Point system change announced!

**ArrowsFA1** · 25th March 2009, 09:20

Originally Posted by tamburello

As for 82, there was a unique situation that year in that no driver won more than 2 races. That hasn't happened since and quite probably will never happen again.

You never know, we may see something similar again this year

Originally Posted by tamburello

However, there is a massive difference between 82 & 03. The driver with the most wins in 03 had a hell of a lot more than one win seperating him from the 2nd place guy.

Fair point.

25th March 2009, 10:35

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

You never know, we may see something similar again this year

Maybe, and since 82 was an absolute classic year I wouldn't be complaining.

Well, so long as it is happier for Ferrari....82 was pretty rotten in that respect.

I do believe, though, that having a driver win only one race and taking the title against somebody who won 6 would have been a mockery, whereas I don't have any problem with somebody who won 5 races winning the title from somebody who won 6.

My only issue with the current points system is that there isn't a big enough reward for winning.

**BDunnell** · 25th March 2009, 11:03

Here's an interesting example, albeit slightly off-topic - the 1986 British Open Rally Championship. It was won by Mark Lovell in the Ford RS200 without him winning a round or, frankly, ever looking like doing so. Admittedly, there were only six rounds, so it's probably easier for someone to win such a short a series without a single event victory than it is a complete F1 world championship, but even so it's worth considering. Had that championship been decided on the basis of wins, Hannu Mikkola would have won, having taken two victories in the first three rounds, but then Audi pulled out so declaring him the champion would have been rather unfair. Everybody else won just once in a year when no-one especially shone.

Now, if F1 does adopt the new system in 2010, other series will inevitably follow suit, and there could end up being some very odd champions in situations like the one described above, and in short championships which are highly competitive with lots of different winners.

**AndyRAC** · 25th March 2009, 11:10

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Here's an interesting example, albeit slightly off-topic - the 1986 British Open Rally Championship. It was won by Mark Lovell in the Ford RS200 without him winning a round or, frankly, ever looking like doing so. Admittedly, there were only six rounds, so it's probably easier for someone to win such a short a series without a single event victory than it is a complete F1 world championship, but even so it's worth considering. Had that championship been decided on the basis of wins, Hannu Mikkola would have won, having taken two victories in the first three rounds, but then Audi pulled out so declaring him the champion would have been rather unfair. Everybody else won just once in a year when no-one especially shone.

Now, if F1 does adopt the new system in 2010, other series will inevitably follow suit, and there could end up being some very odd champions in situations like the one described above, and in short championships which are highly competitive with lots of different winners.

Seeing as the FiA like uniformity in their points scoring - I think you're probably right. So it will be most wins how the Championship is decided - well at least we know one World Champion for next year......

**ArrowsFA1** · 25th March 2009, 11:16

Originally Posted by tamburello

My only issue with the current points system is that there isn't a big enough reward for winning.

I think there's general agreement there

**Dave B** · 25th March 2009, 11:48

Originally Posted by tamburello

My only issue with the current points system is that there isn't a big enough reward for winning.

I agree, but that's exactly the problem that FOTA were propsing to address before the FIA rode roughshod over them :\

**christophulus** · 25th March 2009, 12:20

I'm happy to see that Massa has come out and said he doesn't agree with the winner-takes-all system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/7962728.stm

Massa won six races last year, one more than champion Lewis Hamilton, but lost the title by one point under the existing system.
But he said: "I'm really not interested in the fact that with such a system I would have won the title last year. I'm interested in what's right for our sport."
He added it was more important to reward consistency over the course of the season.
"A driver might win more races, but might be inconsistent in his performance not gaining many points. In this case I think he wouldn't deserve the title."

Bernie has said numerous times that Massa deserves a championship and I'd agree, he's developed into a great driver. It is, however, very irritating to hear everyone go on about how he'd have been champion last year if this system was in force, it's irrelevant. I'm glad to see even Massa isn't a fan

**LeonBrooke** · 26th March 2009, 09:46

Originally Posted by AndyRAC

Seeing as the FiA like uniformity in their points scoring - I think you're probably right. So it will be most wins how the Championship is decided - well at least we know one World Champion for next year......

I assume you mean Loeb? If you're going to introduce winner-takes-all system for the WRC for 2010 jut cancel all the rounds and give him the title in january and be done with it.

Originally Posted by BDunnell

Here's an interesting example, albeit slightly off-topic - the 1986 British Open Rally Championship. It was won by Mark Lovell in the Ford RS200 without him winning a round or, frankly, ever looking like doing so. Admittedly, there were only six rounds, so it's probably easier for someone to win such a short a series without a single event victory than it is a complete F1 world championship, but even so it's worth considering. Had that championship been decided on the basis of wins, Hannu Mikkola would have won, having taken two victories in the first three rounds, but then Audi pulled out so declaring him the champion would have been rather unfair. Everybody else won just once in a year when no-one especially shone.

Similar thing happened in the motocross world championship in 2007. The rider who took the world title hadn't won a single race, let alone an event (events were two races), but won the title because the guy who deserved it was out for the last third of the season with injuries. Now that is just embarrassing. I think titles (especially world titles) shouldn't go to people who can't win races - in cases like that the title should go to the driver/rider with the most points who actually won a race.