Separating WCC from WDC

[henry]

Well I never. I'm not sure if being in tune with Max will help my self esteem.

I think I like your isolation idea although it might lead to drivers not bothering if they draw a weak car in one of the last races. Ideally we want drivers to finish as high as possible with this self-interest leading to the best possible placing for the teams.

I mentioned normalizing WDC points as an alternative to the driver merry-go-round. Neither scenario is likely to happen. But selective scoring in F1 is not without precedent.

I'm familiar with the selective scoring methods. I don't think tinkering with points systems changes the basic problem. If a driver isn't in one of 2 ( or occasionally 4) cars they are not going to be WCC. I fear that this situation will be increasingly baked in as teams get better and better at optimising all their systems, including the driver.

I'm not expecting Jean Todt to call any time soon.

[henry]

How about a selective scoring system whereby the driver nominates 5 races at the start of the year that count double/treble for him personally; team points awarded as per normal.

It would create a sense of strategy. E.g. front load your allocations and defend a lead, or catch up by allocating later, or simply allocate optimally relative to your ability or your team's perceived ability. It would also place emphasis on the driver, in terms of actual outcome and with respect to the way coverage is given (team vs. driver) over each weekend.

I agree this might create some interest but, if anything, it is likely to amplify the problem. The best cars will take joker points away from the others leading to an even bigger points difference.

[Andres125sx]

I'm a fan. The argument of "it isn't fair because cars are more dominant on some circuits, etc..." doesn't wash with me. Winners in winning cars every race seems a lot more skewed than this proposal. Design of experiment could normalise some of these factors to increase the 'fairness', but it seems unnecessary. Oh shame, you got the Mercedes in Singapore. I don't think Roberto Mehri would complain too much tbh.

As for the money issues.

Drivers are contracted to and paid by Bernie/CVC/TheDevil.

Drivers and teams earn cash per result; say $10 million per victory to the team, and $1 million for the driver. All finishing positions to be paid, with the minimum payout being $100k/$10k

Personal sponsors are allowed, and encouraged. Supplement your income as much as you like!

Not a bad idea, but drivers salaries would be very very similar then, as most drivers will win some race when driving the best car, and no driver will win much more than that when driving inferior cars. I don´t think Hamilton, Alonso or Vettel will agree earning similar money to Stevens, Ericsson or Merhi

What about small teams who need money from pay drivers?

[dmjunqueira]

Relationship between drivers and constructors should also be take in account.
What if a driver refuses to drive for a certain team or a team refuses to give their car for a certain driver?
What if a "less talented" driver destroy a car on a crash...Who would pay for the damage?
IMO this could create all sort of complaints form both sides (not just the ones I metioned).

[Fulcrum]

As has been highlighted in the prior two posts, having centrally contracted drivers does create a tension between the established way of doing business, and the proposed approach. Change = bad for some, good for others.

I agree that the overall difference in remuneration between best and worst drivers would narrow, but this is only the money awarded from their central contract. The difference between 'best' and 'worst' drivers would be more easily established under this system, and the biggest sponsors would pay top dollar for the best drivers.

How about a slightly different alternative. Bernie gives teams $X million dollars per year to spend on drivers. Teams hire drivers on a per race basis. A pre-race auction takes place at each venue. Teams have to manage their spend throughout the year. Every million spent in excess of their budget must be privately funded and 1 team penalty point is imposed. Surplus funds are returned to Bernie, but are also converted into points at the end of the year; 1 point per million not spent.

If Red Bull want Hamilton every race they could have him, at huge cost, as other teams might compete for his services. Hamilton, being the man in demand makes an absolute packet. At least this way the team's get who they want, premium drivers get paid premium amounts, and poorer teams could even out their performance discrepancy by curbing the spend to 'earn' some points (and therefore cash), by being frugal.

I'm sure this idea is full of holes, but it sounded fun as I made it up!

[bhall II]

I'm familiar with the selective scoring methods. I don't think tinkering with points systems changes the basic problem. If a driver isn't in one of 2 ( or occasionally 4) cars they are not going to be WCC. I fear that this situation will be increasingly baked in as teams get better and better at optimising all their systems, including the driver.

How would a driver merry-go-round account for changes in competitive balance due to development?

For instance, BGP 001 was very strong throughout the early rounds of the 2009 season, but it was often outclassed by RB5 and MP4-24 as Brawn's rate of development sputtered down the stretch. Under the proposed system, drivers would have been subject to mixed fortunes based solely upon timing, despite the theoretical parity concomitant with equal access to each car.



I understand the desire for a change. As it stands, the World Drivers' Championship is arguably the most overrated achievement in sports, because it doesn't tell us a whole lot about the winner. At the same time, though, it's not really possible to fake parity; it's either there, or it's not.

[henry]

I'm familiar with the selective scoring methods. I don't think tinkering with points systems changes the basic problem. If a driver isn't in one of 2 ( or occasionally 4) cars they are not going to be WCC. I fear that this situation will be increasingly baked in as teams get better and better at optimising all their systems, including the driver.

How would a driver merry-go-round account for changes in competitive balance due to development?

For instance, BGP 001 was very strong throughout the early rounds of the 2009 season, but it was often outclassed by RB5 and MP4-24 as Brawn's rate of development sputtered down the stretch. Under the proposed system, drivers would have been subject to mixed fortunes based solely upon timing, despite the theoretical parity concomitant with equal access to each car.

http://i.imgbox.com/Agxvu15P.gif

I understand the desire for a change. As it stands, the World Drivers' Championship is arguably the most overrated achievement in sports, because it doesn't tell us a whole lot about the winner. At the same time, though, it's not really possible to fake parity; it's either there, or it's not.

Agreed that is a flaw in the proposal. But there are many other elements of chance that can affect individual drivers. Mechanical failure, other people's accidents, safety cars, scoring system ... I still think the merry go round ( nice term) would improve the playing field making it bumpy rather than steeply sloped towards a very small number of players.

With the increased parity I think we would find that by the end of the season we would know the group of drivers worthy of being WDC by virtue of their performance. The amount of factors outside of an individual driver's control would be reduced. The actual champion will have had a smaller draught from the chalice of luck.