The “F1 medals” proposal – a historical perspective

Quote:

---

The FIA has made public the results of an analysis conducted to evaluate the possibility of the introduction of a medals system in Formula One.
The FIA analysis showed that the medal system would have changed the outcome of the championships 37 times out of 59, and that the world champion would have been a different driver in 13 occasions.
It would also give a title to three drivers who were never world champions - Stirling Moss, Didier Pironi and Felipe Massa.
Under the medals system, four-time champion Alain Prost would have won five crowns, one more than Ayrton Senna and Jim Clark. Nigel Mansell would have added two titles to his achievements.
The FIA also noted that the former Brabham team would not have won any drivers' championships under Ecclestone's ownenership.

---

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73069

Interesting stuff :crazy: :s mokin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73069

Interesting stuff :crazy: :s mokin:

---

Took them long enough... the same analysis has been written on forums (I think this one even) for at least a month now!

And the conclusion is that medals would have made diddly squat difference (barring one time) for 20 years now.

Hence, the idea is redundant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malllen

And the conclusion is that medals would have made diddly squat difference (barring one time) for 20 years now.

---

Not so sure changing the outcome of the championships 37 times out of 59, and the world champion being a different driver in 13 occasions is "diddly squat" :) Nelson Piquet would have had zero titles, Jim Clark four, Lauda just one and Mansell three. That's quite a difference.

Sure, little has changed more recently but perhaps that reflects more consistent points gathering, helped by improved reliability. Who knows how things had turned out had medals actually been in place since 1950 because I suspect drivers may have approached races and situations rather differently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Not so sure changing the outcome of the championships 37 times out of 59, and the world champion being a different driver in 13 occasions is "diddly squat" :) Nelson Piquet would have had zero titles, Jim Clark four, Lauda just one and Mansell three. That's quite a difference.

Sure, little has changed more recently but perhaps that reflects more consistent points gathering, helped by improved reliability. Who knows how things had turned out had medals actually been in place since 1950 because I suspect drivers may have approached races and situations rather differently.

---

The point of the system is to increase the insentive to go for the win, but most of the championships went down to the last couple of races anyway and I cant really think of many times when someone has given up on a chance for a win (other than supporting a title challenging team mate or following orders) in the last few years anyway.

Well, perhaps if they did a comparison with what the championships would have been with the old points system against the new one, then we can have another meaningless set of results :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malllen

And the conclusion is that medals would have made diddly squat difference (barring one time) for 20 years now.

---

You make me wonder if you did actually read what Arrows posted.

why not just change the points 20 for a win 12 for 2nd 8 3rd

if A driver was on a winning run and won the first 8 races it would be all over by 21st of June

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1

Not so sure changing the outcome of the championships 37 times out of 59, and the world champion being a different driver in 13 occasions is "diddly squat" :) Nelson Piquet would have had zero titles, Jim Clark four, Lauda just one and Mansell three. That's quite a difference.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ioan

You make me wonder if you did actually read what Arrows posted.

---

That's why I said medals would have made diddly squat difference for the past 20 years. :\

And no I didn't have to read what Arrows posted, because I did the same analysis:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malllen

It would've made virtually no difference from the 1980s onwards. Bernie is 20 years too late as this will show...

With medals:

2008 - Massa wins title (Champion: Hamilton)
1989 - Senna wins title (Champion: Prost)
1987 - Mansell wins title (Champion: Piquet)
1986 - Mansell wins title (Champion: Prost)
1984 - Prost wins title (Champion: Lauda)
1983 - Prost wins title (Champion: Piquet)
1982 - Pironi wins title (Champion: Rosberg)
1981 - Prost wins title (Champion: Piquet)
1979 - Jones wins title (Champion: Scheckter)
1977 - Andretti wins title (Champion: Lauda)
1967 - Clark wins title (Champion: Hulme)
1964 - Clark wins title (Champion: Surtees)
1958 - Moss wins title (Champion: Hawthorn)

and so hypothetically (accounting for their other titles),

Prost wins 5 titles (he won 4)
Senna wins 4 titles (he won 3)
Clark wins 4 titles (he won 2)
Mansell wins 3 titles (he won 1)
Jones wins 2 titles (he won 1)
Andretti wins 2 titles (he won 1)
Pironi wins 1 title (he won 0)
Moss wins 1 title (he won 0)
Lauda wins 1 title (he won 3)
Massa wins 1 title (he won 0)
Piquet wins 0 titles (he won 3)
Rosberg wins 0 titles (he won 1)
Hulme wins 0 titles (he won 1)
Scheckter wins 0 titles (he won 1)

So 1 title won with less wins than the other guy since the 1980s means a point system change is in order? wierd.

Enjoy. :up:

---

Dated 27th November 2008.

And the conclusion is the same... Bernie's motive to introduce medals is lacking in logic because recently it would've made no difference bar once.

I cannot see the relevance of such a study in retrospect at all. Did anyone consider (obviously the FIA didn't) that had the medal system been in operation in all those years that drivers would have raced differently and gone for wins instead of points? This change in tactics would have made the FIA study meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malllen

That's why I said medals would have made diddly squat difference for the past 20 years. :\

And no I didn't have to read what Arrows posted, because I did the same analysis:

Dated 27th November 2008.

And the conclusion is the same... Bernie's motive to introduce medals is lacking in logic because recently it would've made no difference bar once.

---

Bernie's motive has to be considered in its true context: he thinks he can make winning races more meaningful and interesting, thus making F1 races more appealing and thus swelling his coffers.

Everything Bernie does is meant to increase his takings. None of it has any sporting relevance.