Points system to be replaced?

  • Thread starter Danny
  • 356 comments
  • 24,238 views
Vaxen
Article
Fourteen World Championship battles would have been shorter (1955, 1970, 1978, 1987, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2004).

Eight World Championship battles would have lasted longer (1973, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1990, 1991, 2001 and 2005).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Now, I'm no professional statistician, but doesn't that require a rupture in the space-time continuum?
 
why can't we keep Bernie happy? HA! No, what we could have as a compromise is A1GP's system. Not just medals, but a points standings with the medals as a reference to race results in the case of a tie.... Oh wait, we have COMPUTERS that RECORD the results and that is why we haven't needed medals in the past!
 
So instead of a humongous and impressive trophy to put up on their mantlepiece, we give the drivers teeny tiny medals to go between baby pictures? Give me the cup, please.

So it took the FIA monkeys months to come to the same conclusion it only took a clearly homo sapiens superior like Famine a half-day to work out? That's why it only takes one bureacratic monkey to change a lightbulb... two monkeys or more will just make a mess... :lol:
 
niky
So instead of a humongous and impressive trophy to put up on their mantlepiece, we give the drivers teeny tiny medals to go between baby pictures? Give me the cup, please.
Click to expand...
And given the current economic situation, what do you think would be cheaper: making medals that are identical in terms of their basic properties - size, shape and the like - and are pretty much homogenous from round to round, or commissioning three custom-made, one-of-a-kind trophies for each event on the calendar?

The cost-cutting desn't just apply to teams.
 
Do you race?
And given the current economic situation, what do you think would be cheaper: making medals that are identical in terms of their basic properties - size, shape and the like - and are pretty much homogenous from round to round, or commissioning three custom-made, one-of-a-kind trophies for each event on the calendar?

The cost-cutting desn't just apply to teams.
Click to expand...

Which do you think would be cheaper? Each local motor sports association commissioning three, custom-made, one-of-a-kind trophies for each event on the calendar, or paying Bernie up to $40m a year ($400m being a good ballpark) to negotiate TV rights, which the TV channels pay Bernie $450m a year for?

[/satire]
 
:lol:

Cost-cutting? Medals?

Working for a school and being involved in various sporting organizations, I can tell you, the difference between making a medal and a trophy is so pennies and cents, it's... well... an F1 team will blow through more money in gasoline in one practice lap than it'll cost you to buy a whole set of trophies for the race.

I suppose the next cost-cutting measure we need to do is to eliminate the winners' grandstand. The cost of putting up a temporary grandstand for the winners instead of giving them their medals right beside the cars is a tremendous expense... they should just put a 3-step podium out on the main straight after the race.

Then we could have the post-race interview out there. The cameras are already set up, anyway. :lol:
 
Do you race?
The cost-cutting desn't just apply to teams.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? You realize that the price of the trophies is a few orders of magnitude smaller than the price of hosting the GP? Even the impressive Bahrain trophies cost pennies compared to the hospitality at the events - and you'd be naive to think the medals would be your plain old highschool-athletics medal: They'll be big, shiny, impressive and, yes, expensive.
 
Well, maybe it's just me. I live on a uni budget, and so budget I must. And while there are some fixed costs, it's generally a case of saving dollars wherever I can.

Yes, it's likely that the medals will be big and shiny ... but I doubt they'll be the size of a clock. When it was first announced and given the comparisons to the Olympic Games, I figured the Formula One medals would roughly be the same size and shape.
 
Excellent. 👍 I'm quite happy with this change, it's a whole lot better than Bernie's medals idea.
 
Jackington
Excellent. 👍 I'm quite happy with this change, it's a whole lot better than Bernie's medals idea.
Click to expand...

How? It's the same plan, only without the physical medals...

Essentially the Championship will now be decided on what we currently call "Countback" with the points system used as a tie-breaker. Which means we get to see just how phenomenally unfair it is, as opposed to working it all out...

Driver A - 4 wins, 4 seconds, 1 third, 1 seventh = 80 points
Driver B - 4 wins, 4 seconds, 1 fourth, 1 fifth = 79 points
Driver C - 5 wins, 12 DNFs = 50 points & champion!
 
Haha, I have to admit, I didn't think the whole thing through. :lol: But I think it's better than Bernie's idea because 4th through to 8th at least get some points still.
 
Damn I raced over here when I seen the news, but I was 5 mins late!

I'm not sure if its a good idea or a bad idea. It would prevent people like Kubica or Raikkenon last year having any hope at the title, which has to be a bad thing. I know they believe it will cause teams to try harder for the wins, but I dont think they sat back and let other teams win in the past anyway.
 
I don't think much of this idea of having an "optional" budget cap, either... so teams who choose to go with the cap of £30m will be allowed certain parts and teams that choose to opt out can spend whatever they want but will face tougher restrictions? Sounds like a recipe for disaster if you ask me... it sounds like the "tougher restrictions" could easily be tailored to hamper the opting out teams by as much as the FIA see fit. I think having two sets of rules for allowable car designs etc. is a fundamentally bad idea - one that is only likely to hasten a split between the rich teams and the rest...
 
There's already two sets of rules one for Ferrari and one for the other teams. :sly: Only now they are being smart about it and actually putting it in the rules in a round-about sort of way. I can't understand why the points system was changed, in the first place from the 10-6-4 system and now awarding the title to the driver with most wins. It seems like a change anything to see what happens idea, without much real thought. How many years are they going to keep changing rule after rule after rule, it won't get fans back into Formula 1, it will just anger or confuse people who are still fans, a list which is surely getting smaller by the year.
 
Famine
How? It's the same plan, only without the physical medals...

Essentially the Championship will now be decided on what we currently call "Countback" with the points system used as a tie-breaker. Which means we get to see just how phenomenally unfair it is, as opposed to working it all out...

Driver A - 4 wins, 4 seconds, 1 third, 1 seventh = 80 points
Driver B - 4 wins, 4 seconds, 1 fourth, 1 fifth = 79 points
Driver C - 5 wins, 12 DNFs = 50 points & champion!
Click to expand...

There is a massive flaw in the system, shall be interesting to see if it ever pans out like that.

I don't like the idea, it has a massive flaw, can't say I like the idea of most wins = title. Then again, I don't think it would be right to have a driver finish 2nd in every race and win say 3 races, and win the title, then again, as above, to win 5 and DNF in the rest, would be just as shambolic.

Title deciding systems will never be perfect.
 
Famine
How? It's the same plan, only without the physical medals...

Essentially the Championship will now be decided on what we currently call "Countback" with the points system used as a tie-breaker. Which means we get to see just how phenomenally unfair it is, as opposed to working it all out...

Driver A - 4 wins, 4 seconds, 1 third, 1 seventh = 80 points
Driver B - 4 wins, 4 seconds, 1 fourth, 1 fifth = 79 points
Driver C - 5 wins, 12 DNFs = 50 points & champion!
Click to expand...

Sureboss
There is a massive flaw in the system, shall be interesting to see if it ever pans out like that.

I don't like the idea, it has a massive flaw, can't say I like the idea of most wins = title. Then again, I don't think it would be right to have a driver finish 2nd in every race and win say 3 races, and win the title, then again, as above, to win 5 and DNF in the rest, would be just as shambolic.

Title deciding systems will never be perfect.
Click to expand...

I don't have any problem with a driver winning a championship because he is consistent. In fact, I admire drivers that achieve a cjhampionship on consistency, because when that happens the reason is probably that they are clearly among the best, but they just don't have the best car in their hands.

As an example, Kubica was in the fight for the championship until almost the end of last season. Wouldn't he be a worthy champion if he got it? In my view, yes (just as Massa and Hamilton would be)!

I think these rules are bad for F1 and I think the end result can be the exact opposite of what they are intended for.

Anyway, I'll wait for a simulation of the effects of this system to past championships (like the FIA did to the "medals system") to get a more clear picture.
 
Famine
How? It's the same plan, only without the physical medals...

Essentially the Championship will now be decided on what we currently call "Countback" with the points system used as a tie-breaker. Which means we get to see just how phenomenally unfair it is, as opposed to working it all out...

Driver A - 4 wins, 4 seconds, 1 third, 1 seventh = 80 points
Driver B - 4 wins, 4 seconds, 1 fourth, 1 fifth = 79 points
Driver C - 5 wins, 12 DNFs = 50 points & champion!
Click to expand...
It's funny, because it completely contradicts the FIAs push for engines to last 3 races.
 
Hun200kmh
I don't have any problem with a driver winning a championship because he is consistent. In fact, I admire drivers that achieve a cjhampionship on consistency, because when that happens the reason is probably that they are clearly among the best, but they just don't have the best car in their hands.

As an example, Kubica was in the fight for the championship until almost the end of last season. Wouldn't he be a worthy champion if he got it? In my view, yes (just as Massa and Hamilton would be)!

I think these rules are bad for F1 and I think the end result can be the exact opposite of what they are intended for.

Anyway, I'll wait for a simulation of the effects of this system to past championships (like the FIA did to the "medals system") to get a more clear picture.
Click to expand...

I like Kubica, but he would not have been a worthy champion last year.
 
So, the FIA has screwed up the points system, Sony is shutting down the F1: CE servers, F109 might not be out till 2010, and McLaren is up ****'s creek with out a paddle. Great so who's looking forward to 2010, because 2009 is a wash.
 
I don't see how hard it is to just stick with what works instead of messing around with everything, the could try to make the points system a bit more exponential if they want to put the emphasis on winning. If they are really so desperate, what's wrong with:

1st -20
2nd -12
3rd - 8
4th - 6
5th - 5
6th - 4
7th - 3
8th - 2
9th - 1

or something along those lines. Last seasons point worked just fine, the teams proposed points system also seems good.
 

Latest Posts

Back