Points system to be replaced?

[Mt. Lynx]

I fear in that case, Bernie will use the part in the Concorde agreement that stipulates that every team must bring two drivers to every round...

But they wouldn´t really have to put their heart in to the racing, and just get a headstart on the next season instead. Stop all testing, stop all development of the current car - who has already won - save money and be the master of next season before it even has begun.

Bernie has effectively shot himself in the foot with this idea, since the very thing he wants to promote with this would be the first thing to be sacrificed by a winning team.

 

[Famine]

Its fair enough looking back at the schumacher dominance years, but we must apply the rule changes and 2009 drivers, as we really have no clue who can do well in races and who can't.

Indeed - all that I intended to show was that reducing the number of drivers who get rewarded for their weekend has, historically, not resulted in closer, more exciting F1 seasons. This is Ecclestone's cited reason for cutting it from 8 to 3, but it is not confirmed by the bare statistics - so what is he basing it upon?

We saw 6 winners this season, wheras schumacher seasons didnt have that sheer unpredictability.

Ooooh, I don't know. In 2004 - Schumacher's last - and most - dominant season, there were 5 different race winners (as in 2000 and 2002). In 1999 there were six. In 2003 there were seven - though yes, in 2001 there were only 4.

 

[ranhammerR34]

Why replace something that worked last year and gave us fans a fight to the last corner of the last lap of the year?! Jeez...

 

[Alex.]

Indeed - all that I intended to show was that reducing the number of drivers who get rewarded for their weekend has, historically, not resulted in closer, more exciting F1 seasons. This is Ecclestone's cited reason for cutting it from 8 to 3, but it is not confirmed by the bare statistics - so what is he basing it upon?



Ooooh, I don't know. In 2004 - Schumacher's last - and most - dominant season, there were 5 different race winners (as in 2000 and 2002). In 1999 there were six. In 2003 there were seven - though yes, in 2001 there were only 4.

But, in those years, I doubt the winners that wern't schumacher won more than 1 or possibly 2 races . This season is the latest we have to compare with the future, and Massa got 6, lewis 5, alonso 2, Kimi 2 and Heikki and Vettel 1 a piece.

Don't get me wrong though, as with most people, I'm against the medals.

 

[Roo]

This season is the latest we have to compare with the future, and Massa got 6, lewis 5, alonso 2, Kimi 2 and Heikki and Vettel 1 a piece.

*coughKubicacough*

One of Mark Hughes' Autosport articles a few months back contained a little list of all the championships that would've gone to a different driver had the medal system been in place:

Year   Actual Champ   Medal Champ

1958   Hawthorn       Moss
1964   Surtees        Clark
1967   Hulme          Clark
1977   Lauda          Andretti
1979   Scheckter      Jones
1981   Piquet         Prost
1982*  Rosberg        Watson
1983   Piquet         Prost
1984   Lauda          Prost
1986   Prost          Mansell
1987   Piquet         Mansell
1989   Prost          Senna
2008   Hamilton       Massa

*1982 would've been decided on points.

The big losers would be Hawthorn, Surtees, Hulme, Scheckter, Rosberg, Hamilton (who all would've lost their only championship) and Piquet (who would've lost all 3 of his). Lauda would only win once (down 2). The only new champions would've been Moss, Watson and Massa; Andretti and Jones would become two times world champions (up 1 each), Mansell three times (up 2), Clark and Senna four times (up 2 and 1 respectively), and Prost a five times world champion (up 1).

Had this idea been suggested in 1990, I could possibly understand - but there's no need for it now.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

The great thing about changing how things are scored is that we can test it by retroactively applying it to previous seasons.

But that's not exactly the best test since the teams and drivers would have adapted to the points system, right?

The thing I don't like about the medals system is that it discourages consistency and reliability. I could see that maybe it could make things more exciting, since teams could possibly try more radical strategies. But I would prefer to see how the new wing changes affect passing before going crazy on the point system. Plus Bernie got divorced and isn't exactly sane.

 

[Alex.]

*coughKubicacough*

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Hey, Don't knock suicide until you've tried it. Don't knock cutting your arms off until you've tried it. There are plenty of things where we can look objectively and say without test that its probably a bad idea. The medal system is one of them, I don't want to see a year wasted testing the idea.

I still fail to see how it's a bad idea. Maybe that's because the arguments for and against it are drowned in all the hatred of the idea and of Bernie Ecclestone.

Still, if the medals system works, I'm going to enjoy watching not a few people - and not just on the forums - eat some humble pie. Me, I'm not against it, but that doesn't mean I'm for the system either. I'm going to wait until a few rounds into the championship to make up my mind.

 

[Famine]

But that's not exactly the best test since the teams and drivers would have adapted to the points system, right?

You are quite right, but racing drivers aren't terribly complicated people and, with the exception of "team orders", rarely accept anything less than the best they can get.

Though I imagine the teams' strategists would have come up with fuel loads, tyre grades, pit strategies and engine maps to limit what "best" was. Nevertheless, it's the best comparative tool we have.

I still fail to see how it's a bad idea. Maybe that's because the arguments for and against it are drowned in all the hatred of the idea and of Bernie Ecclestone.

Still, if the medals system works, I'm going to enjoy watching not a few people - and not just on the forums - eat some humble pie. Me, I'm not against it, but that doesn't mean I'm for the system either. I'm going to wait until a few rounds into the championship to make up my mind.

It's not that it's specifically a "bad idea", but that Bernie's stated reasons for introducing it don't make sense.

He said it was to make drivers' seasons closer and more exciting and to do away with situations where a driver "only needs to finish 5th to win the title". Statistics don't bear this out - of the last 10 seasons:
1 would have been prolonged over the existing 8th Place Points with medals.
2 would have been shortened.
1 would have finished at race 10 (meaning the winning driver didn't even have to turn up to the last 7 races, let alone finish 5th).
5 wouldn't have changed in any noticeable aspect.
1 would have been decided by 3 race stewards and subsquently dragged through every tier of FIA hearings, Sports Arbitration tribunals and, finally, legal courts leaving neither driver or team looking particularly good and being remembered as possibly the worst chapter in Formula One history.

In other words, Bernie's given reason would have been right 10% of the time, wrong 30% of the time, moot 50% of the time and disastrously wrong once.


Not to mention that he lied when he said the FIA and teams were right behind it, having not introduced the proposal to the FIA at all and the FOTA not having discussed it...

 

[Metar]

Plus, it'll negate the cost-cutting moves. Midfield teams will accept a 10-place penalty on the next race in an effort to push the maximum out of the first race, hoping to score a win...

 

[Vaxen]

Still, if the medals system works, I'm going to enjoy watching not a few people - and not just on the forums - eat some humble pie. Me, I'm not against it, but that doesn't mean I'm for the system either. I'm going to wait until a few rounds into the championship to make up my mind.

If it goes through, the medal system is guaranteed to work in that a champion will be crowned. However, there's no guarantee that the majority of the fans will be happy with the outcome, even if it does come down to a final race to decide the title.

A successful run won't end the controversy, and I expect no crows will be eaten.

 

[Metar]

Crows, humble-pies... You folk sure have some odd tastes in food.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It's not that it's specifically a "bad idea", but that Bernie's stated reasons for introducing it don't make sense.

He said it was to make drivers' seasons closer and more exciting and to do away with situations where a driver "only needs to finish 5th to win the title". Statistics don't bear this out - of the last 10 seasons:
1 would have been prolonged over the existing 8th Place Points with medals.
2 would have been shortened.
1 would have finished at race 10 (meaning the winning driver didn't even have to turn up to the last 7 races, let alone finish 5th).
5 wouldn't have changed in any noticeable aspect.
1 would have been decided by 3 race stewards and subsquently dragged through every tier of FIA hearings, Sports Arbitration tribunals and, finally, legal courts leaving neither driver or team looking particularly good and being remembered as possibly the worst chapter in Formula One history.

In other words, Bernie's given reason would have been right 10% of the time, wrong 30% of the time, moot 50% of the time and disastrously wrong once.


Not to mention that he lied when he said the FIA and teams were right behind it, having not introduced the proposal to the FIA at all and the FOTA not having discussed it...

And of the past ten seasons, how many were dominated by Michael Schumacher? Remove him from the equation and crunch the numbers again, and I think the picture would be at least a little different.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

And of the past ten seasons, how many were dominated by Michael Schumacher? Remove him from the equation and crunch the numbers again, and I think the picture would be at least a little different.

But that is exactly the point, isn´t it? A new team could start dominating in the same fashion, and if so, the medals would be a joke!

At least wait till 2010 or even better 2011 before they try anything like this out though, and see how things turn out with the new rules first.

 

[Metar]

An Alonso@Ferrari, Kimi@Ferrari, Hamilton@McLaren... They could all grow to become the next dominator. What then?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think the point is that while Schumacher was at Ferrari, nobody could touch him. And while we have the likes of Massa, Raikkonen, Alonso and Hamilton who can dominate, none of them are leaps and bounds ahead of the competition the way Schumacher was. There is still the potential for them to stay competitive, and I think the medals are designed to draw as much of that potential out by awarding whoever can take the most wins. The finishing positons of each race don't differ too much unless something excpetional happens, like Hamilton forgetting what red and green lights mean in Canada last year. And because everyone's finishing positions are fairly consistent but all the drivers are proven winners and repeated championship contenders, I think Bernie is trying to draw as much of that out as possible for this season.

 

[Famine]

And of the past ten seasons, how many were dominated by Michael Schumacher? Remove him from the equation and crunch the numbers again, and I think the picture would be at least a little different.

As others say, that's kind of the point... In 2004 with the existing system, Schumacher won the title at Race 17 of 18. With the medal system, Schumacher won the title at Race 10.

Taken alone, this season says that the medal systems not only doesn't do what Bernie says it'll do, but does the exact opposite. But one season isn't enough data. Throw in the other 9 seasons and the medal system doesn't do what Bernie says it'll do 90% of the time - and in one-in-three of the occasions does the exact opposite (though rarely on such a gross scale as 2004).


I plucked one season out of thin air - excluding 1999-2008 and any of the years in Roo's post - and did the same analysis on it and the seasons either side:

Season
Points to 6th: WDC won race 11/16
Points to 8th: WDC won race 13/16
Medals: WDC won race 11/16

Previous Season
Points to 6th: WDC won race 15/16
Points to 8th: WDC won race 14/16
Medals: WDC won race 16/16

Following Season
Points to 6th: WDC won race 14/16
Points to 8th: WDC won race 14/16
Medals: WDC won race 13/16

In these three random examples, Medals underperform (by Bernie's terms) 8th Place Points twice and beat them once - even meeting Bernie's conditions of two drivers having to turn up and win the last race to win the WDC. Again though it's 66% against and 33% in favour of Bernie's system - and taken over the 13 seasons it's 15.5% in favour, 38.5% against and 46% no difference. And these three seasons were won by different drivers, not one of them Michael Schumacher.


As I say, it's not intrisically a "bad idea", but Bernie's given reason is not statistically sound when most of the time it's wrong or changes nothing at all.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

I think the point is that while Schumacher was at Ferrari, nobody could touch him. And while we have the likes of Massa, Raikkonen, Alonso and Hamilton who can dominate, none of them are leaps and bounds ahead of the competition the way Schumacher was. There is still the potential for them to stay competitive, and I think the medals are designed to draw as much of that potential out by awarding whoever can take the most wins. The finishing positons of each race don't differ too much unless something excpetional happens, like Hamilton forgetting what red and green lights mean in Canada last year. And because everyone's finishing positions are fairly consistent but all the drivers are proven winners and repeated championship contenders, I think Bernie is trying to draw as much of that out as possible for this season.

And then again, what if you´re not driving a Renault, Ferrari, McLaren or BMW, what is even the point in showing up? The biggest loosers with medals would be the midfielders. No chance to score, no points whatsoever, sponsors leaving, and finally the teams leaving.
Ultimately the medals will hurt F1 more than they would make championships more exciting.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And then again, what if you´re not driving a Renault, Ferrari, McLaren or BMW, what is even the point in showing up? The biggest loosers with medals would be the midfielders. No chance to score, no points whatsoever, sponsors leaving, and finally the teams leaving.
Ultimately the medals will hurt F1 more than they would make championships more exciting.

Tell that to Jenson Button, Sebastian Vettel, Robert Kubica and Heikki Kovalainen. While the latter two might have been in competitive teams, their wins didn't come after dominating the grid all race.

Formula One is racing, and the basic rule of racing is that it's not over unil the last car crosses the line.

 

[Metar]

But that was right what? Ten years ago? In the old days, drivers were lucky to finish. Five retirements per driver in a season was a reliable car. Nowadays, we see drivers completing half a season without a failure. Button? Vettel? Kubica? Kovalainen? They'd never have won if it wasn't for sheer luck and coincidence. Hoping for sheer luck isn't worth spending millions of dollars on. You can't justify a system like this on 4 special cases - not to mention that Kovalainen was in the best/2nd-best car at the time. So four special wins in three years? What about 2007, when we had just four winners from just two teams? Every race in the Schumacher period? The Kimi/Alonso domination of 2005?

Here's an interesting statistic: Ever since the mid-'80s, four teams have won almost exclusively: Williams, Ferrari, McLaren and Bennetton/Renault. The total number of wins by other teams during that period is around ten. In 20 years of F1!

 

[Ardius]

Here's an interesting statistic: Ever since the mid-'80s, four teams have won almost exclusively: Williams, Ferrari, McLaren and Bennetton/Renault. The total number of wins by other teams during that period is around ten. In 20 years of F1!

Indeed, its funny those years are considered the "golden years", and this brings back a very important point against the medal system and the whole idea of "wins should mean more" - we don't watch purely just for the race wins, we watch for the drama further down the field, from the complete-shambles teams like Life, Pacific, etc to the little privateer teams like Minardi, Arrows and Jordan, battling for those last couple of points, trying to nudge those cars where they really shouldn't be.
This is the whole reason F1 is more interesting than, say, GP2. The idea that perhaps a car thats 2,3 or even 5 or more seconds off the pace (compared to a spec car, which is no surprise when it manages to get into a good position on the off chance) can still perhaps struggle around to a small reward makes it exciting to watch when it does finally happen (or almost happen).
This would become impossible once we have no 8-point system, would we ever see say a Force India put the effort into getting a 4th place and then battle far superior cars to hold it?

 

[niky]

We would see them battle for first with a 1000 hp engine tune, then blow up spectacularly halfway through the race.

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

Crows, humble-pies... You folk sure have some odd tastes in food.

Damn! You're whetting my appetite for having my foot in my mouth....

 

[Alex.]

But that was right what? Ten years ago? In the old days, drivers were lucky to finish. Five retirements per driver in a season was a reliable car. Nowadays, we see drivers completing half a season without a failure. Button? Vettel? Kubica? Kovalainen? They'd never have won if it wasn't for sheer luck and coincidence. Hoping for sheer luck isn't worth spending millions of dollars on. You can't justify a system like this on 4 special cases - not to mention that Kovalainen was in the best/2nd-best car at the time. So four special wins in three years? What about 2007, when we had just four winners from just two teams? Every race in the Schumacher period? The Kimi/Alonso domination of 2005?

Here's an interesting statistic: Ever since the mid-'80s, four teams have won almost exclusively: Williams, Ferrari, McLaren and Bennetton/Renault. The total number of wins by other teams during that period is around ten. In 20 years of F1!

How was Vettel's win lucky? Ok Lewis chose the wrong tires but Sebastian dominated the whole weekend, and Bourdais wasn't far behind.

I agree with everything else, though.

 

[Metar]

It was a very, very odd weekend. Hamilton and Raikkonen chose the wrong tyres at the wrong time in qualifying, and the massive spray prevented anyone from following Vettel in the opening stages. This win wouldn't have happened under other circumstances. It was luck, even though the STR's careful planning and work in the rainy Friday helped them.

 

[Ardius]

It was a very, very odd weekend. Hamilton and Raikkonen chose the wrong tyres at the wrong time in qualifying, and the massive spray prevented anyone from following Vettel in the opening stages. This win wouldn't have happened under other circumstances. It was luck, even though the STR's careful planning and work in the rainy Friday helped them.

I think I'll agree with that F1 Rejects said and say that it was one of those weekends where the "hard-nosed, pure racers" teams really were in their element, using their experience to prevail over the more technology-happy teams. We saw teams such as Williams, Red Bull and Toro Rosso qualifying well, with Vettel on pole, Webber 3rd, Bourdais in 4th, Rosberg 5th, its a shame it didnt finish that way in the race.
I wouldn't call it luck, I'd just say its a rare occurence.

 

[Metar]

It's not really a technology vs. racers approach, but rather that the usual top-team approach of "We won't bother because it's a wet Friday" didn't work - because unlike most of the times, it stayed wet throughout every session. STR, meanwhile, worked hard during all four practice-sessions. McLaren had the pace and power to dominate that weekend just as well had they bothered to do more than five laps in the practice-sessions, or without Hamilton's tyre-****up.

It was a weekend were careful, meticulous work paid off.

 

[Vaxen]

FIA reveals medal analysis

Interesting bit:

The FIA's analysis shows that the medal system would change the outcomes of past World Championships considerably. Only 22 of the 59 World Championships to date would have the same top 3. The other 37 World Championships would be different. The World Champion would be altered on 13 occasions.

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).

In terms of World Championship final race showdowns, there would have been five lost (1955, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2000) but six gained (1977, 1979, 1980, 1990, 1991 and 2005).

No conclusions on the merits of the proposal were given in the article.

 

[Hun200kmh]

I see one merit. Stirling Moss would be champion

(and Pironi also, but in the process we would lose several worthy champions, like Hawthorn, Rosberg, Piquet, Sheckter, Surtees and Hulme)

 

[Tired Tyres]

So in other words a triple World Champion like Nelson Nelson Piquet wouldn't have even won one title! I'd say that's a fairly major change!