Does F1 need a "championship"?

[jab]

As split from the Ferrari ranting thread:

Originally Posted by jab

I still believe they should just get rid of the Formula 1 World Championship in general and just have standalone F1 Grands Prix, more than now, linked by a largely superfluous ranking system. See tennis, golf, cycling et all

Originally Posted by jab

Why? What does the championship add to F1?

Alternatively, getting rid of it would get rid of some of the things people whinge most about:

- team orders

- drivers not taking risks and driving for championship points

- the points system

- wins not meaning enough

- not enough races on traditional circuits or in traditional motor racing heartlands

Also:

- costs would come down (as the entry lists would be opened up to a race-by-race basis instead of annual)

- loads more new teams (see above)

- removes the question of why teams enter if they have no chance of winning the championship (because winning races would be the most important thing)

The World Championship is so pointless. All it determines is who the F1 World Champion is. Other than that, it means nothing. F1 could be so much more flexible and interesting without the championship - it restricts F1's format and yet there is no need for it. It's only there because it's there. It's completely superfluous

Fire away

[Another Bob]

Jab, radical thought but;

Getting rid of the championship won't get rid of team orders. A team may want a driver to pull over and let his team mate through to win a particular race for all sorts of reasons.

Fans would start their own unofficial championship adding up who won the most races etc.

Yes I think it does need a championship as it gives a focus and a meaning to the season of racing.

[Super Hans]

I'd not have a problem if the championship was scrapped but it'll never happen.

Everything is geared towards it nowadays.

[E.B]

Yes. Tradition, everyone loves a champion, be it team or driver, so the media has to have an avenue to feed that public demand. As the pinnacle of World Motor Racing the gig should have a seasonal purpose and winner.

However, as we hear more and more of the Team this and the Team that, the car is 90% of the equation, the best designer is more needed than the top driver, or the strategist has more influence right through to the test team on the shaker jig / simulator back at the factory, I do wish that the emphasis and indeed media focus, was more skewed towards the Constructors Championship. It might keep some of the drivers egoes back in line if they were to be portrayed more of a smaller part of a large team than the media focus that they currently positioned.

Having spent a paragraph diminishing the driver role in the championship outcome, I would however always want there to be a drivers championship as well.

[jab]

Originally Posted by Another Bob

Jab, radical thought but;

Getting rid of the championship won't get rid of team orders. A team may want a driver to pull over and let his team mate through to win a particular race for all sorts of reasons.

I personally doubt it

Originally Posted by Another Bob

Yes I think it does need a championship as it gives a focus and a meaning to the season of racing.

Yes but look at those other sports that I mentioned - they don't have a championship as such and yet it doesn't make a difference. Each individual event is what is worth winning, and we already have several GPs that have a similar status - Monaco, Britain, Italy, Belgium

Originally Posted by E.B

Yes. Tradition

Team orders are traditional as well

There hasn't always been an F1 World Championship, though. And even after it was formed, it was never really a big thing until the mid-late 60s when you see the number of non-championship races decline. There were more non-champ races than championship rounds for a long time

It's also worth remembering that one of the other pinnacles of world motorsport, the WRC, didn't have a drivers championship for the first few years of its existence. Rallying's a good example of how it can work, as you've got loads of rallies going on but only about 12 are world championship rounds, and yet they're all competing in roughly the same sort of machinery. Even the top works drivers compete in what are for them non-championship rounds - Loeb does the odd French rally with his wife as co-driver, while Hirvonen did the Monte Carlo this year

[E.B]

Originally Posted by jab

There hasn't always been an F1 World Championship, though. And even after it was formed, it was never really a big thing until the mid-late 60s when you see the number of non-championship races decline. There were more non-champ races than championship rounds for a long time

But prior to the World Championship, when the major races were in Europe, and Europe by travel and logistics back then was the nucleus of World Motor Racing, there was an ongoing European Championship from 1930 ish.

Yes I agree there were always a host of non championship GP's, but even back then there were some more prestigious and greater beneficial propaganda generators than others, and they formed the European Championship. Those GPs that attracted all of the major factory entrants to race at, and of course the public interest.

There has, it seems, nearly always been a pinnacle in motor racing. Even when they were fighting for the Vanderbilt Cup in the early 1900's. Or striving to win the European GP from 1923 on.

Again with WRC Rallying yes there was no driver/ navigator championship in the early days, but there was a very prestigious and fiercely fought manufacturers world championship. And from the very early 1950's there was a European Rally Championship, comprising of what were regarded as 'the classics'. Monte Carlo, the Tulip, the Liège, the Lisbon Rally, the Rally to the Midnight Sun (Sweden), the Rally of the 1000 Lakes (Finland), and the Acropolis Rally in Greece.

In the same way there was a World Sportscar Championship.

Im not so sure I agree with you on the WDC not meaning much pre the mid 1960's. Of course there were other equivalent almost individual events such as Le Mans, but I have read of crowds of several hundred thousand at the Nordschleife for the German GP, and hell, even King George V1 and Queen Elizabeth went to the British GP back in 1950,(as did over 100,000 spectators.) Heck even non championship races at Goodwood would attract 50,000. In the days when cars were rare and cross country travel was not easy. Motor racing, not just F1 / Grand Prix, was of huge public interest in the post WW2 era as well as pre war.

I bet you there would be fewer people had not heard of Stirling Moss than Fernando Alonso.

[jab]

Originally Posted by E.B

I bet you there would be fewer people had not heard of Stirling Moss than Fernando Alonso.

You mean fewer people would've heard of someone who has won the championship than those who would've heard of someone who never won the championship?

If that's the case, surely that proves the championship ultimately doesn't mean that much

[E.B]

Originally Posted by jab

You mean fewer people would've heard of someone who has won the championship than those who would've heard of someone who never won the championship?

If that's the case, surely that proves the championship ultimately doesn't mean that much

My comment was a point, amongst others, to challenge (Jab's) statement that I disagree with, namely re the WDC that, ''even after it was formed, it was never really a big thing until the mid-late 60s".

I believe it was of quite significant interest.

Another event that I might add to confirm International interest in Motor Racing and F1 drivers was the fact Fangio was kidnapped in 1958 at the Cuban Grand Prix,
by the ‘Movement of the Twenty-sixth July’, a Castro political organization.

The purpose of kidnapping Fangio and his manager at gunpoint, and holding them as kidnapped captives being to use Fangio's huge International profile and fame as multiple WDC, to focus world attention on their political movement, which was in opposition to the ruling President Batista and his regime.

[Chatters]

Originally Posted by jab

You mean fewer people would've heard of someone who has won the championship than those who would've heard of someone who never won the championship?

If that's the case, surely that proves the championship ultimately doesn't mean that much

It's wrong to compare Moss to Alonso in terms of popularity- Sir Stirling has had 40 years AFTER he was a GP driver to build a reputation, especially in England.

I could guarantee you more people would have heard of Fernando Alonso then say, Alex Yoong or Yuji Ide, or possibly even Jarno Trulli.

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by E.B

we hear more and more of the Team this and the Team that, the car is 90% of the equation, the best designer is more needed than the top driver, or the strategist has more influence right through to the test team on the shaker jig / simulator back at the factory

Yes, we do.

Originally Posted by E.B

I do wish that the emphasis and indeed media focus, was more skewed towards the Constructors Championship. It might keep some of the drivers egoes back in line if they were to be portrayed more of a smaller part of a large team than the media focus that they currently positioned.

I don't, we have sports car racing for that, where each car has two or three drivers. F1 is about individuals. Senna beating Prost or viceversa. Schumacher beating everyone else. Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Montoya, Alonso beating Schumacher. Raikkonen, Massa, Alonso, Hamilton, Button, Vettel, Weber trying to beat each other.

[bella]

it's a really interesting idea - instead of points for a championship, you enter for a particular race and have a VAST prize fund that is paid out immediately after the race. teams would only enter for the serious business races and avoid the crappy ones. if the promoters of the crappy ones want more teams to attend, they offer financial or logistic incentives. way better than that big brown envelope they have to hand bernie every year.

of course it'd make bernie redundant, and turkeys don't vote for christmas

[Chatters]

Originally Posted by bella

it's a really interesting idea - instead of points for a championship, you enter for a particular race and have a VAST prize fund that is paid out immediately after the race. teams would only enter for the serious business races and avoid the crappy ones. if the promoters of the crappy ones want more teams to attend, they offer financial or logistic incentives. way better than that big brown envelope they have to hand bernie every year.

But then you would end up with the same situation we have now where oil-rich countries offer the largest incentives and therefore get more races then historically motorsport rich Europe and North America.

[bella]

Originally Posted by Chatters

But then you would end up with the same situation we have now where oil-rich countries offer the largest incentives and therefore get more races then historically motorsport rich Europe and North America.

the established races generate more publicity without the need for incentives... the only change is that the race fee instead of going to bernies pocket goes straight to the teams via free airfreight, seafreight, hotels, etc etc.

[alc]

Originally Posted by bella

it's a really interesting idea - instead of points for a championship, you enter for a particular race and have a VAST prize fund that is paid out immediately after the race. teams would only enter for the serious business races and avoid the crappy ones. if the promoters of the crappy ones want more teams to attend, they offer financial or logistic incentives. way better than that big brown envelope they have to hand bernie every year.

of course it'd make bernie redundant, and turkeys don't vote for christmas

This is a rubbish analogy - the problem turkeys have is that they make an important enjoyable contribution to Christmas.

[ptclaus98]

Originally Posted by alc

This is a rubbish analogy - the problem turkeys have is that they make an important enjoyable contribution to Christmas.

Ham is better.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by alc

This is a rubbish analogy - the problem turkeys have is that they make an important enjoyable contribution to Christmas.

Traditionally it was goose.

[alc]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Traditionally it was goose.

Also unfair to ham

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by alc

Also unfair to ham

How can that be unfair to ham when goose was the tradition?

[jab]

But with this, you'd have so many races anyway it wouldn't matter - you could expand the calendar to 30-40 races

Tennis and golf have some events in the Middle East - definitely in Dubai, I know that. But the major tournaments are the traditional ones, because tradition is always more important to the fans. The Middle/Far East countries might be able to offer large prize funds but they can't compete with history

And I'm sure Ferrari would enter as many races as possible, just to make a point. And there would still be a constructors/teams ranking system as well so there are benefits to entering a reasonable number of races

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by jab

Tennis and golf have some events in the Middle East - definitely in Dubai, I know that. But the major tournaments are the traditional ones, because tradition is always more important to the fans. The Middle/Far East countries might be able to offer large prize funds but they can't compete with history

in those sports the size of TV contracts and corporate endorsement certainly favour the traditional events. a Middle Eaat event might provide a bigger purse, but Nike or Reebok dont give out contracts based on who won the Dubai Open. so the incentive is definitely there for the drivers.

but what would the manufacturers do? their though making process is difficult to understand in the best of times but to operate without the guise of a championship and the ability to differentiate themselves from each other what incentive would they have to race each other? for example, under this system would Ferrari not just be better off taking 20 cars to Monaco each year and just run a giant "advertising" type race?

[Wims]

Originally Posted by jab

...
Tennis and golf have some events in the Middle East - definitely in Dubai, I know that. But the major tournaments are the traditional ones, because tradition is always more important to the fans. The Middle/Far East countries might be able to offer large prize funds but they can't compete with history
...

I dont know about the price pool for golf tournaments in the middle east, however, I do know that the golf ranking is based on who wins the most during a set period of time, I believe its 24 months. So if the middle eastern tournaments has the biggest purse then they are also some of the most significant tournaments on the tour

[Greem]

BCE, CVC et al wouldn't make money from it, ergo - it will not happen.

[Richard C]

If you create some other radically different system for ranking, teams will just game the system in other ways. We will be right back where we are today, but with some other violation where someone is playing just slightly over the wrong side of the line.

[Cougar]

Scrapping the championship? it would not work... Imagine all the new threads... "No championship vs old system points"

hah!

[jab]

Well there is differentiation - 1) there are still race winners and losers, and 2) there would still be rankings, they would just be of reduced importance as they are in other sports. The teams still rank winning the Monaco GP highly. It's like Le Mans - it's not part of a championship (at the moment) but manufacturers still enter it and sponsors still sponsor