Ecclestone wants to abolish points system

  • Thread starter Thread starter J-PaP
  • 42 comments
  • 2,034 views
J-PaP

J-PaP

Messages
2,576
Australia
Australia
Messages
J-PaP
http://www.itv-f1.com/news_article.aspx?id=42020

Basically the article just talks about an interview where Ecclestone has said that he wants to get rid of the points system and instead have championships decided puerly on race wins.

Personally, is Eccelstone on drugs? It would end up being a Ferrari vs Mclaren race and kill the sport completley. Once a team gets half the wins of the season they might aswell just stop racing since they have already won the championship.

What does everyone else think?
 
I don't really care much either way, but it does remind of that NASCAR thing they did.
 
I'd be down if they also removed engine and aero restrictions.
 
J-PaP
It would end up being a Ferrari vs Mclaren race and kill the sport completley.
Click to expand...
Um, it already is Ferrari vs. McLaren. They're the favourites going into each race; before them it Ferrari vs. Renault. The last time we had a driver not a part of the Top Two teams win a Grand Prix was Jenson Button, and luck admittedly played a (small) part in that. If someone else wins - or gets on the podium, come to think of it - it's because the Ferraris and McLarens had troubles. While there's nothing wrong with the current system, if Ecclestone's proposal goes through, perhaps a better alternative would be to have points take a secondary role. For example, you don't actually score points for winning, but you score for every other place, so in the event of a tied number of wins, there's a way of deciding the overall winner.
 
true it is the case atm with the championship but then without points it just seems like would there even be a point in having the best of the rest? at least with points the ranking of drivers and manufacturers is clear. Without points all you have is 2 teams/drivers with race wins and 18 other drivers with 0 for the whole season. It would generate confusion with the public aswell. Isn't having a few drivers with 0 better than almost the whole field?

the idea of the points for places after first is a pretty good one.

Just seems like Ecclestone is trying too much to change the sport around, first night races, now this.
 
Sureshot
What a stupid idea.
Click to expand...
Who knows ... maybe it will actually make other drivers more competitive.

No, please; hear me out.

Ecclestone wants more passing in the sport, and with more incentive to win, it promotes drivers to take chances. And as common sense is remarkably uncommon, they could end up taking chances tat aren't really there.

Picture this: it's the final laps of the Grand Prix and Lewis Hamilton has been trying (and failing) to catch race leader Kimi Raikkonen (for argument's sake). Hamilton reels the Finn in but Raikkonen's proving resilient. Both need this victory, and as the laps count down, Hamilton makes his move. Unfortunately it's not a particlarly good one as there was never a passing opportunity, and he and Raikkonen meet in the same way as Coulthard and Massa did over the weekend (or Coulthard and Wurz last year). They're out, so it's game on. One of the smaller guys - Heidfeld, Kubica, Rosberg, Button; take your pick - is currently running third, but with this coming-together, he inherits the lead.

Of course, Ron Dennis and Jean Todt tell Hamilton and Raikkonen respectively to take it easy next race and not make stupid risks, so they follow orders. But their more conservative driving means they're a little slower as neither wants to put a foot wrong, and so other drivers suddenly enter the equation. The Ferraris and McLarens might be the fastest on paper, but by sheer virtue of the fact that they're trying to control the race without stupid screw-ups means that other, less-favoured cars can close the gap up. And maybe they can make their moves; we've already seen Barrichello hold Raikkonen off for nineteen laps in a car that everyone was expecting to be fighting for eighteenth position. If he can do it, any of them can. I'm not saying that ten seconds is going to separate twenty cars for the duration of the race - it would be nice if that were the case - but I'm sure you cansee how it might work.

Of course, if it does get implemented, I'm likely to be very, very wrong ...
 
I can see the logic of where you're coming from, but at the same time...drivers should be made to work for it regardless of what team they're from. Sure, having only a 2 point difference makes winning less vital but...isn't that effectively saying the drivers are passionless if they don't want to go for it? Something I'm sure many, fan and driver a-like, would argue.

If you go by race wins, all it takes is a Schumacher-esque season from one driver and it's done and dusted by the half way point. Yes, it can be done with the points system but it doesn't seem to be so easy to do with the 8 position points. And it's supposedly all McLaren v Ferrari, well that may not be the case for long...BMW and even Williams have shown they might have what it takes this season to get in there and make it a big four instead of a big two. But, take away the points system and put in the whole Top Gun no points for second best dealio and suddenly that prospect drains away very quickly.
 
<_Spike_>
Going? He's long past that. Maybe it's about time someone abolished him from F1.
Click to expand...

I agree, someone needs to get rid of him, what does he know anymore about modern F1 and seriously he is ruining the sport with his stupidity!
 
I'm against the "pointless system," but I admire a driver that places a race before a championship. I don't ever want to hear a driver say "I'm content with second because I'm still in good position for the championship" when he knowingly could have made an attempt for P1.

Of course, it's all a matter of preference, since there are fans that place the championship above the individual races. Which is perfectly fine.
 
I think clarksons suggestion for how it should be run is the best...

"pay them a reasonable standard salary then give them a million pound bonus for every time they overtake"

Brilliant! :sly:
 
I think the pointless system is not a good idea. If they want to place more emphasis on winning they increase the point differential between 1st and 2nd place. Or they could give bonuses for winning.
 
<_Spike_>
Going? He's long past that. Maybe it's about time someone abolished him from F1.
Click to expand...

And toss Max out with him. Jeez, 'Stoney looks like death warmed-over! I've just been waiting, not wishing, for nature to take it's course.
 
well that's how it was decided last year, because kimi had won the most races.

but would we of had such a close finish without the points system, I doubt it.
 
I dont care and I wont care because schumi retired.
even current point system is not fair. remember season 2003. schumi has 6 victory kimi has just 1 but they had 2 points difference at the end
 
Gaz Vonhammer
well that's how it was decided last year, because kimi had won the most races.

but would we of had such a close finish without the points system, I doubt it.
Click to expand...

not quite. kimi won because he had more points(well 1 more point). hamilton though ended up second over alonso on a countback.

i like the suggestion for a greater difference in points between first and second. It is a bit stupid having only a 2 point difference but clearly it does count in some seasons.

The pay them per place gained idea is not bad but wouldn't it be better as your salary is based off your performance. Again though that poses problems for the teams with lower reliability.
 
Actually, it is a good idea: Racing is about winning.

Since the cars are almost spec-cars nowadays, it's not such a terrible idea. Heck, it might have worked last year!
 
J-PaP
not quite. kimi won because he had more points(well 1 more point). hamilton though ended up second over alonso on a countback.

i like the suggestion for a greater difference in points between first and second. It is a bit stupid having only a 2 point difference but clearly it does count in some seasons.

The pay them per place gained idea is not bad but wouldn't it be better as your salary is based off your performance. Again though that poses problems for the teams with lower reliability.
Click to expand...

I've got this great idea for a points system. One that values wins more highly, but also rewards consistency over unreliability.

A win should be worth however many points a win is worth (currently 10). Second should be just over half that (10/2+1=6), so that a win is almost twice as important, but two seconds is rewarded more than a win and a retirement. Then each place after that is worth just over half the previous one (rounded down for non-integers) - so third is (6/2+1=4), fourth is (4/2+1=3), fifth is (3/2+1=2) and the last points position is 6th with 1.

Hmm. 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1.


Nah, it'll never catch on.
 
thx for explaining old scoring system :) it was fair though
it would be great if Pole winner gets 2 and fastest lap owner gets 1 extra point.
 
Statistically speaking, this system wouldn't have changed a single championship result since Senna lost the championship despite having more wins. And surprisingly, even other positions will not be affected that much - according to a researcher on F1technical, changes in the championship order would be very few, and reward the fast, unreliable racers over more consistent drivers, but still, it won't make a large change.

Famine
Hmm. 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Nah, it'll never catch on.
Click to expand...

No, it won't. Take away the points for 7th and 8th, and suddenly the grid becomes even more top-team biased. I can easily see some teams quitting F1 if either this, or the going-by-wins system becomes standard.

If you want to increase the importance of a win, add more points to it. 12, 9, 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 sounds better to me. Even 12, 8, 6, 5, ..., 1 could work, or 11, 8, 6, etc.

Nitrof1
thx for explaining old scoring system :) it was fair though
it would be great if Pole winner gets 2 and fastest lap owner gets 1 extra point.
Click to expand...

That seems, frankly, stupid. It is a great idea for spec-cars, where a guy driving last can still score a fastest lap, and everyone has a fair chance of a pole - but when there are only two-three teams with a reasonable shot at the fastest lap or pole, and aerodynamics mean that the pole-sitter and leader has the largest advantage, they'll just bag some extra points along with a win. Wouldn't make any difference.
 
Nitrof1
thx for explaining old scoring system :) it was fair though
it would be great if Pole winner gets 2 and fastest lap owner gets 1 extra point.
Click to expand...

And if the pole sitter doesn't win/finish or a 2nd/3rd placed car gets the fastest lap it all becomes "unfair" again.
 
I can see into the future, and I can tell the best year for formula one is still 25 years away. It is the year 2033, and Bernie Ecclestone gets pushed of a boat in Monaco harbour during a party, gets stuck under the boat and drowns!
 
<_Spike_>
And if the pole sitter doesn't win/finish or a 2nd/3rd placed car gets the fastest lap it all becomes "unfair" again.
Click to expand...

or one driver who isnt in 8 but set the fastest lap in the last lap and gets one point. fair :)

you may ask who can do that. Kimi usually does that :D
 
Metar
No, it won't. Take away the points for 7th and 8th, and suddenly the grid becomes even more top-team biased. I can easily see some teams quitting F1
Click to expand...

What, you mean the old-F1 points system? Back in the day when there were more cars than grid places?
 
Famine
What, you mean the old-F1 points system? Back in the day when there were more cars than grid places?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but then again the cost of running a F1 team back then wasn't the same a the GDP of a small country.
 
peterjford
Yeah, but then again the cost of running a F1 team back then wasn't the same a the GDP of a small country.
Click to expand...

Back then the GDP of a small country wasn't the same as the GDP of a small country...
 

Latest Posts

Back