Ducati Monster Forum

Interesting, to say the least.

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/3/9024.html (http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/3/9024.html)

Very, as was the ruling that with a $30m spending cap they could have more technical freedoms.

Looks like F1 is finally doing something.

I actually don't mind the race wins idea, I'll have to think about it some more.

I preferred the old system. Consistency and reliability should matter, IMO.

HUGE ol'boy system...they are doing much the same as the PGA did to Tiger proof the courses by increasing length of the courses.  I dare say they have made enough changes to unset the balances of the old system by the changes in equipment spending and now driver's points....GL HAMILTON!!!!!

I would have preferred a change to the points system, but I guess they're concerned with the record book (most points scored)

I do like the provision to allow more technical freedom to teams with a voluntary budget cap. Though it makes me wonder if Windsor and Anderson knew that was coming when they put together USF1.

New system = shit.

No payoff for consistency at all.  Champions aren't made on the good days, but on the bad days when they can salvage points and do damage control to stay in the championship hunt. 

Absolutely. Which makes me wonder if this is a pro-Ferrari, anti-McLaren measure. I firmly believe that Hamilton responds better to adversity than anyone else out there, and a damn sight better than Massa or Raikonnen.

it's neither... the constructors championship will still be decided by the same point system that's been used since 2003.

the only difference is that the drivers championship will be decided by victories alone (with points as a tiebreaker).

i haven't really digested the change yet. i think that 2008 would be the only season (in the last decade) where this would've changed the drivers championship. however, i want to go back and look at the last decade and see how this would've changed WHEN the championship was clinched.

C'mon, Derby. You don't know that off the top of your head?  [laugh]
I'm not an F1 expert by any means. I just got the impression several times last year that marshal decisions and other things were going unfairly against McLaren, and Hamilton in particular. This could be baseless, it's just the impression I got.

One thing we will probably see a lot this year is a lot of early retirements.  There are realisitcally 4 or 5 guys who could win the title, but i think if the car is not competitive that race weekend you will begin to see guys retiring early in the race if they fall out of contention in order to save the engine for the next race, since they now have more stringent limits on how often you can use a fresh engine.  It would suck if the championship came down to a battle of attrition where the manufacturers know where the car will be fast and only attempt to win those races and then attempt to save resources where the car is slow.

Besides if Kimi (hypothetically) wins 10 races, but DNF's 3 or 4, but Massa places in the top 3 every race, and (hypothetically) wins the 7 races kimi doesn't, Kimi is still the champ? 

Lame.

Perfect example in a similar, but different context is in MotoGp in 2006.  If they had the same rules, Hayden would not have been world champion.  tell me that wouldn't have been a kick in the balls to American race fans!

your example discounts how big a deal the constructors championship is to the teams.

in all honestly, it's the ONLY thing that the teams really care about. their travel money, tv money, pit position is all based on the constructors championship.

Something I thought of is what happens when 2 drivers have equal race wins and the one with the most points is behind and pulls a Senna to take out the driver in front of him?

Also, it's going to be really funny, given the shake up in the ranks, when the champion is the winner of more races, but because of DNF's is 3rd or 4th in the points. It's possible and would be a complete disaster to the sport.

see schumacher vs villeneuve (jerez 1997).



i don't think the new drivers championship criteria will effect reliability at all. now, if the lead pack is tight, it may "lead to come contact," but that's about it.

i still need to go back and look at how this would've affected the last decade's worth of championships.

According to one source I saw, it would have changed 13 World Champions from the past. That's a lot of difference to me.

but of the last decade, as i said before, i think it only would've changed last year's.

of course, due to schumacher, that is kind of loading the question.

for the drivers championship, i'm more concerned about when it would have been clinched over who would have been crowned champion.

read: i wonder how it would've changed the show.

that said, unless you have a truly dominant force in the championship, it's highly likely that the driver's championship will be undecided until the last 4-5 races of the season. more likely still that the championship will come down to the final round or two.

however, i prefer the "old way."

seems to me someone could theoretically win the first half of the series and that's that for it that year...  he can go home and no one else can win #1

let me repeat myself:

i saw your post and glossed over it, but i have to admit being afraid to you posting a link to another post here in reply...

derb never fails me

 ;D

And now, they pull back from that position (Thank Goodness)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7955790.stm# (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7955790.stm#)

Yeah, I thought about that right after I posted...

good riddance.

it was a bad idea given the slew of changes already implemented.  the new car regs should be digested before a dramatic points change like this is put in place.

that said, i still don't like the proposal.  i do think the points should be a larger spread for the top position.

fia should reward both consistency and victories.  the balance point just needs to shift a little, not this dramatically.