Thanks FIA, for finally taking F1 away from us fans.

The Game Room
1

In what I think is a deranged decision they’ve now taken away the points system that used to determine the WDC and will determine same simply based on the number of wins per year. Meaning that if there’s a dominant car on the grid (as the Brawn appears to be this year), they could simply walk away with the title after six or seven races – leaving the rest of the season as filler and never giving the rest of the pack a chance to catch-up. Never mind rewarding consistency nor fine driving with inferior equipment, which means, if we apply the rules retroactively, Massa and not Lewis* would have been the reigning World Champ. Or to put it another way, it’s conceivable that a driver scores a massive amount of points, say 100+, while the champ could be someone who say, won seven races or 70 points, period.

Here, take a look for yourselves and convince me that the sport is still worth watching. Because, darn it, despite of this ridiculous ruling, I probably will. :mad:

World Motor Sport Council - Decisions

*And trust me when I say I’m no fan of his. But still, this is just…Urgh!

2

Last year it came down to the last lap of the last race. Such a boring system must be corrected.

3

Actually, what it does is put such a premium on winning that teams can no longer just sit content with “consistent” results. Consistenly second is consistenly first loser, after all. :wink:

4

There are so many changes this year. It’s going to be interesting, I think.

5

Hiya, DS, LTNS. Trust all is well by you.

If you don’t mind my saying so I see a gaping hole in that line of though. And it’s simply that if a driver shoots out of the starting line – as is wont to happen in F1 – other front runners in the WDC won’t be doing much racing. What’s the point anyway? Might as well save the engine for the next race. Remember, this season they need to run them for three Grand Prix events. Also, a team like McLaren which appears to be late in their car development might just as well use the first 5/7 races as practice runs instead of scrambling for points as all that matters is first place – awarding more points for first place would have made more sense and have none of the undesirable side effects.

Drivers were against it, fans as well. And with good reason STM. Guess we’ll see who’s right, but from what I think is a fairly objective view-point, I think it’s a downright shame.

As Robot Arm mentions, chances are slim and none that this season will come down to the the last turn of the last lap of the last race. So why mess with a good thing?

6

I think it would be best if one driver would win the first 7 races and then fail miserable only to win the title while failing to finish the last 8 reaces or so. That would really make them change it back in a hury.

Is sacrificing one season too much to ask?

7

Stupid stupid system, as will become all the more evident the first time the driver ahead on the number of wins is lagging behind on points.

8

It’s probably the second worst scoring system they’ve ever had.

A long time ago, the season was split into two halves. Drivers tallied up the points from each half, and took the best result. The result of the last season they used that left a bad taste in the mouth; the best overall driver was not the world champion. The WC was a driver who outclassed the best overall driver in the first half of the season, then lost ground hand over fist in the second half.

Another criticism is that, if you are going to put a premium on being the winner and only the winner, don’t they think it might be better to find some way of increasing the chances for overtaking manoevres first?

Here’s another problem. Consider the following scenario.

Driver S is leading the world championship table by virtue of having won six races to driver P’s five. In the last race of the season, P gets a better start than S, and leads the race. If the race finishes with P first and S second, P will win the title.

S doesn’t have to pass P to win the title. S just has to ensure P doesn’t finish. One little miscalculation, and off the road P goes, out of the race, his title hopes gone.

Given how competitive F1 drivers are, do you not think that S would be willing to risk running his rival off the road, if he thought he could plausibly claim that he miscalculated?

9

Hmm, I wonder what “S” stands for? :wink:

Last year’s result looked manipulated too, if you’ll recall - that’s part of why I don’t take these races seriously anymore.

Besides, it was silly to give so little weight to actually winning a race - that inspires overcaution and boredom, doesn’t it? This new system goes too far the other way, but it was in the right direction. Better they should have increased the point differentials.

10

Is there a single person alive who thinks this a good idea, or even a half-reasonable one? I don’t watch much F1 anymore, and this certainly isn’t going to bring me back.

You got “Driver S” right, but surely “Driver P” should be “Driver H” or “Driver V”? :slight_smile:

If that actually happened, the FIA would probably apply some draconian penalty, like docking all of Driver S’s points for the season - they’d still win the title under the new system, though… hmm, deja vu anyone?

11

I’m undecided on the idea at the moment, but leaning towards liking it. We’ll see.

There will be moaning, but there’s also moaning whenever the guy leading in the points has fewer wins than the guy ranked behind him.

12

I was wondering who P was, too.

Only if S was driving a red car.

13

Some of the other rule changes are supposed to make it easier to drive the cars closer together, so it’s not just the scoring change. They’re trying to make it easier to pass, and to give the drivers more reason to do so. We’ll see.

I have often wondered what would happen if F1 (or any open-wheel series) were to adopt design specs similar to the way F1 cars looked in the 60’s. (The Lotus 49, for example.) I don’t mean to stifle innovation, but the performance is so razor fine these days that driving seems to be a game of reaction time rather than tactics. And the aerodynamic effects from one car make it that much harder for another car to catch them. Take away the wings, make the tires (comparatively) skinny; lap times would go up, but would it be more interesting?

I’m not sure exactly how to specify that design (maximum width of bodywork, air-inlets ahead of the front wheels, whatever), but I’d love to see what modern engineers would come up with.

14

Not only that, imagine trying to explain the current mishmash between wins and points to a casual observer:

Buddy Blue: “Red, you follow F1, correct?”

Red: “Yep…I’m the idiot getting up at six AM on the weekends”

Blue: “Can you explain to me why this guy Barichello is World Champion?”

Red: “Sure, because he won the most races”

Blue “Right, but didn’t that Finnish guy in Ferrari win a lot as well?”

Red: “That would be Kimmi, and he did, only second to Barichello”

Blue – pointing at chart in newspaper: “So why did Alonso come in second in the Championship if Kimmi won more races?”

Red: “Errr…ummm…that’s because he scored more points than Kimmi”

Blue: “But it says right here that he scored more points than Barichello as well :confused:”

Red: “Yes, but Barichello won more races than Alonso”

Blue: “As did Kimmi?!”

Red - slumping: “Umm, ah, err, yes, but see, that’s just not how it works…”

Blue, dismissive: “Think ManU can make it three CLs in a row?..”

:mad::confused::mad:

15

He’s talking about Senna and Prost in 1990, not Schumacher and Hill in 1994, which is odd because the first case was clearly an accident and the latter was clearly deliberate.

I don’t really understand the point of the scenario- as we’ve seen, that’s already happened in F1. How does the new system make it more likely?

Anyway, I see where they’re going with this- forcing the first few cars to actually race, instead of just twiddling their thumbs until they’re in parc fermé. Still, I doubt it will make much difference.

16

Actually I wasn’t.

It turns out I should have referred to “driver V,” but I was in a hurry at the time. My apologies.

In the past it’s been possible for a skillful, consistent driver to outpoint one with a fast but unreliable car.

No longer.

What’s an amitious, driven, frustrated driver going to do? They’re at least going to think of trying to ko the rival untraceably, but now they have more reason to do it.

That’s my trouble with it. Too many races are decided by the lottery of who gets to the first corner first as it is.

17

Well, I’m of two minds. I’ve always abhorred NASCAR’s point system where winning only gives you +15 points over 2nd place’s 170 points (a 9% gain-it was 25% for F1 before this season, was 50% for a long time before that-9 vs. 6). But this may be going too far in the other direction.

18

IIRC, it was 10 versus 6, not 9.

19

9-6-4-3-2-1 1961-1990 (with varying limits on the number of results to be counted, i.e. best 5 results counted from '61-'62)
10-6-4-3-2-1 1991-2002

from here

20

I’d written a longish post with cites to the opinions of the top F-1 drivers, but the goblins appear to have gotten the better of it after I hit ‘submit.’ Don’t have time to re-write, so I’ll just link to Shummi’s opinion instead:

Michael Schumacher ‘astonished’ by FIA’s new rules

FYI: FIA’s site is down for maintenance…or so it says. But it also appears, from a pdf I read earlier, that the diffusers on the Brawn, Toyota and Williams will be made illegal.

Yeah, way to “cut costs” Bernie & Co. :rolleyes:

Mobsters.