I got a much better idea:

Remove pitting. One fuel load. One set of tyres. Let's see how the drivers get on out there on their own, with only themselves to pretty much determine the race outcome.

Then, give points on the basis of where you finish relative to where you started on the grid only with points only given for every 2 places made not every one ie:

Places made/points scored

+20/10 points
+19/9 points
+18/9 points
+17/8 points
+16/8 points

so on until

-20/-20 points
-19/-19 points
-18/-18 points

then a BONUS for finishing top 3 of:

1st Place: +10 points
2nd Place: +6 points
3rd Place: +3 points

All the incentive for making up places and not dropping them plus bonuses for making the podium.

WDC decided by final points total.

Quote from Intrepid :

Please explain what Hamilton was doing in Belgium, and Germany then? He sure didn't look like a driver who was settling for second!

Of course he wasn't. He was driving for the win, and it was exciting to watch. This rule wouldn't have changed that. If this rule had been in place last year with those situations, he still would have driven as he did.

Quote from Intrepid :

It completely devalues 3rd 4th and 5th so they won't be worth fighting for.

Pay attention; this has already been addressed. The teams will have absolutely no time for a driver who doesn't push hard to bring home a decent points finish. A 3rd place for a driver still means a higher standing for himself in the WDC at the end of the season. It still means he stands on the podium, does the post-race interview, gets the publicity. It still makes people think "wow, that was a solid drive by X". It still brings home points for the team. He still beats his teammate and ensures he gets that contract extension, or that the top team might consider him for next season.

Quote from Intrepid :

The cars were wrong, not the drivers.

The design of the cars prohibited overtaking, yes. And every once in a while the points system made a safe drive to 2nd or 3rd the smart option, eliminating the need to overtake at all. The rules have simply been changed to mitigate this occasional circumstance. It didn't happen often; certainly not every race, which is why in most races this rule won't change anything at all.

Quote from Intrepid :

You provide NO evidence to suggest it will improve the racing other than 'more incentive'. The incentive has, and always will be there to go for the win.

Again, this has already been addressed. Pay attention.

I think 'incentive' is a misleading word. It suggests drivers don't race for first when they are in second, which as we have seen last year with Hamilton this simply isn't the case.

Reward is a better word. Actually I don't think the winner is adequately rewarded under the current points system. but a small tweak was all that was needed. 1st gets 12 instead of 10.

Yes MotoGP is easier to race in but good racing can not be forced and created through silly rule changes. It must evolve from the driver/car combination. The vehicles/tracks themselves are the limiting factor. If you put the entire grid of F1 drivers into low grip /high power karts instead the racing would naturally improve. Not to do with werid point systems, but the vehicles themselves.

The problem is Bernie has timed this PERFECTLY. If the cars are easier to race with he will take all the plaudits about how his plan has worked, even if it has nothing to do with it at all.

If Bernie wants racing why not run reverse grids dependant on championship order. So 1st in championship starts last, and last in championship stars first. Cut the weekend into two days to cut costs. Practise Saturday, and race Sunday.... actually thats not a bad idea lol... not F1 tho!

Quote from Lateralus :

1) The odds of a driver winning the first nine races of the season are pretty much zero. Even approaching that is exceedingly unlikely. The odds of another Schumacher/Ferrari situation occuring again are also pretty much zero.

Unless you have some major rule changes that one team manages to capitalize on big time - oh wait, we have that!

And Tristan has a point: why bother if you have a bad qual or you've got the title in the bag already? Of course they'll turn up, they've got contracts to honor after all, but they won't be trying too hard...

We might see more incidents though - a good teammate blocking for his number one and I could imagine desperate passing maneuvres in the last laps of a race will take their toll...

Quote from Lateralus :

1. Pay attention; this has already been addressed. The teams will have absolutely no time for a driver who doesn't push hard to bring home a decent points finish. A 3rd place for a driver still means a higher standing for himself in the WDC at the end of the season. It still means he stands on the podium, does the post-race interview, gets the publicity. It still makes people think "wow, that was a solid drive by X". It still brings home points for the team. He still beats his teammate and ensures he gets that contract extension, or that the top team might consider him for next season.



2. The design of the cars prohibited overtaking, yes. And every once in a while the points system made a safe drive to 2nd or 3rd the smart option, eliminating the need to overtake at all. The rules have simply been changed to mitigate this occasional circumstance. It didn't happen often; certainly not every race, which is why in most races this rule won't change anything at all.

PLease don't patronise me by saying 'pay attention'. i've been in motorsport for 20+ years and I have witnessed first hand the effects of stupid rule changes like this! We are currently facing major issues in karting because of rash decisions b the governing bodies!

1. If your in the hunt for the drivers championship and are running 4th the team will have to make a decision. Fight for 3rd and risk to engine for the constructors championship, or stay in 4th a reserve the engine for the drivers championship. As seen by how Ferrari and McLaren reacted in Brazil shows which championship means more. You are effectively eliminating the incentive to go for EVERY point!

2. Elimate the need to overtake at all? This rule won't change anything. A driver who is sat in 2nd and in the WDC race will probably stay there and save his motor for the next race anyway. 1st might be worth more but if your beat your beat may as well save the engine.

This ruling only punishes the drivers who are in inferior cars who can punch above their weight. The drivers championship is by far the better championship to win for the team. Now even the glimmer of hope for someone like Kubica last year has been evaporated!

Quote from tristancliffe :

The [...] the teams, don't really care that much about the constructors championship

The teams care very much about the constructor's championship, and you know it.

They care about the prestige of being #1 and carrying the momentum of being the best into the next season. Even if the WDC is decided, the mechanics and engineers (and drivers) will still try to hard to win so their team can be called the best in the world.

Mercedes cares about beating BMW. Toyota cares about beating Honda (won't happen anymore, unfortunately). The team management cares about that extra money from FOM. The team cares about the publicity and the honor of either winning the WCC or finishing very well. Are you suggesting that BMW didn't care about finishing 2nd in the WCC in 2007? That they didn't care at all about the extra money that gave them for 2008? That they didn't appreciate the press coverage and time in the spotlight for their acheivements? Surely not.

Quote from Intrepid :

If Bernie wants racing why not run reverse grids dependant on championship order. So 1st in championship starts last, and last in championship stars first. Cut the weekend into two days to cut costs. Practise Saturday, and race Sunday.... actually thats not a bad idea lol... not F1 tho!

Now this is something I want to see a racing series try just once at least. It's the fairest way to do reverse grids because it should even itself over a season. Infact we should try it with an LFS league and see what it does. Theoretically it should provide more on-track action and basically 'compress' the standings. And just imagine the title showdown if it came down to it: two top drivers starting on the back row in a mad race to get to the points positions!

Quote from Intrepid :

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.

Well, no form of car racing is ever going to be as amazing as motorcycle racing when it comes to pure adrenaline pumping racing action IMO. It's not just about the ease of overtaking in bike racing, that could be solved for cars by making the tracks wider. It's also about the true physical risks taken by motorcycle racers which car racing just can't measure up to. Sure ALL motorsport is dangerous but you have to have been on a bike, (especially on a track and with no wing mirrors), to truely appreciate the bravery of motorcycle racers.

Quote from count.bazley :

Now this is something I want to see a racing series try just once at least. It's the fairest way to do reverse grids because it should even itself over a season. Infact we should try it with an LFS league and see what it does. Theoretically it should provide more on-track action and basically 'compress' the standings. And just imagine the title showdown if it came down to it: two top drivers starting on the back row in a mad race to get to the points positions!

has been tried- http://www.revver.com/video/21 ... -tv-uk-karting-challenge/

good concept but never caught on.

Quote from Intrepid :

I think 'incentive' is a misleading word [...]
Reward is a better word.

Semantics... the two words are synonyms.

Quote from Intrepid :

The problem is Bernie has timed this PERFECTLY. If the cars are easier to race with he will take all the plaudits about how his plan has worked, even if it has nothing to do with it at all.

That's pretty much how Bernie has always operated. Who cares whether he gets some smug satisfaction from the result of this? Why is that a problem? What matters is the action on the track.

Quote from Intrepid :

PLease don't patronise me by saying 'pay attention'

My apologies, I meant in this thread, not in motorsport in general. I've already addressed your points specifically earlier in the thread; there's no reason to repeat them.

Quote from Lateralus :

Semantics... the two words are synonyms.



That's pretty much how Bernie has always operated. Who cares whether he gets some smug satisfaction from the result of this? Why is that a problem? What matters is the action on the track.



My apologies, I meant in this thread, not in motorsport in general. I've already addressed your points specifically earlier in the thread; there's no reason to repeat them.

You really haven't addressed any points. All you have done is drastically underestimate drivers motivations when racing!

Just look at these two pussies not trying to fight for the win - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FzNZSaKOsQ !

Quote from tristancliffe :

And don't start with the "there are still points to be had for the incentive to drive for a podium", because that is rubbish. The fans, like the teams, don't really care that much about the constructors championship, and nobody cares about 2nd or below. The drivers championship is the main championship, and that is now out of reach of approximately 82% of F1 drivers (18 out of 22 as a rough calculation - some years it'll be more, some years it'll be less). So for those 82% of drivers they just drive around pointlessly, just putting miles on the car and preparing for the following year in the hope they can overturn the established winners. Big whoop.

Yes, this is one of my main problems with this system. Its like saying no one else even matters. Not everyone is rooting for the 4 or 5 drivers with a chance to win, and some people might follow the entire F1 season just to see their guy hopefully finish top 5 in the driver standings or something. What's the point of even watching now when he's just going to have 0 wins and lumped with all the other drivers who have 0 wins?

I have a feeling they're still going to track the points all season just as much as the wins, because if they don't there is no reason to talk about anyone other than the top drivers, which in my opinion would get boring pretty fast.

And you can argue that "points still matter for the tie breaker" all you want, but that doesn't really matter if you aren't going to win a race, which is true for about 80% of the field unfortunately.

Quote from Lateralus :

The teams care very much about the constructor's championship, and you know it.

They care about the prestige of being #1 and carrying the momentum of being the best into the next season. Even if the WDC is decided, the mechanics and engineers (and drivers) will still try to hard to win so their team can be called the best in the world.

Mercedes cares about beating BMW. Toyota cares about beating Honda (won't happen anymore, unfortunately). The team management cares about that extra money from FOM. The team cares about the publicity and the honor of either winning the WCC or finishing very well. Are you suggesting that BMW didn't care about finishing 2nd in the WCC in 2007? That they didn't care at all about the extra money that gave them for 2008? That they didn't appreciate the press coverage and time in the spotlight for their acheivements? Surely not.

They only care about it if a) they can't win the drivers championship or b) they've already won the WDC and want the second bout of 'glory'. But the fans don't car. They don't get a #1 on their car for it. Willams haven't a good few seasons, but people know that from looking at the drivers' points tables, not the constructors'.

Ever heard a team go into the new season looking for the WCC? Ever heard the WDC team say it was nice having xxxx the champion, but we're gutted we didn't win the WCC?

Nobody really cares that much. Sure, Toyota might like to have beaten Honda, but only for the boardroom parties. They never mention it in the press, or in their adverts.

However, the constructors championship is important in one way - F1 must be constructors versus constructors, not bought chassis or a single make. By all means allow customer cars, but come up with a way of ensuring they're not just Manufacturer B-Teams with the same resources. A limit on year old chassis (with modifications for regulation changes if required) would do nicely, and allow Torro Rosso to go racing without building a car. That is why I'm so opposed to 'standard' parts. Even the bits we can't see (gearboxes) or are small (wheelnuts) are an important part of that ethos.

Standard parts are the domain of GP2. And we already have a GP2; we don' need another.

Quote from UncleBenny :

I have a feeling they're still going to track the points all season just as much as the wins, because if they don't there is no reason to talk about anyone other than the top drivers, which in my opinion would get boring pretty fast.

They quite clearly said that's exactly what they're doing. First place is decided by wins, 2nd-20th are decided on points.

Quote from count.bazley :

They quite clearly said that's exactly what they're doing. First place is decided by wins, 2nd-20th are decided on points.

Hmm, didn't see that. Knowing that, I do hate the system a lot less than I did before.

Quote from Lateralus :

Semantics... the two words are synonyms.

PMSL.. only if you rely on MS Word for your education in the use of English. The two words have subtly different meanings. A reward is not always an incentive. The whole point of vocabulary is exactly to make distinctions on the basis of semantics. One words meaning is subtly different from another and there be the glory of the English Language.

Reward

Incentive

See quite distinctly different.

Given that you've completely missed the point Intrepid was making between the comparison of F1 and MotoGP with respect to driver/rider motivation to race maybe I should't be surprised you make such comments.

I must say your posts in this thread so far really have been quite stereotypical of the cliche of European perspectives of our North American cousins. But personally I prefer to reserve making judgements of, or commenting on, someones perspective/attitude on the basis of cultural differences. Think we'll just let the viewers make up their own minds.

Quote from count.bazley :

Quote from UncleBenny :

I have a feeling they're still going to track the points all season just as much as the wins, because if they don't there is no reason to talk about anyone other than the top drivers, which in my opinion would get boring pretty fast.

They quite clearly said that's exactly what they're doing. First place is decided by wins, 2nd-20th are decided on points.

Wrong... Points only decide who's in front of those with equal/no wins...

So the lucky 1-time winner will still be in front of a constant third place driver...

Quote from bbman :

Wrong... Points only decide who's in front of those with equal/no wins...

So the lucky 1-time winner will still be in front of a constant third place driver...

Nope, I don't think so.

"Governing body FIA decided Tuesday that the current points system will remain in effect to determine the driver's title in the case of a tie, with points also determining the order of the drivers who finish the season behind the overall champion."

Sounds to me like most wins is champion, and everyone else is done by points behind him, regardless of wins.

Quote from gezmoor :

See quite distinctly different.

You're right, I was wrong. They aren't synonyms. But thanks for proving that "incentive" was actually the more applicable word.

Quote from gezmoor :

Given that you've completely missed the point Intrepid was making between the comparison of F1 and MotoGP with respect to driver/rider motivation to race maybe I should't be surprised you make such comments.

I got his point just fine, it just isn't applicable to the current discussion.

Quote from gezmoor :

I must say your posts in this thread so far really have been quite stereotypical [...] but personally I prefer to reserve making judgements

I see, you make a comment before backing out of it. Very forthright of you.

What is humorous about this system is the two tier nature of it.

A driver could win a few races and finish below someone because of points, and then a driver can win the championship with less points in the SAME championship. Different drivers racing to different rules! It's rather amusing. Imagine explaining that to someone without much knowledge of F1

There's also another downside to this:

Say that there are two drivers that both have say 4 wins coming into the final race. Driver 1 has 4 wins and lots of 2nds and 3rds. Driver 2 has 4 wins, and that's it - no other points finishes. Say Driver 1 wins by 0.01 seconds - that 0.01 seconds is the difference between winning the title and coming, say, 7th or 8th in the standings - how fair is that??

Alright its an exaggeration, but still

Quote from J@tko :

There's also another downside to this:

Say that there are two drivers that both have say 4 wins coming into the final race. Driver 1 has 4 wins and lots of 2nds and 3rds. Driver 2 has 4 wins, and that's it - no other points finishes. Say Driver 1 wins by 0.01 seconds - that 0.01 seconds is the difference between winning the title and coming, say, 7th or 8th in the standings - how fair is that??

Alright its an exaggeration, but still

I wouldn't complain, that would be a pretty sweet finish to a season.

Quote from J@tko :

There's also another downside to this:

Say that there are two drivers that both have say 4 wins coming into the final race. Driver 1 has 4 wins and lots of 2nds and 3rds. Driver 2 has 4 wins, and that's it - no other points finishes. Say Driver 1 wins by 0.01 seconds - that 0.01 seconds is the difference between winning the title and coming, say, 7th or 8th in the standings - how fair is that??

Alright its an exaggeration, but still

u say that now...

it will probably happen.. and boy the person who loses by 0.01 EPIC FAIL

and of course end of season the loss of money to the team for a driver finishing 1st or 7th is alot :o

constructors also matter, as the higher u are the more money u get given from fia (except ferrari who get more anyway coz they were threatening to make break away series, which is hidden undercover over the name of a1gp anyway ) so i would think they would still fight for points behind 1st at the end of a race

Quote from UncleBenny :

I wouldn't complain, that would be a pretty sweet finish to a season.

Hell yeah

But hardly very fair on the second driver to give him such a glimpse, then take it away from him. And if he actually won the championship by having 5 wins and thats it - how unfair is that??!!

Quote from Intrepid :

What is humorous about this system is the two tier nature of it.

A driver could win a few races and finish below someone because of points, and then a driver can win the championship with less points in the SAME championship. Different drivers racing to different rules! It's rather amusing. Imagine explaining that to someone without much knowledge of F1

So true.
How will the commentators talk about it all? "Hamilton limps home to 8th to collect 1 point of no significance to the WDC?"

Honestly, I see 1 situation in which this would conceivably have a positive effect.
Take all the races where 1st and 2nd are close enough for 2nd to be in possible reach of 1st. Then from that small number remove all the races where 2nd didn't try to take 1st because 8 points were enough for his WDC. How often does that actually happen?!
You're left with a small, really small, number of races. If it's possible to win, drivers want to win anyway.


The number of obvious negative effects, and the likelihood that they will occur is high.