Famine's Adjusted Constructors' Championship Formula 1

Discussion in 'Motorsport' started by Famine, Nov 13, 2010.

  1. Famine

    Online Now!
    United Kingdom Rule 12

    I've just had an idea so awesome that I'm concerned my foot might fall off and I've had to interrupt watching a meaningless F1 session to post it.

    My idea fixes team orders, fixes driver vs. team championships, fixes favoured drivers and one-off parts. My idea fixes the politics of F1:

    Make the Constructors' Championship for second place finishers only.

    Stick with me here.
    * At the end of each race, the drivers' championship is calculated as normal, using whatever points system Bernie likes today.
    * Following that, all teams' highest place drivers are disregarded.
    * The remaining 12 drivers (less DNFs - DNF is 0pt) are then ranked using the same points system and this is the constructors' championship

    Quick & dirty example - 2010 German Grand Prix:
    Race Result & Drivers' Championship
    1. Alonso (25pt)
    2. Massa (18pt)
    3. Vettel (15pt)
    4. Hamilton (12pt)
    5. Button (10pt)
    6. Webber (8pt)
    7. Kubica (6pt)
    8. Rosberg (4pt)
    9. Schumacher (2pt)
    10. Petrov (1pt)
    11. Kobayashi
    12. Barrichello
    13. Hulkenburg
    14. de la Rosa
    15. Alguersuari
    16. Liuzzi
    17. Sutil
    18. Glock
    19. Senna
    DNF - Kovalainen, di Grassi, Yamamoto, Trulli, Buemi

    Constructors' Championship
    1. Massa (25pt)
    2. Button (18pt)
    3. Webber (15pt)
    4. Schumacher (12pt)
    5. Petrov (10pt)
    6. Hulkenberg (8pt)
    7. de la Rosa (6pt)
    8. Sutil (4pt)
    DNF - di Grassi, Yamamoto, Trulli, Buemi

    The team order would probably still have happened - Ferrari get the same constructors' points in both cases (43pt currently, 25pt this way) but people would care less because whomever is the lead second driver scores maximum points for the team. We don't get denied a championship fight (and the constructors' championship is closer) - team orders are allowed (they happen everywhere anyway) and don't spoil the result (unless you're a one-driver fan), benefitting the whole sport.

    Second drivers become far more important to the team - they can't concentrate on the lead driver alone, because he doesn't get them any points. HRT/Virgin/Lotus don't need to get a driver twelve places higher at the end than at the start to score one poxy point - they need to get both cars to finish and have the second one ahead of just two others and any occasion where a higher ranked team fails to finish their second car, they get even more. This encourages reliability too - fail to finish one car and you get no Constructor points. Finish both and you're almost guaranteed a point (only Brazil has seen all 10 points-paying positions for this scheme filled - no eleventh car though)

    I've tried to work out this season's constructors' championship with this system. Currently it stands at:

    Edit: Post-Abu Dhabi added:
    1. Red Bull - 279pt
    2. Ferrari - 276pt
    3. McLaren - 267pt
    4. Mercedes - 195pt
    5. Williams - 140pt
    6. Renault - 117pt
    7. Toro Rosso - 113pt
    8. Sauber - 107pt
    9. Force India - 91pt
    10. Hispania - 51pt
    11. Lotus - 40pt
    12. Virgin - 36pt

    This would mean that any of the top three teams can still win it, along with any of the top four drivers winning their championship. Edit: Decided at the final race with a gap of TWELVE points 1st-3rd (compared to 102 in reality - or 51 if you take into account half the field scoring).

    The only driver to not score any constructor points - thus never having finished behind his teammate with both cars finishing - is Robert Kubica. Which tells everyone, through the beauty of maths, that Vitaly Petrov is Captain Crashy McCrashpants or that Renault don't support him (or both). The most valuable team drivers are Felipe Massa (218pt), Jenson Button (206pt), Mark Webber (178pt) and Michael Schumacher (165pt), who finish behind their teammates with both cars finishing more often than anyone else. Red Bull are the most even top team (62:38 split constructor points) - Ferrari the least even (78:22 split constructor points). Williams are the most even team with (60:40 split constructor points).

    So you get enhanced reliability, team orders rendered moot (they'll still happen, as they already do, but who cares?), mathematical proof of the balance in teams (which, having watched a lot of North American sports coverage, will make F1 more accessible to US fans) and at least one of the championships is tighter than a duckling's bunghole (I'll work out previous seasons later), even if we end up with another 7 years' of drivers' tedium.

    I rule. Discuss.
    Last edited: Nov 14, 2010
    FussyFez and KinLM like this.
  2. Ardius

    United Kingdom Manchester

    This doesn't so much solve team orders as make them more valuable. I'm not so sure thats what people are asking for when they say they should be banned. I thought the whole point of hating team orders is that you are denied a fair fight on the track, where Alonso overtakes Massa through skill and that Massa is not given a fair chance to win the race.
    It sounds good but I don't think its necessary, 2nd drivers already are highly valuable..just look at Renault. With Petrov under-perfoming all year, they have had no chance to fight Mercedes.

    I also don't think a great many people care about the Constructors Championship either, though this kind of rule may change that.

    I support the idea though, it would be nice to see people making an effort to promote the "team" aspect of the sport rather than constantly focusing on individuals, which is where it all goes wrong.
    KinLM likes this.
  3. Lizard

    Online Now!
    United Kingdom Lincoln UK

    I dont like this idea as teams favour drivers for the drivers championship not the constructors.
  4. Famine

    Online Now!
    United Kingdom Rule 12

    Yes and no.

    Banning them - though it's actually happened - is impossible. They just send barely-coded messages to each other about relative speed and fuelling and one driver gets denied "n" points for his race finish. This way, both drivers get "n" points for their race finish - one for drivers', one for constructors' (and he still gets his slightly reduced drivers' points too), making the second driver more valuable to the team.

    Exactly :D

    The... huh?

    Are you saying this already happens and should continue (in which case you've missed quite a few points) or that my plan would make it happen more (in which case you've missed even more points)?

    The top drivers still race for championships - this points system wouldn't affect Vettel and Webber (and Hamilton and Alonso) going for that #1 next season tomorrow. All it changes is that the way for teams to thrive is to finish both drivers well and not concentrate on one or the other - it also ensures they pick good young drivers, rather than guys with a good bankroll behind them.

    Let's face it - no-one gives a crap about the teams championship besides the teams. This will make it more interesting, make the politics/orders harmless to the sport and promote reliable, equal speed.
    KinLM likes this.
  5. NapoleonMikey


    Ddoes the second driver still get WDC points?
  6. Famine

    Online Now!
    United Kingdom Rule 12

    Yes - there's no change to the Drivers' Championship.
  7. Hmm. I don't know about fixing the politics.. they will always be around... However as a concept, I think it's pretty clever. It'll make team strategy much more important (as well as reliability, and having 2 strong drivers as mentioned), and make the constructers championship ALOT more interesting to watch. (am I the only one who barely notices the thing?)

    I like it, don't know if it mends anything... but it would be a refreshing change to having one team dominate due to having the championship driver reaping them all the points.
  8. DK

    Ireland Ireland

    Great going, what next for the amazing Famine? Are you going to try to solve world hunger, cure AIDS or get Republicans and Democrats to get along with each other and agree?
  9. daan

    Online Now!
    Scotland Scotland

    When there's 5 drivers in contention with 2 races to go, and 4 still in with a shout for the last race, I don't think it's broken.
  10. Famine

    Online Now!
    United Kingdom Rule 12

    There's broken aspects - particularly if you're unlucky enough to be a supporting act in a team (perpetually Massa, but also Barrichello over the years) or one of the newbie teams. The teams' championship is rarely as interesting as the drivers' and often settled with very many races left. We've struck lucky this year with the drivers and the manufacturers' was only settled last race. I haven't got round to running the numbers for previous seasons (it's a bit tricky, particularly with regards to classified DNFs), but I reckon it'd make many seasons much closer and more knife-edge than they were - we might even have memorable constructors' championships! Not to mention the effect on reliability - get both cars home or score nothing. Teams jumping five places in the last race of the season? Hispania on 47 points, just behind Force India? Mental :D

    As you know, I recently got back from the US and I watch a lot of US sport anyway and this sort of minute, nit-picking mathematical statswanking is exactly the kind of thing US sport TV channels thrive on - an hour of every football game is actual football, another hour is adverts and the remaining two hours is discussion of rushing yards and pass completion (or the equivalent in MLS/NHL/NBA/MLB). And just imagine the permutations they could discuss for who'd win the constructors' championship tomorrow! BBC are already in meltdown with all the drivers' championship stuff - who needs to place where and suchlike. They'd be in hog heaven :D

    Famine solving hunger?

    You didn't think this through...

    Edit: Previous seasons...

    1. Red Bull 498pt --> 1. Red Bull 279pt
    2. McLaren 454pt --> 2. Ferrari 276pt
    3. Ferrari 396pt --> 3. McLaren 267pt
    4. Mercedes 214pt --> 4. Mercedes 195pt
    5. Renault 163pt --> 5. Williams 140pt
    6. Williams 69pt --> 6. Renault 117pt
    7. Force India 68pt --> 7. Toro Rosso 113pt
    8. Sauber 44pt --> 8. Sauber 107pt
    9. Toro Rosso 13pt --> 9. Force India 91pt
    10. Lotus 0pt --> 10. Hispania 51pt
    11. Hispania 0pt --> 11. Lotus 40pt
    12. Virgin 0pt --> 12. Virgin 36pt

    The season was one race longer than reality, with the championship decided by Webber's 8th place (3rd second driver). Ferrari finish second with Button's 3rd place (1st second driver) not enough to catch them. Renault's reward for constantly bringing just one car home - Kubica's - sees them fall behind Williams and Toro Rosso's even pairing give them two places as a reward. Hispania's consistency in getting both cars home sees them top the new teams deservedly.

    1. Brawn 172pt --> 1. Brawn 127pt
    2. RBR 153.5pt --> 2. RBR 81pt
    3. McLaren 71pt --> 3. Toyota 71pt
    4. Ferrari 70pt --> 4. Ferrari 57pt
    5. Toyota 59.5pt --> 5. Sauber 54pt
    6. Sauber 36pt --> 6. McLaren 53pt
    7. Williams 34.5pt --> 7. Williams 50pt
    8. Renault 26pt --> Renault 36.5pt
    9. Force India 13pt --> Force India 33pt
    10. STR 8pt --> STR 23pt

    The championship would actually have been shorter (lolwhoops), though second would have been on the table right to the end (RBR/Toyota/Ferrari/McLaren). Brawn, Ferrari and McLaren's obvious team imbalances would be made much more obvious and Toyota and Red Bull's even driver pairings and reliability would have reaped more reward for at least one of them. STR would have gone into the last race knowing that a possible 10th & 11th place finish (compared to an improbable 4th) would have promoted them one spot.

    1. Ferrari 172pt --> 1. McLaren 113pt
    2. McLaren 151pt --> 2. BMW Sauber 111pt
    3. BMW Sauber 135pt --> 3. Ferrari 95pt
    4. Renault 80pt --> 4. Toyota 63pt
    5. Toyota 56pt --> 5. Williams 62pt
    6. Toro Rosso 39pt --> 6. Red Bull 50pt
    7. Red Bull 29pt --> 7. Renault 49pt
    8. Williams 26pt --> Toro Rosso 35pt
    9. Honda 14pt --> Honda 34pt
    10. Force India 0pt --> Force India 7pt
    11. Super Aguri 0pt --> Super Aguri 6pt

    BMW's extraordinary reliability - 16 points finishes from 18 - combined with their season-long speed promotes them to second, while the McLaren goes top. Ferrari's early and mid-season unreliability (and Kimi's indifference) drops them back to third. Williams' excellent team balance and reliability promotes them to best-of-the-rest, while STR's fluke wet win doesn't skew their championship - judged on the season rather than a one-off race puts them back behind their parent team (who have Coulthard holding them back in the teams' championship) and nearly within Honda's grasp at the end. Vettel scores no points for STR, alerting other teams to his ability - his championship comes two seasons later.

    I'll do more for other seasons when I remember. It's hard work this :lol:
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2010
  11. MTC

    United Kingdom Milton Keynes

    Team orders exist because teams want one of their drivers to win the drivers’ championship. Team orders already have no effect on the constructors’ championship, they would have just as little effect on this proposed change to the constructors’ championship.

    This suggestion would not make a difference to team orders; as long as teams have 2 or more drivers, there will be times when some teams will see team orders as beneficial.
  12. Famine

    Online Now!
    United Kingdom Rule 12


    Point the missed have you.

    Team orders exist. Team orders won't go away. This change renders them moot not because they change the drivers' championship but because they no longer affect the constructors' championship - we get to see the fight played out in the constructors' championship (something we've been denied for a while) instead...

    The biggest complaint about team orders is that it "denies the fans a chance to see racing". Not any more.
  13. DC9990


    I actually like the idea of this. It would also help the lower teams a bit more & make it overall closer.
  14. homeforsummer


    Apart from the constructors themselves, natch.

    This method would stop teams mindlessly biasing one of their drivers to gain the most constructors points (as Famine says, the Alonso/Massa situation earlier this year wouldn't have made a difference, but other things do, such as giving one driver a better car than the other) as the emphasis for the team (rather than the first-placed driver, who'd be out to do the best for him) is on getting the second driver as high as possible too.

    Also, think of the shock results. Take a race where your finishing order is something like Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull, Renault, Lotus, Lotus, Ferrari, McLaren, Red Bull, Renault etc.

    Unlikely of course, but you can see how it'd mix things up - although four cars would have finished ahead of the first Lotus and therefore all the drivers would get more points, Lotus would actually get the most constructors points.

    For a team struggling for funding it's great, as points mean prizes. Well, points pay for air transit and all sorts of other goodies that's hugely important to smaller teams.

    A team getting both cars in a decent position and ahead of at least one competitior from rival teams can score big in the constructors title.

    There'd also be an emphasis on getting rid of crappy drivers too, or those in a team solely because they paid their way in, since if they only got poor results the team would be losing more money than they gain from a paying driver's sponsorship. In this respect, it's good for bringing the talented, rather than the rich, to the top.

    Famine - what have I told you about cutting your toenails with a scythe?...
  15. Ardius

    United Kingdom Manchester

    I wouldn't quite call it "mindlessly biasing" ;). Its pretty logical really. Has Massa been ahead of Alonso ever since Hockenheim? No, so it wasn't mindless bias, it was smart tactics.
    Mindless bias is Team Aon favouring Chilton over Onslow-Cole, despite OC being quite a bit ahead in the championship, all because one happens to have a father who owns Aon....although still its not really "mindless", it has a logic. Just not one that applies very well if they want to win a championship.
  16. homeforsummer


    Sorry, I worded that badly. I wasn't saying that the Massa/Alonso swap was mindless biasing, I just happened to mention it after I was talking about bias in general.

    And you're right, the Team Aon thing was the sort of thing I was on about, and some of Red Bull's decisions this year have been fairly close to that, as have other decisions in previous F1 seasons.
  17. DK

    Ireland Ireland

    I was just having a laugh. You solving hunger would sure look like the most ironic thing mankind has ever known. That and creationists saying that Hitler was an atheist.
  18. Famine

    Online Now!
    United Kingdom Rule 12

    I was thinking about maybe solving laziness and procrastination tomorrow.

    Meh, screw it. I can't be bothered.
  19. lbsf1

    United Kingdom Warwick Uni
    PSN:lbsf1 GTP_lbsf1

    I like this idea it is great however there is one small idea i don't like, i used to be able to do the maths on who was going too win the championship depending on where they are finishing because the points were 10, 8 and so on and they were easy to understand, now with this years points I can't work out the points and have to wait for the commentator to tell me who would finish were in the championship. There is no way with this system I could work out who would win. The other problem I see with this is that drivers that are just slightly worse than there teamates would end up substatially lower on points then their conterparts who are only slightly better so the drivers standings at the end of the year wouldn't show fairly who is better than who because a relitevely bad driver in virgin could earn more points than a good driver who finishes well but always slightly below their teamates.
  20. Famine

    Online Now!
    United Kingdom Rule 12

    No they couldn't - this doesn't affect the drivers' championship. It's only a new way of calculating how points are gained for the constructors' championship.

    Though yes, you'd be hard pressed to work it out until the final lap.
  21. lbsf1

    United Kingdom Warwick Uni
    PSN:lbsf1 GTP_lbsf1

    Ahhh. So only the second finishing driver scores for the constructors championship.
  22. Famine

    Online Now!
    United Kingdom Rule 12

    Yes. Everyone still scores the same drivers' championship points they do already, then all the teams' #1 finishing drivers (and all DNFs) are excluded and the same points scheme reapplied to the remaining constructors' cars.
  23. homeforsummer


    There's always the pen, paper and calculator route to working out points without BBC having to tell you. Or if you're feeling particularly flash, a spreadsheet that's set up to add it all up for you.

    Essentially it's just "adding up" so whatever the scoring system the process for working out positions is the same ;)
  24. Boundary Layer


    Gotta agree with daan, I don't think the current method of crowning top constructor or driver is flawed...

    Famine, while I can appreciate how this potentially tightens up the constructor's battles on paper, I wonder how it would play out in a race. It obviously changes team strategy, and I'm not sure it's for the better when you get into the midfield runners. I can see more teams urging their drivers to play it safe and not look to overtake.

    In particular, I think this could hurt competition around 8th, 9th, 10th or lower in the order where you often get the #2's of top teams battling with the #1's of slower teams. To illustrate, let's look at the running order at the end of the Korean GP:

    Hulkenberg finished 10th, nabbing himself a single WDC point and would also pick up 15 WCC points for being the 3rd 2nd driver.
    Alguersuari finished 11th, a few seconds back, no WDC points and no WCC points either as he was the lead STR.
    Button in 12th is another few seconds back, scores no WDC points, but will get 12 WCC points for McLaren.
    Buemi has crashed out in the other STR already.

    Okay... so Hulkenberg's only motivation for keeping ahead of Alguersuari is to hang on to 1 WDC... towards the end of the season this might not mean anything to him if he trails the next driver in the championship by a substantial amount. 15 points however could still mean an awful lot to constructor Williams. ...So if Alguersuari puts Nico under heavy pressure (and he might as well, he can score 1 WDC from it and his team mate is already out so there's no WCC points at stake for him), and if Nico is keeping his team in mind, I wonder how hard he'll defend that spot... he's in a murky scenario where his goals or instincts and the goals of his team don't necessarily align.

    Lets look at Button. By passing Alguersuari he will gain absolutely nothing. He'd still be outside the WDC points positions and will not pickup any additional WCC points because Alguersuari is the lead STR. Why should he put those WCC points at risk by going wheel to wheel for 11th spot?

    I'm not sure how clearly I've explained this... but do you see what I'm getting at?
    Awarding constructor points deep into the field based on how things have shaped up higher in the order does make it extremely important to make it to the finish. No problem there, I think it should be important.
    The problem for me is when there is more motivation for a driver to hold his current position and almost guarantee a finish, than there is to hunt down the guy farther up the road and pass him - and worse than this is when they're willing to give up their current position just to make it to the end. That's boring.
    The next spot up the road must always be more valuable than the spot the driver is currently in.

    There's perhaps even more pressure placed on drivers at the top of the running order with this idea. In addition to losing out on WDC points if a driver retires for some reason, he also destroys any chance of the #2 being able to contribute points to the team. ...I don't think I like this. Maybe I'm looking at this from the wrong perspective but I envision guys being extra conservative to allow decent results for themselves and team rather than going for broke to try for the max points. I suppose it depends entirely on the current standings and how much the team values each of the championships. Every team would handle these situations differently, I'm sure.

    It could maybe be interesting for a season or two. Ultimately though, while it might solve some minor problems on paper, I think it would adversely affect the product on track.

    Not saying it isn't an interesting idea though.
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2010
  25. Boundary Layer


    Just had a flash of brilliance. :idea:

    What if total race time were involved here...
    Take the sum of the race times of the teams' two drivers, count a full 2 hours for a DNF (or maybe more since this would become less of a penalty during slow and/or wet races), and assign constructor points based on their combined time.

    This addresses the main points you were concerned with Famine - stressing the importance of completing the full distance and inserting two strong drivers into two quick cars. But it also addresses my concerns. With this idea there should always be incentive for both drivers to go faster and pass cars that are holding them up. Tactics still play a crucial role, and properly judging when to pit and then making a clean stop are very important, else you could get tied up behind someone on a different strategy and lose lots of time.

    I haven't looked at how this might rearrange the order this season or for any past seasons yet. I might be bothered to later today.

    I rule. Discuss.
  26. crooky369


    I don't like it... what decent team would take the risk with a new upcoming driver from GP2 if they thought there might be a chance he's going to lose them vital money from finishing lower in the constructors just because their gamble didn't pay off?

    Petrov would have never got the seat at Renault and Hulkenburg probably wouldn't have either. Hamilton's talent in 2007 would have probably been wasted as well because Mclaren would have probably loaned him out to a team that can take risks unlike Mclaren.
  27. peter_vod69

    Australia Newcastle, NSW, Australia

    For this to work you'd have to assume that each team has a no.1 and no.2 driver though. I can think of several where this isn't the case.
  28. Boundary Layer


    You've missed the essence of Famine's idea.
    Every team has two drivers. In his idea the leading driver, regardless of stature within the team, does not contribute WCC points, only the trailing driver does (assuming he finishes).
  29. peter_vod69

    Australia Newcastle, NSW, Australia

    Ok, but why would you call the resulting championship the "Constructors" championship? Why not the "Not bad for a championship", or the "Felipe Baby championship for overshadowed drivers"?

    Constructors Championship should reward the most successful team/car. To that end it should be a combination of BOTH results.
  30. Boundary Layer


    :lol: Some good questions for Famine.

    Agreed, though to an extent it is because it requires both drivers to finish for any points to be scored. See my alternative a few posts up.
Next Page »