New Medal System To Decide 2009 Championship

thegoth

Check this out http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_4551592,00.html

I feel sick. This is a stupid idea

amacachi

What's stupid about it? Most wins over the year wins the title. Same number of wins, then the most number of seconds. Sounds fine to me.

SamWiseWoahZay

I agree with Eddie Jordans comments:

Listen here

thegoth

I like the spirt of it but I have two concerns

1) Someone who lets say wins 3 races in the year, and does little else could win the championship. For example, lets say Ferrari have a terrible car at the start of 2009. They are finishing in 7th and 10th in the race. Reanult, BMW, and Mclaren are taking wins from each other. Around July, Ferrari bring out a B spec car. Its very fast. Kimi wins 3 races, to lets say Lewis's 2, Kubica's 2, and Alonso's 2. Lewis, Kubica, and Alonso, have had numerous podiums since the start of the year, but Kimi in effect has driven for half a season and still won the championship. Thats not right to me

2) You will see alot more do or die lunges. Imagine if Massa had 1 win to Lewis's 3. Its September. Massa is .7 seconds behind Lewis but cant get past. With a few laps to go, he has NOTHING to loose by trying an overtaking move, even if its ill advised. If he takes himself out. Big deal. If he takes Lewis or both out, even better. At the moment Massa would loose points for the championship if he only took himself out in this situation. In the new way, he would loose nothing.

Maybe its worth trying, but I think the old 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 system was better. Lets be honest the 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 system was only put in place to stop Ferrari or anyone else, winning the championship by July, like in 2001 or 2002

SamWiseWoahZay

........I think the old 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 system was better. Lets be honest the 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 system was only put in place to stop Ferrari or anyone else, winning the championship by July, like in 2001 or 2002

I completely agree!

amacachi

thegoth wrote: »

I like the spirt of it but I have two concerns

1) Someone who lets say wins 3 races in the year, and does little else could win the championship. For example, lets say Ferrari have a terrible car at the start of 2009. They are finishing in 7th and 10th in the race. Reanult, BMW, and Mclaren are taking wins from each other. Around July, Ferrari bring out a B spec car. Its very fast. Kimi wins 3 races, to lets say Lewis's 2, Kubica's 2, and Alonso's 2. Lewis, Kubica, and Alonso, have had numerous podiums since the start of the year, but Kimi in effect has driven for half a season and still won the championship. Thats not right to me

2) You will see alot more do or die lunges. Imagine if Massa had 1 win to Lewis's 3. Its September. Massa is .7 seconds behind Lewis but cant get past. With a few laps to go, he has NOTHING to loose by trying an overtaking move, even if its ill advised. If he takes himself out. Big deal. If he takes Lewis or both out, even better. At the moment Massa would loose points for the championship if he only took himself out in this situation. In the new way, he would loose nothing.

Maybe its worth trying, but I think the old 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 system was better. Lets be honest the 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 system was only put in place to stop Ferrari or anyone else, winning the championship by July, like in 2001 or 2002

1) is fine with me. I can see why people will object, but as far as I'm concerned the person who wins should win the title. It puts a lot more emphasis on finishing first, as well as finishing everywhere else. Finishing 4th could still make a difference from finishing 5th.

2) is also fine by me, the rules need to be streamlined and applied properly though.

The main thing I like about it is that it rewards the race win far more than the current system, and every race should be an attempt at winning, not playing it safe.
Also it encourages development on outright speed rather than on reliability, again a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

RayM

It's a ridiculous idea, but I can't say I'm all that concerned. This is just Bernie being Bernie. Make a ridiculous suggestion, pretend that it is definitely going to happen. Watch everybody panic, and eventually come to a 'compromise' (the 'compromise' being whatever Bernie wanted in the first place).

Whatever he says, I don't for one second believe that the teams or manufacturers would agree with this. Take BMW for instance - just one win, and Kubica finished the season within twenty-three points of the Championship. With their levels of consistency, under the current points-based system, they don't need to improve that much next year to be in with a reasonable chance of winning. Winning more races than Ferrari or McLaren would be a bit of a stretch though. And what about Toyota, Red Bull, Williams, Torro Rosso, Honda and Force India? None of those teams have a decent chance of winning 'medals'. Why would they bother taking part if a hard-fought fourth place reaps no rewards?

12, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 for 2009.

vincenzolorenzo

SamWiseWoahZay wrote: »

........I think the old 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 system was better. Lets be honest the 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 system was only put in place to stop Ferrari or anyone else, winning the championship by July, like in 2001 or 2002

I completely agree!

+10million

They should never have brought iin the 10,8,6... system. Not enough incentive to win. Ferrari said it at the time and no one listened cos everyone was sick of them winning. It is good for the smaller teams to have points down to 8th but they should increase the winners points to 12 points

robinph

They changed the system before because one Ferrari was winning too much, now they want to change it again becasue neither Ferrari is winning enough.

They need to keep the points for the lower placings and that then also rewards some level of consistency, just make the points difference between 1/ 2/ 3 a bit bigger as it was before.

steviec

I don't like the naming convention of calling them "medals", it just feels wrong to me.

But in theory I quite like the concept. The driver with the most wins should win the title. It avoids championships being decided by a Toyota in what should be an inconsequential fifth place slowing down on the last lap of the last race. The champion will almost always be crowned following a race that they won, not one where they limped their way past the finishline.

It also fixes the one most fundamental problem with F1 today, which is that the risk / reward balance is completely wrong. With reliability being so important and overtaking being so risky, there's just no point trying to win when you can come a comfortable second these days. This would change all that and make the racing much better.

It needs to be fleshed out though. I think the medals should decide the drivers champion, but keep the points system to decide all other positions and the constructors perhaps. There needs to be some way of rewarding the smaller teams for finishing 4th instead of 5th or whatever.

In an ideal world I'd just keep the current points system, and up the points for winning to 15. That would achieve much the same results, without feeling like such a big shake up and without taking the incentive away from smaller teams to fight for 4th - 8th place (in fact it might even be worth scaling the points more to reward the top 10 - something like 20,12,9,7,6,5,4,3,2,1)