Also consider when a driver wants to win a race they 95% of the time do it in the pits. So on track action won't be improved. The only instances where you get a driver in a position to go for 1st on track is in the last stages of the race. And the only time we saw this last year was germany, and Belguim (from memory). Both occasions the driver went for the win, EVEN when 2nd was a sensible option anyway!

This system appears to be a reaction to last years results.

Isn't belgium's track Spa...

Rosberg - ''Eh ? What kind of stupid stuff is this ?'' (me think he said sh1t)

Hamilton - ''I have no opinion about it.''

Kovalainen - ''I've got nothing to say.''

(Mclaren language for "well that's a load of sh1t!")

Alonso - ''I don't understand the necessity to continaully change the regulations. I think it's the best way to confuse the fans. Formula 1 has evolved thanks to the teams, the sponsors and most of all the fans: none of the groups mentioned have had the chance to express their opinion on the decisions of the FIA.''

Heidfeld - ''It's a matter of taste, but my taste it isn't. I think the old regulations are better. With points it's more understandable. We do not just have one race, we 17 or 18. The driver should win that has consistently been ahead.''

The German doesn't understand that from the second place in the championship onwards the points system is decisive again: ''I find that pointless. There should be an equal basis for assessment for everyone, not a hotchpotch.''


Sutil - ''I have the feeling there are always a lot of changes (in the regulations of the sport - AFCA). In recent years there's always been something new each year. To me it seems there are desperate attempts to make Formula 1 even more interesting, even more exciting. Perhaps it's better to just leave everything as it is in order for the fans to be able to get used to how F1 works.''

Trulli Q & A

Q: So you don't agree with the decisions taken in Paris ?
Trulli: ''To me it seems there are a lot of negative factors, not a single positive one.''

Q: Do you mean in general or only for as far as the drivers are concerned ?
Trulli: ''It's obviously not up to me to respond because that's the responsability of the teams. But it seems that in this way they're willing to sink Formula 1. Let's all go and race in another championship...''

Q: You're part of the GPDA, what do you make of the decision to reward the title to the driver that wins the most Grand Prix' ?
Trulli: ''I don't know who gave birth to this idea. The teams proposed a revision to the points system, rewarding the race winner with three instead of two points more than the runner up. With the new regulations (instead) a lot of things will change.''

Q: Who will be benefit from it ?
Trulli: ''The driver that will have the best car. In this way the one that's behind the steering wheel will once again lose importance. The car will win.''

Q: In the past though, generally the title also went to the driver who had won the most races...
Trulli: ''That's true. But taking into account that the regulations are being changed in order to improve the show, then I don't think this will be the result that was hoped for.''

Q: For what reason ?
Trulli: ''It's simple. If one driver has success in a lot of races at the start of the season then he can take things easy finishing the (remaining) races without being pushed.''

Q: But the opposite could happen as well...
Trulli: ''Certainly. Let's say a car is not competitive during the first ten races. Then the team improves the car and in the following races the driver, despite not having scored a single point earlier in the championship, brings home the worldtitle.''

Q: So there's also a possibility we'll be witnessing a boring championship.
Trulli: ''Just take a look at recent championships. In 2002 and 2004 Ferrari won 15 races. They would have killed the season and the show, well before the end (which is actually what they did, but with the current regulations it would have even happened a lot earlier still).''

Q: In 2008, up to three races before the end of the season there were still three drivers in the fight for the championship.
Trulli: ''Yes, apart from Hamilton and Massa, Kubica also had a chance and nourished some hope. With the system introduced by the FIA he could have stayed at home...''

Q: So do you hope something will change still ?
Trulli: ''I hope so, everyone does. And we're only talking about the points system now, we haven't mentioned all the rest. Common sense should prevail. It's right giving more to the fans, trying to improve the show, making the fight for the championship more lively and uncertain. Without upsetting the spirit of Formula 1 that is. There are only a few days left before the start of the season and the only things we're talking about in our sport are fights and problems. You can't move forward like that.''

Q: But do you think there's still time to put things right ?
Trulli: ''There's always time to do the right things. Most of all the will to do it should be there. However, I'm very, very worried.''

____________________________________________________________

So the fans don't want it, the drivers don't want it, and the teams probably don't want it either. The huge flaws are as clear as day!

Nice to read that our initial reactions are basically the same as those of the drivers (at least those that speak here).

" Let's all go and race in another championship"
For the first time I actually want that to happen. Previously I've felt that they should try and persist with F1, hoping they would move it in the right direction, but I think if this points system prevails (against the wishes of the everybody) then I will have lost all hope.

Intrepid... Source?

BBC describes their new coverage format: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/spo ... _the_best_job_in_the.html

This is just awful. It feels just like a corporation whose CEO would decide to change a policy, which both the employees and the customers would find stupid. The best way to solve the problem is to fire the CEO and find someone who agrees with the rest ^^

Quote from Mackie The Staggie :

Webber thinks rule change could help!!

That headline is a little misleading. I think it could help too, but that doesn't mean I think its a good idea. Webber talked about the rule having downsides too.

I really can't see how this is going to change anything.

Any non-title-challenging team and driver won't even
recognize the new rules, since they're still racing to
the point-system.

Title-challenging-drivers:
The idea of having more battles up infront is total
nonsense to me. This seems to be based on the idea
that becoming second or third instead of first or
second is a matter of will. And I have absolutely no
clue how you get to this conclussion. If you are
20 secs down after 2/3 of the race this is for a reason
and you really won't be able to change this reason just
by "really beeing willed to win because you need the medal".
The reason is probably not the pace you're willing to set
but the pace you're able to set.

On the other hand working yourself threw the field from
15th, as a title-challenging driver actually is a question
of will. The pace you're able to set will probably be fast
enough to make it into the points... but there's no reason
for doing so anymore, is there?

So the new rules will only have an positive effect in some
very special situations. A fast car behind a car way slower
in the top 5 for example. (Hamilton behind Rosberg last year).
The pace to overtake + the hopes of one or two drivers infront
withdrawing should have been enough to get Hamilton to make
some moves instead of camping behind him...

...but these situations are so rare that I, as I already said, really
can't see how this is going to change anything. Just another piece
of FIA-nonsense.

edit: Oh, I forgot. A bit OT, but:
What the heck are drivers thinking when they say "I really don't
know how the fans are supposed to understand this system...".
WTF? Not understanding a freaking point-system with a medal
on top? These dudes really seem to be totally out of space.
Especially Button adding "well, I do understand the logic of it".
I bow down to him. And I really appreciate that he takes care
of all of us who unfortunately must go threw life without his
god-like sense of logic... :thumbs:

Well, i have to say that i agree with the new rule.

F1 drivers over the years have been separated between title contenders and the rest, who were fighting for a good place at the final standings.

With the old point system, after the last pit stop the races become bored as everyone settled and preserved engines. It was so difficult to pass that the teams (not the drivers) usually decided that getting two points was not worth the risk. We had excepcions over the last years (spa 08, etc), but the rule was that the ending of the races were just boring.

So now, noone will be able to cruise when leading or going second. Either you win or you win. There are no more options for the contenders.

Seriously, after a few races, the number of possible WDC´s is limited. Even if a lot of teams have mathematical chances, the truth is that miracles don´t happen often.

If one pilot rules like the schumy era, the championship will be over pretty soon, but with the current regulations i expect at least four teams with enough potencial to win races and we will problably get to the last races with the title undecided.

Let´s be honest, the majority of the pilot´s know that they have no chances of getting the title unless something amazing happens. It has been like that for years and will be the same with any kind of system.

Have an open mind guys. Wait till the middle of the championship and the let´s make conclusions based on facts.

And i want to remember you that with the old system one pilot could win 5 races in a row, another one make second in the same races taking less risks and if the first pilot had a DNF he would lose all the advantage in one race. Is that fair?

btw, 10 days to go... wooooooot!

Ops, and some guys mentioned motogp.... well, except for the fight at laguna seca it has been one of the most boring years i can remember of.

Rossi wanted to win that race just to get a psicological advantage over Casey. He has always done the same, destroying the opponents self confidence. It was a tactic, nothing to do with points. Rossi is in another level and must not be used for comparisons

Quote from ATic ATac :

And i want to remember you that with the old system one pilot could win 5 races in a row, another one make second in the same races taking less risks and if the first pilot had a DNF he would lose all the advantage in one race. Is that fair?

It's totally fair, don't DNF. If you push your engine program too far and blow it up or drive the car over the limit in crash how is that unfair? I just don't get these posts about someone winning the title by finishing 2nd all year being unfair. The guy ran in second place a lot! He obviously has talent and a fast car, how is it not fair for him to be a champion?

How is it more fair to win a couple races and DNF in all the rest because you made stupid mistakes, but you could become champion anyway since all that matters is wins now.

Quote from UncleBenny :

It's totally fair, don't DNF. If you push your engine program too far and blow it up or drive the car over the limit in crash how is that unfair? I just don't get these posts about someone winning the title by finishing 2nd all year being unfair. The guy ran in second place a lot! He obviously has talent and a fast car, how is it not fair for him to be a champion?

How is it more fair to win a couple races and DNF in all the rest because you made stupid mistakes, but you could become champion anyway since all that matters is wins now.

Yes, but the DNF can be because the second guy took him out

My point is that there are no perfect systems. For a long time we have been rewarding consistency. It´s more or less the same now, but having to take more risks for the win

I do think its kind of funny how in auto racing, recently some series have been changing the scoring system to try and make it more exciting for the fans. But in other team sports where you have a playoff system, a team can run away with the title in the finals by 4 games to nothing, and no one cries out how boring it is and the system needs to change. Or in a title match, one team can blow the other team out, but that's just part of the game.

In racing, in all of sports really, you're always going to have good battles and bad battles no matter how many times you change the rules, like you said there will never be a perfect system. I don't know why in racing though, the top people seem to think they can change this. F1, Nascar, and the NHRA are all guilty of this, leave the points alone already!

Quote :

And i want to remember you that with the old system one pilot could win 5 races in a row, another one make second in the same races taking less risks and if the first pilot had a DNF he would lose all the advantage in one race. Is that fair?

Is it fair that someone like Kubica who was in the a WDC shout until the last two races through absolutely stunning driving in an inferior car be penalised?

All this does is reward the drivers who have the best cars, and completelty elimiate the chance of a driver who isn't in a dominant car to compete for the WDC.

Even though F1 has always been about the car, this cements is position as the most dominant factor. And is it fair for team mate B who might not have a great start to the season (like Massa) to then play a supporting role almost immediately?

Is it fair on the fans to be robbed of the sight of a top driver coming through the field because it's 'not worth it if you can't win now that winning is all that matters so won't risk the engine'.

This is less fair, and NOT real racing... far from it.

Quote from ATic ATac :

My point is that there are no perfect systems. For a long time we have been rewarding consistency. It´s more or less the same now, but having to take more risks for the win

It's not the same at all. Someone who just finishes 5 or 6 races could win the championship if he wins all of those races. Hardly consistent.

I find it hard to believe that people even comment about it being a good idea, when the drivers themselves (yes, the people directly affected by the rule change, and people who are actually knowledgable) have all said "This rule change is not a good idea".

Some people like having a different opinion just to get a rise from others, so don't continue to be baited by them, just sit back with the rest of the world and laugh at how silly they look

Quote from dawguk :

Some people like having a different opinion just to get a rise from others, so don't continue to be baited by them, just sit back with the rest of the world (watching MotoGP and WSBK) and laugh at how silly they look

sorry to keep this going but I know another scenario that adds another dimension

Let's say Driver A has won 6 races and Driver B has won 4 so not unlikely. Now we have two more rounds to go. Say Driver A has a healthy points advantage of 14 points. If he's in 2nd place in the penultimate race he'll still settle for second because the 8 points will give him the championship. Why risk going for an overtake because you never know you might lose the race through making a bad lunge. If you take Driver B imagine the repercussions!

So within this system there is room for people to settle for second because a tie on wins goes down to points.

The only time a driver settles for second is when they have a healthy points advantage in the pre-09 system, and that's usually because they've won a lot anyway !!! All this new system does is make drivers who've qualied further back slightly LESS likely to try and repair some of the damage by fighting through the field because of the over emphasis on wins.

All this season does is correct a little 'flaw' (if you can even call it that, I would call it an advantage myself) in the points system whereby a champion doesn't have to win the most races. Which is odd considering the plaudits Kubica got last year. How can you make a championship more exciting by reducing the amount of drivers in with a shout?

I do feel sorry for the drivers being patronised. I personally don't feel they are all in the top 20 of drivers in the world but considering what they have to do on a Sunday afternoon to be told "you must try harder" is patronising beyond belief.

How about a panel of judges award points on effort as well? Never know!

Quote from ATic ATac :

And i want to remember you that with the old system one pilot could win 5 races in a row, another one make second in the same races taking less risks and if the first pilot had a DNF he would lose all the advantage in one race. Is that fair?

It sure is fair.

Think of the alternative:
* Driver A wins 3 races but DNFs 5 times.
* Driver B doesn't win any races, but consistently scores podiums and has no DNFs.

Under the old rules, Driver B wins the championship. Under the new rules, the dumbass who won 3 times but DNFs 5 times is the champion.

Who is the better driver? Should a world champion DNF 5 times, or should he be able to keep his car on track? IMHO, Driver B is more worthy - he's fast and consistent. Driver A is fast, but has nothing else going for him. A Formula 1 Grand Prix is a test of speed and consistency (that's why races go for 1.5 to 2 hours, instead of the usual 30 minutes to 1 hour of most other racing series). If you can't be fast and keep up the pace, you don't deserve a WDC. No one wants a "lucky" champion - champions should earn their gold. Unfortunately the new rule will award drivers who luck into top step of the podium, instead of those who are consistently excellent.

someone who is consistently excellent should be consistently on the top of the podium I would say....

Actually it reminds me of a season where senna won the championship despite having less points, he won because the rule states that only a number of the best scoring races count towards the championship (I forgot how many), Prost was more consistent and Senna had more DNFs, however counting the best races only, Senna won, nobody seem to have a problem with that.

I would love to see the system to reward risk taking rather than consistency, but I just don't see why can't they go back to the old scoring system, which solves everything and people can actually comprehend.

Quote from JJ72 :

someone who is consistently excellent should be consistently on the top of the podium I would say....

Actually it reminds me of a season where senna won the championship despite having less points, he won because the rule states that only a number of the best scoring races count towards the championship (I forgot how many), Prost was more consistent and Senna had more DNFs, however counting the best races only, Senna won, nobody seem to have a problem with that.

I would love to see the system to reward risk taking rather than consistency, but I just don't see why can't they go back to the old scoring system, which solves everything and people can actually comprehend.

Yup, years ago it was common that pilots could discard the worst result´s of the year.

It was the same in bikes, and i when they took that out, many racers complained that they were rewarding the slow consistant guys instead of the fast guys... just the opposite as today

Quote from Intrepid :

Is it fair that someone like Kubica who was in the a WDC shout until the last two races through absolutely stunning driving in an inferior car be penalised?

All this does is reward the drivers who have the best cars, and completelty elimiate the chance of a driver who isn't in a dominant car to compete for the WDC.

Even though F1 has always been about the car, this cements is position as the most dominant factor. And is it fair for team mate B who might not have a great start to the season (like Massa) to then play a supporting role almost immediately?

Is it fair on the fans to be robbed of the sight of a top driver coming through the field because it's 'not worth it if you can't win now that winning is all that matters so won't risk the engine'.

This is less fair, and NOT real racing... far from it.

But isn't the basic point of racing, to win?

Now i know alot of things can't be helped due to car performance and so on, but this could also change how teams set there cars, they may have kamakazie sets that are just of all out power and hope for the best in reliability(this could really bring up the midfeild into the top pack). I think something like this will be going through alot of teams minds, and for teams like Force india who don't have high expectations for the 1st Grand prix, it would be a perfect plan imo.

Quote from JJ72 :

Actually it reminds me of a season where senna won the championship despite having less points, he won because the rule states that only a number of the best scoring races count towards the championship (I forgot how many), Prost was more consistent and Senna had more DNFs, however counting the best races only, Senna won, nobody seem to have a problem with that.

People did have a problem with that, a lot of people couldn't understand why someone with more points didn't win.

Think about points as a form of AVERAGE speed and you'll start to see that the person with the most points could be considered the fastest driver over the course of a year.

Quote from Mustafur :

But isn't the basic point of racing, to win?

Now i know alot of things can't be helped due to car performance and so on, but this could also change how teams set there cars, they may have kamakazie sets that are just of all out power and hope for the best in reliability(this could really bring up the midfeild into the top pack). I think something like this will be going through alot of teams minds, and for teams like Force india who don't have high expectations for the 1st Grand prix, it would be a perfect plan imo.

The current system already promotes winning... you get MORE points! Points mean prizes. I do agree 2 points extra isn't enough, 4 would be better! But the points system has worked for 50 years. OK the dropped round thing is odd. It only really works in 'budget' series or series with low reliability.

The lesser teams know they aren't going to win the championship so going for wins and risking WDC and WCC points would be silly. You won't see that happen. Only teams in with a shout of genuinely winning races will 'go for it'. Force India aren't going to go for wins! In fact as championship points will be even more important in regard to getting prize money you will see more conservitive strategies.

And when a driver did go Kamakazi last year (Hamilton) he got penalised!

Also you have to remember F1 has relatively large disparity between the cars. This means no one really gets a good idea as to who the best driver is. The point system allows guys like Alonso, and Kubica who may well be the best 'drivers' as chance at the WDC. Now they don't have a chance at all (if their cars aren't up to it)

I would love to see supporters of this new system go up to Hamilton, Massa, or Kimi and say "obviosuly you don't try enough to win!" lol

Quote from Intrepid :

The current system already promotes winning... you get MORE points! Points mean prizes. I do agree 2 points extra isn't enough, 4 would be better! But the points system has worked for 50 years. OK the dropped round thing is odd. It only really works in 'budget' series or series with low reliability.

The lesser teams know they aren't going to win the championship so going for wins and risking WDC and WCC points would be silly. You won't see that happen. Only teams in with a shout of genuinely winning races will 'go for it'. Force India aren't going to go for wins! In fact as championship points will be even more important in regard to getting prize money you will see more conservitive strategies.

And when a driver did go Kamakazi last year (Hamilton) he got penalised!

Also you have to remember F1 has relatively large disparity between the cars. This means no one really gets a good idea as to who the best driver is. The point system allows guys like Alonso, and Kubica who may well be the best 'drivers' as chance at the WDC. Now they don't have a chance at all (if their cars aren't up to it)

I would love to see supporters of this new system go up to Hamilton, Massa, or Kimi and say "obviosuly you don't try enough to win!" lol

I know force india isn't going to win (well really we can't truely know untill melbourne) but if they have no expectations a set like that would atleast give some hope, its better suited to cars that are close to the top pack but just not quite there though.

Eg: Mclaren 05