This week the FIA introduced, with immediate effect, a new rule to decide the F1 World Champion. The driver with the most wins would be crowned champion, irrespective of his points score. This, in turn, rejected the suggestion of FOTA (Formula One Teams Association) to change the points scoring to 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1, and also a development from Bernie Ecclestone's equally short-sighted 'medals' system (i.e. award gold/silver/bronze to the drivers, and the driver with the most golds wins the championship).
How ridiculous.
Ecclestone claims that the drivers will be encouraged to race because of this change. Even in his interview on Five Live he refers constantly to the lack of incentive to overtake for 'two points' - well why not give more points to the winner - as per the FOTA suggestion? Also, 'drivers' - plural - is a bit far-fetched, surely this only applies to one driver per race (the guy in second?).
And in this season of all seasons. The new rule is reported in some quarters as 'shaking up F1' - well, in this season of dramatically different car shapes, KERS and slick tyres, I think there is enough shaking going on already thank you. On that point, surely because of this consistency in driving should be rewarded sufficiently? I predict that there will be more shuffling of the pecking order throughout the season as teams learn their way around the new regs; improve their aero (especially the struggling McLaren), introduce their KERS systems etc. Drivers that can keep towards the front throughout all of this, all season long, should get an equal chance to win the championship as someone who struggles initially but comes with a late surge in the back end of the season, or starts off quick but gets swamped by the pack by mid-season. For instance, last year, Robert Kubica - who was always there or thereabouts in his BMW - would not have ever been considered a title contender under these rules, but was in the fight up until the last few races last year. Had he stole the title from his competitors in demonstrably quicker cars through consistent driving (while his opponents were busy crashing into each other) I don't think anyone would have begrudged him winning.
Furthermore, this system - which I would wager was partly to try to simplify matters for fans - is actually causing some confusion. Already on one thread on BBC's 606 message board people have been asking questions or making incorrect statements. For clarity, the following is true:
- The current scoring system - 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 - will be kept in place.
- The changes ONLY affect the outcome of the world drivers' title - all other positions will be decided by the points.
- The world constructors' title will still be decided by points.
- Yes, the changes do come into effect for 2009.
Whilst I would not go out and accuse the FIA of anti-Hamilton/McLaren bias, the fact that this rule has come in the year after Hamilton won the WDC with fewer wins than rival Felipe Massa may only serve to fuel those (already quite popular) suggestions. Especially after Ecclestone likes to cite Hamilton's supposed 'settle for second' attitude, blatantly disregarding his bold/stupid moves for the lead at Spa/Fuji (which he got penalised for both times - so no wonder he might be scared of overtaking anyone by the end of the season) and his pole-and-victory run at Shanghai (the penultimate race of the season). Only at Brazil were the 'just do enough' tactics out in force, and we all know what happened there - one of the most exciting finishes to a season in living memory. No-one ever brings up (for instance) Fernando Alonso's (absolutely correct and sensible) adoption of these tactics to land him his first crown.
Besides, everyone has got it wrong anyway. The points should go down to at least 12th place. The CART/Champ Car system from the late 90s was one of the best:
20-16-14-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 (plus, I seem to recall, bonuses for pole/fastest lap)
The MotoGP system is also useful, with the top 15 scoring. In my view, points are supposed to be merely a reflection of performance throughout the season, rather than something special to be earned. We would get a better picture of the midfield battle (which has been very tight in recent years) if points went to more places. To be honest I don't see why we can't have points for all of the positions available, at least then we can have fights throughout the field, and every position means something, even if it is a driver gaining, say, 14th instead of 15th. The old system of points for the top 6 went back to the days when barely more than 6 cars finished - even with 26 starters (wiki any race result from the late 80s/early 90s). They were right to change it to top 8 in 2003, but surely with the reliability of modern F1 cars, something needs to be changed again.
All in all, this seems like a very long and very reactionary article to something that might not even have an effect anyway (usually the driver with the most wins takes the title). But these changes themselves seem similarly reactionary and, given their prominence in the current sporting news, definitely warrant discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment