Comments on: ‘Most wins’ rule delayed to 2010 after F1 teams spot FIA rules blunder

By: Tom Chiverton

Tom Chiverton — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 19:44:25 +0000

To those who think a cap is the end of F1: It’s an optional cap, and the stated intent is although teams who take the cap have more freedom, there will be no performance advantage gained by doing so.

By: garyc

garyc — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:08:42 +0000

Lustigon is absolutely correct on this. The point of last weeks announcement was always the budget cap, the purpose of which is to drive out the manufacturers (except Ferrari) and replace them with garagistes who will happily accept whatever Bernie decides to bestow. Formula One as we know it today will be over, unless there is a breakaway series. This is not a happy prospect.

By: Lustigson

Lustigson — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:51:18 +0000

I’m sorry if my post was a bit blunt, but it appears that all media as well as many posters here, have responded to this points scam, while the true story was and is the budget cap. The article you link to, Keith — for which a thumbs-up — is illustrative of this, since it has only a handful of replies compared to the other posts.

By: Keith Collantine

Keith Collantine — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:37:09 +0000

We haven't ignored the budget cap story: Budget caps for F1 in 2010

By: Lustigson

Lustigson — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:57:40 +0000

Gentlemen, hold your horses. You and all the rest of the F1 and regular media have been fooled. The sodding points system is not the news. FOTA did not defeat the FIA on this. The real issue is that Max and and Bernie got themselves a budget cap to force out the manufacturers, invite in the Richardses, Searses and Agags who are too happy to finally get into Formula 1, and wouldn’t complain as much about money and power, which would ‘safely’ remain with Max and Bernie. Read The Weekly Grapevine over at Autosport.com (sub. req.).

By: PJA

PJA — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 10:39:05 +0000

I am glad the points system is to be used this season, but all this has made Formula 1 look very unprofessional, the sooner we have regime change in F1 with Max and Bernie going the better.

Is anyone else worried that after such a humiliation for Max that he will be out for revenge, and we could end up with a lot worse decisions and rules in the future, even though he said last year that he didn’t plan to stand for re-election again does anyone actually believe this?

By: spanky the wonder monkely

spanky the wonder monkely — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:53:16 +0000

i loved uncle bernie’s comparison with a 100m athletics race. sorry b, the F1 calendar is more akin to the decathlon where there’s more than a single race and the highest points scorer takes the overall win.
maybe the IOC (or whoever looks after athletics) will follow bernie’s lead and meddle with how the winner is determined in dec / hept etc? i think not somehow.

By: Alianora La Canta

Alianora La Canta — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:24:00 +0000

According to the regulations they do. It’s only because none of the teams have actively protested that they’re still there…

By: Alianora La Canta

Alianora La Canta — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:22:31 +0000

Appendix 5 of the Sporting Regulations doesn’t make a distinction between rule changes one day, one year or one decade before the season to be affected. It still needs to be applied – unless the FIA have some other mechanism to get round it (Article 199 of the International Sporting Code happens to ban the FIA’s act separately, requiring 20 days’ notice).

The only one that comes to mind is Article 7.5 of the Concorde Agreement, which allows the FIA to make changes at any time for safety reasons. The trouble is that the FIA is conveniently ignoring it…

By: Clay

Clay — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:57:05 +0000

I’ll write this having not read all of the comments so far, but I actually think the wins based championship does have merit. The idea of drivers no longer settling for a second or third but pushing all out for the win sounds like what racing is all about for me.

However…

F1 is not your usual racing series. It is historically dominated by 2 or maybe 3 teams during any one season. So the idea of a win-based championship solution would not really work as immediately 3/4 of the field are not in championship contention. Although, to be fair, that is the case anyway, whether using wins or just points.

What exactly was wrong with the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system? It didn’t pay points low enough, and Schumi was killing everyone in 2002 so the gap from first to second was reduced to try and prolong the time it took to win the chanpionship.

Why not try something like this:
20 points for the win
12 for second
8 for third
6 for fourth
5 for fifth
4 for sixth
3 for seventh
2 for eighth
1 for ninth

It has the same point spread as the old system and pays down to 9th. Better than some stupid wins idea…