Points system to be scrapped for 2009

[Ciro Pabón]

They want all drivers to fight for first position?

Mwahahahaha. Good joke.

XXIth century statistics (that is, since January 2000, sorry for the imprecision):

Number of wins by 4 top teams, that is, McLaren, Ferrari, Renault and (now defunct) Williams: 138
Races won by other teams (BMW, Toro Rosso, Jordan and Honda, one for each): 4

Surely, the other teams need some incentive to win. It seems they don't want to win.

So, besides the medals, drivers should receive a happy face sticker and a golden star. After all, we're talking about incentives.

[ISLAMATRON]

Ciro, can you actually say that HAMILTON & McLaren FOUGHT AS HARD AS THEY could for the win in Brazil?

That is what they mean by fighting for the win, every race.

We all know that only a couple of the teams(hopefully more than 1) have a car capable to fight for the win.

[WhiteBlue]

...We can only hope that the strange afliction that has plagued Mad-Max has not jumped over to Bernie. I fear it may be too late though. Either he is completely off his nut or there is more to the overall scheme than we have been informed of. I doubt it though.

I seem to have missed out on the news that Mr. E only had one nut. He did well on this device to father two daughters of impressive stature. But perhaps this is down to Slavica's input to the gene pool. In that case she is worth part of the billions she is due at her imminent separation (if rumors are true) from the ring master.

[Metar]

I don't see why everyone complains about Hamilton "cruising for 5th" at Brazil. The only reason he could do that was because during the season, he scored more points, and therefore needed 5th or better. Hamilton didn't "take it easy", he certainly didn't want to get overtaken by Vettel, and certainly didn't want the rain to send him down the order. In a dull-as-dishwasher dry race, he would've finished 3rd or even 2nd - but Massa truly was unbeatable at Interlagos.

Here's a thinker, Islamatron: Imagine the final race, Hamilton has 5 wins, 5 seconds, 6 thirds, and Massa 4 wins, 5 seconds, 5 thirds. Would he even bother starting his car? There would be no mathematical possibility for Massa to win the championship, and Hamilton could just as well start dueling with the Force Indias for fun. In every system where achievements are combined over the course of the season, one driver will have an advantage and won't have to push that hard. The only way around is a NASCAR-esque "Chase" system that counts only the final race(s).

As Ciro wrote, only 4 races were won teams outside the top 4 (and, since the mid-'80s, these four teams in various guises have won the majority of races) - but even then, depending on season and race, it's usually one team that has the upper hand. McLaren didn't stand a chance of beating Ferrari at Barcelona, and Ferrari didn't stand much of a chance of beating Hamilton at Shanghai. During those races, the other team could push until they're blue in the face without getting more than 3rd or 2nd.

[ISLAMATRON]

Of course there is allways the possiblity of a driver locking up the title b4 the last race.... but if he hasnt dont we rather watch him attack for the win instead of cruising for 5th?

Basically it can be achieved without the medals, mainly by awarding a number of points that increase the incentive for a win. I say 1000 points

I'm not for a medal system as proposed, but I'm certainly for a change in the points system.... a change that ensures 2 things.

first that the driver with the most wins the championship(I dont think a driver who finished 2nd(the first loser) all year should be champion, and when the hell has that ever happened?)

and secondly that we dont see championship contendors cruising around for points, I want to see them attacking.

And no I dont think Massa was unbeatable in Brazil, he has been proven to make mistakes when under pressure in the wet. Hamilton & McLaren was just too damn conservative.

[Metar]

Two points: One of which is that while Massa is no Wet Wizard, he did drive a flawless and fast race. At the same time, Hamilton didn't "cruise" for 5th - he only just barely finished there after some bad strategic calls which allowed Alonso to jump up to 2nd and allowed Vettel to pass him in the rain. I can honesly, 100% assure you that he didn't want to finish just 5th, and by such a small margin at that. In this case, Hamilton had nothing on Massa's pace and consistency that could give him the victory.
I've never seen a driver giving up on the prospect of more points or a win, unless he gave it his best shot and realized he couldn't. Alonso chased Schumacher throughout the Imola race trying to get by, and couldn't. A year later, he was chasing the two Ferraris at Brazil - do you think he didn't want to push and pass Massa, winning his 3rd consecutive season? In a car with blistering tyres and slower overall pace, there wasn't anything he could do but finish the race calmly in 3rd - he wasn't "content" with 3rd, but it was the most he could possibly achieve, and the gap between himself and 4th place was huge.

The only case where a driver really "gives up" on attacking is, perhaps, when an early problem sends them to the back, when they usually don't stand a hope of overtaking everyone for points (see Hamilton @ Bahrain, for example). In a heavily win-biased situation, having such a problem would prevent them from even trying - because what are 1, 10 or 50 points worth when the other guy gets 1000? What's an 8th place worth when the other guy gets a gold? So how exactly does that fit in with your "see every driver push for wins" agenda? Everyone but the top-5 might just as well save themselves some mileage and shut down their engines - they don't stand a chance at winning medals anyway.

Another point is that a 1000-points-per-win system would, again, do the same as the medals system, and give the winner of an odd/wet/crashfest race a huge advantage over the competitors that outpaced him throughout the season but never quite made it. 2nd is only the first loser when you view it through yours (and now, Bernie's) goggles. Yes, a driver that got 2nd place throughout the season should, in my opinion, get more than another driver who won twice.


EDIT: And may I add, despite being a fan of Massa, that Hamilton did technically win 6 GPs?

[captainmorgan]

Going back to the early 2000/late 1990's points system by increasing the 1st place points will only make it easier for a Schumacher-like situation of a completely dominant package monopolizing the sport.

What they should do instead is make 1st place have a bonus under certain situations... 10pts if current WDC points leader wins, 10 + 2 pts for 2nd and 3rd in WDC running, and 10 + 4 if an outside contender wins. It would rebalance incentives how they should be rebalanced if what you want is a close competition

[Ciro Pabón]

Hamilton cruising to 5th place? So, he choosed to be overtaken by Vettel? Yes, sure. He cruised because he knew he was going to overtake Glock. The fact is that Hamilton barely could keep the car in the road at the ending laps of the last Brazilian GP, rain master or not.

The fact is that I don't know any racing driver that cruises. The most you do, when you have a 30 second lead, is to wipe the sweat of your face and take a deep breath, that is, if you're in first place. The only "cruising" I've seen is strategical, to conserve fuel or tyres.

If you watch history, tweaking points has served for little. My conclusion: this is another bargaing chip or a crazy idea. Even Mr. Ecclestone makes mistakes.

[Belatti]

I think that in another thread someone already posted what would have happened with Schumacher and the WDC and WCC if in 2003 and 2004 season the point system would have not changed. Answer: NOTHING!

[ISLAMATRON]

Two points: One of which is that while Massa is no Wet Wizard, he did drive a flawless and fast race. At the same time, Hamilton didn't "cruise" for 5th - he only just barely finished there after some bad strategic calls which allowed Alonso to jump up to 2nd and allowed Vettel to pass him in the rain. I can honesly, 100% assure you that he didn't want to finish just 5th, and by such a small margin at that. In this case, Hamilton had nothing on Massa's pace and consistency that could give him the victory.
I've never seen a driver giving up on the prospect of more points or a win, unless he gave it his best shot and realized he couldn't. Alonso chased Schumacher throughout the Imola race trying to get by, and couldn't. A year later, he was chasing the two Ferraris at Brazil - do you think he didn't want to push and pass Massa, winning his 3rd consecutive season? In a car with blistering tyres and slower overall pace, there wasn't anything he could do but finish the race calmly in 3rd - he wasn't "content" with 3rd, but it was the most he could possibly achieve, and the gap between himself and 4th place was huge.

The only case where a driver really "gives up" on attacking is, perhaps, when an early problem sends them to the back, when they usually don't stand a hope of overtaking everyone for points (see Hamilton @ Bahrain, for example). In a heavily win-biased situation, having such a problem would prevent them from even trying - because what are 1, 10 or 50 points worth when the other guy gets 1000? What's an 8th place worth when the other guy gets a gold? So how exactly does that fit in with your "see every driver push for wins" agenda? Everyone but the top-5 might just as well save themselves some mileage and shut down their engines - they don't stand a chance at winning medals anyway.

Another point is that a 1000-points-per-win system would, again, do the same as the medals system, and give the winner of an odd/wet/crashfest race a huge advantage over the competitors that outpaced him throughout the season but never quite made it. 2nd is only the first loser when you view it through yours (and now, Bernie's) goggles. Yes, a driver that got 2nd place throughout the season should, in my opinion, get more than another driver who won twice.

Lewis did cruise for a large part of the race, saving the tires and the engine(which was on its second race), to be honest he was cruising at the end of the China race again saving the engine... there was no reason to push to hard anyway as the FErrari's were no match in China.

Hamilton's chance for the win was killed with the early rain... he was obviously fueled much heavier than Massa(Heikki had the fastest lap of the weekend, so the McLaren was obviously fast enuff over 1 lap for pole), The safe strategy for changing weather conditions(or multiple safety cars) is to fuel heavy for longer stints if needed. tHEY WERENT BAD STRATEGIC CALLS THEY WERE SAFE ONES, kUBICA'S strategy was a bad one. HAd the rain lAsted to Massa's first scheduled stop, and then it dried out he may well have finished out of the points like Kubica did... The rain decided the outcome in Brazil more than anything.

In my 1000 point per win system 5 2nds give you 1000 points as well, so no a driver with 1 lucky win like Alonso in Singapore would not finish ahead of say a consistant Kubica. Furthermore the teams/drivers are motivated by more than just WDc points... dont forget WCC points & money. The drivers will usually allays puch to the maximum... and thats why I like giving points for all positions... it takes away the incentive for just retiring the car. Just because you dont have a WDC or WCC caliber car, I dont want to see them retiring to save the engine because points only go to the top eight. Remember that there are millions of dollars at stake between each WCC position. Look at the hard race for 4th in WCC, it was certainly entertaining.

[ISLAMATRON]

Hamilton cruising to 5th place? So, he choosed to be overtaken by Vettel? Yes, sure. He cruised because he knew he was going to overtake Glock. The fact is that Hamilton barely could keep the car in the road at the ending laps of the last Brazilian GP, rain master or not.

The fact is that I don't know any racing driver that cruises. The most you do, when you have a 30 second lead, is to wipe the sweat of your face and take a deep breath, that is, if you're in first place. The only "cruising" I've seen is strategical, to conserve fuel or tyres.

And Engine saving was the exact type of Cruising Lewis was doing... remembe that was his 2nd race an that engine and that his teammate had an engine retirement just 1 race earlier.

You say he barely kept it on the road yeat he had similar lap times to Massa during those last rain laps. GAp to massa was 38.4 sec when he pitted on lap 66 and gap was 38.9 on the last lap 71... 0.5 sec over 6 laps... neither of them were really struggling to "keep it on the road".... they both had the correct tires... now GloCK... he was struggling to keep it on the road... and he did a good job doing it and gained a position in the process.

[megz]

They want all drivers to fight for first position?

Mwahahahaha. Good joke.

XXIth century statistics (that is, since January 2000, sorry for the imprecision):

Number of wins by 4 top teams, that is, McLaren, Ferrari, Renault and (now defunct) Williams: 138
Races won by other teams (BMW, Toro Rosso, Jordan and Honda, one for each): 4

Surely, the other teams need some incentive to win. It seems they don't want to win.

So, besides the medals, drivers should receive a happy face sticker and a golden star. After all, we're talking about incentives.

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

This post is made of win.

[donskar]

OK, if we MUST succumb to Bernie Senilestone and the medals idea, then I propose:

1st - Unobtainium
2nd - Kryptonite,
3rd - Gold
4th - Silver
5th - Beryllium
6th - Bronze
7th - Balsa wood
8th - Cardboard

[donskar]

This just in from the FIA's official news organ, The Bullsheet:

"Medals will be awarded to the top ten finishers."

9th place medal: Pocket Lint
10th place medal: Toe Jam

[xpensive]

The most important thing for Max and Bernie is of course to make sure that a RED car wins in the end, we have already been given plenty of proof for that.

Imagine if the Hamilton/Massa situation had been the reverse in Brazil, does anyone seriously believe that Max or Bernie had come up with this medals-folly?

Come to think of it, with a medal-system like that, i doubt if Nico Rosberg's father would have had a remote chance of winning in 1982.
Maybe he shouldn't have, with only one win?