Montexemola wants new points system

[WhiteBlue]

it is silly to discuss a points system to encourage drivers to go for race wins as Bernie suggested if you have the stewards turning all the incentive upside down as they did in Spa. Ferrari have no reason to complain this year. The right man won the champinship in my view. If they agree with a qualified majority in FOTA to change things I can live with the old points system as well. I just don't blieve the minor teams will agree. So this is largely a weep about spilled milk.

[andartop]

Consistency is all good and nice, but you need a stronger incentive than 2 extra points to fight for the win. If the difference between 1st and 2nd place is greater, the driver in second would be more willing to push rather than settle for the points. Sport is all about pushing hard and being the best, not settling for second. If you need to give something to the smaller teams, then why not just double the points of the existing system: 20-16-12-10-8-6-4-2 would be more fair than the 10-8-6... Obviously some people were annoyed/bored in the past with Schumi's reign, but artificially creating interest by changing the points was always the lame solution to the problem: they should have tried to reach up to him, not drag him down!!!

[Metar]

Spencifer_Murphy's explanation is a better version of my view.

As for lower teams, points are excellently spread out as it is - I don't think half the grid (or more) should get points - they should be valuable, and tough to achieve for the midfield.

[Ciro Pabón]

I think you need four things to get a good scoring system: history, data, a theory and a political compromise.

I don't have too much time, so I start with history, maybe (maybe) I'll have more time Monday. I give you a full story of the scoring system, that I laboriously attached, almost by chance, to a table I have with the full scoring results since 1947:



What can you say from that?

That the reliability of cars has improved a lot. That races have become "more serious". That they tinkered with the number of scoring races for a long time, because traveling wasn't that easy those days. It happens today with tennis: no one expects everybody to travel to all competitions.

That had to change when the era of garagists (1959-1979) ended and the era of big bussiness (1980-2000) started. TV was everywhere, UPS appeared, you could (you had!) to move anywhere in the world.

There is a slight (very slight) trend to "spread the wealth"... Why? Maybe to make it a more competitive championship. Maybe not.

Now, we are in the era of the manufacturers (2001-present). Notice how this ended the trend to have a stable scoring system. Ehem. Double ehem. Are you totally sure that this tinkering is not political manouvering and that its intentions are to "improve" (?) the championship? It's sad to become an "useful idiot", IMHO.

However, manufactureres rule. This means to me that, in the name of justice, you have to take in account the prevalence of cars over drivers. I think that the cars stand for 80% of the results and drivers for 20% (or whatever): there is a prevalence of the WCC over the WDC. You can easily predict the second from the first, if you get my drift.

For many of you that's the only thing you have lived, but some others "remember Troy", a place where, once upon a time, there were one on one battles and everybody had a sword. Now, some carry an atomic weapon and others just an AK-47: your bussiness strategy is that of irregular warfare...

Actually, while I write that, I had this crazy idea: you could discount some of the WCC points from the WDC points. That is, if your car is dominant, you should receive less points, or viceversa. A driver scoring for a team with poor results should be valued more (digest that, Montezzemolo! Aren't you for fairness?).

Mmmmm... that would be really, really interesting to ponder. Of course, as we are in the era of manufacturers, it's easier for a lead bird to fly than that idea.

[timbo]

Actually, while I write that, I had this crazy idea: you could discount some of the WCC points from the WDC points. That is, if your car is dominant, you should receive less points, or viceversa. A driver scoring for a team with poor results should be valued more (digest that, Montezzemolo! Aren't you for fairness?).

Oh, no... It's Montezemolo! Even more precisely di Montezemolo. Show him some respect for what he did, even if you don't like him .

On the point system - I'm against overcomplicating, but what we can do is revert to 10-6-4-3-2-1 system for WDC and stay with 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 for WCC. That way we have point system that stimulates competition in WDC and system that stimulates reliability and equal treat of #1 and #2 driver within a team for WCC.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Consistency is all good and nice, but you need a stronger incentive than 2 extra points to fight for the win. If the difference between 1st and 2nd place is greater, the driver in second would be more willing to push rather than settle for the points. Sport is all about pushing hard and being the best, not settling for second.

I agree in principle but I think that if you have to make a points bais towards a win larger to encourange people to race for the win, then the problem is not the scoring system but the competetors.

All of us armchair experts like to suggest new an interesting ways to encourage better racing, but I fail to see how awarding a disproportinalty large points haul for a win will change anything. Do you honestly think that (in a race situation discounting a championship campain) a driver with a chance to win a race will say to himself "Nah, actually I'm quite happy with 2nd". Of course not, what make a driver say that is the thought of a championship campain to maintain. And that adds a certain strategic element to the game.

If we remove this strategic quality from our sport you'll just dumb it down. F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, and one of the most technically advanced sports in the world, to remove a tactical element like that will simply degrade F1 for what it is.

No offence to NASCAR at all, but for whatever reason rightly or wrongly, it has this stigma of being a "simple" motorsport, like banger racing. As a result its not too popular ouside of the Americas.(NOT my opinion just an observation of a general feeling I get from people). To me removing a technical aspect like that will "simplify" F1. (BTW I do know that Nascar has a different points system, my exaple of NASCAR was not a like-for-like example) Why push F1 towards a situation where only one result is acceptable? It just dumbs down the sport.

Don't get me wrong, I was happy with the old system, but I do think that this system we currently have is better. It creates a championship whereby anything can happen (eg. The two title favourites are piped to the title by the only guy mathematically left in the race who was a few more points down - i.e Kimi taking it from the grasp of Lewis & Fernando in 2007)

Conversly I actually think that the new system ENCOURAGES drivers to go for the win. You're in second place, the guy ahead is slower at this late stage of the race, its do-able. Your championship rival is in third place, and being close in the championship you want to maximise this oppertunity...go for it, with the current system he'll need more than just a win to overhaul this hammer blow to his title campain.

I know that doesn't happen all the time, but a win is VERY important, but I don't think it should be the be-all and end-all of it. Look at the Olympics, every athlete out there wants Gold, but if you set a personal best taking silver or bronze you'll still be darn happy right? But you'd be happier with the gold.

All sportsmen & sportsomen want the win, its un-natural to settle for anything less, but to make them contemplate that most un-natural of instincts to me, adds a certain something. F1 is just as much about the mind as it is the body. Take boxing, it's all well and good being able to hit like Rocky Marciano, but if you haven't got the smarts to land those punches nobody else though you could (like say Sugar Ray Robinson) you're not going to win.

F1 is not a knock-out cometition, its a league, as such it's always going to be about the slow burn. Not the desperate bursts for glory. Good things come to those who...

[ISLAMATRON]

I agree in principle but I think that if you have to make a points bais towards a win larger to encourange people to race for the win, then the problem is not the scoring system but the competetors.

All of us armchair experts like to suggest new an interesting ways to encourage better racing, but I fail to see how awarding a disproportinalty large points haul for a win will change anything. Do you honestly think that (in a race situation discounting a championship campain) a driver with a chance to win a race will say to himself "Nah, actually I'm quite happy with 2nd". Of course not, what make a driver say that is the thought of a championship campain to maintain. And that adds a certain strategic element to the game.

If we remove this strategic quality from our sport you'll just dumb it down. F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport, and one of the most technically advanced sports in the world, to remove a tactical element like that will simply degrade F1 for what it is.

The behavior of the competitors is dictated by the rules, Last year when LH had to finish 4th and he outbraked himself going for 3rd past Alonso He & McLaren were roundly criticised rightfully so. This Year he took the ultra conservative approach and still nearly got burnt. The real question is do we want our champions racing to hold on to 5th place or racing all out going for the win every time? It is a fundamental question, and a very easy one to answer on my part.

On the question or consistancy versus Total wins, again let us look towards the 2007 season. Was KIMi's 6 wins(12 podiums), more impressive than LH's 4 wins(12 podiums), I would argue yes it was, even though KIMI was gifted a win in Brazil. Had Lewis finished 4th in Brazil rather than his eventual 7th would he have deserved the championship any more? I dont think so... he still would have had 2 less wins and the same # of podiums? So what would have been the deciding factor? Reliabilty, and is that what we want to be deciding the WDC?

If the points tally for a win were much larger, than we would see the top teams employing much more drastic measures to win and the drivers as well. As it currently stands a driver leading the points running in 2nd place has almost no incentive to try and pass the leader, more accurately it is a dis incntive because the risk would not be worth the reward. But if the only think he had in his mind was win he would surely stick his nose in a little harder, rather than tool around saving the engine or hope for a mechanical problem or mistake from the 1st place car.

Again I propose

1st-1000 pts
2nd- 200 pts
3rd- 50 pts
points awarded to every driver
points for fast lap, pole, most laps led & most on track passes.

The only arguement I've heard against my points sytem is that the points number would be too high... I think the F1 points are artificially low. 98 pts for the WDC? over 18 Races? thats an average of 5.44 pts/ per race, 110 for 2007, or 6.47 pts per. seems extremely low, but thts what we get with a close championship, but thats what we want, and we can still have that in my system

My system will
1-ensure the driver with the most wins is WDC
2-choose the wdc by wins rather than reliablity or lack thereof
3-make an incentive for drivers to actually race hard for the win in every race
4-take away the disincentive for the WDC leader to attack
5-almost completely eliminate team orders
6-make every team and driver drive to the end of the race rather than retiring for no reason
7-give us an accurate depiction of who are the better drivers at the back of the grid(versus their teammates)
8-cause world peace and environmental friendliness
9-a whole bunch of good other stuff like giving points for pole & fast lap, without them making a huge effect on the championship.


edit: in regards to the arguement of strategic quality, I think my system will still allow for it being that teams will allways be looking to increase their standings in the WCC, look at the battle for 4th in WCC this year. Also teams would employ team based strategies to help 1 driver win the race. Send out a blocker to win pole on light fuel, he holds up the parade for the first 15 laps or so allowing the other driver to keep close contact while on heavy tanks and pass during the pit stop exchange. Statdy will allways be invovled in F1, as it is in Nascar... problem with strategy in Nascar is that all the Yellows destroy any pre-pallaning you can do so all strategy must be done on the fly.

The best strategy to employ is the one that gives you the best chance at winning.

I dont ever want to see another driver empolying a 5th place strategty to hold on to the WDC lead, I want to see them race for the win.

[Metar]

But then again, it's never more than four drivers in cars actually capable of winning outright. Even then, it's usually one team that has the upper hand on a given weekend.

No, I don't want every driver battling for the win, because that would require spec-cars to prevent complaints. Otherwise, a streak of five wins would give a couple of dozen (in your case, hundreds) points-advantage. As it is, the mid-field has to battle for the four positions they can get, while a top driver can suffer a series of lower podiums and still remain in the fight. Murphy's almost-essay brings that point across well, and I agree with it.

"Settling for points" only happens in the very late stages of the championship, when it's clear that maintaining the lead, even if it narrows slightly, is more important. Otherwise, I fail to recall any instances when a driver said "Oh, I could've won but 2nd was just as good", other than when his car simply wasn't good enough.

[Ciro Pabón]

1st-1000 pts
2nd- 200 pts
3rd- 50 pts

... and for every mother ship you blow, you get 1.000.000 points and an extra-credit.

[Belatti]

1st-1000 pts
2nd- 200 pts
3rd- 50 pts

... and for every mother ship you blow, you get 1.000.000 points and an extra-credit.

Andrea De Cesaris would be the champion, huuh?!?!

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Murphy's almost-essay brings that point across well...

Sorry


But yeh, you get my drift, the racing conservative strategy only comes into play with 2-3races to go, if that, in 2007 the current points system allowed us to watch a great season finale, as we also got in 2008. 2006 wans't exacly a boring end to a season (even though it was almost certain Alonso would take it by the time we got to the final round).

Put it this way, the current system gave us 2006, 2007, 2008. The old system gave us 2001 & 2002. Now, I know the superiority of Ferrari at that time is largly to blame for that, and no I don't think that rules should be implemented to "help" others. But I don't think the new system hindered Ferrari at all, it just helped delay the enevitable until a little later in the season. Ferrari's doninamce in 2004 shows that the rule changes didn't really hinder them that much.

Don't get me wrong, I agree totally with islamatron in that it'd be nice to see drivers race for the win at all times, but in the long run of a season I personally feel that in practice that idea would actually dumb down the sport (although probably increase the number of accidents!)

I feel its a balancing act, and at the moment the balance is about right.

[Giblet]

11 points for each time the team principal smashes his T.V.

I took no pleasure in seeing Massa's family being crushed after thinking they won the championship, but for some reason, this image makes me chuckle.

Never liked Monty.