ChatterBank1 min ago
F1 - Rule change...
Do you think they'll come to regret the rule change where the driver with the most wins get's it regardless of points? Button only has to win 3 more from 11 and that's game over, potentially they could have 8 semi pointless races this year!
Answers
1 to 2 of 2
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This rule change has not been introduced yet Geezer.
It is the �brainchild� of Bernie Ecclestone and he was persuaded by wiser counsel to shelve it for at least a year prior to the start of this season. I personally would be very surprised to see it introduced at all.
There could be a number of anomalies. The most curious of all in my mind is that driver A could win two races and be un-placed (or even fail to take part in) the remaining fifteen (he would earn 20 points under the current system). Each of the remaining races is won by a different driver, so no driver other than Driver A wins two races. Driver B gains second place in all seventeen races (and would get 136 points currently). But Driver A is crowned world champion.
An extreme example, I know, but one which should be considered.
Since 1990 only one championship (last year�s) would have seen a different outcome if this proposal had been in place. Massa would have been crowned world champion (with six race wins to Hamilton�s five). Interestingly two championships (2005 and 2006) have seen the main contenders tied in their number of wins (so places in the lower order would have had to be considered anyway). In 1994 Damon Hill lost the championship by only one point to Michael Schumacher, despite having won only five races to Schumie�s eight.
I think Mr Ecclestone�s proposal was made more in reaction to what he saw as an injustice last year than anything else. In the final race in Brazil Hamilton only needed to finish fourth to secure the crown and the billionaire dwarf felt that he should have gone all out to win.
It is the �brainchild� of Bernie Ecclestone and he was persuaded by wiser counsel to shelve it for at least a year prior to the start of this season. I personally would be very surprised to see it introduced at all.
There could be a number of anomalies. The most curious of all in my mind is that driver A could win two races and be un-placed (or even fail to take part in) the remaining fifteen (he would earn 20 points under the current system). Each of the remaining races is won by a different driver, so no driver other than Driver A wins two races. Driver B gains second place in all seventeen races (and would get 136 points currently). But Driver A is crowned world champion.
An extreme example, I know, but one which should be considered.
Since 1990 only one championship (last year�s) would have seen a different outcome if this proposal had been in place. Massa would have been crowned world champion (with six race wins to Hamilton�s five). Interestingly two championships (2005 and 2006) have seen the main contenders tied in their number of wins (so places in the lower order would have had to be considered anyway). In 1994 Damon Hill lost the championship by only one point to Michael Schumacher, despite having won only five races to Schumie�s eight.
I think Mr Ecclestone�s proposal was made more in reaction to what he saw as an injustice last year than anything else. In the final race in Brazil Hamilton only needed to finish fourth to secure the crown and the billionaire dwarf felt that he should have gone all out to win.
Ok Thanks Judge, didn't realise they'd shelved that.
I think the points system is the best way, even if the occasional notional "injustice" is thrown up. It is after all about consistency across a season and the points system works best in that respect, although I guess it is theoretically possible to win the championship without actually winning a race but that would take exceptional circumstances, pretty well impossible with one or two dominant teams.
I think the points system is the best way, even if the occasional notional "injustice" is thrown up. It is after all about consistency across a season and the points system works best in that respect, although I guess it is theoretically possible to win the championship without actually winning a race but that would take exceptional circumstances, pretty well impossible with one or two dominant teams.
1 to 2 of 2
