Anyway…before I knock it, I am going to give it a try, and see what sort of result we get. You never know, people on here might (shock, horror) actually be happy about next year’s Champion if they get it by way of this!
we shouldn’t value a race or a championship by finding out who’s winning, is it our favorite or not.
man, if Kimi have won championship back in 2003 that way, I’m sure he’s not my favorite driver since then.
I would be disappointed if a driver I support won a championship that way, because I would not consider them a champion.
No, because at least that rule had some grounding in reason. Because reliability was often so terrible that you may as well flip a coin to see if somebody retired, inevitably luck alone meant that even drivers in the same team sometimes could string together 5 retirements while their team mate had 5 finishes. It was somewhat silly in practice, particularly if reliability wasn’t actually that bad, but not entirely artificial as this is. Whereas that was meant to be something of an equaliser, this is just to make the show more appealing, like turning a zoo into a circus.
1988 in particular admittedly was somewhat unfortunate as both McLarens had such great reliability, in which case the rule transformed the championship into who had more stand out performances rather than who was consistently best. That wasn’t an ideal situation. However, a championship which rewards stand out performances over consistency still has merit to me, far more than one which artificially puts emphasis on a single round for nothing but entertainment value. That was a slightly misguided rule for sporting reasons, this is one to get people dribbling at the TV. Two completely different things.
Also, what about 1956 @kingshark? Moss over Fangio? Saw that one as well on another site.
I think it would be ironic if this change leads to Vettel winning 2014 by clinching the last race, whereas if the original points stood he would not have won it…. cue fan discontent on a whole new level!