Subscribe to this blog's feed« In harm's way | Main | Popularity contest »
March 18, 2009
Victories paramount in F1
By DAVID GREEN
To paraphrase Mark Twain: Everybody complains about racing championship points systems, but nobody does anything about it. Not until now, anyway.
Starting this season, the Formula One driving championship will be determined by who wins the most races. The global grand prix series will retain its former points formula and will use it to determine second, third and so forth. The usual points system will be used as a tie-breaker, and the constructors title will also retain the old system.
Had the new system been in effect last year, Felipe Massa -- with six victories -- would have been the champion, not Lewis Hamilton, who won five races and secured the title with a last-race, last-lap, last-turn pass that gave him just enough points to beat Massa, the winner of the season-finale Brazilian Grand Prix, by a single marker.
It's a radical departure from racing tradition, which in just about every form has always awarded points and let the championship title shake out. Some systems reward winning more than others, but in virtually every form, it has been not only possible, but quite likely, that the driver who won the most races might not finish first in points.
I think I'm in favor of this idea, but I can't help but have reservations -- for example, regarding last year's duel between Massa and Hamilton. I think traditional systems make more sense when there's a closely contested fight among multiple race winners.
On the other hand, it seems silly when a driver wins an unusually high number of races but does not claim the championship. The best example in modern times, to me, is 1985, when Bill Elliott won 10 times but lost the Winston Cup title to three-time winner Darrell Waltrip.
I think I'd prefer a system that more generously rewards winners -- something along the lines of 100 points to win, 60 points for second, 40 for third, 30 for fourth, 20 for fifth, 15 for sixth, 10 for seventh, 5 for eighth, 4 for every other driver finishing on the lead lap, 3 for drivers finishing one lap down, 2 for drivers finishing two laps down and 1 point for drivers finishing no more than three laps down.
Such a system, I think, would be more dramatic in the event of two or more drivers with a similar number of victories -- and less of a radical departure from tradition.
Of course, I don't run any of these circuses. But I can dream.
March 18, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
It works pretty well in F1, where only two or three cars really contend every week.
I don't have any briulliant thoughts here. I realize that wins are good things, but I also think that first is one place ahead of second, just as 23rd is one position ahead of 24th. For that reason, my tepid endorsement goes to 43-42-41 etc. Other scoring matters on which I have opinions: no points for qualifying - qualifying isn't racing. How about no points after the first 20 or 25 places? Why have guys out there running duct tape specials, 88 laps down? I also like points for laps led, but not the current system. Dump the points for leading a single lap. Award points if you lead a minimum number of laps - maybe 10% of laps? More points if you lead 50% of the laps? Most laps led gets 10, next most gets 8, etc?
And most of all: give the season champ, however determined, a big trophy and a check for $500,000. Take all the rest of that money and put it into purses for the individual races. The financial rewards for stick and ball players winning championships are pretty negligible, but they still try hard, because to those guys, it's about winning, not money. Why should race teams be different?
Posted by: Doug in CA | Mar 18, 2009 1:43:38 PM
David,
First, Hats off to F1 for not even considering anything as ridiculous as a "Chase," for their title. Only NASCAR would implement something that lame.
I'm pretty much in favor of a most wins title. I think NASCAR has become so points conscious that many times it seems as if they're driving not to lose points rather than driving to win. It makes individual events that much more important.
Posted by: Keith | Mar 19, 2009 10:02:53 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Advertisements
