Would ‘most wins’ make title race closer?

Posted on | Author Keith Collantine

Vettel would have a better chance of catching Button under 'most wins'
Vettel would have a better chance of catching Button under 'most wins'

Damon wrote an excellent comment on how the championship would look under the proposed ‘most wins’ system.

He reckons the ‘most wins’ system would make Button’s championship a virtual certainty. But I’m not sure – and halfway through writing a reply of my own I decided it would be better to dedicate a post to the idea and see what you all think…

The medals system and Alonso’s championships

Schumacher and Alonso would have been tied going into the 2006 title decider
Schumacher and Alonso would have been tied going into the 2006 title decider

For a similar example to today we can look back to 2006. After the Canadian Grand Prix the points standings were:

1. Fernando Alonso 84 points (six wins)
2. Michael Schumacher 59 points (two wins)

As with Vettel today, Schumacher needed four wins over Alonso to draw level.

And what happened? Here are the standings after Italy that year:

1. Fernando Alonso 108 points (six wins)
2. Michael Schumacher 106 points (six wins)

The two went into the final round at Brazil with Alonso virtually guaranteed the title. Under the ‘medals’ system things would have been different:

1. Fernando Alonso 126 points (seven wins)
2. Michael Schumacher 116 points (seven wins)

And the same goes for the 2005 title-decider at Brazil (which had two more rounds to follow after it) between Alonso and Kimi Raikkonen:

1. Fernando Alonso 111 points (six wins)
2. Kimi Raikkonen 86 points (six wins)

Raikkonen had overcome a three-win deficit. As I wrote at the time, under a ‘most wins’ system the championship decider would have been rather less one-sided.

As ever, it’s true that drivers would have behaved differently a different points system been in use at the time.

‘Most wins’ in 2009

Jenson Button, Brawn, Monaco, 2009
Jenson Button, Brawn, Monaco, 2009

If the ‘most wins’ system were being used this year, Damon argues that the championship would be effectively over because Vettel “would need five races and five wins to get the lead.”

I disagree – if the medals system were being used this year the championship would be more open.

Red Bull are widely expected to be very competitive at the next two circuits: Istanbul and Silverstone. Say Vettel wins them both, with Button second. Under the present points system he would have reduced Button’s advantage from 28 points to 24, or 14%.

Under a ‘most wins’ system Vettel would have halved the gap to Button from four wins to two.

(Under FOTA’s proposed 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1 system, Vettel would have cut Button’s lead from 35 to 29.)

We’ve had a lot of debate about whether the ‘most wins’ system is an appropriate way to reward drivers (many think it under-values consistency) and whether it would be confusing to have a dual points system (I agree).

The FIA has destroyed the credibility of the ‘most wins’ system with their unilateral attempt to force the issue without consulting the teams. But I still think the essential idea of giving the championship to the driver who wins the most races is a sound one.

If Vettel wins the next couple of races, I expect we’ll hear from Mr Ecclestone about it again.

More on ‘most wins’

129 comments on “Would ‘most wins’ make title race closer?”

  1. Red Bull are widely expected to be very competitive at the next two circuits: Istanbul and Silverstone. Say Vettel wins them both, with Button second. Under the present points system he would have reduced Button’s advantage from 28 points to 24, or 14%.

    Under a ‘most wins’ system Vettel would have halved the gap to Button from four wins to two.

    But you could apply the same logic the other way. If Button won the next 2 races with Vettel 2nd, the gap would only go up to 32 from 28. Such a gap would mean that the title can’t be sealed until Singapore in September – and anything (like a retirement or three) can happen before then to shave that gap.

    But with the medals system, if Button won the next 2 races, he’d lead Vettel 7-1! At that rate, Button can easily seal it by August even if he retired from a race or two.

    1. Under that scenario, it doesn’t matter what system you use – Button’s got it in the bag anyway.

    2. There have also been races (e.g. Bahrain) where Vettel could and possibly should have beaten the Brawns but usually for strategic reasons, he’s ended up losing. I think Red Bull have underperformed so far tactically, so there’s no guarantee that Vettel will win on the “Red Bull tracks”.

  2. One problem with the “most wins” model is that there will be no need to race for any other position, once the race leader is leading by more than 15-20 secs, with the amount of competitiveness present today.

    1. Exactly the way I see it amigo- what would the midfield teams have to race for in this case?

  3. With the Points system, the championship is not very open, for example Hamilton or Raikkonen needs to win all remaining races and Button is allowed only one secondplace, then the standing is equal after the last race. With the medalsystem there is equal standing if any other driver wins the 4(Vettel) or 5 next races independent of Buttons result. Conclusion: Medalsystem makes the title race closer.

    1. Yes but if so, then there will be less to fight for, even second place as it is useless.

  4. I entirely agree with your logic that it would make it closer Keith, clearly it would – but I don’t want a championship that is closer, I want one that is fairer!

    I’m not sure it would keep it exciting either, as I would just feel cheated if the ‘wrong’ person in my eyes won. If Vettel or whomever clinched the championship with 8 wins to 7 for Jensen, but only 2/3 the points, it would be wrong to me.

    I think also this year is a bad example, ‘most wins’ will be at its worst when someone takes the championship with only 4 and few points.

    F1 is not tennis. It’s fair enough to win tennis with less points, because there it’s about the ‘big’ points.
    But there’s too many other factors in F1 outwith your control – backmarkers, mechanical failure, weather etc – so it needs to be about consistency. In these days of little overtaking it’s already too much about the ‘big’ qualifying lap, let’s not go any further down that road.

  5. The medal system is only any good if you have 2 or more drivers competing for wins on something like a level playing field. That is not what is happening at the moment.

    1. The grid is closer than it has ever been in the whole history of the championship… it has never been a more level playing field than it is now.

    2. if its a level playing field then 5 out of 6 races wouldnt have been won by one person. it doesnt matter how close the rest of the grid are if they are not competing for wins.

    3. Just because the wins are shared does not make it a level playing field. Good on Button for making the most of the most competitive season to date. You look at the grid over the first 6 races, we’ve had Red Bull, Ferrari, Toyota, Renault, BMW and almost McLaren all at the front… and also at the back. The only consistency is Brawn, and they have not always been fastest. Its up to the other teams to make the most of this competitive situation.

  6. It`s almost impossible to be all things to all people. The regulations brought in to make economies (longer engine & gearbox life) mean teams/drivers settle for consistency & points over do-or-die winning.
    The most wins method is really (like Bernie`s medals idea) just a way for the regulatory body to interfere with rules to improve the show which, in my opinion, isn`t actually their responsibility. What is need for the show to improve is real racing so regs should encourage that.
    Ideally we should have a well devised points system giving the winner a distinct reward but still giving incentives to the lower end of the grid.
    The fact that the teams at the tail end get zilch for their efforts financially is wrong. Much could be achieved if Bernie would cough up more fairly.

  7. What I feel is unfair for Button is that had the points system not changed in response to Schumacher & Ferrari running away with the title Button would be in much stronger and deserved position for the championship.

    I’ve always regretted the change of points back when and never felt you could really compare the results and achievements completely with previous years.

    It would be interesting to see how the championships would have looked under the original (and best) 10.6.4.3.2.1 points system since that change.

    1. Dougie, with the old system, it would look like this:

      Button 49
      Barrichello 24
      Vettel 19
      Webber 12.5
      Trulli 9.5
      Glock 5
      Raikkonen 5
      Hamilton 4
      Massa 4
      Alonso 4

      If Malaysia were awarded full points under the old system, we’d have:

      Button 54
      Barrichello 25
      Vettel 19
      Webber 13
      Trulli 11
      Glock 7
      Raikkonen 5
      Hamilton 4
      Massa 4
      Alonso 4

  8. keith! under FOTAS proposal button would have a lot more points so it’s the same thing

    1. Cheers Journeyer, for me that is absolutely spot on reflection of the true championship so far and for me is only what Button and Brawn deserve. As things stand at the minute it is a managed position to keep the entertainment longer.

      As a F1 fan of many years and as has been said in a previous post in another subject, I want to see pure F1 with the results properly rewarded regardless of the end result for the entertainment.

  9. And what if Vettel wins the next two races, and Button doesn’t even finish them? In the wins system it wouldn’t make a difference which is IMO ridiculous, the driver fighting for championship gets the same “reward” if he doesn’t finish the race or ends second and that is just not something that I would enjoy following.

  10. As others have said, the medals system is not too different from points if there are only a couple of winners. Taken to one extreme, though, a driver (like Button) could become WDC if he’d dropped dead after his third win and then the rest of the races were evenly won by different drivers. And that could be the WDC on 30 points (3 wins), and the “runner up” on 110 points (2 wins and 15 2nd places).

    So, it’s when there is more than one strong, winning driver that the points system makes more sense, rewarding consistent driving ability rather than sparks of talent. And given that the points system is also fairly close to a medals system with fewer winners, it would seem to be the better system all round.

    1. Taken to one extreme, though, a driver (like Button) could become WDC if he’d dropped dead after his third win and then the rest of the races were evenly won by different drivers.

      A macabre scenario which, sadly, has already happened under a points system (Jochen Rindt in 1970).

  11. As much as I can see the reasons people prefer the “most wins system”, I much prefer to stay with points as the championship has always been. It rewards consistent finishes, but at present does not reward the winner enough. As I said before I prefer to see the original system back (maybe even with the “dropped scores” rule) but also I understand the need to reward the smaller teams by scoring to 8 places. Therefore I guess the FOTA proposal for me is the best compromise, and interestingly enough in my view the most considered.

    Maybe I’d go more for 15.10.7.5.4.3.2.1 just because I want the win to mean so much more, but still have the system rewarding consistency. However, I am very aware that this has been discussed so much before and maybe I am treading already trodden ground here.

  12. The problem with the most wins system is how massively lopsided it could be. It is the equivalent of the winner getting one point and everybody else getting zero. In my opinion, a points sytem with a larger gap would reward both winning AND consistency. Ultimately, F1 has too many random variables to be entirely fair with a most wins system.

    Also, is a driver who wins once and DNFs 16 times a better driver than one who comes second 17 times?

  13. We can make the championship closer by making every car exactly the same. We don’t want that because it’s not F1. Neither is medals. The problem is not the points system, it’s that Brawn GP made the best use of the new regulations and has the best car. If you want to artificially make things more exciting, just give them arbitrary penalties for being faster.

    1. Also, is a driver who wins once and DNFs 16 times a better driver than one who comes second 17 times?

      This is the classic example always used to argue against the “most wins system”, but this scenario is about as likely to happen as me flying to the moon by flapping my arms. This argument immediately devalues the point you are trying to make am afraid.

      If you want to artificially make things more exciting, just give them arbitrary penalties for being faster.

      Oh god, please, noooooooo!!!!

      Touring cars has closer racing, but the championship in my view is managed and therefore the final positions are always debatable and not a true reflection, ultimately losing credibility.

    2. I diagree with you Dougie. I know that scenario is unlikly but it is an overstatement. It doesn’t have to be that dramatic but somthing similar like that could happen, say 6 wins 8 non points finishes vs 2 wins 12 podium finishes. who then is the more werthy champion.

  14. Robert McKay
    25th May 2009, 12:55

    If Button has a couple of issues (mechanically or otherwise) then Vettel and Barrichello can catch up even if they aren’t winning – e.g. seconds and thirds are still worth a lot in those circumstances. They’re not under a wins-only system.

    But to be honest the real situation here championship-wise is that there’s no bona-fide “second team” or even a “third team” like previous years where the championship is close. Red Bull sometime arguably look like it, but sometimes they don’t, as they did in Monaco. Last season Ferrari and Mclaren hounded each other, and when they made mistakes BMW were consistently third in pace and were therefore there to pick up the podiums and stay with the big two.

    There’s not been anything like that from the teams outside Brawn this year. One weekend Ferrari has been strong, one weekend red Bull, one weekend Toyota etc.

    And with Button comprehensively outdriving and outscoring his teammate it doesn’t matter which system you use to decide things: Button is clear on his own with either.

  15. Robert McKay
    25th May 2009, 13:00

    This is the classic example always used to argue against the “most wins system”, but this scenario is about as likely to happen as me flying to the moon by flapping my arms. This argument immediately devalues the point you are trying to make am afraid.

    Yes.

    It’s an exaggeration of a situation – but you’re missing the point. One can easily change the numbers to something more realistic to illustrate the same point, that a driver with less wins can have a much better record in comparison of races where they didn’t win.

    The question remains – how much do you balance consistency with outright “winningness”?

    1. I didn’t miss the point I was just saying the exaggeration devalues the point.

      However, that said, under the “most wins” system Vettel would not have been champion last year due to his Monza win, and indeed for that metter name me one year where a driver scoring one win under the “most wins” system would have been champion??

      It has never and will never happen, so ultimately the argument is flawed anyway. I’m not for the “most wins” system as I’ve already explained, however if you are going to argue against it reflect reality not some fantasy scenario.

      …and lets face it, nobody remembers or cares about the first or subsequent losers in the title, its all about who came out on top.

    2. ILoveVettel
      25th May 2009, 23:55

      Exactly thas what my point is….
      Take the example of Kubica and Alonso last year…
      Alonso had more wins…But can you say that Alonso deserved to be third last year than Kubica?

      And one more thing, if the medel system is there, what are the smaller teams racing for!!!!!!!!!!

  16. And with Button comprehensively outdriving and outscoring his teammate it doesn’t matter which system you use to decide things: Button is clear on his own with either.

    Exactly. Brawn GP has made the most of the new regulations, and the other teams have just not done a proper job. But this has always been the case in F1, if one team finds an innovation that the other didn’t they have an advantage. What is the point of allowing the teams to have technical innovation if you then must fiddle with point systems to negate their advantage?

    1. Dougie, you’re the one missing the point. I didn’t say at all that this hypothetical driver would be world champion, just that under a medals system he would be classed lower than the other driver, when he is clearly, in most people’s opinions, the better driver.

      Regardless of the actual numbers used, which are exaggerated for effect, my point is still the same, although thanks to Robert McKay for putting it across in a better way than me.

    2. I think Brawn is where it is due to the lack of testing between races. Hadn’t the testing been banned, I think the teams would be would be more balanced right now at Monaco (and following European races).

    3. and because of the huge Honda budget they spent on this year’s car during 2008 season

  17. Never quite understood why everybody is/was trying to change F1 when we had the two most exciting years this decade in 2007 and 2008. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    1. Thanks for your reply James, but I don’t recall ever saying that you or Robert had “missed the point”.

      Needless to say, you may have overlooked my final sentence…

      …and lets face it, nobody remembers or cares about the first or subsequent losers in the title, its all about who came out on top.

  18. drivers would have behaved differently a different points system been in use at the time

    Not only that: even teams would behave differently with different reward systems in use.

    Those who oppose a medal system are pointing to Button’s 5 out of 6. But had it been a “medals” year, it’s quite conceivable that teams would have already started to experiment with more extreme strategies (or much larger strategic differences between their drivers) in order to have a go at a win.

    Under a points system, it does not make sense for a team to risk a lot: it’s better to cash in on 2nd and 3rd places, hope for SCs, and biding their time.

    Under a medals system competitors would feel the championship already slipping away after Button’s 3rd or 4th win, so we’d already see much bigger gambles both in practice and in race, that may, on occasion, work, or could at least sabotage someone else’s seemingly more “sensible” strategy.

    The dynamics of a medals system would be so different that it’d introduce a great deal of additional unknowns in terms of team behaviour.

    1. Team behaviour is an interesting one, and a good reason not to go for a most wins system. Currently everyone is trying to finish as high as possible, and I don’t see that behavior changing that much with a most wins system. The two things I see changing are, possibly less emphasis on reliability as teams get increasingly desperate (possibly a bad thing as then we start racing on luck), AND most critically, the potential for some very unsporting tacticts as soon as one driver has an edge over their team mate. E.g. currently, or at least so far, barrichello has been free to race button. Under a most wins system, the best tactic might be for him to cede any race position to Button, and then intentionally hold up cars behind.

  19. I think you have missed out one important fact in this non-capped season. Ferrari.

    1. In what way, W-K?

  20. Oh my :)

    I don’t want a championship that is closer, I want one that is fairer!

    I second that!

    If one driver is way faster than everybody else, and consistently keeps making great results in each race – why would we want to set rules that give an impression that it is otherwise?
    Why would we wanna take his achievements away from him?

    Consequently, is “this or that system would make the championship tighter” really a valid argument?

    It is the equivalent of the winner getting one point and everybody else getting zero.

    Exactly so.
    17 races = 17 points to score
    The winner gets 1 point, the rest get nothing.
    ______
    Another thing is that in the ending stages of the season – the battle for the WDC would often be kinda dead.
    This would occur when the two main (and only) contenders for the title were tied on wins with, say, 6 each with 4 races to go. In each of the last 4 races, when neither of them wins, despite them fighting battles, coming onto the podiums etc., there would be no changes to the championship medal table.
    It would look strange and boring seeing the two arch-rivals going 3rd and 4th in a race but not really fighting, since there’s nothing to gain. Even if one overtook the other, it’d be like “oh, okey…” – because it wouldn’t matter, at all.

    1. yes it would. Under the “wins” proposal the points for 2nd-8th are used to split a tie. And to decide manufacturer’s championships.
      So the midfield teams still have just as much to race for under the “wins” system than they do now. And racing for poistion is just as important for drivers, because if you have 6 wins and 47 points you are champion infront of he guy who has 6 wins and 42 points.

  21. I see your point with this but I can’t see anyone winning the next 3 or 4 races other than Button. Then when the other teams catch up I don’t even think Vettel will be Button’s main ‘rival’

  22. David (Brazil)
    25th May 2009, 14:40

    I think the conclusion’s fairly simple. The most-wins system is more competitive unless one driver dominates, in which case the championship could end much sooner than under the points system.

    The thing is with a points system, a couple of DNFs and/or bad finishes from the leader can ensure the championship is up for grabs again, even if they seem way ahead near the season end. Once the most-wins system is over, it really is over.

    I also suspect most-wins would mean the teams backing one of the drivers much more heavily, as sharing the wins would do the team or their drivers no good at all.

  23. Robert McKay
    25th May 2009, 14:41

    Well, I will apologise to Dougie for saying he missed the point, I wasn’t trying to be rude or anything :-)

    All I was trying to say is that, although of course it’s nigh on impossible to envisage a season in which a driver wins the title with a single win, it’s very easy to imagine a situation where a driver has 6 wins and a couple of seconds/thirds but someone else had 5 wins and a few more seconds/thirds and would therefore win the title on points.

    Now in 2003 Raikkonen nearly won the title with considerably less wins than Schumacher and I can reasonably understand that on balance that would probably have been the wron result. However looking at 2008 and although Massa had a win more than Hamilton I do not believe that should automatically have made him champion.

    So you can see both sides of the coin.

    Again as I say, ultimately it comes down to how much you reward consistency over sheer winning. Wins alone is too unbalanced but arguably the curreny system does not reward winning enough. I still think by far the best balance is the 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 scoring system many people have suggested.

    1. Apology accepted Robert, and compliments to you on a very well reasoned post which I agree with wholeheartedly.

      Your two examples do go to show very well how the points system (with more reward for the winner and podium finishers) is the way forward. In both cases the correct and most deserving driver would have won the championship.

      In 2008 both Massa and Hamilton were equally deserving of the title that year, the closeness reflects that, and on a “more rewarding” points system I think Massa would have come out on top… but who can say as they would have fought it out differently.

  24. The most wins idea is rubbish. The best idea is a compromise between the two by awarding more points to the first placed driver.

    How many seasons has the driver with most wins not won the championship?

  25. Hi Keith, interesting point you have there.

    but first, didn’t the lady from the FIA clarify that the most wins system slipped the radar on the regulations and it would be reviewed before the start of the 2010 season? I read that on f1-live I think. it’s in the archives now and I can’t access it.

    in any case i think if the FIA want to spice things up, the normal thing would be to award the winner more points over the competition. if the [12(or11)-8-6-5-4-3-2-1]system was in use today, Button would have an even more substantial lead. but Button’s runaway success is not the norm, and if that system was in play last year, it would have generated more die hard attempts at winning, rather than settling for the 2 point deficit. and Massa would have won the championship rather than loose by a point. which would have made sense overall since he won more races.

    as cool as the most wins system seems like, i can imagine dull finishes.

    points should be the priority deciders, and only if there was a tie would most wins decide the champion.

    however to give extra incentive, whoever gets pole should score a point as well, at least.

    but then we should revert to the old (real) qualifying, where a one hour session with a 12 flying lap limit is what defines the grid. then teams are free to fuel their cars for the race to the brim before park ferme, and may the best damn driver win…. oh..and they should all be using the same tires, no mambo jumbo softies and hards like today.

    F1 unplugged in some ways…

    1. The ‘most wins’ system is not in the regulations for 2010. But like I say, don’t be surprised if Ecclestone tries to resurrect it.

  26. MOTO GP scoring is the way to go. points for the whole grid, dnf = 0pts…and with the posability of 26 cars next year it can go sumthing like this:

    80,70,60,55,50,45,40,35,30,25,22,20,18,16,14,12,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1

    1. Sorry DomPrez but, OMG! Your idea scares the beejeezuz out of me. ;-)

    2. or top three could be 90,75,65…to be more in line with FOTA’s proposal, and wided the gap a little more

    3. Wholy molly… all point records would be useless then… and people will need a calculator to sort them out…

      sounds interesting, but too complex in my opinion…

    4. Robert McKay
      25th May 2009, 15:13

      Moto GP don’t have points for the whole field…it just seems like it because their field keeps shrinking!

    5. k, its only 1st to 15th for MotoGP. but still. i like how every battle is an important one, at the front of the field, or those who have been lapped. but more so then just spreading the points out, it ensures that u get rewarded for FINISHING! this will be very important near the end of the season, when teams are looking at how many of their ‘new’ engines/transmissions remain. we might get a senario where a driver on an 2 race old engine, isnt doing so well, near the back of the grid, and decides to park in in the garage to save it for the next race….

      i dunno, it would make much more sense to me to play with the points structure rather then the medals system.
      imagine how hiedfeld would have placed last years had all his finished resulted in points. not that i like the guy that much, but his consistent finishes are a prime example of how a full points system could really make a difference.

    6. Points for points sake? No thank you.

  27. MOTO GP scoring is the way to go. points for the whole grid, dnf = 0pts…and with the posability of 26 cars next year it can go sumthing like this:

    80,70,60,55,50,45,40,35,30,25,22,20,18,16,14,12,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1

    The FIA would think that F1 fans were too thick to count that high &, in the interests of economy, they would insist the figure should be kept under 40. ;)

    1. LOL, fair enough…maybe we should really complicate things then. this was somthing i was talking to a friend about when the budget cap was first dicussed:

      team budget = direct result of previous years final team standings. 1st place haveing the most limited budget, all the way to ForceIndia,….i mean last place…haveing the most budget.

      If that not complicated enough, let me know, i can go on…

  28. Pedro Andrade
    25th May 2009, 15:10

    Another opinion against the “most wins” system here. Maybe people are focusing way too much on the winning part of things. Take Keith’s prediction for this season:

    Vettel wins the next two races, with Button coming second in each, therefore making the championship much closer (5-3). Is it fair? No, because looking at the races the drivers did not win, Button would have two seconds and a third place, while Vettel would have three retirements, a second and a fourth place!

    Consistency is not just a beautiful word to throw during these debates, it’s an actual skill that a driver should have. Take Hamilton for example. In his debut year he had 4 wins, one less than when he was champion, but scored far more, and was much more consistent. On his championship year he won 5 times but made loads of mistakes throughout the year. I rate his debut year much higher.

  29. Pedro Carvalho
    25th May 2009, 15:14

    Okay, so we all agree to disagree regarding just how fair and how competitive the championship could be with the “most wins” scenario.

    However, I honestly think that people who defend “most wins” are QUITE overlooking the fact that in F1 sometimes the most exciting fights are not for 1st place, are for 2nd or 3rd, or even the elusive 1 point for 8th… With the most wins rule, as long as a driver was comfortably ahead, nothing else would really matter and the race would be astonishingly boring. Yes, the fight for 1st could be more intense, but at what cost?!

    Also, the amazing comebacks we saw recently would never exist, because who would want to risk damaging the car and the engine (especially now that they have a limit) for some lousy points that don’t really matter?

    Finally, the most wins system will make the 2nd driver of the team obsolete so, so early…

    I can understand why people want most wins, but please review your favorite races in the last, say 10 years, and you’ll notice that probably over half weren’t for the win…

    Finally:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl2tIFxSEGA&feature=related

    2nd place fight…

    1. I agree with you. And that is one fabulous fight for 2nd!

  30. I think the only real way to find out if a medals system will work is if they implement it.

  31. That rule is a joke I hope never becomes reality. Imagine this year, with a couple more races, Button can retire to the beach and be World Champion, because no one will win the same number of races.

    Is that the goal? To retire great drivers sooner and put rookies on the car? Think not…

    It’s a joke…

  32. 80,70,60,55,50,45,40,35,30,25,22,20,18,16,14,12,10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1

    Come one, that’s a joke.
    And it’s not got for GP if this is how it is.

    1. Button wins a race and he retires in the next one (80pts).
    2. Nakajima finishes at 7th twice (2 x 40pts).

    And so they are equal on points. What the…?

  33. I’d argue that with the way Vettel’s been driving, he has no better chance of beating Button than Nakajima or Bourdais. He’s cocked up 3 out of the 6 races and been beaten by his teammate in the last two.

  34. it’s not good*

  35. The medals system may sound simple on the surface but that’s only for figuring who’s leading the championship. It becomes complicated with the need for charts protractors and a maths degree especially when you look at the rest of the field. I know it’s not a scientific poll but I just asked several friends who are casual fans to read this blog entry and they were confused and said they may be likely to loose interest.

    The points system is not perfect and just needs tweeking. Overall people know exactly how it works and where the drivers stand within that from top to bottom of the grid. This is also important to the casual and new fans as they can see who stands where immediately and don’t have to try remember who came where in what race.

    The fact that Jenson is likely to wrap-up the championship within a few races with the medal system would be off putting for many. I would like to think that even if Jenson did take the majority wins, someone could still pip him at the post if they are consistantly good and Jenson has a poor second half to the season.

    In summary, I’m with Damon’s initial comment that started this discussion.

  36. @persempre
    I think that seeing the progress Ferrari have made so far, they will also be challenging for the front spots. So there will be three teams fighting for the wins. So the assumption that Vettel is the only other driver, beside Jensen, that can get wins this season has to be doubtful. Therefore I think it probable that Jensen cannot be caught in the “most wins” case.

    1. Understood. Thank you :)
      I agree it`s too early to say which teams will progress or fall behind.
      It may make no difference to Jenson`s lead but things can & will change in the pecking order.

  37. k, its only 1st to 15th for MotoGP. and the points i sugested for 26 cars was just on a whim, but still. i like how every battle is an important one, at the front of the field, or those who have been lapped. but more so then just spreading the points out, it ensures that u get rewarded for FINISHING! this will be very important near the end of the season, when teams are looking at how many of their ‘new’ engines/transmissions remain. we might get a senario where a driver on an 2 race old engine, isnt doing so well, near the back of the grid, and decides to park in in the garage to save it for the next race….

    i dunno, it would make much more sense to me to play with the points structure rather then the medals system.
    imagine how hiedfeld would have placed last years had all his finished resulted in points. not that i like the guy that much, but his consistent finishes are a prime example of how a full points system could really make a difference.

  38. Pradeek hit the nail on the head.

    If Vettel can’t win a particular race, there is no point him going for any extra points.

    There are potentially less ways for him to close the gap – this is definitely a bad thing.

    Yes there are more ways for Button to extend it, but a champion should be more than just winning races. It should be about accumulating points when the going gets tough (I cite Hamilton’s drive in Monza 2008 as an example).

  39. Lets not forget that the medals system would virtually enforce teams to take a “Number one” vs “Number two” driver approach: – Do you really think that Brawn would let Barichello take a win over Button if they were trying to max out an early season tech-lead on the medals table?

    I appreciate we’ve hardly seen favourable strategy calls for Rubens as it is, but the situation would surely be galvanised by the “all or nothing” nature of the medals approach. Webber could be relegated to Vettel’s rear gunner merely because Vettel picked up 1 (just one!) win earlier in the year, and has a better chance of overhauling button (or more likely barichello)…

    I was in favour of moving to a 10-8 points system over a 10-6 in the years where Schumacher was romping away with championships after half the year, and I fear that a medals system will leave us in much the same situation.

    1. Lets not forget that the medals system would virtually enforce teams to take a “Number one” vs “Number two” driver approach: – Do you really think that Brawn would let Barichello take a win over Button if they were trying to max out an early season tech-lead on the medals table?

      No I don’t think it makes any difference. The same argument that favours backing one driver from the outset works equally well in both scenarios.

    2. You honestly don’t see the difference between 2 points difference and a “win”? Seriously?

    3. ILoveVettel
      26th May 2009, 0:13

      I strongly agree with you and disagree with Keith over this points……
      In the current scenario, if baricchelo wins the next race over button, that wont make much difference to Brown GP team….
      But if most win scenario was there they would have been much more cautious and effectively that would distroy any chance of Barrichelo compiting for the championship this year…..
      Take for example 2007, we would never have seen such an epic battle between Alonso and Hamilton that year…

      Besides, I have mentioned somewhere else that there would have been no motivation for smaller teams to race at all as there would be no point to show there efforgt..

      To summarize, I think the “most win” idea is a crap and I am delighted that that has been discarded for the next year………

  40. Why are we talking Vettel other than he is a likeable guy but he burns up his tyres which will put him out of contention until he learns to go easy on them. China was a special case but Oz spelled it all out and nothing has changed since then.
    Rubens has not given up and has more claim for our attention. Others will come more to the fore as the season progresses.
    The points system disgraced itself when Moss won as many races that year as Hawthorn’s career total but still lost out. Sadly, Hawthorn’s championship earned with just one win meant nothing to us at the time.

  41. What about the idea that was circulating at the same time as Bernie’s medals proposal regarding making quali more exciting by awarding a point or 2 for pole position and fastest lap? No mention of this?

  42. There’s no point trying to apply a new medal/points policy to past races and seeing how things would have shaked out – teams would have positioned their cars differently, and acted out different strategies has the rules at the time been different.

  43. I still think the current system makes for much better racing than the mdeals system. After all, under such a scheme, would we have had the scrapes for second palce between Vettel and Kubica in Melbourne this year?

  44. Why don’t the just make it so the person with the most podiums gets the championship, or make the points received by the winner or the top 3 significantly larger?

    If ’30 15 9 6 4 3 1′ points were implemented (those numbers were completely random), there would be much more incentive to win, but you would still be rewarded for top 8.

  45. None of these idealistic suggestions are going to work until we have confidence in the regulatory system and I for one do not.

    It should be and is feasible to produce an equitable system probably points but with a bonus for win totals but if you admit last year’s contentious Belgium where the race director was humiliated and that nice guy Felipe was given a win that he knew that he hadnt earned you cannot legislate when the legislators are inadequate.

    Governance must be beyond reproach or sell the championship to the highest bidder.

  46. I really hope Buttons wins a few more and this medals nonsense can be binned forever by showing that “impossible” scenario’s do happen.

    The most wins system is unfair (in almost completely ignoring lower positions) and it forces teams to pick a No1 and 2 driver much earlier in the season.

    The most wins system doesn’t have a single thing going for it. There is simply no benefit at all. None! Just the silly notion that drivers all of a sudden will start racing for the win. Like they don’t do so already!

    It’s much more likely that racing will be damaged by one of the many “impossible” scenario’s becoming reality, drivers saving their engines when they are at position 4 or lower, by No2 drivers being appointed (and thus can start blocking other cars)

    Why keep on discussing a system that has only negatives and not a single benefit?

  47. Say Button is out of the next race, Vettel is 2nd behind Barrichello. Under most wins he might be more inclined to go for the win rather than stay behind and not risk an Australian situation. Just wanted to give you a possible positive!

    I made a similar point to this article after the Spanish GP:

    Owen G says:
    May 11, 2009 at 5:52 am

    Devil’s advocate mode:

    Under the ‘most wins’ system Vettel would be ahead of Button if he won the next 4 races.

    Under the current system he could win the next 4 races and still be 10 points behind him.

    The current system is wrong if you ask me. It needs changing to give a bigger incentive to win. If we’re having a regulation freeze in 2010 it might be a good time to trial a most wins, or a bigger points differential as all teams will have had plenty of time to get the best out of the regs so racing should be closer.

    1. and you think Vettel is not trying to go for the win now?

  48. If you dont have the car to compete, points, medals or burgers can’t motivate you.

  49. “Vettel would have a better chance of catching Button under ‘most wins'”

    Exactly, which is why the “medals” system should stay binned.

  50. Bigbadderboom
    25th May 2009, 22:19

    I would object for two reasons, the first is historic and I think we should keep the fundamentals of what F1 is. Secondly I think we need consistance, the sport is difficult enough to follow unless you are a die hard fan, i say leave well alone, by maikng this change it will add no value to the sport, the racing won’t change, how often do we really see a driver “settle” for second place anyway?

    1. Very good point Bigbadderboom. Under the current points system you never here a driver in his press confrence say “oh i was in second so i thought that would be good enough”. No, they always say something like “Once I was in second i just had to push hard and have a crack.

      A good example of this is Kimi in Monaco last weekend. Even though it was the teams first podium for the year he still wasn’t satisfied and was pushing hard to get to the top.

  51. Apologies if someone has already asked this, but
    How many engines is Button going to need this season?

  52. Also, do we know how many engines each of the drivers have used so far this year?

    1. It isn`t so much how may engines they`ve already used, manatcna, because they can be re-used (unless they`ve completely had it). It`s the total used in the season which counts not when they are used/changed.
      For example I`d imagine that most teams may prefer to use a new engine for, say, Monza.

    2. Actually, thinking about it, I may be wrong.
      It could be only the last race the engine can be re-used on?
      Sorry, I`m losing track with all these changes coming in every couple of months.
      Keith, do you know how it works now?

  53. Pedro Carvalho
    26th May 2009, 0:17

    I’m sorry Keith, but being pro-wins is something I cannot grasp from someone that likes racing and not racers… Disregarding every position except the 1st makes about 90% of the field feeling useless and therefore effectively ends any good scraps for 2-8th spot. If that’s what you want for F1, for it to become an all-or-nothing kind of sport, then make it a cup instead of a championship, because there’s honestly not point whatsoever to work your way up to 2nd from 18th – and that’s not the kind of racing I want to see.

  54. Sorry if this has already been said – I read nearly all of the posts but ran ot of time…Anyway don’t you think that every driver is driven to win? Sure the second/third tier teams are battling for their set positions, but I gotta believe that McLaren, Ferrari, Red Bull, Toyota (1/2 billion$ budget), Brawn, etc…are racing to win, not to mention that every driver has an ego to feed…Maybe later in the season the second and third position teams take more risks, whereas the leading team would be more conservative – keeping with the strategies that got them there. My choice is for more points for the winner, but to also add a point for quickest lap and for pole position – both of these push everyone and could add incentive to lower teams to push harder during qualifying. Plus the point for quickest lap shows the fans who’s fastest regardless of where they finished the race.

  55. glamourBob
    26th May 2009, 4:00

    the thinking behind the “winner takes all” system was not necessarily to make the championship more exciting, but to make the individual races more exciting – to stop the second placed guy settling for second.

    But in the first six races, is there any evidence to suggest the guy in second could have won if he had pushed a lot harder? I don’t think so, the “winner takes all” system would not have made any difference to the way these races have played out. The whole system based on a bogus hypothesis.

    1. A difference might have been that Brawn might have told Barrichello to hand the place back to Button at Barcelona.

      They wouldn’t want to risk Barrichello taking away a win from their “most wins” leader.

  56. The ‘most wins’ idea would effectively kill the second half of the season whenever there is a dominant team, dominant driver situation.
    If the present season continues as it started then in three or four races time, Jensen would be de-facto winner because it would require one other driver to win nearly all the remaining races and Jensen not to win any more.
    Therefore the other teams, presumably Red Bull and possibly Ferrari would have to put all there efforts behind the driver who has won races this season.
    Can anybody see any of the drivers in Ferrari, Red Bull or even Brawn take a ‘second driver’ position?
    We already know Barrichello’s position.

    1. Points systems are just as liable to this as well though. In 3-4 races time Jenson could quite possibly be so far ahead on points it’ll pretty much result in the exact same scenario.
      This is one thing that critics of the proposal seem to keep missing, if one driver is so dominant to rack up so many wins early in a season, they’ll have been so far ahead on points to be effectively uncatchable anyway!

      And a driver who is so dominant in the first half of the season isn’t going to drop away so dramatically in the second that they’ll lose their points advantage.

      And refer to my earlier post as to why drivers further down the field need to keep racing hard.

    2. @Ben Ell

      That’s not true. After 10 racewins for the leader, the second placed guy could be still only 20 points behind and thus pretty much in contection for the championship.

    3. how often has that happened though? Not very often. Think about what you’ve seen already happen in this season and the last however many seasons you want to remember, usually when one driver dominates the first half of the season they are a fair way in front. And they very rarely have the guys behind catch right up again.
      Don’t think about theoretical situations, because they’re generally ridiculous, think about what you’ve actually seen happen before.

  57. WOW Keith, great topic to post. It has really stired up some debate and it is really interesting to hear what other people have to think about it. Nice going and keep up the good work.

  58. This whole discussion maybe interesting (because there’s no clear truth), but it misses the whole point!
    F1 is terribly boring when one team is so far ahead of the others. No matter what the point system is the championship will suck (even if one or two races don’t).

    The bottom line is: F1’09 is dead. Hopefully the rules will be simpler and allow for innovation in F1’10 so that we can have teams “jump to the front” faster.

    Right now it is likely that we will see the white cars in the front row at the start and in the podium at the end. What’s the point of watching the season any more?

    1. glamourBob
      26th May 2009, 8:10

      the problem is not so much with the regulations themselves ( who doesn’t want the cars to be able to run closer to each other through high speed corners?) but the fact that they are new.

      If the same basic rules are kept consistent for a few years, this will inevitably lead to all the teams getting much closer in performance, and the close racing for the win wee all want will surely happen.

      Every time there is a major rule change there is predictably going to be a team which does the best job and exploits those new rules.

      The ’09 rule changes were a necessary evil needed to make the racing closer. They wont work so much this year, but they will in ’10 and certainly ’11 IF they are kept fairly constant and other teams close the gap.

      If Mosley goes through with his plans to change the rules extensively again in ’10 we’ll in all probability have the same situation again: one team out in front.

    2. I`ve always believed it`s for the challenging teams to catch up not for the rules to be changed constantly to hold the winners back & artificially mix up the field.
      I don`t remember as many people moaning about boredom back when Williams reigned supreme. It seems to have become the fashion when, instead of finding something somewhere down the order to enthuse over (Murray fashion), we had the whinges & moans of boredom from his successors on the box.
      If the current draft of the 2010 rules is adopted then it would be impossible for the losing teams to gain back the ground due to the cap. That may not be required anyway as the FIA would, under those new regs, have the right to change rules as & when they please during the course of the season. (Like that`s going to help keep down costs!)

  59. Of course it would have made Jenson easier to catch – his disastrous third place in China wouldn’t count, and Malaysia’s only half a win!

    You’re right to mention Alonso – he has as much chance of catching Jenson than Vettel, based on Renault’s past ability to transform a car (mega new front wing etc last year) and the most-wins system would help drivers who’ve made a slow start.

  60. What is interesting about the most wins system is that if it had been used in previous years I think it would give a much better indication of the best drivers over the years

    For instance Stirling Moss would have won a world championship in 1958 instead of Mike Hawthorn. Jim Clark would have been a 4 time world champion instead of the two he won in ’63 and ’65, beating Surtees in ’64 and Hulme in ’67.

    However what I think is most interesting is that if it had been implemented Nelson Piquet a three time world champion would not have been champion at all.

    Alain Prost would be a 5 time world champion, gaining three in ’81,’83 and ’84 from Piquet (twice) and Lauda whilst losing his ’86 crown to Mansell and ’89 to Senna.

    Senna himself would be a 4 time champion, consecutive from 88-91 whilst Nigel Mansell would be a three time champion in ’86, ’87 and ’92.

    Here are the changes in champion that would have happened if most wins had been used:a

    1958: Actual champion: Mike Hawthorn
    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: Alain Prost
    Most wins champion: Ayrton Senna
    2008: Actual champion: Lewis Hamilton
    Most wins champion: Felipe Massa

  61. There are two other things to consider if it were to go to ‘most wins’. First is that most teams would nominally have a 1st and 2nd driver, but what happens when you have an Alonso/Hamilton pair. Would the 1st driver demand preferential treatment or refuse to become a supporting driver.
    Secondly the team management would have to become ‘stronger’ in dealing with the FIA over ‘illegal actions’ by other teams. e.g. 2007 Kimi winning the Australian GP with an illegal car. If race had been taken away from him, Kimi and Alonso would have had equal wins. Plus didn’t we also have a fuel discrepancy in the final race that year.
    And for 2008, Massa didn’t win the Spa GP it was given to him, so Lewis, in my book won on both counts.

  62. And for 2008, Massa didn’t win the Spa GP it was given to him, so Lewis, in my book won on both counts.

    Strange, I just checked the history books and its says Massa won at Spa!?!

    ;-)

  63. On top of the medalsystem regarding who is to be WC, dont forget that the fight for the money is still based on team points. I propse points to the team for all cars that finish the race.

  64. No mention of returning to the days when just your best results counted then? No thought not… ;p

    Of course that was in the days of terrible reliability, something which I suspect might return with a ‘most wins’ system. Although I do feel being able to scratch your worst 2 results has a certain charm, when I think of poor Massa stuck to his fuel hose in Singapore for example. But too complicated for the general public… not that that ever stopped them introducing stupid new regulations at every turn.

  65. Oh, and Dougie, there wasn’t originally 10 points for a win, that was a very short lived system and my least favorite.

    Originally, before my time, it was 8-6-4-3-2 I believe. Then 9-6-4-3-2-1 – my favorite. It was that way for 30 years! 10-6 etc only came in in 1991

    So when we look at all time points scorers, the truth is it’s a lot easier to score points now, with less cars on the grid and far more points awarded.

  66. One other idea regarding pointsystem could be to increase the points during the, lets say, 4 last races.
    Than add +2 to +10 points each race for each position.

  67. Here is an interesting article listing all the various scoring systems since the start of the championship.

    What’s interesting, for me anyway, is the “best results counting” which I am presuming varies based on the number of races that year. Also the “fastest lap” point was dropped very early on.

  68. ps. You’re absolutely right Daffid, my wrong, it was 9 for a win for the first decade of me following the sport.

    My memory is not what it was… ;-)

  69. If you dont have the car to compete, points, medals or burgers can’t motivate you.

    Yup. Unfortunately many people seem not to think realistically enough, or at all, to comprehend that simple fact.

    The fastest car(s) will win regardless of there being 10 or 30 points to score.
    You can offer Force India or Torro Rosso 100, 1000 or even a gazilion points for a win. But guess what – It won’t help them.

    Like I said before – a tight championship is one where there actually IS a close battle between drivers on the track. Competetive cars allow drivers to do that.
    A tight championship cannot be made by an award system that only makes it seem like there is a battle, when there isn’t any.

    We’ve got a domination in the points tables because there IS a domination on the track. The reason for that is an uncompetetive field, nothing else. The standings illustrate that reality.
    The Alonsos, Hamiltons, Kubicas are not victims of a faulty points system, nor are they lacking an incentive to win, are they?
    THEY ARE SLOW, come on. They are slow.
    It is their cars that are slow, obviously.

    We could award them with bonus points for having a slow car, consolation points for a technical retirement, bonus points for a flat tyre or a broken front wing etc.

    The WDC could look like this:
    56 Button
    55 Barrichello
    53 Kubica
    52 Alonso
    52 Massa

    Woah! What a close race! Whoopty doo!
    No, it’s not a close race. And I’m not sure if you could call it a race at all…

    My general comment on the whole issue is:
    Cure the cause – not the symptoms.
    ______________________
    On a side note :) I wonder if the rule-makers in FIA also have such heated debates as we do over here.

    1. The examples that Ecclestone was talking about where the Massa wins in 2008. In those he usually had Hamilton or Raikkonen only a few seconds behind him. Hamilton and Raikkonen were actually faster during the race but they simply kept the no2 spot.

      So technically they did have the car to go for the win and Ecclestone found it lame that they just sat there.

      In reality, passing was impossible though.

  70. Damon, a very well put post and very well reasoned and explained. Nice one.

    However, what I don’t understand in all this is that as far as “closeness” is concerned we have the closest, most competitive field ever. Taking qualifying as an example, the gap from first to last is consistently smaller than it has ever been in the history of the sport.

    Although Button is dominating, he is not lapping the entire field, or even close to, as has been known in the past. Barrichello spends his races fighting with whoever is taking the fight to the Brawns at that race, it’s never been a straight forward second place for him. As I’ve said before, we’ve had almost ever other team at the sharp end of the grid at some point this season.

    So where is it going wrong?? Behind the Brawns it is a very close championship, but not because of fighting on the track, just because different teams are faster at different races. We have had more overtaking, but I think here is where a lot more work desperately needs to be done.

  71. whatever system you use is irrelevant, the flaw with F1 is that it rewards the fastest cars by putting them at the front of the grid.

    I dont think they should change this as it would ruin qualifying which is an integral part of the race weekend. What they could do is say the top 10 in the championship all get a position penalty on the grid, so if Jenson qualifys on pole he drops maybe 3 places but if he qualifies outside the top 10 he doesnt get penalised. If Piquet qualifies 3rd (unlikely for sure) then he doesnt get penalised because hes nowhere in the championship.

    There are almost certainly flaws in this and it does make it complicated but unless you use ballast to handicap the lead cars ( a big no no in F1) then as i say any points/medals system is flawed by the basic premise of F1

  72. but unless you use ballast to handicap the lead cars

    I thought that existed already & was called KERS ;)

  73. Personally I don’t like the most wins system and think F1 should stick with a points based system but to change the spread of the points to reward the win more.

    I think a most wins system could have made this season closer in some circumstances. For example Ferrari have only started to seriously challenge for podiums recently if they managed to develop the fastest for the rest of the season and decided to focus on just one driver, beating Button’s tally of wins would be very achievable, but under the points system the gap could be too big as Button would still be finishing third or there abouts anyway.

  74. maybe they could make the ‘medal’ system a bit more fun..
    like 2 silver medals = 1 gold medal and 4 bronze = 1 gold medal

    1st place = 1 gold medal
    2nd place = 1 silver medal
    3th place = 1 bronze medal

    think that was obvious but still :)

    then you can still be rewarded for consistency… or maybe it has to be 3 silver for one gold or something…
    It will make it all more exciting till the end I think!

    1. all that does is change the points from 10,8,6,etc. > 3,2,1. So u dont make the medal seakers happy, and u butcher a half decent points structure.

    2. sorry, 4,2,1 …
      that changes everything….

      :|

  75. suggestions to make all drivers really EARN the points

    1) forget medals
    2) same points system as now PLUS
    3) 2 extra points for fastest race lap (so even to the last lap you can still earn by pushing hard)
    4) 5 extra points for the driver who makes up most places from grid to finish line (an incentive for all drivers particularly those in lower or mid ranked teams to race right to the end. This also benefits a driver who has had an engine blow in qualifying meaning his race is not dead just cause he started in 20th)
    5) once a team has 5 wins they get a 5kg (or 10kg) weight handicap (after all its a constructors championship too)
    6) impose a spending cap – after all Ferrari and McM etc would still be able to pay for the best drivers (as they dont count in the budget) but by leveling the funding resource available to each team you really see where the skill of drivers, engineers and team tactitans comes to play rather than “we built 20 new £100k diffusers and this one works best so we binned the rest”

    1. Interesting suggestions Graham, but not really ones I can agree with, I’m afraid. Giving two extra points for fastest race lap probably won’t encourage drivers to push harder, although it might encourage a driver who’s P14 to go into the pits, change to the super softs, wait half a minute for the traffic to clear and then put his foot down, thereby ignoring the race itself. And fastest laps are likely to go to the fastest cars anyway, making the championship even more one sided.

      The problem with your second idea is that it encourages mid range teams to purposefully under qualify and then try and make the places back later. A team like Toyota or Toro Rosso could easily get more points finishing P12 than if they regularly finished P6-8.

      As for weight handicaps, they might make a race closer, but fairer, I’m afraid not.

    2. 3) 2 extra points for fastest race lap (so even to the last lap you can still earn by pushing hard)

      It’s a terrible idea. We’ll end up having championships decided by drivers giving up on races at the end and bolting on sets of soft tyres to set fastest laps and gain extra points. I hope it never happens.

      5) once a team has 5 wins they get a 5kg (or 10kg) weight handicap (after all its a constructors championship too)

      Even NASCAR doesn’t stoop as low as that. Teams should not be punished for doing well.

      Funnily enough I’ve mentioned two of these ideas before: Four mistakes F1 must avoid

  76. Domprez, how you portray it, it’s not sounding correct..

    My silly ID worked out in % shows this…

    points for a second place is 50% of first place with the medals or 33,33% (when 3silver = 1 gold)…
    Now it is 80% … a bit different not?
    When you do Gold medals only count (unless draw)… it’s 0%

    Anyway just a tweak wich is better then most wins only imo…

    anyway a fastest lap point sounds ok for me… putting on softs and go for a fast lap… don’t see anything wrong there (maybe some waste money).
    Anyway a point for pole should be done when real qualy is back next year (unless they change something)

  77. There could also be a rule to reward consistency , wether it be in qualifying or the race.

    Maybe you could have a bonuse point for finishing in the points five times in a row, or maybe a bonus point for making it to Q3 5 times in a row.

    I also agree with SoLiD that a point should be awarded to pole position.

    (NOTE: These bonuses only work if qualifying fuel loads are even next year.)

  78. One thing that made the whole season a “no contest one” is that if you got it right at the beginning of the season (e.g Brown GP) your are already the champion (what can stop Button). I thinkg you guys will agree with me that the prohibition of “in season testing” has effectively made made F1 a gamble, you either built the right car off season or write the season off before it starts.

Leave a Reply

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

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