Points system to be scrapped for 2009

[zgred]

They just kill the intriguing side of the Driver Championships. No more calculations, predictions in strategic way with all GP giving possibility to change something. This precludes possibility to mess in the top of the table with consistent driving like Kubica last year. Sad thing with so interesting season approaching.
Can we form fan protest against FIA decision?

[ISLAMATRON]

Yes Kubica was consistent last year... consistently slower than the winners

He had no business being in contention for the championship last year with only 1(lucky) win

[jon-mullen]

Tonight i am going to go back and look at at what point the Champion would of been crown given if they used the new system. I bet some would of been pretty early.

The kind folks here at F1Technical.net already did this for us, it's available here: http://www.f1technical.net/news/11526.

Fourteen championship seasons would've been shorter, only eight would've been longer.

The assessment was for the medals system, but I think it holds because it says the driver with the most golds would win the WDC, most golds = most race wins. In a way I guess Bernie got exactly what he wanted.

Edit: here's a PDF from the FIA as well: http://www.fia.com/public/medal_analysis_results.pdf

[myurr]

Personally, I will accept the new system, despite my desire to hang on to the old system. But we must face changes, and deal with them.

I agree with you in the most part. But you know what though, I'm actually near tipping point with not bothering with F1 any more. I've been a fan since the mid 80's when I used to watch it with my Dad (I was born in '77, so I started young). Over the last few years I've been steadily losing interest as they have tinkered and fiddled with the formula, beating most of the sporting competition out.

Being English I've had my interest reinvigorated by Lewis appearing on the scene, and the last two epic championships that have been genuinely tense and exciting up to the last corner of the last race. There have been excutiatingly boring races along the way, but the close competiton has mostly kept things interesting. This happened despite the FIA's best efforts to ruin everything with their continued politicisation of the sport.

I'll give these new rules a chance, because I love the classic F1, but already I'm feeling fed up with the coming season. I'm tired of the politics, the manipulation, and the corruption (FIA and Bernie) at the heart of this sport. I hate the artificial feel of the championship that is growing with each passing season, whereby the FIA and Bernie do their utmost to get their commercially chosen driver / team to win.

With all these changes and the continuity in where the power lies in the sport there's a real chance that they'll cock it all up this year. We'll have drivers penalised for making a mistake whilst trying to overtake, in a rules system that in parts is designed to limit overtaking, in other parts is designed to encourage it. We'll have teams fall foul of the deliberately ambiguous and poorly written rules and the subsequent shifting interpretation of said rules that the FIA enforces. We'll have stewards decisions affecting the championship in a more drastic way than before (taking a win off one driver and giving to another is now the equivalent of a 20 point penalty under the old rules for the championship protagonists). Even simple things like a grid penalty for a minor misdemenor will now be closer to a 10 point penalty for a championship challenger.

All in all I expect this championship to be controversial, I expect to end up hating the FIA more than ever, and I expect that the championship will be more hollow than any that have preceded it. And when that happens I am likely to walk away in disgust, fed up with what F1 has become. If only there was a ray of hope, but alas there is none.

[vall]

I posted this earlier, but I will repeat it here.

when saying that 14 Championships would have lasted shorter you forget that the driver's behaved as they thought was the best given the point system in place. If the 2nd finisher new that the wins count more, then I am sure they would have attached to get the win. So, this would ahve altered the outcome the Championship. So, it is very hard to say what would hhave actually happened back then, if the medal system was in place.

[Miguel]

He had no business being in contention for the championship last year with only 1(lucky) win

Sorry, but he was so much more consistent than Massa and Hamilton that yes, he did "have business".

Furthermore, how many cars are really able to win each weekend? I'd say only two teams have some reasonable chance each weekend. Only on very rare occasion have three teams a realistic shoot at victory, with the most recent being the 2003 season.

Finally, someone here made a very good point when he stated that it's absurd to reward race wins only when other rules (engine reliability, gearbox reliability) state that the championship is not a one race deal.

[myurr]

when saying that 14 Championships would have lasted shorter you forget that the driver's behaved as they thought was the best given the point system in place. If the 2nd finisher new that the wins count more, then I am sure they would have attached to get the win. So, this would ahve altered the outcome the Championship. So, it is very hard to say what would hhave actually happened back then, if the medal system was in place.

Ditto those that finished 2nd in the earlier races whilst racing for points, they could have tried harder for the early win. All in all this probably balances it out.

[ISLAMATRON]

Tonight i am going to go back and look at at what point the Champion would of been crown given if they used the new system. I bet some would of been pretty early.

The kind folks here at F1Technical.net already did this for us, it's available here: http://www.f1technical.net/news/11526.

Fourteen championship seasons would've been shorter, only eight would've been longer.

The assessment was for the medals system, but I think it holds because it says the driver with the most golds would win the WDC, most golds = most race wins. In a way I guess Bernie got exactly what he wanted.

That analysis is slightly flawed in that the teams/drivers werent operating under the rule that most wins takes WDC... a better way to analyze it is to look back on drivers who won the most races in a year and did not win WDC and if they truly deserved it. What always comes to mind was 1989 when Senna had 2 more wins than Prost but had 16 less points. Having watched that entire season several times over it was clear to me that Senna was the WDC in 1989 points notwithstanding. But then there was last year when HAmilton crossed the finish line 1st 6 times to Massa's 5... but the stewards awarded Massa 6 wins.

[ISLAMATRON]

He had no business being in contention for the championship last year with only 1(lucky) win

Sorry, but he was so much more consistent than Massa and Hamilton that yes, he did "have business".

Furthermore, how many cars are really able to win each weekend? I'd say only two teams have some reasonable chance each weekend. Only on very rare occasion have three teams a realistic shoot at victory, with the most recent being the 2003 season.

Finally, someone here made a very good point when he stated that it's absurd to reward race wins only when other rules (engine reliability, gearbox reliability) state that the championship is not a one race deal.

Its easy to be consistent when you are driving so much slower than the leaders... it is when you are on the edge that mistakes happen. 5 different teams won last year, that is half the grid.

If you watch Supercross you would see that Bubba Stewart had 8 wins out of the 11 races and does not lead the points... Wins are real, it is this whole idea of points that are contrived.

Consistency is only important when you are consistently WINNING!

[vall]

But then there was last year when HAmilton crossed the finish line 1st 6 times to Massa's 5... but the stewards awarded Massa 6 wins.

people have different opinions on that, and neither side will convince the other. There have been many questionable decisions and the past

[myurr]

But then there was last year when HAmilton crossed the finish line 1st 6 times to Massa's 5... but the stewards awarded Massa 6 wins.

people have different opinions on that, and neither side will convince the other. There have been many questionable decisions and the past

Erm, he crossed the finishing line in 1st and Massa was later awarded the win - whether you agree with the stewards or not you cannot claim to dispute the fact that it was the stewards who assigned that win instead of the order in which they crossed the line.

[vall]

true, but in other sports medals are taken away for breaching the rules, so F1 should not be exception. The stewards decided Hami did not gave away the advantage he gained and gave him drive-though penalty. Whether agree with that or not, the are in the position to impose penalties ...

[natef1]

Its easy to be consistent when you are driving so much slower than the leaders

So.. The Force India's last year weren't on the edge? The Honda drivers weren't pushing? You don't need to be in a good car to be on the edge.

[Metar]

Its easy to be consistent when you are driving so much slower than the leaders[/b]... it is when you are on the edge that mistakes happen. 5 different teams won last year, that is half the grid.

Sorry, but that's just stupid. Do you really believe the F1.08 was as fast as the MP-4/23 and F2008? That Kubica could've won as he pleased but chose to "drive under the limit"? It's either an insult to everyone's logic, or you're just really as stupid as I suspected you were.

Consistency is only important when you are consistently WINNING!

Speak for yourself. I appreciate the drivers that try hard but can't win, physically, because their car wasn't up to it. Winning is nice and important, but not every car can win. Sutil getting 3rd place is just as difficult as Kimi winning by half a lap. Even Kubica in 2nd is as much of an achievement.

[ISLAMATRON]

Its easy to be consistent when you are driving so much slower than the leaders

So.. The Force India's last year weren't on the edge? The Honda drivers weren't pushing? You don't need to be in a good car to be on the edge.

Who was FIF1 battling at the back of the grid? each other? And BMW? 1 & 2 were so far ahead of BMW, who in turn were so far ahead or 4 &5 for most of the year that he barely had any on track battles... Kubica was further helped out by Heidfeld not being up to grips with the car so he barely had to even worry about his own teammate. There were probly times last year when he didnt see other cars on track for laps at a time.

Yes being on the edge is 1 thing, but being on that same edge while battling other drivers is a whole other next level.