Formula 1 - 2009 Season

infinity4 said:
Scrap everything.

1st - 1 point
Rest - 0 point

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

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.
Click to expand...

hmm The problem with winner takes all is that drivers might give up all together.

I want to see a system where the point is awarded on how far behind (in seconds) you finished from the winner. This way the number 1 will always try to finish as fast as possible, you know none of this cruising to the finish crap. And the rest will have to earn their points. I haven't think of the number yet but I think it can work. Maybe every seconds could mean a point behind or something like that.
 
V3 said:
hmm The problem with winner takes all is that drivers might give up all together.

I want to see a system where the point is awarded on how far behind (in seconds) you finished from the winner. This way the number 1 will always try to finish as fast as possible, you know none of this cruising to the finish crap. And the rest will have to earn their points. I haven't think of the number yet but I think it can work. Maybe every seconds could mean a point behind or something like that.
Click to expand...

I can just imagine the situation where Ferrari (or whoever) have a one-two on the grid and need to maximise the points scored by their leading driver. I can't guess what would happen then. Sounds like an unworkable plan to me.

I don't have a problem with drivers crusing to the finish to win. I don't see anything more exciting about Massa winning by 30 secs rather than 10. The issue would be why are they in the position where they can cruise to the finish.
 
Well they need to maximise the constructor too.

But you can still peg it to how far driver finish to the driver in front. Say First and second, If they finish within certain period of time of each other the first place gets the max points and second place gets max points + Bonus point for finishing in the aloted time behind the driver in front. Basically incentive for them to drive fast to the end.

Say the two Ferrari Driver one is winning the other tried to hold back the field. As long as the third position driver finish within the time margin he will get bonus points. While the second Ferrari drivers doesn't get any bonus point for finishing outside the margin.

So the point should reflect how close the race was. So points are awarded, depending on how much margin drivers finished to each other. So the pressure is always on. If one driver dominate the race he will get all the margin possible out of the race. If it was a close race, the margin from the race is low too.
 
Any system is inherently fair as it applies to everyone
although if it has to be changed i suggest this :

1st : major LuLz
2nd : profit
3rd : badger
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Like nobody knew that yetI personally dont care. I wouldnt be suprised if he knew from the moment he signed at Ferrari he would be number 2, and rightfully so because Schumacher just was (and probably still is) alot faster so its nothing more than logical.
 
F1 is a team sport, but situations like the one in Austria in 2002 shouldn't happen.
 
tongue_of_colicab said:
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.
Click to expand...

At least you're honest about moulding the rules to fit the notion of your specific favourite time-period. But honestly, it's just misplaced nostalgia, IMHO. But then again, a rule-set confining the designers to make the cars "look" like early-1990's doesn't sound particularily less complex/contrived than the 2009 one. Also, I think you have a rose-tinted view on how the cars were back then. The drivers complained that it was hard to follow other cars back then too, hell, even Jochen Rindt complained about it back in 1970!

I think that looking backwards isn't the way to go, but rather coming up with a simpler formula that will stand up for a couple of decades of technological development, and accomplish what we want (less aerodynamically sensitive, maybe fuel-economy, et.c.). Exactly what that formula would be I don't know, but I think the KISS principle should be the guiding line.

As regarding to Senna's unfortunate accident, yes, the cause of death was a suspension strut to the face, but the (most probable) reason he went off in the first place was that the car bottomed out on cold tyres, meaning it had even less ride height than normal, in a 250kph+ corner mind you! Then you can argue whether having the cars grinding the pavement really is what it all is about... In any case, letting cars crash and then citing that they are safe enough for it definitely isn't what it is all about. This is open-wheel racing, not destruction derby, and open-wheel racing is racing without contact and racing without crashing.
 
Yes but anthing involving a machine and a human is just waiting for a accident to happen. Now im not saying you should just allow everything and dont care for the drivers safety but I think the modern safety standards are high enough to maybe re allow things that in the past were banned as being too dangerous.

As for the rules, maybe introduce a standard aero pack than? For me aero isnt really a big deal to F1 anyway as it should revolve around cars and not something that has more in common with a airplane than with a car. So decide on a design that you know will make overtaking very possible and than just make very tight rules for that that allow only a little bit of modification as everyone drivers a different car so you should be able to change one or two things to make it work for your car.

Plus point of that would be that there isnt a use for running 2 windtunnels and a CFD 24/7 which should save alot of money. Second thing that needs to be done is go back to bigger engines and allow engine development again. And ofcourse get rid of that stupid 2 race rule because now nobody is running their cars to the max anymore like the old days. Its not like its too expenive because teams never complained about how expensive it was to replace the engine each race. And get rid of the ECU and use one that really bans TC because the current one still does. You never see anyone spin, you dont even see people spinning wheels at the start. Kinda obvious that there is something checking things.
 
haha well I dont really care. If you got as much money to spend as Honda has/had and still manage to build a car that is utter shit for 2 seasons at a row than you dont deservs to be in F1.

But, its not good either.
Now we will have again 2 cars less on a grid that already isnt exactly crowded
I feel sorry for Button. Not that im a fan of the guy but he sticked with Honda for years to helped them get better but year after year the failed big time giving him a good car and know he'll probably find himself out of F1 without a notice (unless STR wants him) while he likely could have gone to a better team years ago instead of sticking with Honda. The guy deserves better.
Brawn could have taken another year of vacation instead of spending a whole year on getting a team on track that now maybe doesnt exist anymore (I dont think anyone will buy them). On the plus side, He should get back to Ferrari. Italians can do alot, but you need somebody other than a Italian if you want to run things properly. And given the amount of stupid mistakes they made this year atleast Brawn wont find himself without work to do.
Honda would actually be stupid to leave this year. They, again, wasted the current season to work on next years car but with all the rule changes next season would actually be their biggest chance ever to propell themselves up the grid atlast. And with a fair bit of the 2009 investment probably already made in 2008 while working on the 2009 car it probably isnt that more expensive to atleast see how it turns out. If it doesnt work they could always just leave after a couple of races.
 
That's sad news... I do understand their decision though, why pay £200M a year when all you get is negative press coverage, you can get that a lot cheaper.
 
So everything associated with Honda in F1 has gone or is going. Not good for the sport. The parent company pulls out, someone else gets in, the team gets a power deal with Ferrari. If the team is wholly dismantled, Brawn should go to Renault. He should go back to the former Benneton team. :)
 
My Earth Dream becomes a nightmare...

Seriously though, the lack of sponsorship on the car must have put a big hole in the finances.
 
Honda has a track record of dropping out of F1. The technical direction of the 2007 was a disaster and it was headed by someone appointed by Honda in Japan. I think this whole thing reeks of loss of honor, more than financial difficulties and that the financial difficulties was just used as an "easy" way out. Honda should have relied on the expertise of their experienced F1 engineers but decided to go at it themselves.

Now, will Toyota drop out next? Honda is their rival, after all.
 
Toyota has no reason to drop out. They are coming up well and on the world stage, they have other rivals than just Honda. Honda was there was classifaction clean up anyway. Who cares? bad for the sport, sure but it's not the sports fault that Honda's efforts this time around have been nothing short of disasterous. It's best for Honda to step back, evaluate their failures and come back vs wasting more money just so they can go fill the "also ran..." slots.
 
Yeah, but wouldn't it be ironic if the Honda team is purchased and then performs really well next year?

Anyway, I feel for Jenson. He's stuck it out with Honda Racing for so long and he's got basically nothing to show for it. One win? Even Kovalainen has one win and I would say Jenson is a better racer than Kovalainen, but that may just be from experience.
 
Yeah, I remember he had to get out of that contract.

Since 2005, Williams has been higher in the constructors' than Honda in every season, except 2006 where Honda did reasonably well. In 2004, BAR had a great season, but they have really been on a downward slope since 2005.
 
Bludd said:
Anyway, I feel for Jenson. He's stuck it out with Honda Racing for so long and he's got basically nothing to show for it.
Click to expand...

Apart from millions and millions and millions of pounds. :devilish:

I'm sure that's scant consolation to him. Well actually, it's probably quite a bit of consolation really. :smile:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

digitalwanderer
Anyone knowledgeable on car tires?
2
Replies
21
Views
2K
Silent_Buddha
S
digitalwanderer
Can you live without a car where you are?
2
Replies
23
Views
3K
Mariner
M
T
Formula 1 - 2023 Season
9 10 11
Replies
202
Views
17K
iroboto
iroboto
Shifty Geezer
Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2024]
132 133 134
Replies
3K
Views
238K
Charlietus
C
Shortbread
Summer Game Fest 2023
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Shortbread
Shortbread
Back
Top