Formula 1 - 2009 Season

[tongue_of_colicab]

Yes but ofcourse if you got all the teams focussing on having a champ the first half that would give you the same result as when they'd spread it over the whole season because the amount of effort done is the same for all the teams at the same time so its likely the results wont very too much from what you'd get spreading it out over a whole season (which than it will end up being because its likely that you dont have a winner after the 1st half).

Still, I dont think its a good idea because you are really limiting who can win the WDC. That said, I do agree that winning should be worth more than just 2 points over number 2. Because as it stands now winning doesnt reward you more in a point advantage than being 3rd would. So maybe a extra 2 points should be rewarded for winning. Since we dont have the Schumacer era anymore with him winning (which was the reason for changing the system to begin with) everything so you could do with a point difference.

 

[Davros]

Dont know if its allready been posted but james allen is no more

 

[Bludd]

If you mean he won't be commentating on F1 for BBC, then you are right.

If you mean he's dead, well, that's news to me!

 

[Davros]

the former

 

[Phil]

That said, I do agree that winning should be worth more than just 2 points over number 2. Because as it stands now winning doesnt reward you more in a point advantage than being 3rd would. So maybe a extra 2 points should be rewarded for winning. Since we dont have the Schumacer era anymore with him winning (which was the reason for changing the system to begin with) everything so you could do with a point difference.

I fear there's a conflict of interest with this argument.

1.) A closer scoring system was used to make the races closer and thus more interesting for the viewers to watch it in the first place.

2.) An alternative scoring system with a larger point difference between 1st and 2nd, might make racing even less interesting, as WDC might very well be decided way before the end, making that "champion" less inclined to race (he's already won).

What is better/more fair? Close championships decided by the difference of a few points at the end of a championship or those, that are decided between mid and mid-end season?

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I fear there's a conflict of interest with this argument.

1.) A closer scoring system was used to make the races closer and thus more interesting for the viewers to watch it in the first place.

2.) An alternative scoring system with a larger point difference between 1st and 2nd, might make racing even less interesting, as WDC might very well be decided way before the end, making that "champion" less inclined to race (he's already won).

What is better/more fair? Close championships decided by the difference of a few points at the end of a championship or those, that are decided between mid and mid-end season?

The current scoring system was made when Schumacher always won, and in general I don't remember Michael not racing... He was always pissed if he didn't win. You don't have to drive safely anymore after you have secured the title. Drivers avoid risks, because winning is not worth that much compared to second place and retiring from the race is pretty catasthropic.

With the halted engine development and all the other crap FIA has pushed through, the cars are much closer to each other and that trend is likely to continue, and so the risk of one driver dominating the sport is tiny at these days, Ferrari doesn't even have designated Nr. 1 driver anymore.

 

[catisfit]

I fear there's a conflict of interest with this argument.

1.) A closer scoring system was used to make the races closer and thus more interesting for the viewers to watch it in the first place.

2.) An alternative scoring system with a larger point difference between 1st and 2nd, might make racing even less interesting, as WDC might very well be decided way before the end, making that "champion" less inclined to race (he's already won).

What is better/more fair? Close championships decided by the difference of a few points at the end of a championship or those, that are decided between mid and mid-end season?

10-6-4-3-2-1 title clinching races:

1991 - Race 15/16
1992 - Race 14/16
1993 - Race 14/16
1994 - Race 16/16
1995 - Race 15/17
1996 - Race 16/16
1997 - Race 17/17
1998 - Race 16/16
1999 - Race 16/16
2000 - Race 16/17
2001 - Race 13/17
2002 - Race 11/17

 

[Davros]

T Ferrari doesn't even have designated Nr. 1 driver anymore.

Which is a good thing

 

[Bludd]

Medal system is dumb. Why even have silver and bronze? They don't count, only gold counts. Ah, but then you say: how to differentiate people with the same amount of gold medals, well, then they count, but then the person that got the most wins doesn't win the championship because two people got that same amount of gold medals. Ah, but then you say: now you are being ridiculous, and you are correct but so is the medal system.

I would propose this point system:

12 - 9 - 7 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1

This way, you have incentive to overtake because the you get so much more for being on the podium and even more for winning. Before, going from P4 to P3 was only one point and it was not worth the risk. Two points? I think that's worth it.

 

[pocketmoon66]

I would propose this point system:

12 - 9 - 7 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1

Nice!

 

[CouldntResist]

I propose following scoring system:
21-13-8-5-3-2-1-1

Not sure exactly why, but since it's Fibbonacci sequence, there must be some natural explanation.

 

[infinity4]

Scrap everything.

1st - 1 point
Rest - 0 point

Only winning counts. 2nd-last are all losers.

edit: Let's face this, they should stick to what they have. You don't quite often see points changes in football league or elsewhere, current system is fine imo so that 2nds don't trail far from 1st. Medals BE proposing is because he wants overtaking till end of season, well it won't always happen whatever the method because if one does well throughout then he won't have to.

 

[nutball]

If he wants overtaking then I'd venture that the best option is to ditch qualification and all that jazz and randomise the grid. It a winner-takes-all points system that might make things interesting, but it would cut out two days of revenue for each three-day GP event though, so I can't see that happening.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

But than there wouldnt be much fairness. If you are unlucky you might have your Ferrari end up at the back a couple of times while mclaren might always end up near the front. Given that both cars are more or less equal than you dont stand a chance. Even if you overtake alot (given the cars actually can overtake with the new rules).

I do think first place might deservices more points as I said before but I think the biggest problem at hand is making sure the cars are well suited for overtaking again. Thats why, as I said before, I dont get all those new rules. The early 90's are a perfect example of cars that could race nose to gearbox, just get those rules back. It will only have advantages too. Cars will be sparking again, they will look much cooler because they are wider and much lower to the ground, advertisers are happy too because the cars are nice and clean. Than the only thing left is get V10 or V12 engines back, scrap the lame tilke oilstate tracks and come back to europe and people will actually enjoy watching F1 again. But ofcourse all this will probably hurt Bernie's wallet so it wont happen.

 

[nutball]

But than there wouldnt be much fairness. If you are unlucky you might have your Ferrari end up at the back a couple of times while mclaren might always end up near the front.

That's your definition of unfairness? The opposite might happen but doesn't register as a possibilty? Which bit of "random" doesn't translate into Dutch?

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Ofcourse the opposite might happen. But that is the problem, it might not happen either. So its not fair for whatever top team.

 

[MPI]

If he wants overtaking then I'd venture that the best option is to ditch qualification and all that jazz and randomise the grid. It a winner-takes-all points system that might make things interesting, but it would cut out two days of revenue for each three-day GP event though, so I can't see that happening.

That's actually how it was originally in motor racing. The qualifying starting grid came about as the number of T1 pile-ups was unacceptable, even by 1920's standards! The general idea behind it is to prevent the bunching up of slower and faster cars. I don't think the concept is particularily irrelevant today. Just look at the '78 Monza GP start...

But then again I've heard even crazier schemes like reversing the grid from the latest race result.

Thats why, as I said before, I dont get all those new rules. The early 90's are a perfect example of cars that could race nose to gearbox, just get those rules back. It will only have advantages too. Cars will be sparking again, they will look much cooler because they are wider and much lower to the ground, advertisers are happy too because the cars are nice and clean.

Those rules back? The rules were pretty simple back then (compared to today anyway), 3,5l normally aspirated engine, flat floor and some measurements here and there ...well, simplified. I can bet you all my savings that a car built today to the 1991 formula would look *nothing* like a 1991 car. For instance, as far as I know, winglets, strakes, chimneys and all that crap wasn't forbidden in 1991.

The sparking titanium skid pads died with Ayrton Senna. I think it was legitimate to "ban them", as the flat floor undertray inevitably led to running the car bottomed out a fair portion of the lap.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

Well than make the rules so that the cars will looks like that. I dont really see why cars hitting the ground should be such a big problem. They did that since the 70's and Senna's case was also a matter of bad luck having his helmet being impaled. Modern safety rules should be good enough to avoid anything really bad happening.

 

[Bludd]

I don't think randomising the grid is a good idea. It'll just make for more accidents. I think they should instead award one point for pole position, or maybe 3 - 2 - 1 for the first 3 positions on the grid.

 

[V3]

They should award championship points (equal to races or half half) for qualies and reverse the grid for the races. So it's like a handicap race which I think F1 really need, considering how far apart in speed the top teams are.