Uhhh... well, this is new.
2009 F1 Champ to be Determined by Race Wins
God..... 
That sucks...
So a driver that wins 9 races and doesn't finish the other 8 will become champion over the driver that won 8 races and finished 2nd 9 times... So the WDC may be won by a driver that is actually not even in the top 5 of the point standings. And the worst part. It can all be over after half the races.
So a driver that wins 9 races and doesn't finish the other 8 will become champion over the driver that won 8 races and finished 2nd 9 times... So the WDC may be won by a driver that is actually not even in the top 5 of the point standings. And the worst part. It can all be over after half the races.
Hey, at least we avoided the medals. How lame would that have been! My first reaction to this was: "Ok... so?" I don't get why this is supposed to be good.
The problem I see with this new system is that a racer could basically win, say, 10 races, then DNF all the others and still win the championship over someone who'd have won less races, but successfully finished all of them. Agreed, this is probably not gonna happen, but still, if it did, it would basically reward unreliabilty of the car over constant performance. This is a 17 long champ (or so), you need to reward those who are constantly good throughout the season.
Heh, Tag beat me to it
Yes. Oh, that would be so silly. But, hey, if that happens, it would be their problem, and the subsequent drop in ratings would make them cry.
The problem I see with this new system is that a racer could basically win, say, 10 races, then DNF all the others and still win the championship over someone who'd have won less races, but successfully finished all of them. Agreed, this is probably not gonna happen, but still, if it did, it would basically reward unreliabilty of the car over constant performance. This is a 17 long champ (or so), you need to reward those who are constantly good throughout the season.
Heh, Tag beat me to it
Yes. Oh, that would be so silly. But, hey, if that happens, it would be their problem, and the subsequent drop in ratings would make them cry.
It won't change much. The fast drivers will still be at the front. The fast cars will still be at the front.
He has a point when he said that it's incredibly lame for a title contender to mince around trying to finish in 5th place. It's a much better show if he were to drive for the win.
To all you crybabies who will probably threaten to quit watching F1 because of this - good. Go. F1 will survive without you.
He has a point when he said that it's incredibly lame for a title contender to mince around trying to finish in 5th place. It's a much better show if he were to drive for the win.
To all you crybabies who will probably threaten to quit watching F1 because of this - good. Go. F1 will survive without you.
If I was McLaren I would definitely make it happen if it was in my power. Simply only race as long as you have a chance of winning the race. As soon as it seems it's not going to happen pack it up and go home.
The problem is that title contenders were willing to fight over that 5th position. Now, they wouldn't care less about finishing 2nd or not finishing at all.
F1 won't survive at all if they keep this up.
i have mixed feelings about this, on one hand it seems a little stupid but on the other i think it could be great to watch because there will no longer be the case where drivers dont have to win or thinking of the championship as it is often called, this will therefore mean more overtaking and im sure there will be some great battles, ill probably make my decision as to weather it was a good idea or not after the first few races
Well, there's still the constructors championship. But, to be honest... what percentage of F1 fans really give a damn about the constructors championship? I don't, and I suspect a lot of other people don't care either. The fact is, though, that the constructors champ will probably still be disputed in the last few races, while the racers' champ will already be settled.
Intrepid posted this in the other F1 thread:
BURN THE GODDAMN FIA!!!!! 
In theory, yes, it should make for more overtaking...
But how often have you seen two cars near the end of a race in a position to fight over the race win? It may have a bigger impact to win instead of finishing 2nd, but in the end, there won't often be two cars within battle distance from eachother in the final lap.
I see a lot of LFS T1 syndromes happening in F1 this season, though. Should be funny as hell.
Pathetic change imo - at least let us see how this season goes before doing something like this.
Based on how we've gone racing in the past it may have created more final race show-down's, but if the rules change the way people go racing will change. Some teams will adapt better than others and it may have the opposite to the desired effect, with championships being decided races in advance.
The move must be aimed at giving F1 much wider appeal to the public. There's always a method to the madness and I'm sure all the changes we are seeing are aimed at making F1 more approachable for people without a racing background.
Wrong.
The move must be aimed at giving F1 much wider appeal to the public. There's always a method to the madness and I'm sure all the changes we are seeing are aimed at making F1 more approachable for people without a racing background.
Wrong.
eerr.. no it won't
One of the things that I see coming out of this decision is that we´ll see much more team orders determining the races and a clear distinction between first and second driver on a team. Let´s take as an example that a driver from a certain team wins the first GP of the season and it´s second behind his teammate on the second GP. If you were responsible for that team, what would you do? Let the second driver win the race, knowing that you could loose the title because of a single win, or define at the second GP of the season, which one of your drivers is going to fight for the drivers championship? Doesn´t seem too hard to find the answer...
It's such a stupid and short-sighted idea that I find it hard to conceive that even the FIA or Bernie would come up with it.
Okay, so on one hand, the two or so drivers at the very front will fight perhaps that bit harder for the win, but that's the only advantage in an ocean of potential disadvantages.
What about the rest of the pack, "scrapping" for constructors points alone, no motivation for the driver himself.....no team-mate rivalry whatsoever unless those two cars are in 1st and 2nd place......the season can be over with half the races still remaining.......drivers are not going to be happy to make the podium, that milestone for a new driver is devalued hugely.
I just don't get it. They move from 10,6,4,3,2,1 to 10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1.........and then, rather than admit that perhaps that wasn't the best thing to do, they go completely mad. Motorcycle racing is the best in terms of action, and they generally give points all the way down to 15th. As long as the difference between 1st and 2nd is big enough, there will be drivers fighting for it.
So we get perhaps one race per year at best where the action is improved (when the 2 lead drivers are actually close to one another in the closing stages and ordinarily the chasing driver would decide to microwave himself a cornish pastie and settle for second).......and all the rest of time we don't even give a crap about the podium finishers or any lower order scraps. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Okay, so on one hand, the two or so drivers at the very front will fight perhaps that bit harder for the win, but that's the only advantage in an ocean of potential disadvantages.
What about the rest of the pack, "scrapping" for constructors points alone, no motivation for the driver himself.....no team-mate rivalry whatsoever unless those two cars are in 1st and 2nd place......the season can be over with half the races still remaining.......drivers are not going to be happy to make the podium, that milestone for a new driver is devalued hugely.
I just don't get it. They move from 10,6,4,3,2,1 to 10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1.........and then, rather than admit that perhaps that wasn't the best thing to do, they go completely mad. Motorcycle racing is the best in terms of action, and they generally give points all the way down to 15th. As long as the difference between 1st and 2nd is big enough, there will be drivers fighting for it.
So we get perhaps one race per year at best where the action is improved (when the 2 lead drivers are actually close to one another in the closing stages and ordinarily the chasing driver would decide to microwave himself a cornish pastie and settle for second).......and all the rest of time we don't even give a crap about the podium finishers or any lower order scraps. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Yeah I'm looking forward to this. In some teams the decision is very obvious (Renault); at others it will be quite dramatic (Ferrari). Both drivers on the red team think they have the right to the smaller number on their cars next year. One of them had it at one test this winter, at another test the other driver did! It will be great to see how this resolves. I put my money on Kimi.
The thing is the FIA have done a survey and I suspect the majority of people said
"the champion should be the one with the most wins"
They've actually done what the fans wanted even if the people they questioned didn't have an understanding of the implications of such a ruling
"the champion should be the one with the most wins"
They've actually done what the fans wanted even if the people they questioned didn't have an understanding of the implications of such a ruling
i see where your coming form here and you right the only hope is that the teams realise they need to make the cars work within a reasonable distance of other cars for them to win races and therefore the championship
Bullshit.
Bring back the points, and whilst your at it, give more than 8 drivers points.
Bring back the points, and whilst your at it, give more than 8 drivers points.
Meh, at first I thought 'this is a crap idea', and then I thought why do I watch Formula 1 (or any motorsports for that matter); it sure as hell isn't to see numbers get put on a scoreboard every 2 weeks, it's to watch fast cars go racing. There isn't a perfect system as far as championships go, as long as the guy who wins it at the end has the most of something (wins/points/laps lead/etc...) then it's fair in my book.
I think they're expecting there to be quite a few race winners in 2009.
So what if each race is won by a different team or driver, who wins the championship then?
So what if each race is won by a different team or driver, who wins the championship then?
The point systems are still in place. Midfield and podium finishers still have the incentive to drive hard and get a good result. Points are still important.
Terrible idea.
This is not MotoGP. This is not NASCAR. Grand prix racing has always limited points to the higher finishers, and it should continue to. A driver should have to finish well to get points, not just piddle around to 8th place, two laps down. The top 15 out of a 20-car field? Daft.
Points should be kept as they are, or maybe even reduce it to the top seven or six.
Deciding the title on wins is a good idea. The races will be pretty much the same, except the top few drivers (who are the best and the most fun to watch) will have more incentive to drive hard for the win. The battle at the front will be more exciting.
But I want to see racing, not politics.
There probably will be.
Then it's decided on points, as it always has been - further proving my point that good consistent points finishes are still important, and drivers won't go around thinking "oh hell I can't win so I may as well crash off, no incentive to finish well!" as some of you morons are implying.
2009 F1 Champ to be Determined by Race Wins
(188 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG