Looks like they are taking the most wins scoring system.

BBC SPORT | Motorsport | Formula 1 | F1 wins will decide world title

The optional £30m cap seems an interesting idea - but it all depends how much technical freedom is given to the teams that stick within it. I'm not convinced it will be easy to get the balance right.

Seems to me it will end up with them effectively running two classes within one race - the over £30m cars and the under £30m group.

Gotta love the comment at the end....

To improve clarity, wet tyres have also been renamed "intermediates" and extreme weather tyres are now called "wet".

The "most wins" system is totally open to abuse - they can run cars with engines that are only designed to last one race instead of two to give themselves a big advantage and then on the second race take the 10 place hit for an engine swap.

You'd score a lot less points but would get more wins and a championship.

Also what about all the other places?

Does second go to the person with the second highest number of wins and so on , with the points only coming into effect for people with no wins or in the event of a tie?

Also what about all the other places?

Does second go to the person with the second highest number of wins and so on , with the points only coming into effect for people with no wins or in the event of a tie?

From the linked article....

The current points system will still operate to decide a tie if two drivers have the same wins and to define all other championship positions.

Interesting; Apparently that would actually make a difference, rather than just shuffling the existing multiple champions around, like changes to points scoring systems have a habit of doing.

From the linked article....

The current points system will still operate to decide a tie if two drivers have the same wins and to define all other championship positions.

So theoretically you can have a champion scoring less than a few other drivers....

Madness

So theoretically you can have a champion scoring less than a few other drivers....

Madness

Yes - does seem odd.

Assuming 17 races....

9 first places and 8 non finishes = 9 * 10 = 90 points and the chamionship

17 second places = 17 * 8 = 136 points and no championship

Yes - does seem odd.

Assuming 17 races....

9 first places and 8 non finishes = 9 * 10 = 90 points and the chamionship

17 second places = 17 * 8 = 136 points and no championship

And when winning is everything I predict you'll see a lot more non-finishes than last year - either as people take more risks to get past another car or because the cars are pushed even closer to the limits.

Yes - does seem odd.

Assuming 17 races....

9 first places and 8 non finishes = 9 * 10 = 90 points and the chamionship

17 second places = 17 * 8 = 136 points and no championship

That is just crazy :thumbdwn:

Worse yet:-

9 firsts, 8DNFs = 90 points and a championship

8 firsts, 9 seconds = 152 points and no championship.

And years where 1 or 2 drivers sweep up most (all but 1 or 2) or all of the wins between them aren't that rare, particularly in the last 15 or so.

And when winning is everything I predict you'll see a lot more non-finishes than last year - either as people take more risks to get past another car or because the cars are pushed even closer to the limits.

Maybe thats the idea?

Better TV?

I'm not agreeing BTW - just tring to understand the logic.

And a driver that has a good start to the season could be declared champion by race 10 or 11 !

Madness. Yet the Constuctors stays as it is - so we have 2 different ways of scoring in the same series. Work that out!!

As has already been said - you make a great start to the season win 5,6 races, then have problems in the rest, meanwhile the opposition catch up but only win 4 races, with lots of 2nds and 3rds. But you're the Champ, they're the Chumps!!

I'm sorry, but Bernie has far too much influence - he's only meant to be the Promoter. He shouldn't be interfering in the rules and regs.

Makes less sense than a bag of nonsense in a library full of nonsense............

Makes less sense than a bag of nonsense in a library full of nonsense............

So you're not a fan then?

I think the phrase " If it aint broke, don't fix it" springs to mind.

I think it is a good idea for a brand new series e.g. Formula 2 or the one with Football teams, but not the well established F1. F1 will now be an Entertainment Show and NOT a Sport.

WTF is the troll and spanky smoking?

Seriously the changes alone is enough to blow the season open. This simply undoes all that, and coupled with Donnelly and co will land Ferrari with another season of trophies.

Coupled with the financial turmoil, this will drive viewers away, and lead to F1 dying a death the same was as WRC.

NOW can people see F1's fixed?

I'm sorry, but Bernie has far too much influence - he's only meant to be the Promoter. He shouldn't be interfering in the rules and regs.

Have you ever seen a more extreme case of 'small man syndrome' ?

Without sitting on the fence too much, I can see the argument for both sides.

I presume in an ideal world, most F1 drivers would like to drive to win races, not just finish regularly on the podium, so rewarding the driver with the most wins isn't unreasonable.

Equally, the above system does not reward the driver who consistently throughout the season finishes in the top two or three.

I think F1 does need a shake-up of some description. Apart from a couple of races of races last season, including the finale, F1 is knocked into a cocked hat for excitement by Moto GP and World Superbikes.

Makes less sense than a bag of nonsense in a library full of nonsense............

So you're not a fan then?

Puting it bluntly .... NO!

Its like 2 weeks before the world cup FIFA suddenly announce a round robin system and the team scoring the most goals wins.....

Why did they not increase the number of points for a win from 10 to say 12 or 15 and decrease the 2nd place from 8 to 7 thus increasing the gap from the 2 they had to at least 5 points, giving a greater emphasis on winning which is the aim of this ludicrous idea....

Edited 18 March, 200917 yr by WeirdKerr

Because it was Bernie's idea, and his ideas always win because they are the best. Case closed

Its deffinately odd and I'm not a fan of the changes but I do think it will give the viewers a little more to see. However at the same time, ok they will need to push for first place, but with a restricted budget they will need to go careful at the same time etc.

It actually makes no sence but hey who am I to say!

I think the phrase " If it aint broke, don't fix it" springs to mind

but it is broke :confused: may not be the best solution but fewer and fewer people are watching F1 "cos it's boring" and this'll at least mean drivers are less willing to take the points for 2nd or 3rd place finish

I honestly don't know anyone who's actually come out totally in favour of this idea. I think it has annoyed the cognocentii, and will just confuse the casual viewer.

In the 70's or early 80's the drivers would use the best 7 results in each half of the season to decide the champion. In 1991 the points system was changed to 10-6-4-3-2-1 because it was felt that too many championships were won by drivers who had won fewer races (sounds familiar). Why not go back to giving a larger points gap between 1st & 2nd?

/\ started 1983, because the 1982 champion only won one race. Of course that rather ignored the fact that no-one won more than 2 races in 82.