Points system (it really isn't fair)

That's not really true. Every professional sport has to level the playing field to prevent domination by one team... boring is bad for income... and income is what its about, not "fairness" to the the teams... the teams want to make money!

But the normal method for leveling the playing field is the salary cap. You collect and cultivate and coach a set of players into a fine performing machine... but then their numbers allow them to demand staggering salaries... and then you can't keep those players. That can be very frustrating when you've been cheering that team as they grew from rookies to superbowl champs... but, you have to level the playing field.

Given "one player per car", a salary cap really doesn't work the same way for motor racing; worse, given that extreme car development is part of what makes F1 the sport that it is, limiting expense is not the most sensible path.

Sooo, they seem to have found a way to keep things exciting, even when one team wins half the races. Adjust the point system such that being on podium is good enough to keep you in the race... that reliably finishing every race is at least as important as winning a lot of them... that just being the fastest isn't enough to dominate.

To me, as a Ferrari fan, 2003 was much better than 2002! No, I didn't say that backwards. In 2002, the last half of the season was boring... the only thing interesting was cheering for Rubens to take second. The championships were largely in the bag. In contrast, in 2003 "my team" won a lot (many happy endings), but still there was great excitement and anxiety right up to the last race. Very cool.

With all that said, had Kimi won, I'd be a lot less positive about the point system!! It would have been *wrong*... so, maybe 10-7.5-5-4-3-2-1 would be better.

 

The argument I never quite get is, that this points system is targeted at Ferrari. Not really true. It is against a dominating team as Brian explains. Happened to be Ferrari last year (to some degree). But could easily be somebody else next year.

I'm a Ferrari fan (duh!), but every time I hear, that THEY are so unfair against us and made that point system against us, I can't help but cringe and think of whining. Sorry.

How about this: If Rubens had been a DNF in Suzuka, Schumi would have still won this championship BECAUSE of the points system. Because he would have gotten points that didn't even exist before (when 6th place would have been last points paying position).

 

i like the new points system. it rewards consistancy.

 

Depends upon what the organizers want to reward and/or penalize:

The old F1 system (10,6,4,3,2,1) rewards wins
The current F1 system (10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1) rewards the front of the field
The old (and current) F1 system does not penalize failure (7(9)-22 all equal 0)

The current NASCAR system rewards consistency
The current NASCAR system penalizes failure (points all the way to position 43)

So, I believe (and you are free to disbelieve) that a points system that still rewards wins and top 4 but penalizes failure would benefit the sport. Perhaps (10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1,0,-1,-2,-3,-4,-6,-8,-10,-12,-14,-16,-18,-20) would so penalize failure that first corner accidents would simply have to be avoided if you are in the hunt for the chanpionship.

 

Not entirely true: What the current system also does is judge and reward the middle field. Peter Sauber has been fighting for years to extend the points positions from 6 to 8 to some points for his cars. He is right of course: The top three teams get the first six points positions. Then there is the middle field in which the Saubers ranked as good or bad as everybody else (like Jorday, Jaguar, Toyota). That is a hard sell to his sponsors.

The new system allows the middle field to be judged by their results. That part is fair IMHO. Whether 10-8 for first and second makes any sense is questionable however.

 

Except that Kimi would have less points as well and MS would have won it at Indy the week before.