many posts, can’t say i read them all. I don’t think it’ll make much of a difference, can anyone point out a 2008 moment where someone “settled” for 2nd place? KR and LH sure didn’t at Spa. On lower places yes i do recall drivers stopping their attacks, but i seriously can’t recall a moment were 1st place was not coveted enough. Then again rarely did we see a fight for first place going anywhere beyond the first few laps
Chris
17th March 2009, 16:38
Now now now..what have we got here..This guy Hamilton was never a champion in the first place in 2008?
He never won the max number of races – Though belated but A big question mark on his achievemnt?
D Winn
17th March 2009, 16:38
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/poll/2009/mar/17/drivers-title-decided-by-victories
Poll on the wins idea
Mig
17th March 2009, 16:44
So far – it give you an ideia:
Should the F1 title be decided by victories?
11.7% Yes
88.3% No
IDR
17th March 2009, 16:59
Interesting….
In Italy “La gazetta dello Sport” has a poll also:
Yes … 50,3%
No….. 49,7%
Robert
17th March 2009, 19:43
Why didn’t they look at the results of the one they had on the f1.com website, I’m sure most people voted no there.
Richard
17th March 2009, 16:39
You cant go comparing years, you have to win the championship with the rules placed in front of your hamilton got more point ergo he wins championship of 2008
Oliver
17th March 2009, 16:41
Well lets see how well the stewards behave, although they might not be too influencial if Mclaren maintain their current testing form.
Captain Caveman
17th March 2009, 16:42
On another note, which has yet to be discussed, is that in order to win the championship which is normally close on points alone, you can imagine the implications of team orders and the impact this will have on the sport.
i.e points are secondary and Wins are key. The betting community will not like it.
And for the record, my gut reaction is that I do not like this decision.
Damon
17th March 2009, 16:46
The 3 or 4 drivers that will be contesting for the title – and realistically it’s never more than 3 or 4 – will be racing to win every race, and not settling for a points placing as is so often the case.
No, you’re wrong.
Last year, for the most of the season, we did have 4 potential Champions, i.e. Hamilton, Massa, Raikonnen, Kubica. But with those new rules, Raikonnen and Kubica would have been irrelevant in the battle, since they didn’t have many wins.
And in the final race, where Hamilton was fighting for the 5th position like a madman, he wouldn’t even bother to finish the race knowing he couldn’t win.
BS
17th March 2009, 16:55
Indeed. And along with the change of only 8 race engines per season, it’s going to be even more likely that some championship contenders chose to sit out certain races they’re not likely to win, or save engines once their chances of a victory are diminishing.
Sure there’s the constructors championship as well, but that’s not really what most people tune in for every sunday afternoon.
It strikes me as a contradiction to begin with, to reduce the amount of engines per season as a cost cutting measure that will force teams to improve reliability, then not reward it for those running for champion.
Ted Tofield
17th March 2009, 16:48
I’m torn two ways:
1) STUPID!!!!!! it’s as bad as when Senna beat Prost due to dropped points even when Prost had 11 pts more
2) Gilles Villeneuve always said that it’s stupid when the guy who wins most races doesn’t win the championship….
damn.
spectre
17th March 2009, 16:48
Medals in F1?! What a joke FFS… Seriously, that’s it for me. I could stand F1 being motorsport and politics. F1 being a circus is just too much. I can’t watch F1 on TV this year for the first time ever, and now I’m not even gonna bother trying to do it somewhere on the net.
Scott Joslin
17th March 2009, 17:20
It’s not a medals system Spectre!!!
Chris
17th March 2009, 16:48
How can a sport survive when the rules for winning are also not standardized? Cant remember any other sport changing rules for the winner like this. Puts a ??? on so called past champions if they didnt win max. races.
Chris
17th March 2009, 16:48
How can a sport survive when the rules for winning are also not standardized? Cant remember any other sport changing rules for the winner like this. Puts a ??? on so called past champions if they didnt win max. races.
Damon
17th March 2009, 16:48
No, you’re wrong.
Last year, for the most of the season, we did have 4 potential Champions, i.e. Hamilton, Massa, Raikonnen, Kubica. But with those new rules, Raikonnen and Kubica would have been irrelevant in the battle, since they didn’t have many wins.
And in the final race, where Hamilton was fighting for the 5th position like a madman, he wouldn’t even bother to finish the race knowing he couldn’t win.
The_Pope
17th March 2009, 16:50
OK, I’m going to weigh in…
1) I think this is the wrong decision
2) How likely is it that any amount of moaning from us is going to get them to reverse this decision? Especially this close to the first race…
3) I thought I’d paste a quick note I sent to Keith in case any of y’all wish to take sides:
“In short, we (the fans) need you (the media) to challenge the FIA for some transparency on today’s decisions. They talked last year about how stewards decisions would be accompanied by some explanation / justification and I feel we need the same surrounding this huge change in terms of points.
I’ll keep this brief, and leave out the emotion. It’s fair to say they’ve ****** off thousands of fans worldwide, nevermind slapping the faces of all 10 teams (who’d reached a consensus, and how often does THAT happen in F1??).
But clearly they believe the new system is “better” so their mission is clear – explain to us WHY it’s better. That’s all.
I wish them luck – aside from throwing away the last 50+ years of F1, they’re also saying that Moto GP, Touring Cars etc and basically every racing series globally has “got it wrong” when it comes to points…
On a more positive note, I hope discussing this farce gets you on Sky News / BBC again, eh? :)”
Thoughts?
Chris
17th March 2009, 16:55
@Damon
Does it mean that he cannot fight like a madman to ‘win’ a race?
He should be fighting like madman to ‘win’ the race and not for 5th position.
The_Pope
17th March 2009, 17:01
Oh, and I’ve just had another thought. I’ve read several comments on various sites along the lines of “I like this idea. It will force drivers to challenge for the win more often” etc etc
HOWEVER
How are we going to feel when our favourite driver (Lewis / Kimi / Massa etc) is in the lead, and the guy in second place makes a desperate lunge down the inside and punts them both off the track. They recover, but now #2 guy is in the lead, takes the win and the previous leader gets bugger all…
Richard
17th March 2009, 17:05
Side note, on the budget cap for 2010, budget capped teams at £30million a year will be allowed movable wings and have no rev limit or development freeze, whereas normal non-budget capped teams wont.
Interesting.
Four Six Tango
17th March 2009, 17:06
WOW! I cant believe it! This is a terrible idea!! Let say Ferrari dominates and Massa wins 4 or 5 races he basically has the WDC in the bag I thought this season was supposed to be more competitive!!!
Martin Bell
17th March 2009, 17:08
Knickers still twisting then. All the negative “it’s the end of F1” comments here seem to assume that the present points system has no flaws. Any scoring system will be flawed, or produce skewed results from time to time, but it is fruitless to go back and see who would have been WDC under another system. The only drawback as far as I can see is that occasionally a team might be so dominant that the title is decided very early. And that happened under the points system occasionally. The fundamental question is surely, do you want the title to be given to the fastest driver or the one who drives most consistently? This change might, just might, produce more exciting racing. Is that not what you all want to see?
patrickl
17th March 2009, 17:10
That’s just utterly ridiculous. It’s like they were going for the worst of both worlds. Now we have a pathetic scoring system AND a pathetic “medals” system.
So the whole year we will be looking at the scores and then in the last race all of a sudden the driver with the most wins walks away with the title. How retarded is it going to look when the guy with (possibly a boatload) more points all of a sudden is not going to get the championship.
Just when I though F1 couldn’t get much worse, they did it again! Depressing.
To be honest, this is exactly what the people who voted in that retarded FOTA inquiry voted for. So I guess “the people” did get their wish.
Richard
17th March 2009, 17:10
It is but how often has a driver won the championship without most race wins, only 2008 since what 1980 something, so not quite consistency
Chris
17th March 2009, 17:12
Tango, How can one expect the season to be ‘compettitive’ when someone wins 80% of the first 5 races? On what premise should this 4/5 winner have such a drop in performance so as not to be crowned champion?
Spot
18th March 2009, 11:33
Take alook at the 1979 season, where Ferrari dominated the first half and Williams the second. It can happen.
Brakius
17th March 2009, 17:13
Too many changes too often to figure out what works and what doesn’t.
I compare it to a driver/team in testing. Change too many things at once, what worked and what didn’t?
F1 is becoming nothing but a sea of endless changes year after year. Where’s the consistency? What would make an upcoming driver want to drive in this series? By the time he makes it there, it looks like it will be a completely different sport.
To those in charge, quit making inane changes every single year.
Chris
17th March 2009, 17:19
In the name of cost cuts we may see cars on three tyres from next year!
That would resemble the famous Thailand tuk tuks i guess!! Expect the unexpected in this sport.
Richard
17th March 2009, 17:20
how about flinstone type power, those legs lol
or what about 1 litre engines, or electric standard engine?? who knows lol
theRoswellite
17th March 2009, 17:22
Another small point…(having just spoken with my Cassandra)
This championship has been going on continuously since 1950. The points system has been changed from time to time, but it has always been points not wins that decided the world champion driver.
I find a certain arrogance in dismissing this history with little or no time for public reaction, let alone input.
This formula will be going on, hopefully, long after we are all (to include Mr. Mosley) gone, and I question not only the wisdom of such a major change, but the method of implementation.
Are there no other voices coming from the FIA on this matter?
(“….the room was filled with a deafening silence. Mr. Bill”)
Captain Caveman
17th March 2009, 17:24
The more I think about it the more annoyed I become.
As another blogger pointed out, does this then indicate that all other series are wrong or less interesting for managing their championships? I don’t think so.
Change is good, but too much has occurred in the last 2 seasons. The way it looks from testing over the last few weeks and assuming that no-one is sandbagging then Brawn are laughing.
Like Alonso/Renault is his first title winning season, they could romp away in the first quarter of the season and build up an impressive lead. (5 out o 6 I think…..)
At this point I would be inclined to say that the FIA may have strongly influenced the championship, because at this level and at this stage of all the recent regulations, the technical ability of the car will have an undue/disproportionate effect on the championship.
I would have much preferred for this rule not to have been implemented. But if it had to, then it should have been for next season.
Hounslow
17th March 2009, 17:26
“Wha’s all this wins not points about then?”
“Well, it’s a bit like making a football competition into a Cup type competition, instead of a League. You have to get wins; draws and points won’t necessarily win the Drivers Championship.”
“So it’s like a knock-out is it? Drivers with no wins are less and less likely to become the Champion as the season goes on?”
“Well, yes that’s roughly right, I suppose.”
“So how’s that supposed to make it more exciting?”
“Well, the interest is supposed to centre on the drivers with most wins.”
“So the other ones can f*** off then?”
“No, not exactly. Because the Team Championship will still be decided on points, like a League.”
“So it’s a League and a Cup both at the same time then?”
“Er, yes. In a way.”
“Sounds like a real cock-up. Let’s watch the snooker instead.”
matt
17th March 2009, 17:58
thats a brilliant analogy
it would be ridiculous if the team in football with most wins overall won then all other places went to points.
Captain Caveman
17th March 2009, 17:30
@ chris
An interesting point you make about drop in performance. An example could be that of imposed changes such as Renault front damper system. Ferrari’s illegal barge board from many years ago etc
But another good example and I do not have the exact figures to hand, would be how was Michael Schumacher fairing when he broke his leg in Silverstone.
He may (hypothetically) have had many wins in the first part of the season, only not to finish the season or score any points in the remainder of the season but still be crowned champion.
I appreciate this is far fetched, but it would devalue what I believe a champion should be about.
Richard S
17th March 2009, 17:30
Someone with a better memory than me should check to see how many wins last year were gifted by a team-mate. I recall one for Hamilton and one for Massa.
Lets assume that if these rules had been in place last year then each of those drivers would “obviously” have been disqualified.
Then assume that wins gained from dodgey stewards’s decisions also cannot count. Would that have changed the “Massa” world champion result?
How on earth are the stewards going to police this one without getting called out for biase?
Chris
17th March 2009, 17:30
Dont be surprised if this rule is reversed in 24 hrs!
If that happens it would make this an even bigger joke. Whichever way it goes, this sport is the loser.
‘It will get worse before it gets better’
Mark S
17th March 2009, 17:31
So if I understand this right then in theory if the wins were evenly distributed across the drivers then you could win the championship with just two wins and failing to finish every other race (=20 points), whilst somebody else could score 138 points (1 win, 16 2nd places). Okay in practice this won’t happen but it illustrates how wrong the system could be.
I suspect this will only last one season.
Adam Milleneuve
17th March 2009, 17:33
I’m actually in favour of today’s ruling – it makes sense and could maybe create more exciting races with drivers and teams giving it their all, taking risks in order to win a race.
The fact that the champion may have less points than 2nd place in the championship is a bit iffy but overall I think this is ok and not complicated at all.
Matt Fallon
17th March 2009, 17:34
Complete idiocy. Complete and utter idiocy
John H
17th March 2009, 17:35
Seems like that vote button on the F1 website a while back did the trick. After all those YES votes, Bernie did the right thing and listened to us fans out there – as recommended by Mr. Mosely in a recent BBC interview.
How about that driver’s strike for this farce instead?
John H
17th March 2009, 17:35
(* please note… sarcasm)
Damon
17th March 2009, 17:36
@ Chris
Was Hamilton able to win Interlagos last year?
No, he wasn’t.
If you’re in, say, 10th position with 15 laps to go – all you can do is fight for the best possible position which usually is far from winning, but at least gives you some points.
Just look realistically. You don’t win races only because you want to. In most races, the standings after the second leg of pitstops look more or less like this:
1. Hamilton 40 laps completed
2. Massa + 16 sec
3. Kubica + 27 sec
4. Trulli + 43 sec
5. Raikonnen + 49 sec
6. Vettel + 1:05
7. Button + 1 lap
Will Vettel suddenly make miracles and race for the win?? Nope.
Will Kubica suddenly be 2 seconds/lap faster to catch Massa AND Hamilton and win the race?? Nope.
He would love to – but that’s not possible. And the mere knowledge that he needs to win the race to have a chance to win the WDC won’t help him much on the track, or will it?
Needing every single point he can score, he will still drive as fast as he can, so if Massa makes a mistake, he could get the 2nd place = 2 points more in the championship. But knowing that 2nd or 3rd place is not much of a difference, since neither is a win, he will not try hard.
And now look at Raikonnen. He’s 6 secs behind Trulli.
Would he push and try to catch Trulli and overtake him, knowing that he needs every single point in the WDC?
Yes, he would.
Will he push knowing that scoring one point more won’t give him anything? Not really.
Perhaps he will, perhaps he won’t. The motivation will be a lot less.
And if that’s one of the last races in the season, he might as well just quit the race.
patrickl
18th March 2009, 0:32
“Was Hamilton able to win Interlagos last year?
No, he wasn’t.”
Actually he was. He was right behind Vettel when they both needed to make one pit stop still. Hamilton had bad luck that the weather changed just after he made his stop so he had to make an extra stop. Otherwise he would have been right on Vettel’s tail (if not in front of him).
Lynn
17th March 2009, 17:37
I can’t believe it, the teams will have to concentrate on one driver much earlier than usual.
matt
17th March 2009, 17:37
well that’s seriously dented my enthusiasm for the season, which had been looking pretty good.
And this completely undermines Lewis’ championship last year.
Can you do a survey on who prefers this versus the old (good) way? Then send the results to a news site like the bbc and FIA themselves, so that news sites can report on the discontent of all the fans.
gazzap
17th March 2009, 17:37
saying that this rule wont affect things because only 1 world championship since 1980 has not gone to the winner of most races is missing the point. The approach to racing and tactics change completely. the nature of a race weekend takes a completely different complexion with these rules.
Number 2 drivers now are ruled out of the title race. teams can concentrate on circuits that suit them. read all the comments above on how and why teams will behave differently to see that this change will totally change what we see on the track – for the worse.
Even in Italy, where they know Ferrari are the ones who are to benefit from this plan, the fans are split.
Best drivers will go to Indycar.
Ronan
17th March 2009, 17:38
Having thought about this I reckon there’s a good chance the races will become duller.
Example:
Championship Contender A has been fast all weekend and is running away with the race. Championship Contender B is having a huge battle for 3rd place with Championship Conteder A’s team mate.
Under the points system this battle for 3rd has the potential to impact on the championship so there’s a focal point for the race and something exciting to watch.
Under the wins system this battle is more than likely meaningless and so there’s no real reason to watch the race once Championship Contender A has built up an unreachable lead by lap 20.
Just think of the last two show downs we’ve had. Raikkonen ran away with Brazil 07 and Massa with Brazil 08. The only thing that made these interesting was what was happening below 1st place. Both these races would have been as dull as dishwater under the wins system because Hamilton/Alonso would never have come close.
Fine maybe they would have aimed for the win but it was clear in both 07 and 08 that the Ferrari’s were unreachable in the race. I think Bernie’s assumption that there’s a lack of a will to win is misguided.
Scott Joslin
17th March 2009, 17:51
I agree with you if you know Bernie has made this descison based upon that assumption, a lot of the lack of overtaking comes from the cars areodynamics.
With reference to your posible situation:
Points are still counting after wins have been counted, so the emphasis on finishing as high up as posible would still be the same. If championship contender A has an unreachable lead, then he is… unreachable, no adjustment to the points can a car or go faster or make up for this difference. However, there is less to lose possibly in this senareo so the guy could have a go at the 3rd place car and not sit behind him all race. If he got in to an accident with him, it wouldn’t destroy his championship chances as he would only lose 1 win to the main contender, and that would have happened any way, so it will promote risk taking. Then we get in to the what if’s leading to possibly more crashes and more steward’s involvement – Gah :(
spirit
17th March 2009, 17:38
This is a fraud!!!
Ronan
17th March 2009, 17:41
The teams respond:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73754
Rob R.
17th March 2009, 18:13
Thank god, someone has some sense.
matt
17th March 2009, 17:47
Also, keeping the current points system to decide other places will leave fans very aware if the world champion has less points than the runner up. This will undermine the world champion who earns the most wins and will be a massive ****-take to the driver who comes second with most points.
Chris
17th March 2009, 17:48
I think the idea behind the rule change was good – to incentivise the winner. But the execution was plain faulty. It could have been easily achieved by making 4 points as the difference between winning and 2nd place.
Remember in soccer we used to have 2 points for a win and 1 for draw which was changed to 3 for win – a clear incentive to WIN.
Ronan
17th March 2009, 17:52
Fully agree. The win needed to be incentivised. But they’ve managed to do it in a way that disincentives everything below 1st place. If by mid distance [insert top drivers name here] is in 5th place they might as well just park and save their engine.
Richard
17th March 2009, 17:51
All cos bernie and max dive head first into everything don’t listen and can never accept they are in the wrong
David Watkins
17th March 2009, 17:54
I’m trying to imagine how they’ll do the scoreboard. Say after 5 races of 2008:
K Raikkonen 2 wins (35)
F Massa 2 wins (28)
L Hamilton 1 win (28)
R Kubica 24
N Heidfeld 20
H Kovalainen 14
M Webber 10
J Trulli 9
F Alonso 9
N Rosberg 8
K Nakajima 5
J Button 3
S Bourdais 2
Bbbut
17th March 2009, 18:03
This will not happen! Only one driver from every team will be allowed to score a win.
So it would be more like:
K Raikkonen 4 wins (39)
L Hamilton 1 win (28)
F Massa 0 wins (24)
R Kubica 24
N Heidfeld 20
Bbbut
17th March 2009, 18:03
This will not happen! Only one driver from every team will be “allowed” to score a win.
So it would be more like:
K Raikkonen 4 wins (39)
L Hamilton 1 win (28)
F Massa 0 wins (24)
R Kubica 24
N Heidfeld 20
Richard S
17th March 2009, 17:54
There is too much scope for maipulating the championship with these rules. I could be positive and say that any number of drivers could win this year. Even Hamilton could come good, win the last 3 races and defend his crown. But I just can’t see it being fair, and we will get a champion whom a significant proportion of the fans will deride as being un-deserving for any number of reasons.
Richard
17th March 2009, 17:56
But like any year you have to use the rules to your full advantage and the person who does that the best deserves to win based on the system so a 4 win streak at the end of the season wouldn’t be undeserving under these new rules.
Eric M.
17th March 2009, 17:56
Not happy about this at all. :(
Haggis
17th March 2009, 17:56
With regard to the budget cap, can you see a situation where Mercedes provide the budget capped Brawn team with better engines than the McLaren team it part owns. If the McLaren team is not capped, then it would have to.
Or Ferrari supplying better engines to Torro Rosso than it does to the works team?
I have a funny feeling this proposal has not been thought through at all, and will come to nothing.
John H
17th March 2009, 17:58
Time for the teams to start drawing up breakaway plans. Sorry to comment on this so much Keith, but I am really saddened by today’s news.
The teams will have to back one driver ahead of the other from the first race, just as Ronan says. Sad day for F1
Richard
17th March 2009, 17:58
That couldn’t happen cos they wouldn’t do it, why would mclaren sell brawn better engine than they are using
Ronan
17th March 2009, 18:04
Because if under the budget cap Brawn would be able to run a developed engine and McLaren (assuming they wouldn’t be under the budget cap) would have to keep to the engine freeze rules.
David Watkins
17th March 2009, 18:02
After Montreal:
L Hamilton 2 wins (38)
R Kubica 1 win 42
F Massa 2 wins (38)
K Raikkonen 2 wins (35)
N Heidfeld 28
H Kovalainen 15
M Webber 15
J Trulli 12
F Alonso 9
N Rosberg 8
K Nakajima 7
D Coulthard 6
R Barrichello 5
T Glock 5
S Vettel 5
J Button 3
S Bourdais 2
Hamilton leads the championship by virtue of having only 1 retirement to Massa’s 2. Under the new rules, Kubica would slot into second on points.
sas
17th March 2009, 18:09
what a complete farce. Have FIA even read the comments on this website in the past on what we even think, most likely not then. Well it will just seem slightly confusing this new points system to people who will actually start following F1 next year as the point system is now inconisistent points system for constructors and for second place onwards. The main problem with the current points system which was introduced by bernie is that there is a small gap between first and second by 2 points. What is wrong with going back to the old system as there was only a four point gap. i would suggest that turn it into a five point gap between first and second as there are not as many teams at the moment.
S Hughes
17th March 2009, 18:10
2 questions:
1. Keith, what is it about this system that appeals to you? Please explain.
2. Is this going to be effective from 2009?
Loki
17th March 2009, 18:17
Wow, I go out for an afternoon and come back to this?! (this has got to be one of the fastest growing comments post!)
Now, I’ve been a big advocate of rewarding a win, but also keeping consistency in mind (favouring a 4 point lead in points for a win over second place). But this system isn’t rewarding just a win – it’s penalising anything below that. You might as well have a one man podium up there.
I honestly don’t believe most of the drivers, 90% of the time at least, aren’t fighting for a win when in a position to do so. It’s like those pointless radio comms you hear half the time “push push push” and “pass him! you have to pass him!” – as Brundle says, what do you think they’re doing out there in the first place?
I see dirty tactics exploits written all over this. Now you don’t even need to force your championship opponent off the road into the gutter, you only need to make sure they need to change a nosecone so they won’t win.
On top of that, it sounds far too rash a decision. Did they even think it through? Could it not have been proposed for a provisional 2010 to at least consider it a bit longer?
This blows. I really hope the cars will be able to overtake each other and the racing is closer – I’ve even sided the aesthetics argument completely now – because if nothing happens to the lead, as it often didn’t unless you were in a 2008 Ferrari, then might as well just watch the qualifying and the race start and be done.
Gman
17th March 2009, 18:29
I have a similar reaction Loki- I agree with pretty much everything you have said, except for the drivers in second fighting for a win. The one good thing about this is that we will perhaps see some good battles for the lead in cases where drivers were more conservative in the past. But I am shocked that the idea is being pushed forward so close to the start of the season.
David - BR
17th March 2009, 18:18
Worst case scenario for FIA and F1: championship over in 9 races.
Whatever the case, there’s a good chance the last few races will be relatively meaningless.
Gman
17th March 2009, 18:31
That’s what I am thinking, and if it proves true, then the FIA/FOM have done a good bit of harm to the growth and popularity of the sport. Look at the finish the last two seasons- great stuff, but I believe we have far less a chance of that happening under this new system.
Cosmo
17th March 2009, 18:19
Idiocracy!!!!!
Robert McKay
17th March 2009, 18:20
Makes it difficult for the teams really, doesn’t it? Having two drivers steal wins from each other is a big difference from having one take 10 points and one take 8.
IDR
17th March 2009, 18:41
Yeah, but on the other hand if the 1st driver has a bad day not scoring points, his team mate can be a great support for him winning the race avoiding runner up can take the win.
This action will worth much more than the 8 points the runner up could take.
Richard
17th March 2009, 18:21
bureaucracy more like
Philip
17th March 2009, 18:25
I really thought FOTA were making headway and had some good suggestions, and then the FIA go and ignore them. I am fully behind more incentive for a win, but this mixed system is not the way to go in my opinion – for all the reasons people have listed above.
I am also concerned with the massive changes in performance or reliability that could happen this season. For example, a team that hits the ground running could win the first four or five races without much contest. If that team then fades and is out-developed by a few other teams, those faster teams will then have to scrap with each other in a far more competitive stage of the season. They might not match or beat the win tally, and a driver who nailed five early races and did nothing else could be champ. Unlikely I know because I am taking extreme changes in performance from one part of the season to the next, but a slim chance.
MattB
17th March 2009, 18:32
At first I thought this was a RUBBISH idea. Then I thought about it.
It will encourage:
a) Fights for first
b) Clean overtaking – drivers will not go for a overtake they can’t get, they won’t try banzai attempts
c) Midfield teams to get ‘in the points’
d) greater importance of reliabilty and lead driver consistancy
Downsides:
a) fewer crashes
b) Can Lewis win this way? (not that I’m biased…)
b) errrrrrrr………………..that’s it.
How about an extra point for pole?
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
17th March 2009, 18:50
How about championships being won on a Saturday when no-one’s watching, because someone’s done a time with two laps’ worth of fuel in the car? I don’t think this is a good idea.
Oliver
17th March 2009, 18:33
Taking it to extremes, 2 race wins and 15 DNFs can make you world champion, afterall we have 20 drivers on the grid. And if we have one of those fluke seasons, we may even have a world champion by the half way point.
The best solution for F1 is to go bust. Driver and team caps, thats just the limit. Do services cost the same in every country?
Alejandro
17th March 2009, 18:35
This has got to be the quickest ever growing post, so in the hopes someone might read this, thinking it over i see a BIG disadvantage now, if combined with the new engine rules.
Due to the more liberal use of engines, it would be possible for a team close to the top but not quite there to simply go all out on the races they know they are good at. One engine for qualy, one engine per race, etc. And then after 5 or 6 wins they’re all out of engines, with a good shot at making WDC….
chris
17th March 2009, 19:56
i agree alejandro also a team with say a good car a slow tracks ,could focus everthing on that and just make the numbers up at other gps
Neil
17th March 2009, 18:36
Am i so stupid or has dementia take hold, this stuid decision sounds very much like some of the comments that luca De motezumas revenge was spouting on the ferrari website at the end of last season (removed recently), after Hamilton snatched victory from felipe messy.lol We all know that the midget and the long one are in bed with ferrari but this takes the biscuit.It seems to me that the driver with the most points has been the most consistant, looking after his equioment, a
Cameron
17th March 2009, 18:39
Thanks a whole bunch Bernie and Max. You have turn what was promising to be a brilliant season into a joke.
The sooner you two idiots move on, or the teams move and start GP1, the better.
As for the cost cut cars vs. expensive cars thing… wow, that’s even worse. Hopefully I wake up later in a better mood than I’m in right now.
Arthur954
17th March 2009, 18:40
What a dumb points thing — it would be better to stick to the present point system. I hope FOTA rebels ! will The season will be ruined if they go ahead with this.
Bernie has this tacky vision for F1 as Disneyland in the Desert
As for the cost cutting measures, it all boils down to CVC taking so much money, and then have everyone else cut costs to keep the show going on.
REBELLION !!!
Lustigson
17th March 2009, 18:41
Good heavens, what an enourmous amount of replies. I must confess I can’t be bothered to read them all.
However, Keith, I have to say that you’ve got your title and lead for this post entirely wrong. There are no medals here. The current points system remains in place with the sole addition being that the driver who wins the most races, is the FIA Formula One World Drivers’ Champion, regardless of his points tally.
On a side note: this could lead to a driver winning 5 or 6 GPs in the first half of the season, breaking his leg, say, while cycling, not ulike one M.A. Webber, this winter, and having to sit out the remaining races, while his competitors overtake him in points, but not in number of GP wins, and said driver will still be WDC.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
17th March 2009, 18:48
After writing it I thought of changing it, but by then there were already so many people who’d read it I didn’t want to add to their confusion. I see Autosport originally used the phrase ‘medals’, then removed it. Do you think I should do the same?
I haven’t because we’re still talking about a system which contains the essence of the ‘medals’ concept, i.e., the driver with the most wins takes the championship.
Lustigson
17th March 2009, 19:47
Well, it’s a tad late to change the title, but if you would consider it, I’d change it to something like “Number of GP wins to decide WDC”. Because that’s the facts. Perhaps you could use
strikethrough in the old heading and/or lead text.I must say, though, I’m quite surprised at the response, here. I was under the illusion, apparently, that most readers on F1Fanatic were for any win-decides-title scheme.
KingHamilton
17th March 2009, 18:43
This plan could either go two ways:
1. Due to the unpredictablility, everyone tries to win and risks everything for a win, in which case we have epic races in an epic season
2. One driver will win too many races early in the season and we will have a repeat of 2002 or 2004. yawn!
I really hope this plan works and it turns out to be an epic season, I just hope one drievr doesnt win say 6 of the first 12 races and then just has a nap durin the remaining 5.
But we havnt seen any racing yet, so I think its key to JUDGE THIS SYSTEM AFTER THE SEASON to see if its a good one or not, we’ll have to see.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
17th March 2009, 18:46
Thing is, in a situation where one driver wins loads of races early in a season, having a points system that ‘artificially’ keeps the championship going until the later stages won’t make the championship any more exciting.
To look at it another way, did the close championship battle at Shanghai last year make the race exciting? No, it was still tedious as hell.
aa
17th March 2009, 18:47
This medal mode with the capped budgets will be dynamite!
You just have to do a missile which lasts 1 race and win 5 or 6 of those, and use the other races to “eat” engine penalties
Whitty 123
17th March 2009, 18:47
Lets do petition!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
matt
17th March 2009, 22:49
YES!
Big Lad
17th March 2009, 18:52
FOTA is a conglomorate of all of the teams bosses, chaired by Luca di Montezemolo the CEO of Ferrari. Their aim is to work with the fans in getting.Enough said after the Massa Hamilton situation last year
Lynn
17th March 2009, 18:56
I’m reading all over the web forums that this new system will help Lewis.I have laugh,if it looks like Lewis will gain an advantage you can be sure the new system will be changed. I for one, do not think it will help Lewis, if the car continues to be slow.
Clare msj
17th March 2009, 19:24
I dont think this system will help Lewis at all especially if the Mclaren starts off a bit on the slow side. Give any sort of advantage to the Ferrari/BMW drivers at the start and the wins tally will be hard to catch up. If it takes til Monaco or so for example to get the Mclaren right, (and it wouldnt be the first time its taken a few races) and say Lewis hasnt managed the win yet, but Kimi has already won three races – that leaves Hamilton a huge task to catch up – it wouldnt just be a case of fighting back to get a load of points, he would have to win three more races than Kimi in the final half of the season just to be in with a shot come the final race. – just one example of many which have been put forward for how this system is not looking good!
Keirde
17th March 2009, 18:57
aa:
It is possible, and I can imagine teams using this tactic to a certain extent. Certainly ‘sacrificing’ potentially weak races and pushing an engine really hard in ‘good’ races.
Whewbacca_the_Cookie
17th March 2009, 18:57
Let’s hope that this year we will have many different race winners. Just like 1981 :)
Richard
17th March 2009, 19:00
here’s a suggestion could this be a big publicity stunt to pull f1 through 2009 and get in some sponsorship, its the first time in a while all the newspapers and website will be taking about f1 as its main sport. then change for 2010??
Robert
17th March 2009, 19:06
Words can not describe how angry I am, I thought my friend was joking! I’m no longer looking forward to Australia :(
Jack
17th March 2009, 19:08
It is only going to take one year where a guy wins the championship by 1 win and is down a long way in points for the system to be changed back.
Striay
17th March 2009, 19:16
hope so! depends what Bernie wants, i mean he must have had some part in this decision surely, because as Keith pointed out its quiet similar to the ‘medals system’ he proposed! HOW CAN WE SHOW OUR ANNOYANCE? I MEAN THERE MUST BE A WAY TO GET A PETITION AROUND OR SOMETHING!
Rob R.
17th March 2009, 19:12
Argh I’m still so angry about this. Would Max at least give us an explanation, what was wrong with the 12 point system? It was a fine solution.
BaKano
17th March 2009, 19:22
So FIA says: “the title awarded to the driver with the most race wins. The rest of the standings, from second to last place, will be decided by the current points system.”
This means that the race wins do not count for the classification only for the champion, which means, the guy that could become champion in the last race might actually be the 3rd place!
And the runner-up, it’s not the runner-up, it is just the guy that scored more points but not more wins (it might be the top-scorer even).
Even worse, we finish the season with 2 guys with 6 wins each. One is champion because has more points, but the other might not even be considered the runner-up (maybe the 4th in the Points table)
So actually, the classification will be the points table, and then the Wins leading driver, selected from that list. Or maybe we will have 2 tables to follow: The points table and the wins table. No way we could “merge” the two of them, because let’s say come the mid-season, and we have 2 drivers with 4 wins each, but one is only 3rd on the points table, he cannot be considered the 2nd position driver…
They tried to merge the 2 ideas together, the medals system but keeping the point, and end up having a very difficult to follow system.
Ok, it’s easy to understand the champion, when the season ends, but during the season it would be a mess.
Although I’m not totally oposed to the idea, I prefer to wait and see, one thing’s for sure: Championships in almost all sports with a season defined are based on who scores more points, not who wins more. It’s almost like THE RULE, so why change it?
For me it was aready stupid when in soem seaons the drivers had to ditch the 4 worse results or whatever, that resulted in 1988 Prost scored more points, but was not Champion…
Clare msj
17th March 2009, 19:38
I thought the F1 powers that be were all about viewing figures and attracting people to take an interest in the sport who didnt previously…
Try and explain that to the casual fan……
Whilst it may mean people go all out for wins, and they do have to keep their points tally up in case there is a joint win situation come the end of the year – but trying to justify why the F1 World Champion has been plucked out of third or fourth in the points standings at the end of the year…
Mussolini's Pet Cat
17th March 2009, 19:27
My old man has always thought F1 was a nonsense sport, akin to wwf wrestling. I always just shook my head and agreed to differ.. HOWEVER, it now looks like I’ll be watching some WWF, where the promoters & their governing body know what their audience likes and delivers!!!
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
17th March 2009, 19:32
Vote on what you think of the ‘wins’ system and other FIA announcements here
AdamH
17th March 2009, 19:48
I think it’s good that drivers are rewarded for winning but teams have to be consistent. The 1967 season has popped into my mind – Jim Clark was the fastest of the field and would have won the Drivers’ Championship on this system. The Lotus, however, was unreliable and wouldn’t have won the Constructors’ Championship. That seems fair enough.
I think the points for drivers thing is a red herring. Second is the first of the losers etc etc.
chaostheory
17th March 2009, 19:53
I too think it wont last long – they will change it in 2010. But for now 2009 looks like a mess, another one season with stupid rules (the last one was 2005?). Maybe it all will clear out mid season or something, but right now im confused.
On the other hand now we all have something to wait for: a big FOTA vs FIA vs FOM war which will bring a change in F1 :D (change = no Bernie, no Max, teams have decisive voice).
Owen
17th March 2009, 20:01
Just read all the comments… wow that took a long time!
For all the comments “what if driver A wins 1 race and has 17 DNFs and Driver B gets 18 2nds how is that fair?”… When has that ever happened/will ever happen? I’m sure you could come up with an equally stupid and exaggerated argument against the current point system.
I also can’t fathom the reasoning behind “what will stop a team allowing a driver to win the first 9 races then go on holiday?”. Incredible. If it’s that easy for a team to just decide to win, why wouldn’t they do that under any system?
I also don’t really see the point of comparing previous championships under this system. Why not compare all seasons with all the different points systems we’ve ever had. Which one is the best indication of who ‘deserved’ to win in each year?
In reality, everyone will drive according to the rules. They’re all on a level playing field. I can’t see that it benefits one driver over the other and it might promote more racing ie Hamilton driving for the win in Brazil rather than for 5th (even though it ended up producing one of the best finishes ever!). And if it does then that’s a good thing.
My main problem with the system is the potential for abuse of team orders. The FIA will have to be very wary of this.
Clare msj
17th March 2009, 20:13
maybe it wouldnt be that extreme, but you could have someone who had won five races and got generally average results, against someone who has one win and generally good resuslt – a la Kubica last year – up until the last couple of races last year he was in with a chance of the title because he had scored points on a more consistent basis than Massa and Hamilton – on this system – he wouldnt factor remotely in the title battle in the last race, but could finish say second in the title based on points?
Rahzam
17th March 2009, 20:05
I am confused with this system.
Suppose, both Massa and Hamilton have 90,90 points with 4,4 wins. Kimi has 3 wins and 100 points. What will be the position of these three drivers?
Clare msj
17th March 2009, 20:10
I assume it would then go to countback for Massa and Hamilton – who has the most seconds. third etc. Then whoever did would be world champion, Kimi second and the ‘loser’ of Massa/Hamilton third???
matt
18th March 2009, 0:15
Thats a good point. So supposing Hamilton got more seconds, he’d win, and suddenly massa would ‘drop’ another place due to kimi having more points. That is difficult to justify.
pSynrg
17th March 2009, 20:09
I’ve voted for non of those proposals. Leave the system of the sport alone! It’s fine as it is. F1 should be about consistency.
If a driver manages to finish 2nd in every race and the rest of the spoils (including wins) are divided amongst the rest of the grid thus giving them a clear points advantage for consistency then they should be champion.
Not that this will ever happen as all drivers simply want to win – it’s their reason for racing!
OK, tactics come into it when the math and a conservative drive adds up to a WDC but that’s racing at the bleeding edge. A chance for a breather after bagging enough points is surely well earned at this point? There will be others chasing a victory (although not a win, Vettel vs Hamilton, Brazil 2008.)
Fair enough, money may be tight – put a cap on spending? In GP2 yes, in F1 NO! F1 should always be virtually unattainable. This is what sets it apart. Even if it means losing it, no cap on spending – may as well watch GP2 if that happens.
I could go on for hours. Chocolate pennies for the drivers if they win! Pah!
Tom
17th March 2009, 20:12
so if a championship is really close and there are several winners throughout, there may be some crazy accidents so all the front runners are taken out (like montreal last year and Brazil 2003) and sutil will win 3 races, more than massa’s 2 and force india will have their first driver’s champion even though BMW will have 1000 points more inn the contructers. that would be hilarious.
steve
17th March 2009, 23:38
Sutil wins three races – hm I think I might have spotted the flaw in your logic
Ciaran
17th March 2009, 20:12
This is madness. Yes winning should be rewarded, however they should go back to the old 10,6,4,3,2,1 points system that was removed to narrow the gap between Schumacher and every body else. This is not only a reversal of the 10,8… points system (which I did not agree with anyway) but a complete over the top ad-hoc make it up as you go along solution to a problem that does not exist. Typical FIA making a mess of F1 and and WRC from 2010 also. Just as well they are not designing cars!
Tom
17th March 2009, 20:14
on a more serious note, we must apologise to United Arab Emerites, it is now unlikely that your event will be a title decider.
Sven
17th March 2009, 20:16
STUPID! Just one example would be that one driver wins the first 4 races. There would be no more exitement until another driver also have won 4 races which might well take the whole season. Or one teams driver have won 2 races and the other none. We will have Austria revisited over and over again.
Tom
17th March 2009, 20:19
so a driver that finishes a race 4 times can be world champion, (and crashes out the rest of the time) whereas a far more consistent driver who wins 3 and finishes second in every other race is rewarded nothing?
wheres the incentive to look after engines? cars can be maxed out to win a race every 2 weeks. as long as they win, points are meaningless
Jasper
17th March 2009, 20:21
Renault are the first team to confirm that they will definitely be running KERS in Australia according to Autosport! Assuming that the Brawn car proves to be fastest in qualifying there, (as the general feeling seems to be that it’s currently the fastest car). It’s going to make for a really exciting start, how will Button & Barrichello be able to fend off the likes of Alonso and any of the other cars who have KERS at the start? And then once any KERS cars get in front of Button & Barrichello, they will have to fight to keep them behind, but they will have the KERS at their disposal to prevent the Brawn’s from getting a run on them into any braking zones!
Just thinking about it, assuming the reading of the cars relative pace is correct, Brawn fastest, followed by Ferrari, Toyota, BMW and Renault. The Australian GP could turn out to be a really fascinating tactical battle, but if anyone’s good at race strategy and tactics it’s Ross Brawn! Bring on Australia!
Clive
17th March 2009, 20:22
269 comments when I started reading the latest 100 or so – I get the impression that the fans feel quite strongly about this. ;)
How many more times will we see Max throw away all the thoughts and suggestions of others only to implement his own unworkable and crass ideas? And what brilliant timing – the teams are nervous and close to dropping out of F1 so Max annoys them by ignoring their sensible proposals.
For once, I am speechless.
Gman
17th March 2009, 23:35
Same here- what is very shocking is the timing of it all. I would think that such an idea would be introduced at least one season ahead of when it would be implimented, but Max always has a trick or two in his pocket…..
Eriksen
17th March 2009, 20:23
oh noes… dont like this at all
anyone has time to make a petition?
http://www.petitiononline.com/create_petition.html
Pete
17th March 2009, 20:27
So all Hamilton had to do at Interlagos last year was take out Massa.
pSynrg
17th March 2009, 23:07
They never have any bearing on anything. Petitions serve only to annoy those that sign them.
pSynrg
17th March 2009, 23:08
Sorry, meant for the post above :)
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
17th March 2009, 23:09
Pete – yes, but that was already the case :-)
DaveG
17th March 2009, 20:30
I was liking the rules the way they were. Seems like too many changes at once for me.
The engines this year have to be used in three races. Reliability is good, but will the drivers trying to get the race win be able to push so hard without an engine failure? Would a driver who is in 4th or 5th (and has a few wins in his pocket)decide that on lap 25 that it’s better to pit the car, leave the race and preserve the engine for the next race hoping to do better in qualifying? That could create a lot of tension between the driver and team. What takes precedence.
Just a thought.
Also, what about extra points for taking pole, and for fastest lap of the day? Heidfeld could have gotten a few more points.
I like the points system the way they are.
Eric
17th March 2009, 20:36
What the f%#$ are Bernie and Max smoking crack????? So you score the most points in the season and your not the champion? Know wonder Bernies wife left him, he is a f*%&^@# retard.
Tom
17th March 2009, 20:37
it is obvious that this change is due to the fact massa won more races last year than hamilton. but shouldn’t an F1 driver be rewarded for his ability to race? (to the front). massa’s fine when he is leading ,usually from pole, but i have not met anyone who would say he deserved the championship simply due to the number of mistakes he makes (on his own) when racing others:
Australia ,first corner and coulthard incident
malaysia, spun off chasing kimi
silverstone, we all know
monaco, fair enough, hamilton made mistake too, but recovered much better
japan, bordais and hamilton incidents
etc.
Hamilton is a much better racer (most of the time) and was more deserving of the championship due to his consistency. this new system won’t reward that anymore unfortunately.
Clare msj
17th March 2009, 20:56
I’ts a knee kerk reaction to something that wasnt really a problem in the first place. I could understand the outrage from the powers that be if Hamilton had taken the title with say two wins to Massa’s six, but the difference was of only one race – they were equal up until Brazil – and to say that Hamilton wasnt trying his hardest in Brazil is ridiculous – he might have gone a bit conservative in qualifying but he was certainly putting his all in during the race.
Plus Brazil was always going to be a win for Massa – I put my money on that this time last year – I have done the same again this year!
I have no problem with Hamilton taking the title with one win less than Massa – Hamilton just outperformed him over the whole season – its how it should be decided – a combination of the both wins and consistency (I am not a Hamilton fan either, not by a long shot, but changing the points purely because of last year is silly – it undermines his title and it shouldnt be like that)
Richard
17th March 2009, 20:38
were unfortunately :(
Franton
17th March 2009, 20:42
Isn’t it suspicious that this rule change is announced not long after McLaren’s publicised car issues?
We all know how much Mosely hates Ron Dennis.
Robert McKay
17th March 2009, 20:44
Politically, it does rather tell us that it doesn’t matter how united/unified the teams are – it doesn’t really mean they can affect change any more than previously.
What’s the lesson here? Don’t go signing that new Concorde Agreement yet, because you’ve no bargaining power.
If FOTA have a vision for Formula 1, it rather does appear it will have to be via a breakaway.
Eduardo Gigante
17th March 2009, 20:52
From a historical perspective, 13 world championships would have a different winner (I’m sure somebody mentioned this here). Yet, if you look closely, in the last ten seasons the result would only change twice (Ayrton Senna would have been champion in 1989, and Felipe Massa last year as well). So, not only is this totally unfair, it probably will have little impact on the outcome…
scunnyman
17th March 2009, 20:57
You’re entitled to your opinion Keith, but I, as much as any other fan of f1 will feel that this medals idea is a kick in the teath from the fia.
They don’t give one iota for any fans feelings on the sport.
Adam Milleneuve
17th March 2009, 21:00
Keith – I’m with you on this, I don’t see that the system *needed* to change but this isn’t too bad at all.
Ps. It’s correct to call it ‘medals’ like because it is essentially the same concept but without the ridiculousness of silver and bronze as well… Read the Badger’s report from earlier here
Jayson
17th March 2009, 21:00
In theory, the WDC could be over in the second race.
I doubt that that is more exciting than last years championship :) knowing in the november that the winning race was held in april already.
And I totally agree with DaveG – why bother finishing races when only winning counts.
I hope they change it to FOTA’s
scunnyman
17th March 2009, 21:01
On another note keith,
If the FIA were serious and had a site as good as yours with a blog so they could get proper feedback from the fans then maybe they wouldn’t make should a mess of F1 all the time.
I have seen already that this thread has an overwhelming amount of comments so we fans do have a say. We don’t just want to sit back and take it.
JackB
17th March 2009, 21:02
Exactly. We have to do something about this. I don’t know what exactly we can do but there must be something.
Kevin Lee
17th March 2009, 21:03
A Facebook protest group/petition has been created to campaign against this decision, please lend your support
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=56613532878#/group.php?gid=56613532878
Luke
17th March 2009, 21:05
Awful decision. Just in case anyone hasn’t mentioned this these rules could be a huge help to jenson(or barrachello), if he can get a few wins before the other teams catch up then he could end up doing very well in the championship.
Also I can’t believe how little Maxy listens, I think if I had a collection of extremely knowledgeable people (FOTA) giving advice i would listen to them rather than my little minion. O well theres my 2 cents.
P.S. great site keith
Gman
17th March 2009, 23:41
Luke,
Indeed, your logic applies to all the drivers in the field. It allows Button and/or Rubens to get a leg up, but it will also allow the normal dominant teams to get a chokehold on things early if they come out of the gate strong.
I like to see the teams try and progress as the season gose on, as Renault did last season. Under this idea, there is now less motivation for them to push in that fashion.
Owen
17th March 2009, 21:05
Under the 12/9 points system what if Driver A wins 12 races and has 5 DNFs and Driver B wins 0 races but cruises to 17 2nds. That makes Driver B champion by 153 points to 144. Is that fair? See I can make up a ridiculously unlikely scenario to fit the other side of the argument too.
In reality it comes down to your point of view – I don’t think Kubica would have been a more worthy champion last year over Massa or Hamilton just because he scored plenty of 3/4/5th place finishes. I want the Drivers Champion to be a winner rather than an accumulator of points.
Clare msj
17th March 2009, 21:21
No I dont think he would have been any more worthy, but I also dont think he would have been any less worthy just because his top score was less frequent.
The championship is run over a whole season, not just over a majority of good races (I wouldnt have agreed with the dropping of your worst results idea either) – so consistency should be rewarded to some extent, for being good over a whole year.
Although, saying that, I agree that wins should factor but they should not completely control the title.
Bikouros
17th March 2009, 21:07
What an absolute joke. I’m seriously angry about this. F1 has been like this for 58 years! If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! Bernie and Max need to get kicked out of Formula 1 for good, soon, so we can fix all the crap they screwed up. I’m so angry I can’t even see straight. 2009 seemed like it would be a good year too. Points make it MORE exciting! Ugh, I feel sick.
scunnyman
17th March 2009, 21:07
Just one last rant if i may.
F1 must be seen as a joke throughout the world for the ever meddling and changing of rules and regs.
I’m sure, and i don’t mind being put tight on this, that there is no other sport on earth that gets f***ed around as much as f1.
steve
17th March 2009, 23:36
no F1 is a joke around the world because its so so so so so dull
Just watch Rossi and the Moto GP riders to see how much winning MATTERS
Hounslow
17th March 2009, 21:14
Congratulations Keith (and the FIA), more than 300 comments in less than 12 hours . . .
Dave Spurr
17th March 2009, 21:21
Keith, I think you should start a petition (although I know you’re kinda for the most wins, wins – so to speak) I would myself but your site would generate miles better publicity for a petition.
http://www.petitiononline.com/create_petition.html
If not against the ‘medals’ system (or the equally ill-thought-out optional budget caps) then something has to be done to stop radical regulation changes being forced through with no consultation of the participants and with only days to go before the start of the season.
Martin Bell
17th March 2009, 21:23
There has been some really well informed debate here this afternoon and some fascinating scenarios suggested for how this system will work, or otherwise. Time will tell. What really bugs me is the timing. Making major changes this close to the start of the season just smacks of incompetence, just leaves me wondering whats really going on behind it. Bernie said months ago that this “medals” system would be in place for this season, it went very quiet, and then, 10 days to go, bombshell. What on earth is driving all this tinkering? Is it yet more stupid power struggles?
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
17th March 2009, 23:07
I definitely agree with you about the timing. It looks incredibly unprofessional.
Gman
17th March 2009, 23:43
My thoughts exactly Martin- the timing of the release was a huge suprise to me.
S Hughes
17th March 2009, 23:57
They saw how rubbish the McLaren was, thought there’s no way they will get any wins, and boom, new rules in place. Poetic justice would be for Lewis to get the most wins and become WDC anyway (I can but dream in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary).
msF1
17th March 2009, 21:26
This is just ridiculous, that’s all I can say…
Really, I never really complained ever about any changes of rules in F1, since they never changed the sport dramatically….but this is just a shame.
Can someone please kick out Bernie and Max,….please!
Lynn
17th March 2009, 21:41
Some ask “What’s driving this” pardon the pun. Well from reading between the lines, it was all down to Lewis winning last season. Guess the powers that be didn’t want him to win. Well he’s got a job and half this year, so no need to worry, won’t need to change the rules again.
steve
17th March 2009, 23:35
conspiracy theory – no whats driving it is the millions of TV viewers bored to death by watching cars going round and round, and not bothering to race – in case they crash and lose points. Giles, Ayrton and Fangio are dancing for joy.
S Hughes
17th March 2009, 23:58
That’s exactly it. And I put it down to racism. The root of all evil!
Mandev theorum
17th March 2009, 21:43
He says there’s no incentive to push for first for 2 extra points… why not increase the difference between first and second?!
Spot
18th March 2009, 12:41
That’s exactly what FOTA wanted and presented to FIA, only to get this farce of a system instead.
Loki
17th March 2009, 21:43
New thought, I’ve ‘skimmed’ through the thread, haven’t seen it mentioned yet (but it is a large thread!)…
OK, so say winner of 7 GPs gets the WDC and it goes to points thereafter to determine the classifications. Isn’t it still possible that the runner up, in terms of wins (say, 4 for example) doesn’t have the points that will make him classified as 2nd?
Inconsistency, once again…
scunnyman
17th March 2009, 21:50
The trouble i am seeing with this new points system is the interferring from the stewards and the fia into face finishes.
Like belgium last year when mclaren were not even allowed to appeal against the decision.
Maybe the championship will be decided fairly this season. but i doubt it.
Ponzonha
17th March 2009, 21:54
In spanish forums there is already a petition circulating:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/cancel-the-fia-approved-wdc-selection-criteria-for-f1-world-championship-2009
Richard
17th March 2009, 21:57
if the fia wont listen to fota why would they listen to a petition with a few thousand signitures, its their show and they are running it their way, not matter how little we all like, its gonna take someone with big balls to change it
Blockhead
17th March 2009, 21:57
What a complete joke. Why do they have to mess up a system that works fine as it is. Its probably already been said but potentially you could have a driver who wins the majority of races in the first half of the season who then can not be beaten (like when Schumacher was about). So what do you do with the rest of the season. The last 5-6 races could be pointless. The driver who has won all these races could just chugg around the course sightseeing because he doesn’t need a single point. Infact you could just finish the season at this point because whats the point of just watching a parade of cars. Don’t see it lasting we will be back to the original system in 2010. Get Bernie and Max out! Don’t know what they are doing.
Gman
17th March 2009, 23:48
Blockhead,
First up, good name! On your post, I agree with your logic about the last few races being pointless. Under the curre…er..previous system, we had the last three championship battles go down to the last race, producing dramatic finishes along the way. We would think that the powerbrokers would realise the marketing value in this and hope for the same result, but now they’ve drastically reduced the chances of a smiliar result in the future.
There’s also the slight matter of that final race venue- packed with great fans and passion- no longer being the final venue, but that’s for another post ;)
Kate
17th March 2009, 22:19
It seems this decision has alienated many core F1 fans. It’s a shame we can’t express our collective voice coherently. If it became known to the FIA that they were acting against the interests of those who live and breathe the sport then maybe they’d rethink. But we’re not organised. I think we need representation from a leader who could speak about our overriding dislike of this rule change…
What do you think Keith?!
Richard
17th March 2009, 22:22
i still dont think it would change, bernie and max too stuborn
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
17th March 2009, 22:55
I hate to sound cynical Kate, but it’s not as if they listened to the teams, is it?
Alejandro
17th March 2009, 22:45
Also, forget about seeing heroic back of the grid comebacks. Say you’re fighting for WDC, but qualy goes wrong, like what almost happened to LH in Singapore. Now you are starting 16th, with odds pretty much against you on reaching 1st place. So you wait out first lap to see if you luck into anything upon start, however nothing comes. The easiest thing to do at that point is ‘spin out’ the car and stall it somewhere. That way you save engines and make a charge at the next GP. Unless your team have also a good chance at the WCC, in which case this rule adds nothing to it and you behave as you normally would and scrap for points.
Mike G
17th March 2009, 22:57
What was wrong with old scoring system. I get the feeling that the FIA are trying ruin the sport!
steve
17th March 2009, 23:32
it encouraged drivers like Hamilton to tool around for 5th position to get that extra point
Spot
18th March 2009, 13:22
Hamilton was not “tooling around”. His car was not set up for wet weather and he was visibly struggling even to get fifth.
maff
17th March 2009, 23:09
Dont forget there is still a teams chamionship run on points to consider, so while there is less incentive for a driver they certainly aint going to park it. If they are going to go medals/places they should have gone the whole hog and ditched drivers points entirely, its going to lead to confusing part time fans, exactly the people theyre trying to encourage.
Gman
17th March 2009, 23:50
Maff,
True, but Bernie never really cared about the racing action drawing in the casual fans anyway. He’d rather see sex scandals and tabloid gossip putting the drivers in the public eye…..
Leon
17th March 2009, 23:13
Having read all these hundreds of comments on this arbitrary, ill conceived, and extremely damaging ruling, long after I posted my own responses, it becomes very clear to me that F1 is at a very critical time in all it’s long history. Possibly the most critical time ever.
Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of all this is the colossal upheaval this years rule changes have already wreaked on a seriously weakend F1 financial structure were quite bad enough. But Mosley and Ecclestone in their ivory towered isolation clearly don’t understand
just how precarious the whole world is at this time. The sports vital sponsors are already running scared and even the slightest sign of disunity or conflict within the sport could be the very last staw that really does break the camels back.
THe desperate need now is for co-operation, unity, and above all very careful consideration of ALL proposed changes, with all parties affected by those changes being given a voice. That is not what is happening at this time and I fear the massive damage all this turmoil is causing could easily inflict serious damage on our sport.
pSynrg
17th March 2009, 23:15
Does anyone know of any other sport that has such a system?
To me, medals – of course – conjure up images of successful Track & Field or Olympic competitors. They win or come 2nd or 3rd in their discipline and receive their accolade.
Nobody tots them up at the end of 4 years/a year/season and hands out a World Championship?
steve
17th March 2009, 23:31
football – games won win the league not goal difference or goals scored.
tennis – games won wins the match not total points scored.
horse racing – champion jockey is most wins
athletics – golden league is based on wins
matt
18th March 2009, 0:07
actually, leagues like the premiership in football are based on points, not wins, including points earnt from draws. In contrast, tennis and some football competitions are knockouts, so they have to be based on wins. In a sport where the same people compete in every event, points are the logical way to decide a championship.
dibble
17th March 2009, 23:22
so a driver runs away with the lead do the rest of the field just say sod it and earn their money for the afternoon.can see ferrari with both titles in the bag by mid season if mclaren have problems.
ps bernie can u refund me £600 plz for tickets travel camping i have shelled out for silverstone thx
steve
17th March 2009, 23:29
Am I the ONLY person who thinks its a good idea?
Just watch what happens now – there will be balls out racing at the front like we have not seen for years. The racing will come down to 3 or 4 drivers a year who will really go at it to win the title, not **** around boring us for the points.
Take your Union Jack hats off for a minute and think about the final race. One driver put the hammer down and drove full on to win the title for himself – the other driver buggered about in 5th, fell off a few times , completely cocked it up then lucked in on the last third of the last lap – and won the Championship.
It should have been the full on medal system but winner takes all is a brilliant, exciting and sporting idea.
S Hughes
18th March 2009, 13:21
Yeah, except the FIA reserves the right to strip rightful wins from drivers (read Lewis) without any logic or having to explain their decision. They don’t seem to like “driving for a win” in some cases. It is so arbitrary, and creates a 2 tier scoring system. It is just completely NUTS!
Dane
17th March 2009, 23:55
I like it. It rewards winning & consistency.
Gman
17th March 2009, 23:56
There are some benefits to this system, but I believe the bad points far outweigh the plus sides.
In fairness to the FIA, it is good to see battles for the lead- I think of Alonso and Hamilton at Indy last year and how much more it would have meant for Fernando to have pushed for that pass at some point. So, it’s good that it may lead to more battles for the lead.
But on the other hand, I believe in that motto of “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it” and this flies in the face of that logic. Most of all, I believe it will lead to the championship being wrapped up earlier and less interesting racing late in the season- the opposite of what we’ve had the past three seasons.
Lastly, the most suprising thing is the timing- why announce this just before the start of the season?
PeJay
18th March 2009, 20:19
So Mr. Ecclescake ( I call him this as I am sure that’s what he has for brains!) has forced through the most ill-conceived, ill-considered and badly thought out rule of F1 in years. Until the introduction of this idiocy, I had not been so excited nor looked forward so much to a season, then he does this and kills the interest I had in it at a stroke! Surely the point of a cummulative points system, such as we used to have in F1, was to reward the team with the most consistant and reliable car? Conceivably now, given a 17 race season, a team could enter only 9 races having spent the time of the other 8 preparing the car to such a degree that it is unbeatable, barring crash or total system/engine failure and win the championship with only 90 points! This will not encourage better or closer racing with more overtaking, it will merely encourage reckless linacy on the circuit, something all the other changes were supposed to prevebnt, in order to make the cars safer and the likelyhood of crashes next to impossible. I can’t help thinking this is a measure to ensure a team that’s not calledf McLaren or has a driver who is not whurte wins this year. I’m sorry Mr.Ecclescake, if you can’t handle the fact that a council house coloured kid won bnut the days of the gentleman public school racers is long gone, it went with people such as Graham, Jack, Sterling and Jim when they either retired or died, learn to live with it and stop messing about with the sport to your own ends!
Eduardo Gigante
18th March 2009, 0:18
Not to defend this change (I will get to that later), but the notion of a driver taking a vacation is ridiculous. It did not happen with Schumacher and won’t happen here (the construction title is still the same).
Having said that there are many holes in these changes. The most wins is valid only for first place? So, in theory, a person can be second in terms of victory but, if he fails to win the most races, actually end in fourth in the championship (Gives new meaning to “go for broke”)? And why is the constructors race the same? Too much math? And why…
Too much haste, not enough thinking. I agree, by 2010 this will have been extinct.
Eduardo Gigante
18th March 2009, 0:25
Also, what about the races. I remember in 2007 when Ferrari all but declared that Monaco was un-winnable for them because of their etc.
But now, instead of moaning, why go at all to the race (granted, this will never happen to Monaco)? Why not focus their energy on one where they can win? This probably won’t happen, but many races will become more boring to watch.
Why not give increase the point difference between first and second, or special points like for pole-position? Remember, start small…
DS
18th March 2009, 0:29
I think this system is unfair, confusing and probably won’t solve any problems.
Unfair because as many people said it does not reward the best driver across an entire season. I will not use last year as an example because Massa only managed to get more victories with some assistance from the Spa stewards, but let’s think about 1989. Senna had 6 victories, 1 second place and 9 races with no points. Prost had 4 victories, 6 second places, 1 third, 1 fourth and 1 fifth, only failing to score in three occasions. I am a massive Senna fan but have to admit that he would not have been a worthy champion in this instance.
The system is also potentially confusing – yet another thing to explain to newcomers and not-so-knowledgeable followers of the sport.
Finally, I cannot see a lot of upside in the system and there are certainly a lot of downsides. It is claimed that this will make drivers push harder for victory, but in reality they are already trying as hard as they can in every race. And if the sport wanted to give an additional incentive, it could have simply revamped the points system, as FOTA proposed.
I don’t think the defenders of this system have thought carefully about the downsides, which in my perspective are:
– a driver (say Alonso in a Ferrari or Hamilton in a competitive McLaren) completely dominating the sport in the future and preventing any sort of challenge from a consistent driver (e.g. Kimi in 2003)
– a driver winning the WC when clearly he has not been the best across the season (e.g., Senna in 1989)
– a new type of strange and potentially counterproductive tactics in races where a team knows they have very little chance to win, e.g. Ferrari arrives in Monaco and concludes that McLaren is the team to beat and only in ‘special’ circumstances this will not be the case. The goal of one of their drivers becomes to create as much confusion as possible (e.g., artificially qualify in pole and try to block the whole field during the first stint), instead of being as fast as possible which should be the goal in an F1 race.
hirsty
18th March 2009, 0:52
Sorry, but i can’t actually see this openeing races up but actually closing some down. Your in third, half way through the season your challenging 2nd, but you know you can save your engine and wait your turn. You’d no longer push but retire\Limit your rev’s substantially as you know it would give you a much better chance later in the season.
Also if you start back in the grid do you save your engine with the limited number you have or push through the field knowing your 5th place no longer counts to your true dream.
Finally if you retrospectivly use the new rules, Schumacher and prost are equal on the number of times they won the drivers championship, surely this de-values either previous champions or future champions in some shape or form.
Personally i see this as an unnecessary change that fundamentally alters the championship in order to make it more accessible to new fans while potentially alienating the masses who are devoted to the sport. although there may be a number who attend races because they are cool\glamourous the masses who tune in to watch are there because they respect the drivers\teams\engineering genius’s(yes i do believe they are important enough to warrent their own mention) and any loss of these will be detremental to the long term aims of the sport. Lets have F1 as the pinnacle of motor racing, no gimmiks, looser rules, the best drivers and the most exciting engineering feats possible and not make it a random act with masses of overtaking. there is a reason why more people watch F1 than A1GP or touring cars, lets not take our queues from sports that are prefferred by the masses however without the passion lets reach the stars and push F1 to its limits as that i’m sure was what it was meant to do.
I appologise for spelling in this email as it was written on the train on a mobile phone, I’ve never contributed here but felt this was too important not to put my views accross
scunnyman
18th March 2009, 0:58
KEITH!!!!
I think it’s time for yet another poll……
just 2 questions
for
or
against
A BREAKAWAY SERIES????????????????????
I’d vote for a breakaway in a heartbeat.
I don’t care if Fearrari stayed in f1 alone with all new crapier teams to compete against. They would just end up like indycar did with Bourdais winning 4 championships cos he had no real competition.
I’d prefer a new series with a better run setup.
It would be nice to know if they FIA are legally bound to govern such a new series.
Ibrin
18th March 2009, 1:08
well
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7948455.stm
Has a clip from Bernie. He basically says all the boredom that we’ve been having is the drivers fault because they don’t care enough.
Hmmm. Needless to say I think he’s talking rubbish on many fronts. Can anyone remember a race where someone was crusing in second place?
Cameron
18th March 2009, 1:45
As a fan of F1, McLaren, and Hamilton, that last corner pass at Interlargos is one of the most amazing things I have ever witnessed. Imagine, without a points system, that probably wouldn’t have happened!
Gman
18th March 2009, 4:25
Exactly!
theRoswellite
18th March 2009, 1:53
364 responses and counting………..hilarious, in the tragic sense.
I hope someone, all of us, put this in a file and email it to the FIA. (yes, I do know the definition of futile [and this is it])
Congrats Keith.
manatcna
18th March 2009, 1:54
Why give anybody points
Freeman
18th March 2009, 2:41
I think this is FIA & Bernie’s school yard retaliation to FOTA. As much as FIA don’t want (or care) about medal system, it’s a ploy to show FOTA that Bernie & Max are the real bosses running the show. It’s purely political, and nothing to do with which proposals are “right” or “good for the sport”. Seems to me the FIA decided to go back and sleep with the same devil, other than jump bed to FOTA, and revolt against Bernie.
Sad, very sad. Another example of political crap that ruins F1. And they’re telling us fans they’re “improving the show”? What a couple of idiots.
JohnBt
18th March 2009, 3:23
Surely it sounds like “RETARDATION”. It’s no difference to the medals concept.
Shucks!!!
The Captain
18th March 2009, 4:38
Ughhh! What’s next… A “lucky Dog”?
Dr Jones
18th March 2009, 4:48
I’m totally against the medals system, but I guess they wanted to sort out the winners to the runner-ups. Imagine if a consistent driver took 2nd place on every race – by points system he will be the champion. But if you consider the number of wins he had, we would definitely lose the title.
The MotoGP points scoring is much better, without using the medals system format.
Liquid
18th March 2009, 5:35
I don see any reason why this so called bernie’s medal system [without using medals] should work.. although there might come some furious overtaking attempts between driver no 1 and no 2 if theyre close enough.. almost every other driver out there on the grid has probably no or little reason to race for.. i mean if ure not goin to win the race.. it doesnt matter if u just go ahead and retire.. might as well save the engine for the next race.
and i can see a lot more of the alonso hamilton situation at mclaren repeating with the teams giving more weightage to the driver who has more number of race wins at hand. and tat brings us to another question on how the concept of a constructors championship is goin to be dealt with..
Forget all that.. Say if Driver X wins the first 3 races and retires in all the rest of the races and Driver Y finishes all the races in the championship at 2nd place.. Driver X is still goin win the championship.. and i don think thats fair..! Do you??
Hakki
18th March 2009, 6:04
What I want to know is “How this decision was made”.
At the meeting,Who supported it and who didn’t.
I just can’t beleve there are some who support new system.
I wonder why westen people likes to change the rule so often.
Not only F1, but Judo,Sky jump,swimming…etc.
I am Japanese.
Pleas don’t make Judo a cheap western sports!
Judo is Japanese spiritual things, not a wrestling.
Please
skova265
18th March 2009, 7:20
This goes into the hands of Mclaren. They have obviously made a bad car, now they get it sorted Hamilton wins a couple of races and is WDC again. I like It :-)
joking ofcourse
S Hughes
18th March 2009, 9:09
I disagree. Bernie and Max were obviously spitting mad that Lewis won the title, hence their vow to do this. This isn’t the first time this has happened (less wins getting the championship) and they have probably figured that McLaren won’t be getting many wins this year. Expect to see Lewis penalised even more this year because Bernie/Max just don’t want him to win.
Ponzonha
18th March 2009, 7:30
A poll is needed testing only this particular rule. In Spanish blogs things are ~90% against…
S Hughes
18th March 2009, 9:18
The Guardian has a poll with similar results:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/poll/2009/mar/17/drivers-title-decided-by-victories
Liquid
18th March 2009, 7:58
Yeah.. a poll would be nice to know how many of us actually really want this change!
Oliver
18th March 2009, 8:09
I keep reading some people making reference to Hamilton’s drive in Brazil of 2008 as he tried to just make 5th position in order to win the race, as good reason for changing the points system.
Well go back a year earlier, Hamilton lost the championship because he was going for the win at both races, China and Brazil, unfortunately he was forced into mistakes or technical issues. Nonetheless he was still going for the win despite it not being necessary for him to do so.
The reason why Hamilton or any driver are forced to play safe, is to protect their engine, Hamilton could not change his engine in Brazil 08 even if he had theoretically a joker engine still available, hence he was forced to conserve his engines for the duration of the race. As we all know, you get no points for setting fast lap times and not finishing.
With the 3 race engine rule, drivers will be forced to conserve engines even more, yes the max rpm limit drop may help a little, but in no way a team is going to allow their driver to just race at maximum revs during those 3 races.
lampy
18th March 2009, 8:18
Hey
How many wins will be needed for the title, maybe 5-8 wins? And then you can DNF rest of the GP’s. Driver is allowed to use 8 engines per season, they don’t need to use same engine in consecutive GP’s (right?).
This gives interesting position for certain drivers. If going flat out and taking everything out of the engine during GP weekend could result a win, why not try it? Especially if the team is really not in position to fight for constructors title. If you take a win with a engine, it doesn’t matter if it blows in some other GP.
I would be surprised if one (or more) of the teams would not take this approach..
Jay Menon
18th March 2009, 8:45
Lampy,
You may have a point here. But I believe the big guns will be also racing for the constructors title with significant interest, especially the likes of Ferrari and BMW. Maclaren on the other hand just seem to be interested in getting Lewis in a good car, if they could manage one that is.
From a DWC point of view, yes, winning 8 GP should suffice, but is there anybody out there with that kind of pace and superiority? We’ll have to wait and see. I think with this format and the 8 engines per season rule, we could well see some teams who don’t have much of a chance at the Constructors title going for broke at number of grand prix to win. This could benefit the likes of Alonso and Renault, who don’t quite have the complete pacakage to challenge on both fronts.
GKN
18th March 2009, 8:23
Winners should be rewared and if you have the most winns your the best. However the points for the team is still up for grabs, but there should be more points here as I think that each car making it to the finishline should be rewarded with team points.That should provide racing trough out the field.
Stealthman
18th March 2009, 8:38
*sigh*… I thought this season was going to be a good one… now this. Goodbye, all credibility that goes with F1. Nice knowing you. :(
Rich
18th March 2009, 8:43
All the excitement that has been building up for the ’09 season has just been wiped away by the FIA!!
-I am completley gutted waking up to this news today…what happened to “listening to the fans”…?
I would suggest some form of petition but it’s quite obvious it would fall on deaf ears – bitterley dissapointed and let down!
Looks as tho the famous ‘F1 politics’ have begun early this year…so sad!!
Surely this will just make the task of winning championships even harder for teams like Force India, Brawn GP and even Williams!?! Quite simply the title could be decided by the half way point – rendering the remainder of the championship a waste of time…? Some of the greatest/most exciting championships were those that went to the last race…last lap…and the winner wasn’t the first over the line!…2008 anyone?
I really hope the FIA do a ‘U’ turn…but I won’t be holding my breath!…Maybe FOTA going it alone wasn’t such a bad idea..? It’s time for Bernie + Max to go…!!
B
18th March 2009, 9:24
If it ain’t bust, don’t fix it anyone?
If I remember correctly, the points system was amended so that Shoe-maker couldn’t win championships so easily. Now that his reign of terror is over, surely it would make sense for one to return to the pre-dominatrix points system?
Ash Gerrard
18th March 2009, 10:39
I agree with Mr. Mike G, i also believe that they are trying to ruin the sport, first it came with the new rule changes now this one, wat else bernie?
Adam Kendell
18th March 2009, 10:43
i also agree with Ashley Gerrard who agrees with MR Mike G that the new rules are dispicable as it will totally ruin the sport, by making the champion the person who wins the most races not points is just ludacris as someone may win 5 races and then not finish in others and then someone finishes 1st and second throughout the season an gets more points in total then they should win the championship not the one with the most wins.
Mikkowl
18th March 2009, 10:47
I must say I’m quite happy about the new rules, and very curious to see if they work out or not. They remind me of the old days when they didn’t count a racers worst 2 events or something similar (I know Senna/Prost had some stuff like that).
Either way, F1 races are frequently very boring, lacking in overtaking, lacking in action and motivation. Consistency has been the game now. The only time this consistency thing has looked exciting is at the very last race, when a few points differ the two able to win.
And while consistency might be exciting for the drivers, having them try a bit harder and take more risks will certainly be much more exciting, entertaining and unpredictable to see. Each race will be more of a real race in itself, not just seen as a part of a bigger championship where being second best is about as good as a win.
And because they rely much on the points for manufacturers, for deciding ties, runners up etc, people will most likely not just ‘oh I probably won’t win so let’s test new stuff for the next race instead’.
PJA
18th March 2009, 11:18
Wow what a response, has this taken the title of article with most posts?
After making my initial comment when I first heard the news I couldn’t make a follow up comment as I couldn’t get through to the site it was that busy, but I was able to read all the replies which came through via e-mail which seemed to be a new one every minute.
I know the FIA make the rules so if they break them nothing happens, but are there any rules saying when the Technical and Sporting regulations have to be finalised by.
In the past the qualifying format has been tweaked during the season so I would assume there isn’t a deadline for the sporting regulations but you would have thought there should be for the Technical regulations, because I read this on the Autosport report
“A number of further amendments were adopted for the 2009 Technical Regulations. Full details will be available shortly on http://www.fia.com.”
Changing the way the Drivers Champion is decided 2 weeks before the first race is bad enough, but changing the technical regulations as well is just stupid. The only sensible thing it could be, would be a clarification to do with the controversial diffusers so it there aren’t appeals after the first race.
A points based system has worked fine for F1 since it started almost 60 years ago, the only change which needed to be made was to increase the points difference between 1st and 2nd.
Can any tell me any other major motorsport series does not use a points based system to determine the champion?
F1 is becoming a laughing stock. Max, Bernie and the FIA should be fined for bringing the sport into disrepute.
After one of the most exciting finishes to a season in sport they decide it should be changed.
Some people have been saying this would have resulted in x number of different champions, but the new system is totally irrelevant to previous years because drivers race to the rules in force at the time.
Also remember Hamilton was criticised last year for going all out for the win when he should have settled for a solid points finish, and it was his attitude to try to always get the win which arguably cost him the 2007 championship when if he had played the percentages in the last few races he may not have retired in China and gone off the track early in Brazil.
Chris
18th March 2009, 12:13
Can anyone else see a point where certain drivers/teams wont compete at some circuits?
How about when a potential winner knows he will not be competitive at the penultimate race circuit (or even qualifies badly or has to change engine) so chooses to save his engine for the final race.
antonyob
18th March 2009, 12:19
no scoring system is flawless. it could be a disaster if someone wins the first 8 races but then they’d almost certainly win the chamionship in any system. theres so many scenarios that it would work and so many that it wouldnt that its pointless to argue any. But the argument that it worked for 60 years is total nonsense. It really stopped working when teams decided to run the show rather than let their hot headed drivers just go for it -and that was about 1982.
Now we have the possibilities of overtaking, kers to help further, a mixing up of the field due to the radical changes and a point system that favours the brave not the conservative. I mean what exactly is wrong with any of that ?? ? ?
Ibrin
18th March 2009, 12:25
After sleeping on it:
Most of the time teams get to a race either having the fastest car, or not having the fastest. We talked many times last year about which drivers were doing the best job at tracks where they couldn’t win.
No-one can make a car go faster by will. FIA are just bitter over Brazil (ferrari lost 08 over pit lights and blown engines)
antonyob
18th March 2009, 12:33
katie
id have thought after 25 years you’d know to read all the rule changes . The points system is still in place.
No one driver since Schumacher has run away with it and if you dont think team orders are already in place, well i doubt you have been watching that long.
Jimi
18th March 2009, 13:01
So the world champion will be the driver with most wins. This is actually equivalent to a point system where only the race winner gets one point and the rest get nothing. It doesn’t sound very exciting, does it?
YeaMon
18th March 2009, 13:31
Consistancey wins championships, not all out wins. This would work if it was the Schumi-Ferrari age or ’05 and ’06 with the Renault of Alonso. But the field is closer together now, and consistancy and reliabilty is more important than anything. It could be interesting, but what if Kimi for example gets 9 wins, but DNFs if many of the other races. He wouldn’t should win the championship because other drivers showed consistancy and solid driving while collecting wins of their own.
I hate to talk down on something that has been unproven to be good or bad because it could make for some good fights for the win and make drivers push harder. However the championship has been decided by 1 point in the last two seasons. If it ain’t broke dont fix it.
S Hughes
18th March 2009, 13:32
What a farce. I really feel I might not bother watching this year – what is the point in watching some maniac’s personal extremely expensive toy with a fixed outcome?
antonyob
18th March 2009, 13:35
yeh id rather watch solid than specatular. what are some of you people on about!!!!?
But yeh if you dont like it dont watch/go/talk about it. be good to get our sport back
S Hughes
18th March 2009, 13:36
This sport seems to be run by a mad dwarf who treats it like his own Skalextric set, and he fixes it so the team he wants to win wins. He is mad about last year, so 10 days before the championship, he fiddles about with the rules and his lackies at the WMSC just give the nod to anything this diminutive “God” asks of them as they know they will be fully rewarded.
dmw
18th March 2009, 14:00
This is ridiculous. I foresee the scenario of a driver, who is behind or even slightly ahead in “points,” wrapping up the WDC five or more races from the finale. That would be a horrible outcome for the sport.
Spot
18th March 2009, 15:21
All this has come about because Ferrari were beaten to the WDC by 1 point. If the situation is reversed at the end of this year (say, Button with 5 wins, and Raikkonen with 4 wins but more points) it will get dropped for 2010 quicker than you can say “Mosely is a basket case”
S Hughes
18th March 2009, 15:55
One of the things that is the most outrageous about this is that when the medals system was mooted by Bernie (and this is just a medals system-lite), he said the FIA would survey the fans, indicating that he would maybe be influenced by the result of this survey. I have seen polls on crash.net, the ‘Guardian’, Planet F-1, and a Spanish site, and so far the results are overall about 85% against the idea. So Bernie has obviously ignored the fans he was surveying, which shows
a. he is an arrogant idiot who doesn’t care about the fans of the sport he runs;
b. he is a liar because he had no intention of heeding a fan survey in the first place.
Gman
19th March 2009, 2:39
Spot-on with your analysis: I like the “medals-lite” comment!!
qazuhb
18th March 2009, 16:27
This way, they (the FIA) are giving themselves a foolproof tool allowing to really manipulate the WDC with one or two well placed Spa-style penalties…
S Hughes
18th March 2009, 17:07
Exactly. I really think if that happens again, there will be no point watching.
BS
18th March 2009, 16:59
Does anybody know how the Italians – or die hard Ferrari fans for that matter – feel about this change? I don’t have a bias towards any team I just want the championship to remain as exciting as possible during each race, with DWC contenders fighting for every possible point. I don’t think this will yield that result at all, and I doubt many here do.
But obviously Ferrari would have won last year if they were using this system. And since my linguistic skills do not reach beyond English and Dutch I have no Idea how fans from other countries where they overwhelmingly support one team or driver (in particular Italy and Brazil I suppose, who have the most reason to welcome this system after the previous race).
I get the impression a lot of people here are very pro McLaren + Hamilton, which is fine, but it might distort the balance on this issue slightly. Dutch fans seem to dislike this plan just as much people do here though, and the fanbase is pretty evenly spread it seems.
So, anybody has any idea how this idea is received elsewhere?
Mike
18th March 2009, 17:03
Maybe the difference between number of wins among the contenders will not be large, but with “Gold Medal System” it is very likely that we will see the winner 3-4 races from the end of the season. It will not be very entertaining to watch the last races (with points system it would surely last longer). The “top winner” will not care about any DNF or careless driving, which would otherwise cause him to loose points, and possibly also the WDC.
He will just relax, and so will others as there will be no way they could win WDC (for example due to mistakes by top winner – vide 2007).
It is even more unfair as, although it is WDC, it will favor the top car, above the top driver. Top driver can make few places up (get more points), but it is unlikely that he will make it to the top spot very often if he is not given the very top car.
BaburM
18th March 2009, 18:02
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo….no.
Owen
18th March 2009, 20:30
Another season comparison…
When titles were and would have been decided under old and new scoring systems:
2008 – Last race (old and new)
2007 – Last (old and new)
2006 – Last (old and new – except FA was 10pts clear going into last race, 7 wins each though)
2005 – 3rd to last race (old). Last (new, FA and KR on 6 wins each with 3 races left)
Prior to that it was the Schumacher years so the title battle was as good as over half way through the season under any system.
So I don’t buy into this new system meaning it’ll be over with sooner.
What I do buy into though is that this highly controversial proposal has been released at the same time as a much more potentially damaging one. Cleverly done by Bernie? Maybe so as only about 2% of the 400+ comments on here mention it. And a possible 2-tier rich man poor man’s F1 championship is much more worrying to me than a tweak to the points system.
luky
18th March 2009, 21:05
I think it’s ok. Champion to have most wins. Brilliant.
But we certainly don’t understand why introduce it now 10 days from the 1st gp.
First teams test and after that the regulation change. What are they testing anyway without knowing about major regulations?!
Obviously the budget cap for some is absolutely ridiculous: and i don’t know who is more ridicule the fia or the fota.
Hopefully market will have it’s own way.
Tom Bisset
18th March 2009, 21:25
I don’t really think this system will work. This all happened because Felipe Massa came 2nd last year, even though he won more races.
Could it be the case that if somebody who comes 2nd/3rd every race can lose the championship to somebody who has come 1st in most races then DNF the rest? Who is the better driver in that situation?
BS
19th March 2009, 1:27
I think it’s a legitimate fear especially right after the most radical change in F1 car specifics in years, where differences especially at the start of the season are more likely, like Brawn is threatening to do. I don’t think it’s a strong argument however, it’s just the most likely one.
I think we can all agree that regardless of what teams want to prove in terms of reliability, consistency and a shot in the constructor’s championship – the thing most F1 fans watch for is the driver’s championship.
With fewer race engines available per season, favorites for certain tracks in terms of both cars as well as drivers, strategy is likely to become even more dominant. The incentive for a title contender to fight his way back from 15th towards the points will also be less. Why risk ruining an engine if it won’t make much of a difference in terms of the championship.
I’d like to think race drivers will race no matter what and go for points, but remember this entire measure was exclusively about inducing incentive in the first place. I’m positive the motivation for any driver to try and win a grand prix is easily far greater under the old system, than trying to push for more points will be under the new system for WDC contenders. Except now there is a far greater strategic advantage for any WDC contending team to carefully play their cards at races they’re not likely to finish first.
If overtaking and racing is to be encouraged among WDC contenders – which I hope you’ll agree form the backbone of the show – in order to improve the show, it doesn’t take a mathematical genius to figure out the chances of anyone overtaking is far greater below p2, than it is from p2 up.
I agree this is far more likely to ruin F1, but there’s a separate article, though not on the main page (top right), which deals with this. But also the fact this won’t go into effect until 2010, and we’re less than two weeks away from the 2009 season, probably plays a huge part. :)
mp4-19
19th March 2009, 5:57
nonsense
sumedh
19th March 2009, 10:07
Unlike many of the posters here; I am going to say that I am not totally against the new system.
( BTW; Keith, the new system is not “Medals” as you have put in the title now. This may be causing an outrageously high number of negative comments on the site. )
the 10-8-6 system was ridiculous. It was built keeping michael schumacher is view; and after 2006; it lost its point.
The 12-9-7 system also did not reward the driver as well as it should.
Here are a few positives about the new system
1) Reliability and consistency don’t matter much. Teams will push for win more.
2) It allows teams like Mclaren who are struggling now to make a fightback later in the season and continue using the first 3 races as extended test sessions.
3) It allows teams who are partially in and out of the championship hunt (BMW; last year) to switch efforts completely to next year rather than being in a dilemma
4) It forces teams to choose a number 1 and number 2 driver fairly early in the season; thus increasing the controversies ;-)
I would ask the guys against the system to tell what exactly is negative about the system apart from digressing about hypothetical situations of the championship getting over by the 9th round. ( Which would happen in an extreme case )
Liquid
19th March 2009, 10:25
Although the heading has the word ‘medals’ in them.. i believe what Keith meant was F1 is goin to use a ‘medals like’ system. It was probably used cos thats the name by which we all knew it till now.. :) But im sure u too, lik the rest of us got the idea.. :)
I believe a lot many ppl have actually mentioned reasons why theyre against it if u go thru the comments carefully.. :) and trust me.. i find some of them to be very valid..
Mystic Pizza
19th March 2009, 13:56
I confess I was not a supporter of the “medals” idea originally and am still not wholly sold on it. That said, the proposal suggested does seem fair on the proviso that consistent marshalling can be introduced. Ultimately, that was the factor that would have affected last year’s result – Belgium. Irrespective of any potential bias pro/anti Ferrari/McLaren arguments about the race itself, should the farce have influenced the WDC as Massa was declared ultimate “winner” of that race? Should we as an audience have been cruelly “robbed” of the thrills of Brazil as Massa was WDC or was it only as thrilling to watch because “politics” (despite their best efforts) didn’t affect the concluding result and that racing should be decided on the race track and not in the boardroom?
There possibly isn’t another sport I could name off the top of my head that could reward consistency over winning – don’t think any Football teams have won major trophies by drawing every game? Consistency isn’t a spectators thrill (unless of course you’re a supporter). Isn’t this proposal just formalising how they would have had to work out the WDC if it were tied on points anyway?
antonyob
20th March 2009, 9:53
im hoping your not a lawyer katie, least not my lawyer should i need one. its fairly clear. most wins, wins the wdc. if 2 or more drivers have the same number of wins then its decided by points. nowhere does it say anything about points being counted before wins. we need to get back to racing, racing for wins, not poncing around for 3rd boring us to death in the process. this used to be a website for the half knowledgable f1 fan. im having my doubts.
PJA
20th March 2009, 17:21
Well FOTA are questioning the validity of the changes to the points system
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73809
there may be hope yet that it is not introduced.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
20th March 2009, 18:12
The ‘most wins’ system won’t happen after all:
‘Most wins’ rule delayed to 2010 after F1 teams spot FIA rules blunder
Trey
16th April 2009, 1:17
OMG, What…….The…..F%$# Bernie.
stoo
16th April 2009, 7:52
This is a blatent attempt to help “you know who” get a better chance of winning the season than they have right now… what a complete joke!