Mosley: Kimi Could Be Unfair WDC

[deeks6]

There are some ridiculous statements here. They changed the system for one reason only...so that the championship would "go to the wire" which it did. It hardly favoured Schumacher...his record says that if he finishes, it is generally on the podium and he wins 40% of his races. The FIA doesnt like MS wrapping up the title with 3 races to go and if the system was the same as 02, the title would have been decided before Suzuka - that was what Mosely was hinting at...hardly "grassy knoll" stuff.
Stop the ridiculous anti-schume comments please...hate him if you like, but make some sense.

[DriverT]

Well, I agree with Moseley's statement. It might imply favouritism to some, but I don't think so. He's just giving his opinion; some people seem to be paranoid.

[Adam43]

I thinks its best that we keep to the subject.

Also, argue your point, but is there anything to be gained from trying to put people down for what they post?

On topic:

Despite Max's reservations, I guess we are to assume that he (and the FIA) still prefer the current system (10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1). If they did want to change it would it be agreed with the teams easily? I think the top few would agree (Ferrari, McLaren, Williams...), but what about the people who like the lower points (Jaguar, Jordan...). So maybe the easiest change will be to just change teh gap between 1st and 2nd.

However, it doen't seem like there are any plans.

[Pit_Lane_Babe]

Hey Deeks, calm down! No one is being anti MS, I just did not think that what Max said was very fair.
The points system was changed all in aid of spicing up races..........MS hardly won by much last season compared to the "norm".
No after an exciting season it seems as though Max is not very happy with the results. Then why change the system at all? Or maybe they should have all sat down a bit longer and thought it through.
The question to ask yourself is.............if it had been someone else that had won by such a small margin, would Max have said the same thing?

[Adam43]

er, yes. If Kimi had won 6 races to Michael's one (i.e. it was totally reversed) I think Max would have said the same thing.

Surely the point is to spice up the championships, not the races. Subtle difference.

[krt917]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore So maybe the easiest change will be to just change teh gap between 1st and 2nd.

I agree, in the short-term at least. It's good that more cars score points, but the gap between first and second should be a good deal bigger. If a win was a little more than a 2nd + a 3rd, that might be good. So maybe give 15 points for a win, though I know most people will think that is too big a gap!

Originally posted by AdamAshmore Surely the point is to spice up the championships, not the races. Subtle difference.

True. I wish they wouldn't! Fundamentally, a championship is run to find the best car/driver combination and if someone has done an obviously better job - like winning 6 races to their rival's 1 - then I don't think a points system should undervalue race wins to the extent that they go to the last round still with a chance of losing the title.

[deeks6]

Originally posted by krt917
- then I don't think a points system should undervalue race wins to the extent that they go to the last round still with a chance of losing the title.

HEAR HEAR!!!

Whats it all about after all?

[John Turner]

Totally agree, I've been 'banging on' about the points system for years. A lot of the top drivers have said that they are 'here to win', 'not interested in second place', 'second is for losers' or 'second is the first of the losers' and variations on those statements. Racing is about winning, although not at any cost (I believe in racing ethics) so a win should be worth at least double second place. I agree that points should be awarded down to eighth place and I also agree that huge points totals become a bit meaningless but how about 25-12-8-6-4-3-2-1 and for those who worry about the unlucky driver, for example, who has dominated the weekend by getting pole and leads for three quarters of the race but comes 2nd for mechanical reasons, we give 2 points to pole (1pt for the other front row place) and a point for leading at quarter, half and three quarter distant, he gets 17 points to the winner's 24 (or 25 if he had the other front row position). Now this rewards the winner appropriately and would probably lead to more competitive driving strategies. If this system leads to runaway champions, so what? It's up to the others to catch up, not for the FIA to impose artificial means of closing the gap. Winning WDCs should be about winners not consistent point scorers; I don't care whether the WDC goes down to the wire if it is achieved by such means. It remains a ludicrous situation that the gap between MS and KR was just 2 points at the end of a year when the victories were 6-1 in MS favour. End of rant!

[krt917]

I agree, although with fuel strategies as they are, the 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 points awards may not achieve your goal. Of course, the answer to that is to get rid of fuel stops too!

I am worried that it is only a matter of time before the wrong person does win the World title under the current system.

[John Turner]

Doesn't matter too much about fuel strategies really; just means the occasional unlikely candidate might pick up the odd point or so. Don't have a problem with that - keeps the drivers of 'lesser' teams interested. Might also make for some interesting race strategies!

[sonic]

I do think you should get a point for pole and a point for fastest lap.

2 major achievements which go otherwise unrewarded and encouraging people to 'go for it' could spice things up even more.

[John Turner]

Yes, Sonic, agreed. I had intended to include a point for fastest lap - got a bit carried away with the other bits!

[deeks6]

All very interesting theories John and I go along with the principle but again, I say, why mess with the original time honoured system (or the 10-6-4-3-2-1) which IMO has a great balance between rewarding the winner and rewarding consistency.

I can go (maybe) along with the point for pole but not the fastest lap. You may be rewarding someone who has lost time, spun or even broken something and (effectively) retired. The teams could then fix problems, get the car back out on the track with new tyres and low fuel and blast round to get a point. They could interfere with someone elses race. Is this person more deserving of the point than the guy who battles it out carefully all race and gets 6th (or 8th now)? I think most definitely not.

Its also the problem with points going too far into the field. It gives teams an incentive on occaisions to fix cars no matter how long it takes and get them back out there. You then get the situation of cars getting points for finishing 15 laps down on the winner - not the idea in my book. The less the positions you pay points, the more you have to earn them (by racing...get it?).

And, as John says, if the title is wrapped up with 5 rounds to go...well, applaud the guy and say he's a legend. Last year, a fair (original) system would have seen the title decided before the last round.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by deeks6


I can go (maybe) along with the point for pole but not the fastest lap. You may be rewarding someone who has lost time, spun or even broken something and (effectively) retired. The teams could then fix problems, get the car back out on the track with new tyres and low fuel and blast round to get a point.

Same as the qualifying format as it is now?? Any team could put old style qualifying fuel in their car and go for broke (read Renault/Alonso in Maylasia here, not that i think theres anything wrong with that, but it is the same as your theory for fastest lap).

Originally posted by deeks6

Its also the problem with points going too far into the field. It gives teams an incentive on occaisions to fix cars no matter how long it takes and get them back out there. You then get the situation of cars getting points for finishing 15 laps down on the winner - not the idea in my book

Better than just watching 6 cars circulating around the track though

[deeks6]

You're right V, which is why I said maybe...but I suspect teams (even the Minardis, say) would not just aim for poles instead of genuinely trying to run (finish?) the race. Qualifying is'nt televised (not much anyway) but races are...sponsors would soon depart if their logos are only seen for a lap or two in prime time. And the (merchandise buying) fans would love it too, wouldnt they?

And, despite the new regs last year, how often did teams go in on REALLY light fuel loads? Not that many from memory.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by deeks6


And, despite the new regs last year, how often did teams go in on REALLY light fuel loads? Not that many from memory.

Not at first, then Renault started doing it, and that started becoming the norm, if we could do a comparison, i'd bet that the teams did earlier fuel stops than in previous seasons. Plus a lot of races had more fuel stops, than previous seasons, take Hungary and Japan, 3 stoppers for everyone (with the exception of BAR at Japan, the only team on a genuine 2 stop stratergy), where as they were usually 2 stop races.

[deeks6]

Just to add a bit to the points situation...and to illustrate how silly it can get if you pay points all the way. Take NASCAR last year (don't get me wrong, I love the big taxis, but the points system sucks) where the final result was:

1 -- Matt Kenseth 5022 1 win
2 -- Jimmie Johnson 4932 3 wins
3 -- Dale Earnhardt Jr. 2 wins
4 +1 Jeff Gordon 4785 3 wins
5 +1 Kevin Harvick 4770 1 win
6 -2 Ryan Newman 4711 8 wins (YES,8!!!)
7 -- Tony Stewart 4549 2 wins
8 -- Bobby Labonte 4377 2 wins
11 Kurt Busch 4150 4 wins

So there you have it, a guy winning 8 races for the year getting beaten by a guy who won ONE by 311 points. There are also various bonus points for leading.

But wait, it gets worse...Newman also finished in the top 6 18 times, more than any other driver and 4 more than Kenseth the champion. He also had more fastest laps (11) than anybody and (as you would expect with a guy trying this hard) more DNF's.

However, if you used the old F1 points scoring system (and no leading bonuses), the result for the year would have been as follows:

1. Newman 107
2. Johnson 77
3. Gordon 73
4. Earnhardt Jnr 70
5. Busch 68
6. B.Labonte 65
7. Harvick 60
8. Stewart 59
9. Kenseth 55

As you can see, Newman would have been a clear winner...again, as you would expect for a guy who won twice as many races as the next best. And the champ Kenseth finishes 9th when all his 7th and 11th places don't count.

This is what can happen when you mess with it...injustice big time!!

[avsfan733]

I suggest we keep it really simple and just take the average of your finishing places with anyone who doesn't finish getting the equivalent of 20th, last place. whoever has the highest average finish should really be champion in my opinion, it rewards both winning and consistency

[Adam43]

Originally posted by deeks6
1 -- Matt Kenseth 5022 1 win

As an aside, who, in 2002, came 8th overall but scored the most wins?

[Woolley]

Lots of interesting thoughts here, so I'll add my bit.

You run a championship according to what's on offer. Nothing wrong with the NASCAR system because you set off on the trail knowing that finishing is important, and getting a good placing when it's not your day may make the difference at the end of the year.

Whatever points system is used always causes problems. Not so long ago you dropped scores and it was changed after Nige would have won, but lost because of dropped points. The current system rewards finishes, so make sure you don't fail else it will cost. In the end, those 6 wins earned MS the title, but it was the scratty run to an eighth at the end that actually won it.

Personally, I'd go for something like 20-15-12-10 etc to reward the lower placed teams, but give a suitable gap to the winner. It also means there's a serious number of points to be lost if you don't finish, so you have to earn the championship over the full year, not just half a dozen races.

[deeks6]

Originally posted by Woolley

Whatever points system is used always causes problems. Not so long ago you dropped scores and it was changed after Nige would have won, but lost because of dropped points. The current system rewards finishes, so make sure you don't fail else it will cost. In the end, those 6 wins earned MS the title, but it was the scratty run to an eighth at the end that actually won it.

Um, don't know where you got that one from...you must be referring to 1986 where the best 11 counted for the title. However Prost scored 74 pts from 13 finishes and Mansell scored a total of 72 from 12 - no injustice there. And all races counted from 1991 onwards...nothing to do with Nige.

There have, however, been a few "injustices" if ALL races counted as they do now. In 1964 Graham Hill scored 41 points to Surtees 40 but only 6 counted. In 1988, Prost scored 105 to Senna's 94 but only 11 counted. And you could probably throw in 1984 when the Monaco GP was only worth half points - if it was full points, Prost would have beaten Lauda 76-72.

As for the scratty 8th, it didnt matter because Kimi didnt win. The 6 wins didnt get the MS the title...the closing up of the points kept Kimi in it. The old system would have seen the title wrapped up in USA.

As for the NASCAR points system...well, lets say you are just a good consistent driver and finish 10th every race, you'll end with 4824 pts or thereabouts. But if you WIN half the races (18) and DNF in the other half, you'll end up with 3942 or thereabouts - that ludicrous. If a guy who comes 10th every race deserves to win a title over someone who wins 18 races out of 36, then the system is VERY WRONG.

[Woolley]

If not Nige, someone...! Low on fact but you get my drift. And the point about the 8th was Michael fought for that point in case Kimi won. Finally, have you tried finishing 10th in every NASCAR race? It takes someone pretty good to manage that for the whole season.

What I expressed so badly, is you know the situation at the start of the year, so you run your campaign accordingly. Kimi did so, and whoever wins has got to do it by adopting the right strategy over the season. Take a look at DTM where the champion won two races to the 2nd place driver's four. Doesn't mean he didn't earn it over the season.

[deeks6]

Respect your opinion, Woolley and I wasnt having a go at you. Its just that this obsession with trying to manipulate titles to go to the last race is a worry and it will spit out an "undeserving" champ one day (perhaps less deserving is a better way to put it).

They've done the same in Australia with the V8SC's and this year, a guy called Ambrose could have actually lost the title at the last round despite being the standout driver for the year. If the points have (like V8SC) big numbers but small gaps between the placegetters and nothing for a DNF, the penalty for not finishing is too great - you can blow your season in one race.

My point (excuse the pun) is that, ultimately, it affects the racing because there is no real incentive to improve a position but a big problem if you DNF. The races end up processional based on where you qualify (the V8SC's are becoming this). When they add "drive-through" penalties for the slightest tap, then passing becomes non-existent. Thats not my kind of racing

[John Turner]

Originally posted by deeks6
All very interesting theories John and I go along with the principle but again, I say, why mess with the original time honoured system (or the 10-6-4-3-2-1) which IMO has a great balance between rewarding the winner and rewarding consistency.

Whilst I agree the old system was better than the current one, I am not convinced it rewarded winners sufficiently compared to consistency. I think we have had a number of 'wrong' champs as a result.

As has also been stated, I would do away with one lap qualifying - too much of a lottery and not much to do with motor racing. Oh, hell, if it was down to me, I'd change so much of F1!!

[DriverT]

I think the old points system was better as it rewarded more for a win. The new points system, however, rewards for eight places rather than the old six. But we don't want points to create a farcical situation a la Nascar.

John, who do you think the "wrong" champs are, and who should the champs have been?