The "politics" will be an article on an F1 website on a Friday or Saturday at some grand prix this year. It will be resolved and they'll go racing on Sunday. It won't interfere with the actual racing.
I'd hesitate to call it politics though. I think the intra-team rivalry between Kimi and Felipe since Michael left has been really interesting, in a sporting sense. It reveals a lot about their characters and competitive spirit, how their act towards one another on and off the track.
So what the hell was Hamilton doing in Spa, and Hockenheim? Just for a mere 2 extra point he looked pretty motivated to me!
The thing that stopped the racing was the cars not the points system!
Look at MotoGP. How many times last year did we see Stoner, Rossi and co got toe to toe. There isn't a huge difference in points from 1st to 2nd!
Do you seriously believe that the BATTLE of Laguna would have been IMPROVED by this system? nonsense!
Yes the winner should be awarded a few extra points than currently. But only tweaking was needed.
Also this new system has effectively just written of 50% of the grids hopes of a world title shot. OK some didn't have it already but in effect that's what's happening. number 1 and 2 drivers will have to be as clear as ever.
Also if a driver fighting for the championship qualifies last with no hope of winning you won't see the battle through the field to get some points. What you will see is a 'keep the engine fresh, and don't bin it' attitude!
If anything this will reduce the amount of racing.
If winning the race should be SO important then copy the karting world championship and have one weekend event and thats that! Winner takes all!
I doubt it. I'm not going to say I'm in expert on F1, but in the parts of races I see there is rarely a battle up front, and when there is, its not because of hard driving, its because of pit strategy. Deciding a title based on wins isn't going to make anyone race their way from 6th to 1st at the end of the race to get the win. Sorry, its just not going to happen. The guy with the fastest car is still going to lead most of the race and 99% of the time is going to win it. Do you really think that under the points system there were guys sitting back thinking to myself "Hmm, if this win was more important I'd race my way up there, I'm fine with 4th place points though so I'll just cruise around back here", but now that you have to win races all of a sudden that 4th place car is going to come flying through the field to win?
The only thing I can see changing with this rule is that the champion will probably be crowned before the last race of the season, and I don't see how that is a good thing. I think this rule is pretty terrible. And why would you change it this year? How exciting was Brazil last year, you think this rule change is going to make that happen again? Leave the rules alone. You have good point battles and you have bad ones. And last year was a good one.
It seems like some motor sports organizations(NASCAR and F1) want to make every race a battle for the victory. Well, that's never going to happen, and these rules that they're putting in aren't going to change that. While it doesn't make sense that someone could win the championship without winning a race in the points format, something has to be said for the consistency that car showed throughout the season. Even though points are still the tie breaker if it comes down to it at the end of the year, I think you're going to see less fighting for position at the end of the race because chances are the points just aren't going to matter.
Well last year Massa and Hamilton would have entered the final race in a 'winner takes all' situation. I'm pretty sure McLaren wouldn't have been as conservative then and it would have still been an awesome race. Also, remember 2005 when everyone complained about Alonso always settling for 2nd because had a good points lead over Raikkonen and won the title with 2 races to go? Well that battle would have gone right to the wire, with Alonso needing to win that final race.
Yes, it could - in the most extreme circumstances - end the season halfway through, but it's swings and roundabouts. And to be honest whether it ends with 8 races to go or with 1 to go doesn't matter, only when it goes to the very last race do the championship standings become actually exciting.
But by round 2 50% of the grid will have to accept they won't be fighting for the championship. it makes NO logical sense to have a fair pairing within a team at all now. It's a joke!
One good thing I can see this will bring about is that there'll be no more "playing it safe" in 2nd / 3rd place, the drivers will have to stop pussying about on the bottom steps of the podium and push to get to the front which has the potential to be vaguely interesting.
Hamilton - Spa/Hockenheim. Two risky races to go for the win but he did anyway
Also MotoGP. The points gap from 1st to 2nd is 20% and in F1 NOW it's 20% also of the overall score
So considering the points value of 1st and 2nd in both MotoGP and F1 are exactly the same, please explain what the hell Rossi and Stoner were doing at Laguna Seca!
Actually, I think they did a survey on the medals... And over 90% of the people said 'NO'... So they drop the medals, and come up with something that is exactly the same, yet without calling it a medal.
I don't have time for knee-jerk reactionaries who scream "FIX!!!" and "OMG BERNIE IS SO STUPID" anytime anyone changes anything related to F1 rules. I've only used two words which could be considered ad hominem, but neither was directed toward anyone specific. Crybabies? Yes, people who complain and threaten to not watch F1 anymore whenever something changes are a bunch of whiners. Whether or not they watch F1 doesn't matter. And I mentioned the word moron, referring to those people who retain the bizarre notion that the points aren't going to matter at all anymore. It's a completely silly idea, which would be very obvious if people actually used their brains before reaching a conclusion. It's perfectly reasonble to disagree after reaching a logical conclusion - I was referring to the people who spout off without thinking. They deserve to be ridiculed.
How close does 1st and 2nd have to be for it to be considered a battle?
Somtimes true, but they're eliminating in-race refueling after this season.
That depends. In a mid-season race, for a driver with only the 3rd or 4th best car, no. For a driver with the 1st or 2nd best car on the grid who needs to win to take the title, it sure as hell will make him try harder.
Naturally, and he should win it.
That's exactly what Lewis thought in Brazil last year. He didn't need to fight hard, he just wanted to putz around in 5th for the whole race. That's lame. If he had needed to win, he would have driven out of his skin to do so, even if he didn't have the car underneath him to do it.
This rule, as well as I can understand, takes away the incentive for the guy in a close 2nd to not even try to overtake. The rules should never inhibit a racing driver from being a racing driver. If the 2nd placed driver is seven seconds behind the leader with 20 laps to go, the rules should be structured so that he has a huge incentive to push hard and reduce that gap to try to overtake. Currently, the rules do the opposite - they tell him to back off, save the car, bring it home for the eight points, don't go for the win because it's too risky. This rule makes that risk more viable, and risky moves are exciting to watch.
I don't care about the driver that regularly starts 5th and drives a quiet race to 4th, with an occasional podium. He shouldn't be a title contender, even if he finishes a few more races than most. The focus of the championship should be the guys fighting for the victory each week. In essence, this rule change puts the focus on Fernando, Lewis, Kimi, Robert at the expense of the Trullis and Fisichellas of the world. I'm fine with that.
OK, we clearly disagree. From my perspective, points finishes for all runners are still going to matter a lot. I think I'll be vindicated come the start of the season. You have your opinion, and that's fine. I appreciate that you obviously put some thought into your opinion.
So would relying on a sensible points system that rewards winners without shutting the drivers that are not quite regular winners (e.g. Kubica 2008) out of the championship battle. Sure, statistically the consistent drivers rarely actually win the championship, but they are often an extra thing for the main protagonists to keep an eye on.
Remember Frentzen in the Jordan (in 2000?) sneaking up on the championship win without anyone noticing? Not going to happen anymore.
Remember Kubica or Coulthard or <insert an almost limitless number of drivers over the years that have scored a lot of points without a lot of wins> who have nearly upset the game? No longer.
Sure, once or twice you get the situation like Brazil where Hamilton was happy to flump around in 5th, but isn't that part of the strategy?
Would you like Tennis if only the aces counted, and normal points were, essentially, removed? No. Would you like Cricket if only boundaries counted? Would you like Snooker if only the Black counted?
It's a daft rule, and clutching a recent events (Brazil) to justify it as being okay is silly. They should have gone to 13,8,... or returned to 10,6,... points - a large incentive to win, a large points haul for the win, but an opportunity to still work towards the championship when wins aren't possible.
Laterus, motorsport has been around for 100+ years now, and F1 50 or so years. You seem to be treating motorsport as if it's some new sport which could be helped along with some new rule changes.
For the past 20+ years of my life I have witnessed some extraordinary racing from karting to bikes, from to tin-tops to single-seaters and not once do I feel the 'show' could've been improved by some stupid gimmick winner/points system.
This type of system ONLY works in 1 off events like the Karting World Championship. Winner takes all in 1 race!
The racers don't need extra incentives. There isn't a driver on the grid that wouldn't trade EVERYTHING to win an F1 GP! Even though Button lives the Monaco lifestyle when asked on Top Gear pre-Hungary if he would trade it all for a win he was pretty genuine in his answer of "yes". he didn't say "well second is still worth 6 points (I think it was 6 back then) and I am very happy to walk away with 6 points"
Drivers don't need extra insentives AS SEEN by Hamilton this year, and as SEEN in MOST other motorsports!
I suspect you may be just playing devil's advocate because I don't believe you could sit and watch this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfPM77TsGaA (I get f*cking goosebumps watching that sh1t) - and suggest for one moment that either of those two riders would have been happy to be placed second. The points percentages are THE SAME AS THE NOW EX-F1 POINTS SYSTEM yet they FOUGHT ALL THE WAAAAYYYY!
I think that everyone is missing vital points here, and that is that not all the cars are equally matched. At least with the points system, a team that absolutely could not win every Grand Prix, still had a hope (even a tiny glimmer) at getting a Championship driver by being consistent. Now? They have no chance.
And guess what, if your car isn't capable, you certainly can't make it any better, because there's no mid-season testing, and you've just had quarter of your budget taken away! Hurrah for Bernie! ****ing idiot.
So far, there have been 59 seasons, from 1950 through 2008.
Of those 59 seasons, over 20% (more than 1 in 5) would've seen a different Champion with the current rules. I know you really can't compare them, since the strategy changes with different point schemes. I just thought it was rather funny that nobody complained about the guys that became champion in any of these years (apart from the usual dislike of the driver):
12 times, out of the 59 seasons run so far would've seen a different WDC.
Here they are:
1958: Mike Hawthorn (1), Would be: Sterling Moss (4)
1964: John Surtees (2), Would be: Graham Hill (3)
1967: Denny Hulme (2), Would be: Jim Clark (4)
1977: Niki Lauda (3), Would be: Mario Andretti (4)
1979: Jody Scheckter (3), Would be: Alan Jones (4)
1982: Keke Rosberg (1), Would be: Didier Pironi (2)
1983: Nelson Piquet (3), Would be: Alain Prost (4)
1984: Niki Lauda (5), Would be: Alain Prost (7)
1986: Alain Prost (4), Would be: Nigel Mansell (5)
1987: Nelson Piquet (3), Would be: Nigel Mansell (6)
1989: Alain Prost (4), Would be: Ayrton Senna (6)
2008: Lewis Hamilton (5), Would be: Felipe Massa (6)
Notice please that in the glory years of F1 in terms of equalness of the cars (1980s) and fights on track 6 out of 10 winners would've been different. 1982 would have had 5 drivers equal in race wins. Keke Rosberg, who won the Championship with 44 points, would've ended in 6th place. Didier Pironi would've won the championship with 39 points, beating John Watson by more 3rd places or less retirements (depending on the rule they plan on using), because both had 39 points, 2 wins, and 2 second places. John Watson had only 1 3rd place finish, while Pironi had 2. Pironi did not start 6 races, but retired in 1. Watson did not start 1 race but retired 4 times.
edit: The other 3 drivers equal in wins were Alain Prost, Niki Lauda, and Rene Arnoux.
Today's F1 drivers aren't capable of fighting the way they did in the old days, besides that this rule has taken away any incentive there was to repeat the 79 French GP where Arnoux and Villeneuve fought like madmen for 2nd place (won't get you anything besides a couple of points which are useless for the WDC now)...
Bernie seems to think aerodynamics are some myth magiced up by the teams and drivers to explain why they can't race. Does he think some of them have just spent the last 10+ years of their life trying to get into F1 to then decide to just 'chillax' in 2nd and be happy to collect points!!
He prolly does... And what's best about this is that that won't change a bit...
With 10 laps to go and the leader is 15+ seconds away, they will still chill in 2nd and may even get passed without a battle for 3rd, because the one position that matters now is wayyyy out of reach. So who cares?
Now, if Bernie is wrong, and drivers want to win regardless, this system will not change anything either, because they'll fight for each position regardless because they want to win...
Either way, this system changes nothing it was designed to change. It can only change it for the worse.
I think them rule makers will wake up when you hear a championship contendor saying after having a bad quali lining up in 18th or whatever "I will take it easy save the engine, gearbox, and car. It isn't worth trying to fight through the pack to get worthless points"
No, it's an example of the flaws of a point system. Racing for 5th shouldn't have been an option for Lewis, but as an unfortunate consequence of the rules, he didn't approach the whole Interlagos weekend as he normally would. He wasn't trying to get pole and win the race. He drove conservatively and cautiously. That is smart driving. Sensible. The thing to do if wants to take the title.
But wouldn't it have been more exciting to watch if Lewis had to win? The rules shouldn't prevent a Gilles Villeneuve-style, balls-out approach to winning grands prix. The winning is what matters; that's what's interesting. The man who finished in 6th place at the 1991 Hungarian Grand Prix is not interesting, but the man who won it (Senna) is. Winning should be the focus. F1 is cutthroat - why should a driver who hasn't won a single race in seven seasons still be there? Win or go home.
I'm not familiar enough with the intricacies of any of those games to say, although I have doubts that any of them is similar enough to grand prix racing to make useful comparisons anyway.
We'll see. I think this year's championship will be close and exciting, and this new rule won't have much effect on the outcomes of the championships or the racing for any of the drivers.
