Medals not points

He can get together with you and start the WDDCWPSNCCMITL. The We Don't Do Change so We're Permanently Stuck in the Nineties Championship for Closed Minded Individuals sponsored by the Time Lord.

Rolls off the tongue, don't you think?

Anyway, if you look at races when they raun for 2nd or 3rd or 4th its in the last 2 or 3 races, i mean, all the drivers want to win. Or its someone who likes more finish races 2nd than win races?

The great champions hated (and hate) to lose, Ayrton Senna said sometime: "Winning is the most important. Everything is consequence of that". I mean, you won´t spend your first 20 years of your life (and about $ 7.000.000) to finish second every time. The F1 drivers are there because they want to win at least a single race


And c´mon people, change the points system for more exciting races? in the 50s, the 60s, the 70s, the 80s and the 90s we had very exciting races, just take a look to Monza 71, five drivers finished in 0.65/100!!! and the system was 9-6-4-3-2-1 for most of the time, so, the point system its not the problem, Bernie. Thank god the FIA its trying to find the solution by other ways:

1. F1 its now a very expensive sport, FIA its trying to find a solution, but I miss the times that if you want to race, you buy an F1 car to a private team and you run the qualy, you don´t need superliscense and all the other stuff...

2. The aerodynamics, hope 2009 rules work properly

BUT there are some stupid rules:

Only V8 engines: in 70s you can have a 3.000 cc V8 or V10 or V12 or a 1.500 turbocharged V6. in late 80s and first 90s you can have V8, V10 and V12 (turbo its not allowed anymore). Now are all V8, and it got less emotion...

Standard engines: the most stupid idea I ever seen. They want to quit the soul to an F1 car and put inside the same engine for all? do you want to make a category with unique chassis and engines? Go for it! But not convert F1 in that, please, we got Formula Renault for that.

And standard gearbox, transmission and all other stuff: The original Idea for F1 was "innovate with revolutionary designs for win races", and Enzo Ferrari´s plan was innovate with mechanic and aerodynamic to win races, and with that, show Ferrari´s cars to the world, and win money selling street cars. With standarised things, you can do that, you kill the escence of Formula One...

F1 always changes, always will. Get over it.

yes, but no so radically that kills the sport. Turbo era was very revolutionary, but it didn´t kill the sport, standardised thing will

Nickv Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let's see. If we have 18 races and a driver would
> win the first 10, he'll win.
>
> Convert that to the current points system. He'd
> have 100 points. If driver B ends second all the
> time, he'd have 80 points. Only 20 points
> difference, something that can easily be overcome
> in 8 races.
>
> In a system that would be rewarding second place
> less, for example the old system, he'd have 60
> points. That'd be a 40 point gap, hard to close,
> yes, but still possible. I'd rather have some hope
> that that driver might actually make it than
> having to see that the championship is actually
> secured in race 10.

Yes, looking at pure abstract numbers, that is correct. No doubt about it. But you know just as well as I do, that this will never happen. And the scenario, that it actually does happen is what we are talking about.

If we are talking about what could happen in statistically @#$%& up worlds, but will never happen in reality, then the discussion is pointless, because then it won't lead to a championship being decided mid season.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

Frantic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yes, but no so radically that kills the sport.
> Turbo era was very revolutionary, but it didn´t
> kill the sport, standardised thing will
-------------------------------------------------------

If you started watching in the 50's then today's F1 is radically different. That's because it's changing all the time. Nothing stays the same for long.

This isn't going to kill the sport. You only think it will because you have misinformed fears of what the measures will do.

Morbid schreef:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nickv Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Let's see. If we have 18 races and a driver
> would
> > win the first 10, he'll win.
> >
> > Convert that to the current points system. He'd
> > have 100 points. If driver B ends second all
> the
> > time, he'd have 80 points. Only 20 points
> > difference, something that can easily be
> overcome
> > in 8 races.
> >
> > In a system that would be rewarding second
> place
> > less, for example the old system, he'd have 60
> > points. That'd be a 40 point gap, hard to
> close,
> > yes, but still possible. I'd rather have some
> hope
> > that that driver might actually make it than
> > having to see that the championship is actually
> > secured in race 10.
>
> Yes, looking at pure abstract numbers, that is
> correct. No doubt about it. But you know just as
> well as I do, that this will never happen. And the
> scenario, that it actually does happen is what we
> are talking about.
>
> If we are talking about what could happen in
> statistically @#$%& up worlds, but will never
> happen in reality, then the discussion is
> pointless, because then it won't lead to a
> championship being decided mid season.


True. There is no driver that will win the first 10 races. It's a very slim chance. The main fear of the medal system is that it COULD happen and that the championship is decided mid-season, even though we all know it really won't happen. But the fear that it's possible, is the biggest drawback of this system.

The closest I have ever seen to this scenario was in 2004, when MS dominated everything. He won the first 5 races, the Jarno Trulli won the 6th race. From here Michael won the next 7 races, making it 12 wins out of 13 possible. He only won one more race after that, namely the 17th in Japan.

In 2002 he did a similar feat, securing the first 5 out 6 wins, losing 1 to Ralf in the 2nd race, then losing the 7th to DC, then taking the 8th win, and missing out the 9th to Rubens at Nürburgring. Michael won the 10th race at Silverstone, and sealed the championship in the 11th race at Magny Cours. That was the reason the point system was changed - to prevent such an early closure to the championship, despite massive domination.

Now with the medal system in place, let's see how this would pan out. In 2002 there was 17 races, so he would need 9 gold medals to seal the deal. (Alternately you could say that 8 wins would suffice, provided he could muster at commanding lead in Silver medals to his rivals. However, our theoretical foundation established before this post denies that option).

His main rival was Rubens in the end, but it was JPM at the time of the championship being decided. Michael had lost 3 wins when the championship was decided, and none of them to JPM or and only 1 to Rubens. So with the medal system, the championship would have been closed at Silverstone, ONE RACE EARLIER than with the point system (10-6-4-3-2-1) used back then.

In 2004 there was 18 races on the Calender. So Michael would need 10 gold medals to seal the championship. That would have happened in the 11th Grand Prix at Silverstone (alternately you could say that 9 wins would suffice, provided he could muster at commanding lead in Silver medals to his rivals. However, our theoretical foundation established before this post denies that option). Michael's closest rival was his teammate Rubens. At the medal championship deciding race (the British) Michael would have 100 points, with both the pre-2003 point system and the post-2003 points system. Rubens would have had 52 points (-2003) or 72 points (2003-).

With the old points system, the suspense would be kept 2 more race as Michael won the German grand prix and Rubens finished out of the points, and Michael also won the Hungarian Grand Prix with Rubens finishing 2nd. In actual fact, Michael had to wait 3 races, sealing the championship at Spa. I doubt anyone was in championship suspense by this time of year, as Michael only needed 2 more points at Spa, regardless of what else would happen for the rest of the season.

2002 was a record year. Never before had the championship been decided to so quickly. Never had a driver won so many races in a season before - a record Michael already held from 2001. In fact Michael finished on the podium in EVERY race in 2002. He broke his record for most wins in a season again in 2004.

So if we take the most extreme cases there have been in the history of F1:

- the medals system would have decided the championship 1 race earlier in 2002 compared to what actually happened. In no way did the season allow for anyone else to even come close to Michael, so he would have won that championship, no matter what points system was used. If you look at the points, there was hardly any championship suspense left after the 10th race anyway.

10th (GB) 86/33 [JPM]
11th (FRA) 96/36 [JPM]

- the medals system would have decided the championship at the 11th race in 2004. That is 2 races faster than with the pre-2003 points system, and 3 races faster than the post-2003 points system. Again, in no way did the season allow for anyone else to even come close to Michael, so he would have won that championship, no matter what points system was used. If you look at the points, there was hardly any championship suspense left after the 11th race anyway.

11th (GB) 100/72
12th (Ger) 110/72
13th (Hun) 120/78
14th (Spa) 128/84

So... I stand firm on the position that, opposition against the medal system, because: "Its a stupid idea which can end the title battle by the mid-season.", is both a silly and self-defeating objection.

It is a much better position to hold that the medals system is a stupid idea, full stop, which is where I stand.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2008 12:23PM by Morbid.

J i m Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Frantic Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > yes, but no so radically that kills the sport.
> > Turbo era was very revolutionary, but it
> didn´t
> > kill the sport, standardised thing will
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> If you started watching in the 50's then today's
> F1 is radically different. That's because it's
> changing all the time. Nothing stays the same for
> long.
>
> This isn't going to kill the sport. You only think
> it will because you have misinformed fears of what
> the measures will do.


that has no sense. You can say 50s F1 is very different from 2000s F1, but the change wasn´t radical, it was progressive. The cars don´t change so radically from 1 season to the next...

And remember there were some rule changes that almost kill F1, just look 1980, 81 and 82 seasons and their political problems. I´m not saying thats going to happen again, anyway, I was trying to say if they introduce standard engines, limited RPM and so on, its not F1 anymore. If I want something like that, I watch a GP2 race.


And I say the medals are wrong, its a STUPID IDEA, it would happen the same that 1988:

1988 WDC

Prost: 105 points - 7 wins, 7 second places
Senna: 94 points - 8 wins, 3 second places

In 1988 they take the best 11 results, so they convert it in

Senna: 90 points
Prost: 87 points

Remember the 1988 points system was 9-6-4-3-2-1


THAT would happen again, and we want that? NO

but if it happens and Bruno Senna is the new champion i like that





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2008 01:13PM by Frantic.

Frantic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> that has no sense. You can say 50s F1 is very
> different from 2000s F1, but the change wasn´t
> radical, it was progressive. The cars don´t
> change so radically from 1 season to the next...

I don't know if that happened in the 50s, but it happened in other seasons. The shift to winged cars in the late 60s. That was damn radical. The shift to cars with venturi ground effects in 79 was also very radical. It does happen from one season to the next, although not very often.

> And remember there were some rule changes that
> almost kill F1, just look 1980, 81 and 82 seasons
> and their political problems.

I am not sure that the problems in the early 80s came from rule changes. It was the political strife that had the damaging effects.


> And I say the medals are wrong, its a STUPID IDEA,

Yes.

> it would happen the same that 1988:
>
> 1988 WDC
>
> Prost: 105 points - 7 wins, 7 second places
> Senna: 94 points - 8 wins, 3 second places
>
> In 1988 they take the best 11 results, so they
> convert it in
>
> Senna: 90 points
> Prost: 87 points

That is a damn good observation. I hadn't thought of that at all...

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2008 02:31PM by Morbid.

Frantic Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The cars don´t
> change so radically from 1 season to the next...
-------------------------------------------------------

Going to narrow track cars and grooved tyres in 1998 was a fairly large regulation change.

Did it kill F1?

Morbid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't know if that happened in the 50s, but it
> happened in other seasons. The shift to winged
> cars in the late 60s. That was damn radical. The
> shift to cars with venturi ground effects in 79
> was also very radical. It does happen from one
> season to the next, although not very often.


True. were very radical changes from one season from the next, but it does not happen often. I think ground effect was discovered by Colin Chapman in 1976, apply his knowledge to the Lotus 77 in 1976 and Lotus 78 in 77, all in secret, but in 1978 they dominated all wirh the Lotus 79. After that in 1979 all teams started to test cars with ground effect (like Williams and Brabham) and Lotus never won a championship again... it was a very radical change, and another ideas were not allowed by the FIA after a single race, like this





That Gordon Murray´s idea was awesome, the turbine gave ground effect to the Brabham BT46B driven by Niki Lauda, it ran 1 race (Sweden 78), it won the race, and after that it was prohibited...

J i m Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Frantic Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The cars don´t
> > change so radically from 1 season to the
> next...
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> Going to narrow track cars and grooved tyres in
> 1998 was a fairly large regulation change.
>
> Did it kill F1?

No but in 3 or 4 years killed spectacle

No it didn't... it really didn't. There was some great racing throughout the field.

But somebody seems to have Schumacher domination blinkers on.

And its me!! Thanx Coke!

Anyway it wasn´t so radical because there was 2 tyres manafacturers, the spectacle was killed when they introduced all the little (and ugly) plastic rare things...

Changes for 2009 would have a similar effect from 1998 I think





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/13/2008 11:06PM by Frantic.

Bernie is so blind that he cant see the simple solution... just giving a 4 point gap between the winner and the 2nd placed driver would fix it (12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1, or 10-6-4-3-2-1).

The current points scoring system was put in place to stop a 'certain cheater' from winning in early 2000's. Now that he's retired, he could go back to the old points system and presto! the racing chase for wins is back.

I seriously hope that his proposal is rejected. Otherwise, he's gonna kill F1 with that.

---

Exactly my point.


Racer#73 Wrote in November 29, 2008:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If he wants to the "winning races factor" to have
> more influence in WDC he should change the points
> system back to 10 6 4 3 2 1 for the top 6 drivers.
> At least the difference first and second was 4
> points there, instead of 2 as it is currently.
>
> If I remember and understood it well at the time,
> the reason he changed the points system as it is
> now was because Schummi was winning too much and
> he wanted to reduce the difference between first
> and second places, so the WDC wouldn't be decided
> with more than 5 races remaining.

And the worst thing is that it could happen same like 1988, like I explained some posts above. I think we all want go back to the old point system

i think leave it as top 8, but just go 12-8-6 etc.

---

X (@ed24f1)

They should leave the points system the way it is. I don't think a driver should necessarily win a championship simply because they win the most races. If the driver wins 7 races but then crashes out of 8 of them, is he better than the driver who wins 5 and finishes on the podium 9 times?

Changing the points system won't help the excitement. Besides the excitement from a championship point of view is good now. If you want to make the racing more exciting, I reckon just completely get rid of pitstops.