If someone crashes into the leading driver without the new points rule and loses the title is that ok? Yes, both are ok. It's called racing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm
Printable View
If someone crashes into the leading driver without the new points rule and loses the title is that ok? Yes, both are ok. It's called racing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm
I wouldn't go that far. The British Touring Cars pole position wheel of fortune takes some beating on that front.Quote:
Originally Posted by pino
Maybe we'll get that in F1 for the 2015 season.
No, it's not called racing. It's called arbitrary interference. A DNF in the last race is doubly punished. Also, it wreaks havoc on the midfield. A team like Force India could easily jump 2 or 3 positions up the standings by Hulk having a good day again, when the results of the preceeding 18 races do not merit that position. Racing it is called if every race pays the same or there is something that warrants double points for a certain race, like for instance a double distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by webberf1
This whole malarkey is not about hobbling Red Bull or 'keeping it tight'. The sole reason for that rule is to 'upgrade' one race in importance, so that the toad from Suffolk and his klepotomaniac posse can extort more money in hosting fees from a willing victim.
. Moved comment to a relevant thread :)
Back when I first got interested in F1 ('85) the points system was awarded for 1st to sixth place. There were so many entrants they had pre-qualifying. In order to equalize a runaway team/car, only a certain number of wins in the season would count towards the points tally at the end.
If they want to make F1 more appealing/road relevant, allow diesel entrants and non turbo entrants, and have a trophy for each category.
Does that not make more sense?
You know
Sometimes Formula 1 feels more scripted than WWE.
I'm sorry but this double points is just ridiculous, and I certainly hope they change their minds and scrap this idea before the season starts.
Or maybe it's just the FIA trolling just to get some attention ¬.¬
They will ditch this idea, in exchange for something else the FIA/Bernie always originally wanted in the first place, but knew the teams would not agree to.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Eunos
Divide and conquer!!
This would be different if , say , the double points offer came in if the rabbit out front was over a certain number of points ahead .
That would be contrived .
But , it is known by all that the final race is doubled .
It should simply mean that Mr. Rabbit will need to be much farther ahead to be able to claim the title early .
Is that so bad ?
Your favourite racer may still be in with a chance at the final race because of this rule .
Why be so cruel to him by denying him his chance at it ?
I thought you liked him .
If you think that's the dumbest then you shouldn't be watching touring cars. It works perfectly for the series, considering there is 3 races in 1 day. It gives everyone a chance to aim for a top 10 position and potentially be on pole and win a race! It's great to see one of the lesser teams leading and trying to hold his own. Which would never happen in F1. Maybe they could just reverse the top 10 everytime but it's great the fact there's a little mystery as to who will start pole last race. Plus watching the leaders come through the pack!Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyL
Granted this wouldn't work in F1.
Very simple. The rival of your favourite driver needed at least three races to build up a 49 points lead over your favourite driver, who now suddenly get's the chance to erase such a big gap with a single race win, if the rival DNF's just once. It's a big honking DRS for points. Overtaking with no chance for the opponent to fight back. Why don't we just install guns on the cars? :hmph:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
Surely you must admit the wheel of fortune with the drivers' faces on it was an utterly ridiculous spectacle.Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonPotato
The rival driver may have built up the 50 point lead over your favourite because of two DNFs .Quote:
Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster
And he has the same chance at the final 50 as your favourite .
How is that like DRS ?
A bag of balls numbered 6-10 is enough. Same outcome. Certainly wouldn't like it a fixed position otherwise you'll have people fighting or deliberately slowing down to get pole in the last race. Like we had a few years ago!Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyL
For me i wish they would go back to the late 90's format, 1 sprint race and 1 feature race with pitstops but that's a debate for another time.
In December 2014, after a year that ended in a run-away victory for Sebastian Vettel,
The FIA decided that a change in rules was in order as the previous change to the points
system, awarding double points for the final race, created huge controversy in an unjust world
champion who nicked it at the last race having been 46 points behind before the final race.
To rectify this in the 2015 season, The FIA has announced, all drivers will therefore be awarded a multiplier
on their points based on the first letter of their last name. This multiplier will work on
the same number of points awarded to a letter in Scrabble, thus awarding the more uncommon
letters. V- for Vettel would give a 4x multiplier while K- Kovalainen would get a 5x multiplier.
The true excitement would lie in the high influx of drivers with last names starting with Z and Q
for a whopping 10x multiplier.
Which driver do you hope to luck into an undeserved title because of this rubbish? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
We have 19 races a year and each of them counts the same. Making one of them count double is patently unfair. someone can be ultra-reliable all year and be Pastor'ed in the last race and could lose everything because someone said : 'Y'know this race counts double for no reason.'
If they want to have double points they should adapt the challenge accordingly, i.e. make the race double length on a track that justifies such raise in importance. Do you think, just because Alonso would have lucked to the 2012 title that way, it'll gonna happen again? What if it is your favourite man, who is miles ahead, but get's T-boned by Maldonado and loses all season's work in a single race. Are you going to be as enthusiastic about this FIA/FOM brain fart, too?
As a long time fan of the sport I used to adamantly oppose the idea of penalizing faster cars with ballast, but now, with all the recent gimmicks and regulations introduced, I’m beginning to think it’s perhaps the better option :mark: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Whyzars
Gosh dj , you do have a way with words .Quote:
Originally Posted by dj_bytedisaster
"because someone said : 'Y'know this race counts double for no reason.' is not at all accurate , is it ?
The reason is to try to disadvantage a rabbit from getting the crown too early .
I think that's pretty clear .
I can agree that an extra challenge would be nice , to further justify the extra points , but I don't feel it's essential .
Whereas you would condone the same situation , with a Maldonado T-bone and all , if the race was simply longer ?
Would you have as much hatred for the idea if the race that was worth double points was the first race of the season ?
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by all-rally
While that is a highly credible idea by current F1 standards, unfortunately it makes Vettel even more dominant - he would have finished this season with more points than Webber and Hamilton (2nd and 3rd respectively) combined. I'd suggest using the scrabble score of the driver's entire last name as the multiplier. It would have been a close finish between Vettel (9 points) and Raikkonen (17 points). Plus this system would surely see 20-pointer Hulkenberg finally getting the top drive that he deserves.
My bolding & underling.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyL
Having Abu as double may advantage Vettel as well - he's won 3 of the 5 races held there.
I imagine the FIA have come up with this scheme because fans are losing interest towards the end of the season (you only need to check posts on this forum to confirm this). Teams also are putting less effort into development towards the end if their positions as constructors are pretty much assured, and that's understandable.
If they really feel they need to do something like this - maybe they could reward the more difficult races as double. For example, the races known as "drivers circuit" like Monaco, and put them at the end of the calendar. Or perhaps "wet" races are double - with Brazil at the end of the calendar making it a 50/50 as to whether it might be double or not.
Just kind of brainstorming there - but I don't think either of my suggestions is any worse than what the FIA has gone with.
Even though Vettel , the current rabbit might still win it , the whole point seems to be to keep him from winning it all until the end of the season .
I like that idea about the wet race , Firstgear , but moving races to the rainy season in any given place is maybe going a little too far .
Having said that , though , I do love the rain that Brazil drops into the mix , too .
Just because something is known before hand does not make it more appealing if the idea itself is completely farcical to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
It's the same issue as messing with points in the first place to top Schumacher from dominating. It wasn't the points system that changed that, it was the other teams getting their acts together and providing us with a few years of good racing, until Vettel hoved into view that is.
Yes I would. All 19 races are the same. So they should all pay the same amount of points. Arbitrarily 'modifying' one of them is American Wrestling, not Formula 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagwan
In order to justify the double points the final race should be twice as long ;)
This would have been acceptable to me. Even 3-hours long would be enough. However, I am afraid this is not possible without refueling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Sure it's possible. The cars get about double the fuel mileage when running behind the safety car. So as long as the cars stay below about 80kph they should be able to make it. Then we'll really have the eco-runs that dj has been posting about all year. :p
I have always maintained that F1 should seriously consider an unrestricted format – engine, chassis, tires, aero… whatever – but mandate a serious maximum limit of available fuel per team per race weekend; perhaps half of what is consumed today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Firstgear
I've said the same thing many times: present the teams with a box into which their car must fit, and a set of rigorous crash tests and safety measures which they must pass. Give them a fixed amount of fuel (which would reduce by a few % each season), and which they can supplement with any means they see fit such as energy recovery, solar cells, turbochargers - hell, even mount a fan the size of a dustbin lid on the back of the car, or fit six wheels, you never know, it might catch on!Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
Given where it's to be held, half as long might be better :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
This ridiculous idea will be ditched for something else ... surely!?! We can't just let them ruin this 'sport' but what can we do to stop them?
The problem is that the virtually unrestricted designs you describe would be literally beyond what drivers could physically endure over a grand prix distance. With fans, ground effect, sliding skirts, big tyres etc, modern cars would be pulling 7-8 g's in cornering and 8-9 g's under braking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Does this mean that the host of the final race has to pay 'Greedy Smurf' twice as much to host the race :evil: ?
They already pay a premium to be the final race.Quote:
Originally Posted by anfield5
Well, that explains Abu Dhabi :mark:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
I'll just quote Kimi, 'The first few turns are quite good but the rest of it is sh**.'
Coming from Kimi that's almost a compliment.
then just limit the width of the tyres. it's as simple as that.Quote:
Originally Posted by webberf1
Someone may have mentioned this already, if so my apologies.
The teams have possibly brought this fiasco on themselves, if the teams (RBR excluded) had decided to race until the end of the championship, instead of giving up 2/3 of the way through the season, there would be no need to manufacture a grandstand finish to the season. Having said that 2013 has been the first season for a while that has been decided so early, so is this a knee-jerk reaction to a one-off blip in what has been a series of hotly contested championships
It does seem to be standard practice these days, ever since Brawn fluke win in 2009 because they sacked off 2008. That if half way through the season you've got no chance, stop development entirely, move onto next year.
Why not go to the old European rally Championship system where each event carried a tariff (think diving's 'Degree of Difficulty'). eg any Tilke track counts 0.5, Spa counts 1.5 etc
Or have a secret agreement. Whoever is the points leader after 16 events is the champion. Then stage manage the last 5 races to get a grandstand finish.
Or follow NASCAR (again!). The champion is the driver with the highests points score, excluding those who have scored a race win. That would keep things open to the end of the season. Wouldn't drivers throwing away a race by spinning on the last lap etc make good theatre?
And has anybody thought about how to handle a situation where a team combine Suzuka 1990 and Singapore 2009 tactics.
F1 is coming even more of circus, which I suppose is inevitable since the animal rights brigade have got real circuses banned.