Double points finale could be scrapped – Todt

F1 Fanatic Round-up

F1F CSIn the round-up: FIA president Jean Tost says the unpopular double points rule could be scrapped given unanimous agreement from the teams.

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Todt hints at double points rethink (Autosport)

“I was surprised to get so much emotion for this thing that I do not feel is a huge change in F1. But again we need to listen to that and hopefully we will take that into consideration.”

Start, Yas Marina, 2013Bernie Ecclestone Plans Online Push to Boost Formula One Income (Bloomberg)

“Formula One plans to bolster its online content as early as June after officials at Ferrari SpA and Williams Grand Prix Holdings Plc’s (WGF1) teams called the racing series’ media strategy outdated.”

‘Appeal case stronger since Melbourne’ (ESPN)

“As more races have progressed, issue have become more evident and issues and understanding has come to light. Hopefully we can present our case fairly and get the second place back that Daniel [Ricciardo] deserves from Melbourne.”

Ericsson losing half a second in weight to F1 team mate (Crash)

“The problem is that he’s 10kg lighter than me, so for me to be able to match his times is so difficult because I have half a second every lap which I’m losing just because of the weight.”

Horner claims Ricciardo is among the best after youngster enjoys fine start at Red Bull (Daily Mail)

“It demonstrates how difficult it is sometimes to judge drivers in inferior equipment because he has grabbed his opportunity and he is really making the most of it.”

Mercedes driver duel has hidden depths (Reuters)

Lewis Hamilton: “Someone in the team did a huge study on my pace last week and, as I arrived (in Bahrain)…there was this big document with all the reasons why I was quick. And he (Rosberg) used that to his advantage.”

BMW ready to come back in Formula 1 (Minardi)

Gian Carlo Minardi: “German rumour has it that a BMW Board of Directors has been fixed for the month of May to consider a coming back in F1 already for 2015.”

The First Time – with Caterham’s Kamui Kobayashi (F1)

“What was the first thing you did after getting your first seat in F1?
KK: I got on a plane! I was in Japan and had a call from Toyota to say Timo (Glock) may have to pull out of the Brazilian Grand Prix, so I had to fly to Sao Paulo as quickly as possible!”

1989 Ferrari F1-89 Formula One (RM Auctions)

Ex-Nigel Mansell and Gerhard Berger Ferrari for sale.

Tweets

Comment of the day

Ross on F1′s mixed messages in Bahrain:

Changing the formula to one based on improving energy efficiency and then erecting 495 lights rather than race in the daylight seems a little backwards to me.
Ross

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Aniket Garg!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Mika Hakkinen won the Brazilian Grand Prix 15 years ago today despite being delayed by a gearbox glitch early in the race.

Michael Schumacher took second ahead of Heinz-Harald Frentzen – the latter finishing a lap down and running out of fuel on the final lap.

Image © Red Bull/Getty

Advert | Go Ad-free

144 comments on Double points finale could be scrapped – Todt

  1. OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 11th April 2014, 2:47

    I still see smiles and good environment in Mercedes… still.
    Let’s not forget a couple of competitive teammates (Vettel vs Webber, Hamilton vs Alonso) always ends up in sparks and serious faces. One of these guys (most definitely) will become the 2014WDC so let’s see when the honeymoon ends and they have to really take the most of it. Ham looks better, but Ros is still ahead in the standings. Some great duels are coming.

  2. Mark in Florida said on 11th April 2014, 3:27

    Yeah the double point’s needs to be scrapped it was a joke to begin with. BMW coming back? We’ll see how that works out if they don’t have success right away are they going to leave again? Toyota should be in F1 they have been producing hybrids for a while now. It would be a natural move for them to be an engine supplier.

  3. Daniel (@daniel-f1-manager) said on 11th April 2014, 5:15

    Why now? It could be good for all the loosers from this year.

  4. Tim (@grez76) said on 11th April 2014, 8:53

    Thank you for keeping the driver weight issue in the spotlight. It seems all my favourite drivers are normal sized, Jenson, Hulk, Webber and Kubica. I don’t want to be wondering how they would compare to their shrimpy team-mates on an even playing playing field forever. In this age of analysing minute advantages why aren’t the FIA addressing such a hugely obvious unfair performance advantage? In the spirit of fair competition they should be obligated to understand the need to sort this out. Really glad the WDC appears to be a straight fight between two similarly sized pilots at Mercedes.

  5. Keith Campbell (@keithedin) said on 11th April 2014, 8:56

    This is just a hypothetical situation i was thinking about regarding the WDC and double points. Assume Mercedes maintain their performance advantage and finish 1-2 in all the races up to Abu Dhabi with no DNFs (big assumption i know but bear with me). That means there’s only 7 points to play for each race between them. Now assume that Hamilton (for example) wants to win with a race to spare so he doesn’t risk a DNF costing the championship, he will need to be 50 points ahead – which means gaining 61 more than Rosberg from now until Abu Dhabi.

    So an additional 61 points required over the next 15 races, with 7 gained for each win, and 7 lost for each 2nd place. If HAM won 11 races to ROS 4 he would get (11-4) x 7 = 49 points extra. So he could lose the championship having won a total of 13 races to Rosberg’s 6. So he would need to win 12 out of the next 15 to guarantee that one more DNF wouldn’t cost him the championship (assuming no other DNFs and Merc 1-2s all the way).

    That was just something i was thinking about, i know it’s an extreme case, and could equally happen the other way round. By the way i don’t think they should remove double points this year now that the teams have planned around it, i think they should keep it this year and scrap if for future years.

    • andrewf1 (@andrewf1) said on 11th April 2014, 9:49

      @keithedin
      Username “sopa” came up with this scenario on the Autosport Forums – imagine the outrage from the fans if this were to happen. Hamilton or Rosberg, losing the championship despite winning 15 races.

      ” – ” stands for DNF.

      ROS 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 – 1 2 2 2 2 1 –>377
      HAM – 1 1 1 1 1 1 – 1 1 1 1 1 – 1 1 1 1 – –>375

    • andrewf1 (@andrewf1) said on 11th April 2014, 9:49

      @keithedin
      Username “sopa” came up with this scenario on the Autosport Forums – imagine the outrage from the fans if this were to happen. Hamilton or Rosberg, losing the championship despite winning 15 races.

      ” – ” stands for DNF.

      ROS 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 – 1 2 2 2 2 1 –>377
      HAM – 1 1 1 1 1 1 – 1 1 1 1 1 – 1 1 1 1 – –>375

    • Klon (@klon) said on 11th April 2014, 10:47

      All those hypothetical scenarios show me that Hamilton and/or his crew wouldn’t have gotten the job done if they were to lose the title. “To finish first, first you have to finish,” as the old saying goes; so if DNFs (whenever they may happen) cost you the title, you were the inferior competitor and deserve to lose the title.

      That logic of mine is why I agree with Jean Todt considering the reaction to this double points rule completely overblown. Well, we’ll see what happens.

      • andrewf1 (@andrewf1) said on 11th April 2014, 11:44

        @klon

        Your statement applies if every race gave away the same number of points. The scenario above shows how unfair an unjustified 50 point grab at the final race can be. That’s the issue here, not reliability.

      • OmarR-Pepper (@omarr-pepper) said on 11th April 2014, 15:15

        @klon unless another driver crashes your car (Grojean at Spa) or your tyres blow for no reason (Silverstone).
        It’s not necessarily to be less competitive, it’s also to be less lucky.
        If Glock had had more control on his car, Massa would be a 1wdc now vs ham with none. Or in the same year, if Piquet hadn’t crashed deliberately, Massa’s strategy would have paid off well so he, again, would be the 1wdc. Hamilton took the opportunity so he did what he was expected to. But there are many things a driver or the team can’t control, as the weather. Add to the equation a double points race and all turns into mayhem.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th April 2014, 13:39

      @keithedin, great analysis, lousy conclusion.

      • Keith Campbell (@keithedin) said on 11th April 2014, 19:15

        @hohum I’m just not in favour of changing the rules mid-season unless absolutely necessary. Yes double points is a crap rule, but teams have already scored points, so a rule change would be benefiting some teams more than others. I’d rather there were no more reasons to cry favouritism or bias from the rulemakers. As i mentioned in another post, teams will already have planned for double points in terms of engine usage, possibly car development, and how they allocated resources between this year and next, so imo too late to get rid of entirely now (no way all the teams would agree to it anyway).

  6. spoutnik (@spoutnik) said on 11th April 2014, 8:57

    What a bunch of possible good news!

  7. maxthecat said on 11th April 2014, 11:05

    Stick with the double points or scrap it, but do one thing or the other because i’m sick of hearing about it now.

  8. Sam (@) said on 11th April 2014, 11:35

    Three race into the 2014 season, maybe it is time to took at reliability (Problems that caused a DNF) once more:

    Mercedes powered cars: (T = 4/24 (16,5%))
    Mercedes: Rosberg 0, Hamilton 1 (T = 1)
    Force India: Hülkenberg 0, Perez 1 (T = 1)
    McLaren: Magnussen 1, Button 1 (T = 2)
    Williams: Bottas 0, Massa 0 (T = 0)

    Ferrari (T = 3/18 (16%))
    Ferrari: Alonso 0, Räikkönen 0 (T = 0)
    Marussia: Bianchi 1, Chilton 0 (T = 1)
    Sauber: Sutil 2, Guttierez 1 (T = 2)

    Renault (T = 9/24 (37,5%))
    Red Bull: Vettel 1, Ricciardo 1 (T = 2)
    Toro Rosso: Kvyat 0, Vergne 2 (T = 2)
    Caterham: Ericsson 2, Kobayashi 0 (T = 2)
    Lotus: Maldonado 2, Grosjean 1 (T = 3)

    • Sam (@) said on 11th April 2014, 12:33

      DNFs door problemen met de wagen:

      Mercedes powered cars: (T = 4/24 (16,5%))
      Mercedes: Rosberg 0, Hamilton 1 (T = 1)
      Force India: Hülkenberg 0, Perez 1 (T = 1)
      McLaren: Magnussen 1, Button 1 (T = 2)
      Williams: Bottas 0, Massa 0 (T = 0)

      Ferrari powered cars: (T = 3/18 (16%))
      Ferrari: Alonso 0, Räikkönen 0 (T = 0)
      Marussia: Bianchi 1, Chilton 0 (T = 1)
      Sauber: Sutil 1, Guttierez 1 (T = 2)

      Renault powered cars: (T = 9/24 (37,5%))
      Red Bull: Vettel 1, Ricciardo 1 (T = 2)
      Toro Rosso: Kvyat 0, Vergne 2 (T = 2)
      Caterham: Ericsson 2, Kobayashi 0 (T = 2)
      Lotus: Maldonado 2, Grosjean 1 (T = 3)

  9. Robbie (@robbie) said on 11th April 2014, 12:40

    With respect to RBR’s case getting stronger…I don’t see how it can as the appeal on the 14th will be about what happened in the first race, not about what has happened since. Anything since that race should be irrelevant and inadmissible to why they were dsq’ed in the first race.

    • JKorx said on 11th April 2014, 13:27

      Because since then the results have demonstrated that the fuel sensors are very unstable and sometimes inaccurate .
      If nobody had had issues with the sensors yet then it would look bad for RedBull, its just like new evidence being found for any case, even if judgment has already been passed if it proves otherwise it has to be taken into consideration.

      The only issue is the way RedBull defied instructions to reduce fuel flow during the race, and how other teams obeyed the same instruction.
      But RedBull always had a way of interpreting regulations and finding loopholes to exploit them to their advantage so who’s to say they can’t this time ?

      I’m not a RedBull but I think Ricciardo deserves his 3rd place in Melbourne and that this fuel sensor issue needs to be fixed and rules laid out in the eventuality of any failures, closing any loopholes that might exist.

      • andrewf1 (@andrewf1) said on 12th April 2014, 8:45

        What the results have demonstrated is that the fuel sensors installed in the Red Bull, Torro Rosso and Renault cars are very unstable, 96% of time. That’s according to the FIA and reported by AMuS. Said 3 teams have also admitted to performing modifications to the sensors in their installation. Now, correlation doesn’t imply causation, but the conclusions to be drawn here are fairly obvious…

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th April 2014, 13:51

      @robbie, in the 1st.race Dan did far better than the pundits believed possible so naturally they equated this performance with illegal fuel flow indicated by the FIA sensor, now Dan continues to perform to the same high standard without any illegal readings showing that his 1st. race result could have been achieved without illegal fuel flow.

      • evered7 (@evered7) said on 11th April 2014, 14:12

        @hohum if the first race result could have been achieved without the illegal fuel flow, then they should have done that.

        Instead they chose to break the rules and would need to pay for it. Also I think McLaren performed way better in Australia than in the last two races. Nothing is black and white about that issue except that RB broke the rules that other teams followed.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th April 2014, 15:18

          @evered7, so they are guilty and no evidence to the contrary should be considered at all. It is not yet established that their fuel flow exceeded the regulations in race 1, only that the sensor that was known to be unreliable gave readings in excess of the allowed limit, it is also not known whether any other team had the same problem and reduced their fuel flow to match the sensor reading. RBR may not have heeded the guidance from the tech commitee but saying others heeded that advice and were disadvantaged by doing so is pure speculation or pre-judice.

  10. Hotbottoms (@hotbottoms) said on 11th April 2014, 13:58

    Double points is a horrible idea, but changing the point system during a season is even more horrible idea. They should drop double points rule for next season, but not now.

    Besides, wouldn’t changing the double points rule require teams to vote unanimously? That’s not going to happen after Mercedes’ rocket start to the season, so I don’t know why Todt is suggesting that could happen.

  11. Paul A (@paul-a) said on 11th April 2014, 14:43

    Re: all this road relevancy, “green” energy, lights at night, Boeing fuel consumption for the flyaway races… I’m wondering how fast the cars would be with 1.6 v6 turbo engines (plus free choice of whatever the manufacturers want to harvest), 100kg fuel per race and a minimum car weight of 500kg.

    Electric cars have been around for well over 100 years and have basically gone nowhere — despite official policy and financial subsidies trying to promote the “green dream.” I’m not convinced that it’s conceivable to lug around all the weight of batteries, electric motors and generators. and come out ahead of the game. And that’s forgetting the cost.

    I’m all in favour of technical progress, it should happen and will happen. I just question whether it’s worth messing up 22 cars and a perfectly good sport

    • Dave (@raceprouk) said on 11th April 2014, 19:33

      Electric cars have been around for well over 100 years and have basically gone nowhere

      Because development wasn’t driven by motorsport. Now it is.

      • Paul A (@paul-a) said on 11th April 2014, 22:54

        Well, the Tesla Roadster (I once had a test drive, very nice) is no longer in production. It can do about 300 miles at 25 mph, or about 50 miles “competitive driving.” Recharging then takes from about 5 hours with a special 90 amp connector, or 48 hours plugged into a normal 110 v. wall socket.

        So, my question is “will F1 do anything to improve this” rather than just mess up a sport that I have been following for more than sixty years? I can fully understand that other venues (such as Le Mans) can meaningfully introduce very specialized classes that may well lead to remarkable developments — I just don’t think that the cost and complexity belong in my favourite sport.

  12. Robbie (@robbie) said on 11th April 2014, 15:25

    @hohum Firstly ‘the pundits’ have nothing to do with this. It is about what RBR did in the first race. And only the first race. It is even irrelevant imho that they may have never breached 100kg per hour of flow rate. And that they may be able to prove that with their own measurements. The FIA sensor said they did, and were, and as shakey as those numbers might be, it was the method of measurement to be used, and in fact was used by all the other teams. That way even if the sensor readings aren’t the greatest, at least they’re the same for everyone.

    They don’t just get to go ahead and ignore the FIA warnings all weekend while everyone else obeyed, and then claim they can prove more accuracy with their measurements. When did the other teams get the opportunity to do this? When will RBR design their own wing flex test and claim their’s is more accurate and therefore should be allowed?

    RBR may have every leg to stand on regarding the first race…and this is only about the first race…but they still shunned the FIA all weekend, and if that is allowed as of April 14, then I guess there’s not only going to be appeals from the other teams that they were not allowed the same luxury as RBR, but there will be all kinds of ways and means that teams will ignore the FIA and simply claim they know better based on their own methods. Who is running the show?

    Basically, if I rob a bank today, (ie. break the law) but don’t tomorrow (ie. obey the law), should my bank robbing day be shuffled under the carpet?

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th April 2014, 16:23

      If you rob a bank today you have broken the law but if you refuse to obey a directive to evacuate your house in the face of natural disaster warnings you may be guilty of breach of by-laws or even fined but you will not be indicted for a criminal act. The penalty given RBR is appropriate for breach of regulations but if all they have done is ignored guidance then the penalty is innappropriate, the appeal will determine which is the case. @robbie

      • Robbie said on 11th April 2014, 19:13

        @hohum If it was merely guidance, then sure, and other teams likely would have ignored the FIA too, and I highly doubt the conclusion after 5 and 1/2 hours would have been a dsq. They wouldn’t have needed that amount of time to begin with. But something made it take that long to decide, and something made the decision be this dire.

        I think I will take Whiting’s word for it when he explains that in the rules it states the instrument for measurement will be the fuel flow sensor. RBR did not heed the ‘guidance’ that they might want to consider following the rules, hence the punishment.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th April 2014, 21:09

          @robbie, forget who but someone put the relevant rules up in a discussion on this subject a week or so ago, the upshot being that the technical committee cannot make regulations but only issue guidance, other commentators suggested other rules would give guidance the weight of regulations in certain circumstances, we will have to wait and see.

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 12th April 2014, 1:45

            @hohum If you go back to March 29 on this site, to a round-up entitled “Fix sensors or scrap them-Horner” you will see a link to an Adam Cooper blog in which there are direct quotes from Whiting that make it clear he is seeing this as a black and white issue where the rules, which he cites by article, state that the only method of measurement will be from the only component that is homologated which is the fuel flow sensor that is in everyone’s fuel tank.

            I think where the confusion seems to be is that some have suggested this word ‘guidance’ or ‘directive’ but I personally take from Whiting’s quotes that during Australia it was warnings the teams were being given about rule breaking, and to me must be the case or a dsq would never have been the conclusion.

            Like you said, we’ll have to see, but I don’t see how they have a leg to stand on, and I certainly would have trouble not laughing if I was part of the appeal process and they started talking about stuff that has happened after Australia that would have nothing to do with them ignoring the FIA all Australian weekend.

  13. Cyclops_PL (@cyclops_pl) said on 11th April 2014, 15:41

    “Red Bull’s case getting stronger” said … Red Bull. Saying things doesn’t actually make them happen.

    • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th April 2014, 16:25

      A perfect response from a one-eyed supporter. @cyclops_pl

      • Cyclops_PL (@cyclops_pl) said on 11th April 2014, 17:25

        @hohum

        From Autosport “We have got a very strong case. As more races have progressed, issues have become more evident – and new evidence has come to light, new understandings have come to light. (…) Red Bull has declined to elaborate on what the new evidence is”.

        That means it’s just Red Bull’s own opinion in their own case. Without presenting the actual evidence or any other justification it doesn’t have any real value.

        • HoHum (@hohum) said on 11th April 2014, 18:35

          @cyclops_pl, taking the performance of Dans car in all 3 races it has consistently been faster than the others, M-AMG excepted, which makes a very good case for saying restricting fuel flow by 4% to agree with a sensor known to be faulty would have been an unfair disadvantage placed on RBR and so far as we know RBR only.
          All will be revealed Monday.

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 12th April 2014, 2:01

            Only FIA would know if others were affected by the same 4%. There is no possible way for RBR to know if others were also equally disadvantaged, therefore no way for RBR to know if they were disadvantaged at all. In fact I think it was the opposite and only RBR was advantaged by using what presumably according to them is a more accurate reading, therefore they would have been ensuring the full flow rate for themselves leaving others to suffer with likely less flow due to everyone using the same homologated sensors as insisted upon during the weekend including during qualifying.

            I just don’t think any new evidence is relevant to Austalia. It is all about them ignoring the FIA that weekend and separating themselves from the others and therefore not being on the same playing field as the others, at least as I see it anyway. They cannot possibly argue that everyone else’s sensors were working perfectly and providing full flow and only they were disadvantaged and therefore had to take matters into their own hands and that should be without consequence.

  14. Broc Smith (@strifeforce) said on 11th April 2014, 18:08

    By the way, Bernie accepted the new entry by Gene Haas, and another unnamed entry. I diddn’t see it posted on here, so here you go. Got it from BBC Sport http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/26910511

    As an American F1 fan, i’m ecstatic, because finally the sport has an opportunity to grow here….so sick of NASCAR

  15. This is like the medal system, which was to go ahead until scrapped before the first race.

    I hope double points meets the same fate.

Add your comment

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

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.