Group Admins

  • Profile picture of Keith Collantine

Group Mods

  • Profile picture of damonsmedley
  • Profile picture of Bradley Downton

F1

Public Group active 12 hours, 13 minutes ago

F1 discussion

Double points awarded for final race – Historical Perspective

This topic contains 21 replies, has 13 voices, and was last updated by Avatar of matt90 matt90 7 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 7 posts - 16 through 22 (of 22 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #246995
    Avatar of Aditya F. Yahya
    Aditya F. Yahya
    Participant

    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.

    exactly!

    #246996
    Avatar of matt90
    matt90
    Participant

    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.

    #246997
    Avatar of Adrian Chavez Lopez
    Adrian Chavez Lopez
    Participant

    There are not any reason, sportive nor ethical, to do so. It is only matter of commercial strategy to reinforce and keep fans interest until the last season’s date.

    Every day, this actual F1 looks more to NASCAR than to F1, as it used to be, the sport racing top activity. Bernie you are killing F1!

    Regards,

    #246998
    Avatar of Iestyn Davies
    Iestyn Davies
    Participant

    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!

    #246999
    Avatar of Kingshark
    Kingshark
    Participant

    @fastiesty
    That is correct.

    1956: Sir Stirling Moss would be WDC instead of Juan Manuel Fangio.
    Revised 1956 standings;
    1. Stirling Moss – 35 points
    2. Juan Manuel Fangio – 30 points

    #247000
    Avatar of Journeyer
    Journeyer
    Participant

    @matt90 The 1988 scenario (where it made it very difficult to determine who was where in the championship) triggered a change for 1989, where all points counted towards the championship.

    #247001
    Avatar of matt90
    matt90
    Participant

    @journeyer I thought the same before, but not according to wikipedia.

Viewing 7 posts - 16 through 22 (of 22 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.