http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/17052007/13/ferrari-boss-slams-f1-points-system.html Why would they make such statements. The rules are rules (for now). Sounds childish to me.
They've been meddling with the points for years. They keep flip-flopping between the need to reward race winners and the need to keep dominant drivers from ruining the excitement. The current points system was implememented after Schumacher was ruining TV ratings with his runaway victories. I wish they would go back to the old 9-6-4-3-2-1 system, personally. Maybe even the old system where only the best 11 finishes counted towards the championship?
A few seasons ago Kimi took it down to the wire with Schuamcher, despite winning only one race. in 1982 Keke Rosberg won the title with just one win. As for Hamilton, I doubt he is going to be winless this year...
But for a "champion" not to win does not make for a true championship. Winning also takes consistency. It seems there should be at least 4 points difference between first and second in order to really reward the consistency of winning.
Personally, I'd like to see a system where 10 finishers recieve points, so that the battle in the back of the field still has some meaning. I'd like to see this system, 12.5-7.5-5-4-3-2.5-2-1.5-1-.5, in this system Felipe has 30.5 points, Hammy 27.5, Alonso 28, Kimi 22.5.
I like your idea of rewarding the midpack runners with points. Afterall, those teams spend beaucoup dollars and without them, there would be no show. Not sure about the .5 points though.
I like this as well, except for the half points. I would like to see a point for Pole as well as fastest lap, hell maybe throw in a point for most laps led as well.
That's a good idea Tony. I would like to see a rule that no driver can have more than three syllables in their last name. Otherwise, they have to change their name to comply.
I dont like .5 points either, I would rather have all those points double to 25-15-10 etc, but at that point people would catch Schumachers all time points total twice as fast.
The battle at the back of the field has LOTS of meaning. If you don't finish in the top 8, you don't get points, meaning you don't keep your job. 0 points = 0 job....that resonates with me. 9-6-4-3-2-1 for those who race to win.
Ron, your idea would be pretty confusing.....Felipe Comply, Fernando Comply, Lewis Comply...not a very good idea at all.
That is a very good point, historically it would mess up what past champions have done. Remember 2008 will be 20 Races, so what does that do to the careers of guys like Fangio, Clark, and Stewart who averaged 8 races per season? In 5 years theoretically a Driver can make mince meat of past records.
Now that is funny Ron, but you can't even read their names on the cars any more. Remember on the 312 Series Ferrari's how easy it was to read a Gilles Villenueve, Clay Regazzoni, Niki Lauda, and Jody Scheckter?
I agree that the points system should change, but not for the reasons most on here lament: Folks here are just unhappy that Lewis leads the standings without a win. IMHO nothing wrong with that. But the points system should give more points for a victory so that the runner up gets a bit of a motivation to go for it instead of driving his 8 points home. 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 Add an extra point for pole and one for fastest lap to enhance the spectacle. PS: Regarding Rosberg: He didn't need that one win to get the title. He could have won the title with "just" another 2nd place as he was leading by 5 points to a man who no longer raced. PPS: And yes, the current system was deliberatly introduced to not get multiple winners like MS away too soon. The same system also harmed him in the title chase last summer.
We're only 4 races into the season and it just so happens the points leader has not won a race. It will work itself out in the end and everyone will forget this crap by then. The odds of a driver winning a championship without winning a race is <<<<<< than the odds of a driver clinching a championship earlier and making ratings fall. The new points system will keep the hunt for the title closer and more interesting. With 2002 points system (10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1) applied to 2007: 1. Massa: 23 2. Lewis: 22 t-Alonso: 22 4. Kimi: 18 Actual 2007 standings: 1. Lewis: 30 2. Alonso: 28 3. Massa: 27 4. Kimi 22 Maybe if Massa didn't finish 5th and 6th in the first two races, he'd currently be leading.
As some have pointed out, the 9-6-4-3-2-1 system worked just fine. I was mad when they changed a win to 10 points, and still haven't gotten over that. I'll leave it as an excercise for the reader to figure out what I think of the current points system, because i don't need to get banned AGAIN!
The complaint used to be that the runaway leader (read: Michael and Co.) couldn't be caught, and also that there was no differentiating the backmarkers between the finishers and non-finishers. Yes, winning should be worth something, but how much? Who had the better season, the guy with 5 wins and nothing else or the guy who finished 2nd every time?
