Yesterday’s FIA announcement that double points will be awarded for the last race of 2014 was a worrying sign Formula One’s dependence on gimmicks has become an addiction.
It was met with howls of derision from F1 Fanatic readers. Over 300 comments, the vast majority of which sharply critical of the plan, appeared on the article in less than 12 hours.
Some expressed the hope that this was not a realistic proposal, merely an exercise in off-season headline-grabbing, such as the suggestion that artificial sprinklers could be used to create more wet weather races.
I am not so optimistic. The sprinklers plan was concocted solely by Bernie Ecclestone and mentioned to a few reporters to guarantee F1 a few column inches in the winter months.
But the plan to double points for the final race of the season was unanimously approved by F1’s new Strategy Group and the Formula One Commission, and rubber-stamped by Jean Todt himself.
“These changes are immediately applicable, given the mandate assigned to the FIA President at the last World Motor Sport Council meeting, held on 4 December in Paris,” the FIA press release noted. Double points for the last race of 2014 will happen unless all concerned take their sensible pills over the holidays.
The decision to devalue 18 of the 19 races on the 2014 F1 calendar was taken “to maximise focus on the championship until the end of the campaign”.
One would not have to be unduly cynical to note this unexpected rules change coincided with Abu Dhabi’s relocation to the end of the season. Have the Yas Marina circuit owners coughed up some extra money for a double-points end-of-season ‘spectacular’?
Nor should it be forgotten that the teams’ FIA entry fees are directly linked to the number of points they score. That may diminish hopes the new rule will be weeded out before the V6 engines fire up in Melbourne in 94 days’ time.
But there remains the possibility that those in charge will realise the self-defeating folly of introducing a rule purportedly to make F1 more appealing which the vast majority of fans actively dislike.
In the social media era the FIA, FOM and teams have no excuses for failing to be aware of popular opinion. The reaction against the new rule has been voluble and extremely negative.
At the time of writing 90% of almost 600 responses to this F1 Fanatic poll are against the plan: a point made by The Times in its story on the new rules*.
It sends a depressing signal that those in charge of F1 no long view it as a ‘sport’ but merely as ‘entertainment’ – something to be manipulated by any means necessary to produce a storyline.
This is why so many fans oppose the plan so strongly and will no doubt continue to put those complaints to the teams and the FIA on Twitter, Facebook and every available avenue over the coming weeks.
It is a worrying trend in the development of Formula One’s rules. When a football match ends nil-nil a cry does not go up for goals to be widened for any team which is struggling to score. Yet in DRS that was F1’s response to the difficulty of overtaking.
If a football season is decided before the concluding matches, do they increase the points for the final game? Of course not.
Those running F1 need to have the some faith in their core product, wean themselves off their addiction to gimmicks and work at the deeper problems affecting the sport. Such as the negative effect aerodynamic turbulence has always had on the racing, and why F1 has gone 18 years without a full grid of cars.
*Subscription required
Comment
- IndyCar’s determination to complete every racing lap is an example to F1
- FIA’s sweeping changes vindicate Mercedes’ belief Hamilton was “robbed” of title
- F1’s sprint race rules change won’t end pole position confusion
- Call F1’s championship finale tainted, but not its deserving new champion
- For the sake of the title fight, F1 must get a grip on its track limits problem
Browse all comment articles
Image ?? Ferrari/Ercole Colombo
Craig Woollard (@craig-o)
10th December 2013, 10:20
I don’t think there’s anything to add to that. I think you speak for the vast majority of us there Keith.
Craig Woollard (@craig-o)
10th December 2013, 10:21
I should say though, I hope somebody who has a direct contact number to Jean Todt or whoever sees this.
Kelsier (@kelsier)
10th December 2013, 11:07
That election was a scam and Todt is at the core of this problem.
Pandaslap (@pandaslap)
10th December 2013, 18:06
@kelsier Yup.
Nick (@nick-uk)
10th December 2013, 18:31
@kelsier Todt won the election fair a square! It was a vote based election, if people wanted someone else in charge they should have voted for… what was his… name….
… oh wait…!
If F1 is as boring as 2013 in 2014 I’m going to sack it off completely and just look at the results online rather than waste my time being insulted by the FIA, who seem to think I have the attention span of a goldfish and need these entertatinment orientated gimmicks to keep me interested. The irony is, all these things they’re doing to make it better… have all but killed it dead.
babis1980 (@babis1980)
10th December 2013, 11:09
If they want to go forward with this at least they should do it only for constructors points. It is the reasonable thing to do.
But they won’t because they are after a season finale “spectacular” like 2007 and 2008. But 2010 finale was great to, which was in Abu Dhabi and at the time there weren’t gismos like DRS and double points. Only a russian guy with good top speed and no mistakes.
F1 is so easy to be great for the spectator. The only thing FIA should do is let them race.
No DRS. No Double points. Yes to testing. Let the drivers race at 100% not at a DELTA.
And please…… bring back a tyre war!!!
Metallion (@metallion)
10th December 2013, 11:22
Although the driver’s championship is what people are interested in, I feel that this rule could be even worse for the constructors championship. It could have a huge impact on smaller teams financially. They could lose out on millions of important prize money just because one race awarding more points than another.
Also, testing and tyre war would probably spell death to the small teams in the sport.
AlexT (@alext)
10th December 2013, 20:43
No DRS. No Double points. Yes to testing. Let the drivers race at 100% not at a DELTA.
And please…… bring back a tyre war!!!
AlexT (@alext)
10th December 2013, 20:43
COTD!
Lancer033 (@lancer033)
10th December 2013, 21:07
second (minus the tire war bit)
Gerry
11th December 2013, 4:14
+1
Retired (@jeff1s)
10th December 2013, 12:18
(Shivering)
Why not just give an extra 100000 points to the winner of the last race, so every driver can be world champion and points-record scorer, FIA? Sarcasm!
It’s a nightmare. All for marketing (permanent numbers) and entertainment (double points) instead of tradition and sport.
Poul Winther (@poul)
10th December 2013, 13:47
I think you said the only word that was missing:
Exactly what this is. We’re all taken for bloody fools!
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
10th December 2013, 12:23
Nothing to add, yeah.
F1 needs to avoid this decisions. They want to catch new fans, but all they are getting is the hardcore ones leaving, and gaining nothing.
F1 wasn’t broken, yet they are overfixing it. It’s another terrible idea coming from the people that since 2011 have ruined the sport beyond repair and now our once beloved sport is as fake as a 3 dollar bill.
They are pushing the boundaries. I don’t know how much more I can go… 2014 was getting really exciting with all the prospects of new engines and new regulations. But before it started, it’s already a farce.
I’ll be rooting with my whole heart that Vettel (or anyone) seals the title before Abu Dhabi. The earlier they do, the better.
Ryan Fairweather
10th December 2013, 13:01
I believe all the gimmicks started when they started tinkering with qualifying back in the early 00’s. Qualifying was boring so they spiced it up, fair enough it was.
However even with all the gimmicks they still fail to realise the root cause of the issue is that the cars cannot overtake each other without assistance, which is fundamentally wrong. There is too much at stake for them to fix the problem, so they just constantly patch it up. It will come unstuck eventually and I hope it does.
mantresx (@mantresx)
10th December 2013, 16:05
@fer-no65 I wouldn’t worry too much about this rules, they tried to do the same in 2005 with one set of tyres for qualy and race after Schumacher dominated 2004, this is obviously a knee jerk reaction and I don’t expect it will last more than one year.
Palle (@palle)
19th December 2013, 20:05
Next thing the FIA will introduce a rule stating that in any case they will create a rule to make sure that the title will be decided on the very last lap of the last race, so don’t bother to watch the first 18 races of the season or the first 54 laps of Abu Dhabi for that matter;-)
FIA is so embarrassing for all of F1!
Jeanrien (@jeanrien)
10th December 2013, 14:55
It feels like we should soon decide not to watch a race, all together to make the point that fans should be listen to by FIA … Would probably be difficult, but really something to be considered in my point of view. More and more stupid decisions are taken lately without any consideration for real fans, what a pity !!!
Jerry Moore (@duckbyte)
10th December 2013, 17:17
One of the most exciting and heartbreaking finishes in recent F1 history was the 2008 race in Brazil where Massa lost the World Championship on the last corner of the last lap of the last race. If it ain’t broke – don’t fix it!
Luth (@soulofaetherym)
10th December 2013, 17:36
He’d have won the championship with this rule as well xD.
Casanova (@casanova)
10th December 2013, 17:51
But this plan would make that sort of finale more likely in future years!
@HoHum (@hohum)
10th December 2013, 19:25
@casanova, no this plan would double the 7 point bonus for the winner.
Casanova (@casanova)
11th December 2013, 8:27
@hohum
No, nail-biting season-closing deciders would be more likely, since it is more likely a pair of rivals will be within 50 points of each other than 25 coming into the final race.
Aditya (@adityafakhri)
10th December 2013, 17:35
@keithcollantine, I read Vettel’s comment elsewhere so I’d like to know other drivers view on this. I believe you’ll update this. And Webber seems to be picking the right season to hang his helmet off…
TMF (@)
11th December 2013, 9:12
yeah, to me it feels they wanna get rid of the long-term fans with all the gimmicks. I was excited about 2014 but now I’m sort of becoming indifferent towards F1.
Joshua Mesh (@joshua-mesh)
10th December 2013, 10:25
I dont mind this. What ever improves the show and entertainment value for me.
James Allen (@jamesallen1705)
10th December 2013, 10:28
It won’t improve anything, the race will be the same, just means that championship battle will last a race longer (which would have made no difference this year or 2011)
Mark Young (@terry-fabulous)
10th December 2013, 10:33
I’m with you Joshua, no two races are alike. 72 laps of Monaco is worth more then 50 odds laps of Bahrain, just as two hours at Singapore compared to 75 minutes at Monza.
And the pressure of a season finale with the title of the line is the greatest challenge of all.
Let’s not stop here. Double points for Monaco, Double points for Suzuka, Half points for Monza until the race is extended to 450km and then they can have the same points.
There is nothing sacred about points – For years drivers had to sacrifice their lowest scores, and the change from 10 to 25 for a win made all the scores in the past 60 odd years redundant.
So lets do it! –
James Allen (@jamesallen1705)
10th December 2013, 10:42
Just because no two races are alike doesn’t mean they are worth more, is 72 laps of Monaco really worth double when it is one of the harder places to overtake? That would reward a driver of a quick one lap car but poor race pace… Seems stupid to me. Why do you rate Monza lower? it is the hardest on the brakes because of the high speeds the cars reach, as well as cars with lower downforce. The pressure for the title fight is still the same regardless of whether it is worth double points or not. Drivers should not need more incentive to win, it should already be there. Finally, changing the points for every race is a very different thing to changing points for one race.
Mark Young (@terry-fabulous)
10th December 2013, 11:01
James when they talk to the drivers about their career highlights, Monaco wins always pop up. Clearly they consider it more challenging and rewarding then other races.
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that all Grand Prixs are not equal and then rewarding them differently. Every race series in the world has their showpiece events, let’s reward the drivers who come out on top.
Love your comment about drivers shouldn’t need the incentive to win. Totally agree! And with double points in the final race, there will be even more incentive to win since the stakes will be so much higher!
I am actually, can’t believe this, excited about the 2014 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix!
Bookoi (@bookoi)
10th December 2013, 11:21
@terry-fabulous
But that’s exactly the point – it’s completely subjective. There’s no specific attribute that makes one race ‘worth more’ – it’s completely arbitrary.
When all races are worth the same amount, the championship is a true reflection of who was the most consistently successful across the entire season. Is that not what we want for the champion of our sport?
PhilEReid (@philereid)
10th December 2013, 11:45
@terry-fabulous We’ve found Jean Todt’s F1 Fanatic account!
matt90 (@matt90)
10th December 2013, 12:57
Does that mean that in football, any match played against the previous year’s champion should be worth double? Makes sense, right?
Piotr Koteryl (@stigrennfahrer)
10th December 2013, 21:14
@terry-fabulous – I completely agree. I am very sad to see such negative responses to the rule changes. I can tell they have come as a surprise, but I think we could do with a shake-up. Let’s be honest, if you speak to the average person on the street, they won’t know very much, if anything about F1 – doubly so at University (and I can say this, as I am there at the moment). F1 needs some more excitement, and the FIA are trying to get it. Don’t knock it until you see it work!
Piotr Koteryl (@stigrennfahrer)
10th December 2013, 21:15
*see it at work
Mark Young (@terry-fabulous)
10th December 2013, 22:07
@philereid OUTSTANDING!!
Mike Craig
10th December 2013, 13:00
That’s an awful way of looking at things… To use the football analogy again – it’s 3 points for a win. By your reasoning if Crystal Palace beat Man Utd away they should receive double points because it’s a bigger feat.
On a more F1 note though, one of the (usually) interesting things with the cars each year is how their cars are better suited for one track over another. Under these rules unless your car is competitive and you’re in the points in Abu Dhabi at the end of the season you may as well just not bother with the previous 2 races…
FlyingLobster27
10th December 2013, 16:32
Comparing numbers of laps and race times eludes one basic and fundamental point: all Grands Prix (except Monaco for time constraints because the track is so slow) are roughly 305 km in length. So all Grands Prix ARE equal, in race distance. The number of laps is only the division of 305 by the length of the track, which is why “laps led” statistics covering several races mean nothing IMO, and the race time is a reflection of how intrinsically fast a circuit is.
No two circuits are the same (except Tilkedromes, “ich habe two long straights, connected by hairpin, fast floving sector here, slow technical stadium sector to end ze lap, totall original ist, I’ve never done anyzing like zis…”), agreed, but it is the variety that makes the championship beautiful, and scoring less at a track just because it’s faster makes no sense – before you know it, Italy will move their GP back to Imola or to the streets of Rome, just to slow the cars down enough to bring the points haul up. Another football analogy: facing San Marino isn’t the same as facing Spain, but beating either will get you the same number of points in your Euro/WC qualy pool – but not in the FIFA ranking. You should take a look at how the FIFA rankings are calculated, I think you’ll find it brilliant.
zak misiuda (@)
10th December 2013, 17:13
Ha! Try getting that one past the tifosi! Monza is on of the cornerstones of formula 1 as well as Monaco and Silverstone, if any those three should award double points not some random race in an oil mine that has only appears on the calender the last 5 years!
The FIA need a kick up the ar*e and remove this stupid rule emidietly.
JCost (@jcost)
11th December 2013, 6:36
Not two people are alike either, I’m not a fan of Monaco, I’d rather have two Italian GPs at Monza than one in Monte Carlo.
DaveD (@daved)
10th December 2013, 17:09
Joshua,
I can’t agree with this you on this: it will NOT improve the “show”. This is starting to make F1 appear like that fake Wrestling in the States where they script who will win and don’t even pretend it’s real…just “entertainment”.
I think they did it for two reasons: 1) to keep more people alive in the WDC till the end of the season if possible and 2) because of extra money changing hands from the Abu Dabi crew.
JCost (@jcost)
11th December 2013, 6:40
@daved Indeed. I grew up as a WWF fan, not for the same reasons I love F1 and I don’t think this rule will make F1 any better, actually it will only highlight the current state of F1: Reliance on gimmicks… DRS, weired tyre rules, fragile tyres…
Palle (@palle)
19th December 2013, 20:19
@daved: +1, they discredit F1 by pulling it down to “Wrestling” level. By this they damage F1 far more than the some seasons occuring lack of tense excitement over the title contest to the end.
@HoHum (@hohum)
10th December 2013, 19:29
@joshua-mesh, Intriguing, please explain how you think this will improve the show and be more entertaining?
Joshua Mesh (@joshua-mesh)
10th December 2013, 21:34
Because in my own opinion makes it that much harder to win the title 2/3 through the season. That means that unlike this year, I will have something to look forward to hopefully just that little bit further into the year.
I dont think this will change the sport or races in any way. It is purely to improve the show in the latter part of the season.
Its just my opinion. You can have your own.
TMF (@)
11th December 2013, 9:10
@joshua-mesh – even more entertaining would be if they race all year and then make a lottery to pick the only race that counts towards the championship.
Joshua Mesh (@joshua-mesh)
11th December 2013, 9:40
I dont think so at all. Thats extreme.
James Allen (@jamesallen1705)
10th December 2013, 10:26
I hope this gets revoked. IMO if they want to make the racing tighter they should spread the money the teams earn at the end of the season evenly, I think as it stands there is a jump of £10mil per constructors championship place. That is too much, and should be abolished or at least significantly reduced perhaps to £500-100K extra per position. I would also go as far as scrapping DRS (there is more to F1 than overtaking, especially the boring motorway pass that DRS creates), introduce re-fuelling and make the tyres harder.
Carlitox (@carlitox)
10th December 2013, 10:49
That’s why I praised and was very happy that a budget cap is to be introduced in 2015. Still, a more even distribution would be great to attract more teams. I’d keep DRS only if the rule is modified for the drivers to use it anywhere on the track, once per lap, to overtake or to defend. I wouldn’t bring back refuelling, heavy cars are a challenge for the drivers and the fact that they get lighter lap after lap is a challenge for the engineers. And I’d want normal tyres, like Bridgestones. One more thing, please reduce the number of people in a pitstop! There’s so many things that can be done instead of this cr*p. Signed: a furious F1 Fanatic.
James Allen (@jamesallen1705)
10th December 2013, 10:56
I love the budget cap (as long as it is properly monitored and not set to high a cap of $1bn – to use an extreme number – would make no difference). I would only bring back refuelling to do something about pitstops being a factor in the race. I do not like the fact that a driver can gain a fuel tenths on his competitors because his team are more efficient at changing tyres. A limit in pit crews could have that effect, and then mean that the benefits of no refuelling could be seen. If only fans had more power…
Spencer Ward (@)
10th December 2013, 13:38
That’s the thing, why have the FOTA Fan Forum, which many of you on this site may have been to.
It’s basically a complete waste of time. A fake attempt to say we are listening to the fans. The F1 Strategy Group is made up of, if not current FOTA members but previous ones as well.
Again as I begin to look more and more into this it continues to leave me gutted and wondering why bother with a “sport” that is run by an 83 year old joke of a man, and members that ignore the thoughts of fans.
James Allen (@jamesallen1705)
11th December 2013, 9:32
It’s a shame that fans are not listened to more often. The only case I can think of recently is when Bolton Wanderers (I am a fan) changed their shirt sponsor from QuickQuid to a local company after massive backlash. Let’s hope the same happens here.
Mike Craig
10th December 2013, 13:03
Oh I like the idea of once per lap anywhere; or similar to KERS maybe, for a limited period of time. Would allow the drivers to use it where they feel it benefits them more… Short straight to get close and save the rest to escape after, all on a long straight to catch up; and it allows the driver ahead to defend as they see fit.
Luth (@soulofaetherym)
10th December 2013, 17:41
You begin the race with 300 (let’s say) seconds of DRS. Spread it however you like, whenever you like.
It’d be a non-recharging ERS, only more effective and more limited.
Craig Woollard (@craig-o)
10th December 2013, 22:07
They have that in IndyCar, and it rarely improves the racing.
Chris (@tophercheese21)
10th December 2013, 10:27
To me, this is just ridiculous.
Why are the FIA determined to make the sport more of a lottery? With rapidly degrading tyres (last season), fuel restrictions, and now this!?
This one decision has the potential to make or break a smaller teams budget for the proceeding year. Not to mention the title fight.
Say for example, Toro Rosso are having another usual season, and end up scoring only 8 points in total through 18 races. What if a massive crash, or several cars experience reliability issues, or both, occurs and Caterham manage to score enough points to beat Toro Rosso in the constructors.
Just like that. A seasons worth of work gone down the drain. Now Caterham won’t have deserved it, but they got it, because they lucked into it.
cjpdk (@cjpdk)
10th December 2013, 17:46
@tophercheese21
Precisely
If this goes into effect, it could potentially result in 1 driver being the champion despite performing, on average, worse than second place
melkurion (@melkurion)
10th December 2013, 10:32
Thought I’d make an overview of the worldchampionship history if this rule had come into effect from the very start.
1950: No change, champion Farina won the last race
1951: No change, champion Fangio won the last race,
1952: No change, champion Ascari won the last race
1953: Fangio would be champion instead of Ascari. Even though Ascari would still have scored more points over the season (46.5 vs 29.5+8= 37.5) The rule of the time of only the top results from each half of the season counting would mean Fangio would lead Ascari 36 to 34.5 due to winning the last race
1954: No change, Hawthorn won the last race, but this would not make up his deficit to Fangio, he would displace Gonzalez as the runner up though.
1955: No change, champion Fangio won the last race
1956: Moss would be champion over Fangio having won the last race, the score would be 35 Moss to 30 Fangio, instead of 27 Moss to 30 Fangio .Both had to discard points due to the rules, actual scores were 28 Moss vs 33 Fangio. Fangio would have had to ditch his second place at the last race if you count discarding his worst result as discarding his worst finish. If you say discarding his worst result would mean discarding the least points he would discard a victory, losing 8 but gaing 12 due to his double scoring second place at the last race. Still leaving him runner up at 35 to 34
1957: No change, Moss won the last race but this would not be enough to catch Fangio
1958: Moss would displace Hawthorn as champion having won the last race. The score would be Moss 49 vs Hawthorn 48 (55 for hawthorn before discarding points)
1959: No change, Bruce Mclaren won the last race but ended up only 6th in the standings Tony brooks would equal Jack Brabhams score of 31, but Brabham would still take the title on countback, having one more 3d place
1960: No change, Moss won the last race, but didn’t contest the full season
1961: No change, Innes Ireland won the last race but was only 6th in the standings, the top 3 either didn’t start the last race or retired. Dan gurny would be 3d over Moss
1962: No change champion Hill won the last race Bruce Mclaren would beat Clark to second instead of being 3d
1963: No change champion Clark won the last race
1964: No change, Dan Gurney won the last race but was only 6th in the standings
1965: No change, Richie Ginther won the last race but was only 7th in the standings, the top 3 all retired
1966: No change, Surtees won the last race, but it would not be enough to promote him from second to first over Brabham even if Jack would not also pick up double points for finishinh second
1967: No change, Jim Clark won the last race, But Hulme and Brabham finished 3d and 2nd respectivly leaving the standings unaltered
1968: No change champion Hill won the last race
1969: No change, Hulme won the last race but was only 6th in the standings, runner up Ickx would not overtake Stewart even though he was second and Stewart only 4th in the final race
1970: Jacky Icks won the last race, this would have given him the championship at the expence of deceased Jochen Rindt
1971: No change Cevert won the last race, he would have overtaken Ronnie Peterson as runner up, but could not threaten Stewart
1972: No change, Jackie Stewart won the last race, but double points would still leave him well behind Fittipaldi
1973: No change, Peterson won the last race, promoting him to second over Fittipaldi, butt Stewart still takes the crown
1974: No change, Carlos Reutermann won the last race but was only 6th in the standings
1975: No change champion Lauda won the last race
1976: No change, Mario Andretti won the last race but was only 6th in the standings, champion hunt finished 3d, enough to give him the title
1977: No change, Hunt won the last race but was only 5th in the standings
1978: No change, Gilles Villeneuve won the last race but was only 9th in the standings
1979: Giles Villeneuve would be champion over Schekter having won the last race by 56 over 51
points instad of 51-47 to scheckter ( 60-53 before discarding points) This is because Sheckter retired from the last race and scored no points
1980: No change champion Jones won the last race
1981: Alan Jones would win his second title at the expence of Piquet, beating him 55-52 instead of losing 50-46 (reuterman split the two at 49 promoting Jones from 3d to 1st with this rule)
1982: No change, Alboreto won the last race but was only 8th in the standings. Watson would move up to second in the championship from 3d with 45, but Rosberg would still take the title with 46
1983: No change, Patrese won the last race but was only 8th in the standings. Piquet finished 3d, his closest rivals retired
1984: Alain prost would win the last race and take the championship from Lauda 80.5 vs 78 (originally 72 vs 71.5 for Lauda)
1985: No change, Rosberg won the last race, the top 2 retired, but rosberg would remain 3d in the championship
1986: No change champion Prost won the last race, Piquet would beat Mansell to second in the standings having finished the last race as runner up with Mansell retiring
1987: No change, Berger won the last race but was only 5th in the standings, the top 3 didn’t score
1988: No change, Prost and Senna would both have 96 points. But Senna would still win the title having one more win then Prost
1989: No change, top 2 both retired, Boutsen won but was not in championship contention at 5th in the standings
1990: No change Piquet won the last race but would remain third, Prost would go from 71 to 75, but still lose to Senna at 78
1991: No Change, champion Senna won the last race, runner up Mansell was second
1992: No change, Mansell would still be champion by an enormous margin, but Berger winning the last race would have promoted from 5th to 3d and Schumacher would be promoted from 3d to runner up
1993: No change, Prost would remain champion over Senna by 105 to 82 instead of 99 over 73
1994: No change, championship contenders Hill and Schumacher both retired
1995: No change, Hill won the last race after Schumacher retired but was way to far behind
1996: No change, champion Hill won the last race
1997: No change, Villeneuve was third, but schumacher retired,winner and runner up Hakinnen and Coultard were not in the top of the standings
1998: No change, champion Hakkinen won the last race
1999: No change, champion Hakkinen won the last race
2000: No change, champion Schumacher won the last race
2001: No change, champion Schumacher won the last race
2002: No change, champion Schumacher won the last race
2003: Raikonnen would beat Schumacher to the title with 99 to 94
2004: No change, Monyoya won but was only 5th in the standings
2005: No change, champion Alonso won the last race
2006: No change, champion Alonso was 2nd in the last race, challenger schumacher only 4th, winner Massa was too far behind
2007: No change, champion Raikonnen won the last race
2008: As already stated, Massa would beat Hamilton to the title
2009: No change, champion Vettel won the last race, but champion Button was 3d and too far ahead
2010: No change, champion Vettel won the last race, Hamilton would be promoted to 3d over Webber
2011: No change, champion Vettel won the last and no changes in the top 3
2012: Alonso would be champion over Vettel with 296 over 289 instead of losing 281 to 278, Button would be 3d instead of 5th having won the final race
2013: No change, champion Vettel won the last race
melkurion (@melkurion)
10th December 2013, 10:40
So to recap, in 63 years this rule would have meant a different outcome in 10 years.
Fangio would lose the 1956 title, but gain the 1953 tile, leaving him with 5
Ascari would only be a single instead of a double champion
Hawthorn would lose is one tilte
Moss would be a (deserved ) double champion
Icxk would be champion over Rindt, though I doubt he’d be very happy with it
Gilles Villeneuve would be champion
Scheckter would not
Alain jones would eb a double chamion
Piquet would be a double champion instead of a triple
Lauda would be a double champion instead of a triple
Prost would have 5 titles instead of 4
Schumacher would lose one giving him 6
Raikonnen would be a doucble champion
Alonso would be a triple champion
Hamilton would not eb a champion
Massa would be
Erivaldo moreira (@erivaldonin)
10th December 2013, 12:09
Vettel would lose one giving him 3
OmarR-Pepper (@)
10th December 2013, 12:49
@melkurion
There is not “deserving” champion, even if you are a fan. Champions are champions. Period.
DC (@dujedcv)
10th December 2013, 17:23
@omarr-pepper I beg to differ!
matt90 (@matt90)
10th December 2013, 19:35
I disagree. Moss would have been a deserving champion. Somebody like Kazuki Nakajima, for example, would not. Luckily I can’t think of an undeserving champion, but that doesn’t mean that Moss isn’t far more worthy of the title than other non-championship winners (and perhaps even some championship winners). Particularly if never being able to string together a single season with half-decent reliability is what keeps you from the title.
Craig Woollard (@craig-o)
10th December 2013, 10:46
Well done for that! Interesting to see how different the Hall of Fame would look!
Psychotext (@textuality)
10th December 2013, 10:56
Excellent work. Thanks. :)
Metallion (@metallion)
10th December 2013, 11:00
Another thing to take into consideration is the effect it would have on the constructors’ championship. There it’s not only the winner who matters, but the top 10. For the smaller teams it could have a huge impact financially if they lost or gained a couple of places because of the idiotic double points rule.
Considering that it would only affect the winning driver in 10 years out of 63 I think this rule could have a much greater impact in the teams standings.
Gwan
10th December 2013, 11:42
Very interesting, thanks for the hard work calculating all of that!
@HoHum (@hohum)
10th December 2013, 19:48
Yes,right, let’s try it again with double points for,let’s say, the 1st. race.
D (@f190)
10th December 2013, 12:10
The only problem I see is that it’s never been a rule so it’s hard to predict how it would have played out. were it always a rule many of those results could still be different. Teams may have saved a new engine or planned new updates, had they known the final race was double points. There’s many small things which could have impacted on the result had a team known it was worth double points.
hawkii (@hawkii)
10th December 2013, 12:36
The thing that seems to be overlooked is what difference it may have made further down the standings. It’s generally a lot closer towards the midfield at the end of the season, and given how important the prize money is to those teams, it could completely have changed things around for some teams.
melkurion (@melkurion)
10th December 2013, 13:13
@erivaldonin yes, forgot that one :)
@omarr-pepper you are right ofcourse, Though if someone asked me who was the betetr driver, Moss or Hawthorne, I would say Moss. hence the “deserved” between the brackets, as in Sir Stirling Moss was so goo he would have deserved at least one title
@f190 Yes, it’s purely a mathematical exersice, had the teams been aware of the rules of the time things would likely have played out differently, it’s still fun and interesting in my oppinion though :)
@hawkii I’ll see later if i can add complete stats, but it’s a lot of work
hawkii (@hawkii)
10th December 2013, 14:50
Oh yeah totally, I wasn’t trying to subtly suggest you do it when I said it. As with the FOM TV cameras though, the middle of the pack battles seem to be being forgotten about.
D (@f190)
10th December 2013, 17:36
yeah I get what you’ve done and thanks for taking the time to put it together. I didn’t mean to sound like what you had done was pointless ! Huge kudos for taking the time to work it out, it was great to read and I agree really interesting to see.
I just wanted to mention how the smallest things can have a huge impact. To add to that I guess the biggest change would be attitude. I mean if a driver only needed to finish say 5th to win the championship, then the team may go easy on the setup. With this rule in place that may not have been possible. Also the attitude of rival teams. If a team feel they are out of championship then they may go all in for the last race, turn everything up to 11 and have a blow out or a crash pushing to the limit. Or that may be the only reason some drivers won the final race, because the championship contender was taking it easy.
What I really dislike about the new rule is it just seems too big of a gap. There’s 14 points different between 1st and 2nd ! Thats like driver A winning and Driver B coming 4th/5th at any other race !
George O'Donnell (@georgeod)
10th December 2013, 13:36
Excellent post. However you’ve considered the outcome (which to me is the most relevant thing to consider).
The FIA have changed the rules “to maximise focus on the championship until the end of the campaign” which is something completely different (and entirely ridiculous). How many more people would have watched the final race on TV? How many more people would have tuned into the wireless to listen to the final race? How many people would have bought the newspaper the next day to see the result?
Jeffers`
11th December 2013, 11:35
Great research, would be interesting to see the old results using the new points system then compare it again!.
Though I’d still be against it!
WilliamB (@william-brierty)
10th December 2013, 10:37
@keithcollantine – What you must remember, Keith, is that this site is full of petrolheads. We will watch every race, no matter what, and therefore the FIA doesn’t care about us. Who the FIA does care about is Johnny-casual-F1-watcher who turned over to Holby City during the recent Vettel domination, and even to the most illogical individual, that is bad for F1, especially since casual F1 viewers make up the largest percentage of the viewership. If we can win back Johnny-casual-viewer by ensuring Vettel doesn’t win the championship several rounds from the end, than frankly it is worth fobbing off the occasional racing purist. F1 lost a large percentage of its casual viewership in 2013, and no matter how you cut it, that is a grave threat to the health of F1. And to be honestly, if it is a choice between gimmicks and another season like the one we just endured, then bring it on, FIA. It is desirable? No. Is it elegant? No. Is it necessary? Absolutely.
Psychotext (@textuality)
10th December 2013, 10:58
I’m seeing a lot of petrolheads turning off too. It happened to WRC and it can easily happen to F1 too.
As for why F1 lost so much casual viewership in 2013, that’s got far more to do with TV deals (no longer on free to air channels in many countries) than it has to do with the racing. Otherwise numbers wouldn’t have been down at the start of the season too.
WilliamB (@william-brierty)
10th December 2013, 17:52
@textuality – I disagree. What happened in WRC was completely unrelated. The dismantling of the 1980s formula of WRC, which was frankly unsafe, robbed it of much of its spectacle, and that, coupled with sporadic TV coverage even turned the hardcore away. That is not about to happen in F1, and anyway, if someone turns off F1 in protest, they don’t fit my definition of a petrolhead. The impact of the TV deals was confined to 2012, where there was a apreciable drop in viewership, although some of that has since recovered. However is someone who likes F1 (likes not loves), and watches it when it comes on the BBC about to endure weekend after weekend of tedium at the hands of Sebastian Vettel just to satisfy their normal routine? No. A dull season is seeing the casual viewership tun off, and F1 very much needs to satisfy that viewership if it is to be financially sustainable and not just an elaborate way of burning petrol. Quite frankly, gimmicky F1 is a lot better than no F1 at all.
Psychotext (@textuality)
10th December 2013, 18:14
Has it recovered? I’d be genuinely interested in seeing some data on that because what I saw towards the middle of the season said otherwise.
ElBasque (@elbasque)
11th December 2013, 18:10
do you watch the pinnacle of every form of motorracing, in case someone accuses you of not being in the cool kids “petrolheads” group?
i have a friend who is elbow deep in his Audi engine every weekend, affixing new suspension parts for all his mates, and going on trackdays, yet he never watches F1; but id take a punt than he’s much more a “petrolhead” than me, who watches F1 every race weekend and endures the sport he loves being dismantled year after year. Watching one series of racing religiously (that conveniently you do), does not automatically give you authority to dish out/take away that particular moniker.
Tbh this attitude of “people who dont like it anymore werent real car fans anyway” is stupid, elitest and doesn’t make sense. Many that are leaving are the ones who are angered the most by the dilution of a sport we remember as great from only a few years ago. And they are angered the most because they care so deeply for it, and what we had. I’d say that this latest direction the sport is taking is driving both the most ingrained viewership away, and a portion of the more casual viewers, coming back over to F1 in recent seasons “because they saw Rush/Senna and they watched it as a kid a few times”. Leaving a block of people that watch it but don’t have that an emotional connection to it and will watch it because on the surface its still cars racing around a track, and its called the same name; and a slice of increasingly embittered and embattled enthusiasts.
I think the more casual set of people get a bad rep by us “harder core”. I don’t think every “fillthy casual” can be placated with gaudy bells and whistles and not care one iota about the racing integrity season after season. Even someone who saw a few races through the 90s, for example, would turn back over if songs-of-praise get cancelled, and acknowledge that what they’re seeing is a watered down form of what they remember.
You say that the casual viewership will all saunter off if it wasn’t for the gimmicks, but i’d say the very same gimmickry is turning away a considerable portion of these people too. On top of a considerable slice of “petrolheads”.
Lotus49 (@lotus49)
10th December 2013, 11:54
I don’t want to be picky but, Holdby City is not on at the weekend. That said, however, I did turn over during a qualifying session the other week to watch Strictly Come Dancing.
WilliamB (@william-brierty)
10th December 2013, 17:39
@lotus49 – As an individual who watches both, I probably should’ve known that.
OmarR-Pepper (@)
10th December 2013, 12:54
@william-brierty I’m a petrol-head with no money to give to the FIA, so my turning F1 off is not important for Mr. Ecclestone. That’s the saddest thing.
Optimaximal (@optimaximal)
10th December 2013, 13:01
@william-brierty I’d go as far as saying the FIA is the one who *does* care about the petrolheads – they know the true fans are the ones who will stick with the sport.
It’s FOM (and their CVC paymasters) who are chasing the casual viewer because more viewers = more money. All these methods to mix up the sport invariably seem to originate from Bernie’s camp.
Mark Hitchcock (@mark-hitchcock)
10th December 2013, 13:34
@william-brierty
This is exactly the problem most people have with gimmicks like this. Instead of encouraging casual fans to embrace the sport as it is, these rules are attempting (without any consultation with the mystical casual fans) to entice them in by adding more elements of luck and randomness.
This doesn’t encourage causal fans to become dedicated followers of the sport, so once the excitement of a double points finale has worn off they’ll move on to something new and the sport has suffered for nothing.
WilliamB (@william-brierty)
10th December 2013, 17:37
@mark-hitchcock – True, but gimmicky F1 is better than no F1 at all. There are a huge number of people who like F1, but don’t love it, and it is these people who start channel hopping once they see Vettel has a lead of over ten seconds. F1 needs to stop that from happening. We need as casual viewership every bit as much, if not more, than we need the hardcore viewers. A double points finale may just tip the balance in favour of the underdog in the dying seconds, and it is in the creation of a formula for a sporting comeback that we see the creation of a formula for sporting memories. Every sports fan in the world knows the story of 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix, even if they’d never heard of Felipe Massa before, and we need something of that nature, whether artificially and inelegantly produced or not, to maintain causal interest in this era of Vettel monopoly.
THE LIMIT
10th December 2013, 18:19
Some good points, but the fact remains that this sport seriously risks losing even its core fanbase due to several factors. In recent years one major mistake in the UK was to allow Sky Tv to show F1 races and to charge such high prices for the service. At the time, people were comparing it to football and how Sky helped promote the Premier League. Forgotten in all of this witches brew was the fact that Sky Tv show nearly every match played in the Premier League live, and that’s a lot of games, compared to seventeen grands prix. And even then, the BBC were allowed to broadcast some of those races. It was, in short, Ecclestone’s and Sky’s way of shafting the British general public.
You can get away with screwing people if they feel they are getting value for money, when the season is a nail-biter and you have several drivers going for the title. However 2013 was the opposite, as was 2011. You knew who was going to win three months before the season finale in Brazil.
Another factor is the way in which this sport continues to treat its fans. Personally I think it is nothing short of disgusting. I will never buy the argument that fans, whether they be fanatics or moderates, should be treated with contempt. Its all well and good satisfying corporate big wigs with fancy suites and endless bottles of Mumm, but its the 95,000 other poor souls who dropped a consider chunk of change for their day out that should be given undivided attention.
F1 should use social media more, Facebook and Twitter are great, but I am talking about Youtube and showing more of the recent grands prix. Make the sport more excessible and less aloof, less stiff and snobbish.
I have never been a fan of the engine regulations. I don’t like the idea of going to V6 powerplants anymore than I did when the sport went to V8 engines back in 2006. They sound, in short, like a swarm of hornets compared to the old V10’s or V12’s. Afterall, F1 is supposed to be a racing series, not a knitting competition.