Monday, March 12, 2007
Missing the point
Bernie has recently said that he thinks the point system encourages drivers to be conservative and content with second place rather than going for the win. I think we've known this to be true since they initiated the system. It was developed to reward consistency. As he says, it means there is less overtaking. So it got me wondering: why was it introduced? And who introduced it? I imagine at the time Bernie probably agreed with it. And I think it must have been one of the many anti-Schumacher measures from which the sport is still suffering. Michael was just winning by so much in 2002 that there had to be some way to get the opposition closer. The new points system did do this: remember Raikkonen almost won in 2003, even though he only had one victory. (It would've been a catastrophic error if he had won.) Since then we've had various other efforts to slow Schumacher down, but what do we do now that he's gone? Well, we should just go back to the old system. Bernie's comments are like the first steps in this process (as they always inevitably are).
Comments:
<< Home
I seem to remember that the rules were changed for a completely different reason than Michael's winning (but did have a knock on effect) or at least they were justified that way.
The rules were changed, I think to give more points to the lower teams. It was noted that at the time there were (as now - just different ones) 3 clear leading F1 teams. These clear leading teams almost always swallowed the 6 points paying positions. It was argued that by exending the points just by two places new teams would be drawn into the fight. Especially because there was no clear 4th team (as now) they felt that by always including points from these other teams it would invigorate the back of the grid. In fact it could be seen as having enabled Renault to slowly ascend.
I particularly think that this system worked well. It used to be a rarity that you would get somebody outside the top 3 scoring points. Now it is the norm. And it's much more varied.
However first place should be rewarded more. I originally argued for 12 points to be assigned to first place which I think would be reasonable.
I must say that I have been turned onto the idea of Keith Collantine's which is that you reward people in order that they finish. So the winner is the driver with the most wins, if there is a tie then you go to the one of the two with the most second places, etc. The same could work for teams.
It's really really simple to explain to people, and seems to make a lot of sense.
The rules were changed, I think to give more points to the lower teams. It was noted that at the time there were (as now - just different ones) 3 clear leading F1 teams. These clear leading teams almost always swallowed the 6 points paying positions. It was argued that by exending the points just by two places new teams would be drawn into the fight. Especially because there was no clear 4th team (as now) they felt that by always including points from these other teams it would invigorate the back of the grid. In fact it could be seen as having enabled Renault to slowly ascend.
I particularly think that this system worked well. It used to be a rarity that you would get somebody outside the top 3 scoring points. Now it is the norm. And it's much more varied.
However first place should be rewarded more. I originally argued for 12 points to be assigned to first place which I think would be reasonable.
I must say that I have been turned onto the idea of Keith Collantine's which is that you reward people in order that they finish. So the winner is the driver with the most wins, if there is a tie then you go to the one of the two with the most second places, etc. The same could work for teams.
It's really really simple to explain to people, and seems to make a lot of sense.
Ah, yes, I had a feeling I'd forgotten something. It was always Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, wasn't it?
I would argue that there have been 4 top teams in our recent history. Ferrari, McLaren, Willams and Benetton(now Renault) have exclusively been the top four placed constuctors from 1989 to 2005 (I think).
Actually not to rain on your parade but in those 16 years 5 times it hasn't been true. (or 6 depending on how you count these things). It just feels true because it happened more the other way.
98 Jordan
99 Stewart
00 BAR
01 Sauber
05 Toyota
(Could be 6 because in 99 Jordan was in 3rd as well).
98 Jordan
99 Stewart
00 BAR
01 Sauber
05 Toyota
(Could be 6 because in 99 Jordan was in 3rd as well).
I concede my memory may not work so well these days.
Thanks for the correct stats, it is good to be on top of these thing!
But i agree it obviously just is my perception on these things.
To me those 4 afore mentioned teams were the dominant teams of the 90's era if you like, I was pleased when Jordan and Stewart did well, but for me somehow in my memory they were still midfield teams.
Thanks for the correct stats, it is good to be on top of these thing!
But i agree it obviously just is my perception on these things.
To me those 4 afore mentioned teams were the dominant teams of the 90's era if you like, I was pleased when Jordan and Stewart did well, but for me somehow in my memory they were still midfield teams.
I agree with you totally, Renault / Benetton / Williams / Ferrari and McLaren have always seemed to be the top teams for me as far as I can remember. I do think that I have always felt that one of them has always been in the doldrums for a few years and that it's rarer for all four of them to be powerful at the same time. To me the current situation is more normal, three strong one weak for some random reason. But always you'd be foolish to bet against them coming back into form.
Post a Comment
<< Home
