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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valve Bounce

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.

---

Shhhhh! you might have given them the exact idea they've been looking for. Run all the races and then at the season's end reveal how the scoring system works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shifter

Shhhhh! you might have given them the exact idea they've been looking for. Run all the races and then at the season's end reveal how the scoring system works.

---

:D

Better hide that one quick!

I love the irony that under Bernie's own medal system his Brabham team would never have won a single title under his stewardship! Also ironic that the driver most associated with Bernie - Nelson "clock up a safe 2nd place" Piquet would never have won the championship as opposed to the 3 titles he claimed in the 80s, not that he didnt deserve them, he was definately one of the finest drivers of the era, he just worked the points system of the time to his advantage.

Also 1982 would have been an interesting case in point, Pironi would have won the championship despite having his career ended mid-season in a massive shunt at Hockenheim that smashed his legs. Had he been crowned World Champ there may have been a chance he would have chosen to come back after his recuperation rather than going powerboat racing which was to end his life prematurely.

In my opinion, the proposed medal systems falters at most when you consider that it completely handicaps the consistant driver. Just as philipbain mentioned the 1982 season, I'm reminded that Keke Rosberg only won a single race that year. Alain Prost, Didier Pironi, Gilles Villeneave, John Watson, Niki Lauda, Rene Arnoux and Nelson Piquet all had the ability to take the title at some point in the year. It was definitely a year where consistancy counted and fair play to Rosberg for coming out tops, even if he wasn't (arguably) the quickest out there. Imagine how a medal system would do an injustice to an (arguably again) deserved champion like Rosberg and put a huge twist on Pironi's case, amongst others!

The way I see it, the FIA have mucked about with F1 for too long. The more they change, the worse it seems to get, in one way or another. I can't see the logic in the medal system for a number of reasons (some already mentioned.)

1) It rewards outright winners at the expense of consistant drivers. Consistancy is a learned skill in itself.
2) Looking at the statistical changes, without counting 2008, nothing would have been different since 1989. Therefore, it leads me to believe that the FIA are working on whims and not putting proper thought into it. Spur of the moment desicions are very unprofessional at this level yet we see them too often! :mark:
3) Its contradictory to Ecclestone's success as a Brabham team manager. He's willing to admit that, under this system, he would have no titles to his name, all in the name of money. Greedy little elf he is! :mad:

*deep breath*

Forgot to add a simple fact that most drivers will try to win anyway, if the opportunity is there. I don't think it would change a driver's attitude when the race gets into a settled groove, common these days. It just might make the fight for pole position a bit closer. The opening stint may see a few pushing slightly harder. But face it, this era of F1 is a shadow of its former self.

Reluctantly I find myself in agreement with Mr Ecclestone on this.

The objective of racing, whether a GP or a primary school egg-and-spoon race is simply to win.
A champion driver must therefore logically be the one who is best at winning.
How do you measure this?
Count the number of wins.
QED

If you are trying to evaluate the ranking of drivers or teams, rather than the champion, it's a different issue and a points system isthe only way. Incidentally, this first mattered in the early days of FOCA when places on the FOCA chartered air freighter were limited so they were awarded on the basis of highest placing in the manufacturers' championship. Similarly, Goodyear allocated the best tyres on a similar basis.

But it is meaningless to apply different criteria retrospectively because, as Valve Bounce said, if the rules were different than drivers would drive differently.

Thuinderbolt's point is also valid: a driver racking up wins in the first few races could mean the championship being wound up early in the season. I believe this was one of the original reasons for the "best * races only to count" rule.

A difficult issue.