Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
even bernie admits that the double points system is unfair
but suppose a driver is 'given' the championship because of the double points in the last race when with normal points he wouldn't have got it ?
for me , and I suggest for many others , that driver would never have been champion but had instead a stain on his reputation for allowing it to happen , even though commercial pressures would inhibit him from doing a stirling moss
to the optimist a glass is half full ; to the pessimist a glass is half empty ; to the F1 engineer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be
I agree. Just imagine the horror of either Hamilton or Rosberg having a lead of 13 points and the 'other one' winning the last race (50:36) and grabing the championship by a point. Or one of the two having a margin of 26 points and then suffers a mechanical DNF in the last race while the other one grabs it by a double point win. How that could spoil a wonderful wonderful start into an exciting season between two drivers (well as long as they remain as dominant as they are) going neck at neck till the end of the season.
Even if one of the drivers manages to pull of the WDC win by the 2nd last race, I'd still prefer that than the artificial finale that could turn everything on its head.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II #Team44 supporter
I CBA to do the maths but it could be that the double points allows the trailing driver to move up toa draw, then be made champion on countback wins that would really suck!
They know the rules ahead of time. They better be prepared for About Dhabi. If someone loses it on double points....thems the rules
“To be able to actually make something is awfully nice”
Bruce McLaren on building his first McLaren racecars, 1970
“I've got to be careful what I say, but possibly to probably Juan would have had a bigger go”
Sir Frank Williams after the 2003 Canadian GP, where Ralf hesitated to pass brother M. Schumacher
if we follow OP logic through, then any champion, regardless of the number of points per last race, is a non-champion, and you can argue that they simply got lucky in that last race, right?
it is a technical sport, some luck is involved, and if you became a champion by gaining enough points in the last race to beat the competition, then the number of points per last race doesn't really matter, because those points are there for the taking by anyone, it simply helps more drivers to have the chance of grabbing the title in that last race, that is all there is... helps to keep the fight going till the very end, if you don't like that, then in Bahrain the safety car and PMs crash was also a bad experience for you, because it almost cost LH his deserved victory, right?
Kind of reminds me of the format of some American sports though; I mean you can win every regular season game but if you don't perform in the super bowl it amounts to nothing. The opposition could have just sneaked in to the playoffs but peaks in the super bowl and that makes them the champions.
I've always kind of had a problem with that concept - it doesn't seem 'fair' to me, whatever that actually means - but if you look at the final race of the season as a kind of super bowl, it's not without precedent.
jz11 wrote:ok, then let me ask you this - what stops your "real" champion from gaining points or winning that last race?
p.s. by sport I mean - rules are the same and known by everyone - work within them and win!
ok , so next year whoever wins the first race is the champion ; everybody is ok with that rule ? it's just as artificial
there always has been and always will be an element of luck in F1 , every good sport has that ; but allowing the element of luck to possibly determine the champion in one race seems to me ridiculous
if bernie wants to spice up the racing why not give double points at certain races with different characteristics
eg monaco, spa , susuka and the last race which moves each year maybe ; both drivers and cars can be better suited to one or the other which evens things out a bit
personally I am all for every event is equal , but accept there are commercial pressures
and with regard to the super bowl type idea perhaps we should add the idea of allowing teams to have the pick of new drivers in a reverse order at a fixed price as well
to the optimist a glass is half full ; to the pessimist a glass is half empty ; to the F1 engineer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be
lebesset wrote:
there always has been and always will be an element of luck in F1 , every good sport has that ; but allowing the element of luck to possibly determine the champion in one race seems to me ridiculous
now I have to use the "dude"
dude, are you for real? any and all championship where the title can be won at the last round - will fall into your described category
double points don't give any driver in particular higher chance in winning championship in that last race, there is simply a possibility that there will be more of them, but each individual driver still needs his target number amount of points to secure the title compared to his rival, because the rival is also getting his double points - A>B = 2A>2B, simple as that
superbowl and playoffs, in my opinion, can only distantly be compared to a single race, since the idea for playoffs and regular season is to qualify for better spots (relatively weaker opponents) in the actual knock out rounds, it is like quali in F1 - you increase the odds of winning the race why qualifying higher, but the guy in the last row can potentially still win, which is nowhere near the double-points-in-last-race argument, if you would compare last race to that, then it would be like - only the drivers, that can potentially win champion title, are allowed to race in that last event, and the winner of that race will be declared the champion, which is totally not the case with the current double points system
Massa had BAD LUCK because somebody in front of Hamilton lost position. Thus, Hamilton had luck there.
Doesn't change the fact they've battled enough throughout the year that despite the element of luck, Hamilton
deserved that championship. So would have Massa if he came out on top.
Alonso had bad luck getting stuck behind Petrov a couple of years ago. Vettel got lucky with that, because if Alonso
had passed him, Alonso might have been lucky to secure the championship in the final race. But again - its unlucky,
but it's racing. He couldn't pass, so he ended to the 'correct' position. Wasn't 'good enough' to keep the title spirit
alive.
It was bad luck last year with the popping Pirelli's. I think the pirelli issue played greater into the championship outcome
then a double-points finish will result. The popping tires were unpredictable, and influenced the races beyond control.
The double-points finish really isn't in my list of favourites. I'd prefer there would be no double-point finish. Unfair? I dunno. It's just how it is. It would be unfair if only the GP winner would get double points. But points are the same for everyone, so - in the end it's simple; the points are the same should there be another GP.
Imagine the Abu Dhabi gp would not be the last, but there would be New Yersey or Mexico. So now, it's like 2 gp's in 1 weekend. With the benefit of less engine /technical wear.
So to be honest, i think the teams should be happy. And they know it from the start, so they can anticipate, thats why they are saving engines.
It's just part of the competition, it's how the game is played. And factually, it keeps excitement in the game. It'll drive the driver that's leading the championship to do the best he can to get enough points the final race can't take his championship. So he'll HAVE to have at least a 50-points lead, preferably 51 points. If he can't do that, he'll have to do the best he can to win the final gp, but the same goes for the runner-up, hell, perhaps even a third or even fourth contender.
As said, it's the same for everyone. Last year there was lot of comment on teams not participating in Q3 (or Q2 if you will) because they can select tires and play it safe for race benefit. There's no such games this year - you can't play safe or you'll lose out. Yes they 'save' the cars by retiring. But frankly, it's more or less equal to a blown engine wihout engine change penalty. Before, they just let the engines go hoping to finish, and it's a DNF.
Now, they won't risk blowing the engine because it'll cost them later on. So essentially, it's the same.
Instead of blowing the engine up, they just retire, the race result is the same - but without the danger of losing out on the next race by a grid penalty.
So in the end, i'm neutral on the double-points. I think it doesnt really matter, it's all the same, except it makes the final race somewhat more 'exciting'. But the same result would have been an extra race without the double points. Hey, we even lost the Yersey race for this year, so it's essentially the same, so I think no need for complain, at all.
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
Massa had BAD LUCK because somebody in front of Hamilton lost position. Thus, Hamilton had luck there.
Doesn't change the fact they've battled enough throughout the year that despite the element of luck, Hamilton
deserved that championship. So would have Massa if he came out on top.
Alonso had bad luck getting stuck behind Petrov a couple of years ago. Vettel got lucky with that, because if Alonso
had passed him, Alonso might have been lucky to secure the championship in the final race. But again - its unlucky,
but it's racing. He couldn't pass, so he ended to the 'correct' position. Wasn't 'good enough' to keep the title spirit
alive.
It was bad luck last year with the popping Pirelli's. I think the pirelli issue played greater into the championship outcome
then a double-points finish will result. The popping tires were unpredictable, and influenced the races beyond control.
The double-points finish really isn't in my list of favourites. I'd prefer there would be no double-point finish. Unfair? I dunno. It's just how it is. It would be unfair if only the GP winner would get double points. But points are the same for everyone, so - in the end it's simple; the points are the same should there be another GP.
Imagine the Abu Dhabi gp would not be the last, but there would be New Yersey or Mexico. So now, it's like 2 gp's in 1 weekend. With the benefit of less engine /technical wear.
So to be honest, i think the teams should be happy. And they know it from the start, so they can anticipate, thats why they are saving engines.
It's just part of the competition, it's how the game is played. And factually, it keeps excitement in the game. It'll drive the driver that's leading the championship to do the best he can to get enough points the final race can't take his championship. So he'll HAVE to have at least a 50-points lead, preferably 51 points. If he can't do that, he'll have to do the best he can to win the final gp, but the same goes for the runner-up, hell, perhaps even a third or even fourth contender.
As said, it's the same for everyone. Last year there was lot of comment on teams not participating in Q3 (or Q2 if you will) because they can select tires and play it safe for race benefit. There's no such games this year - you can't play safe or you'll lose out. Yes they 'save' the cars by retiring. But frankly, it's more or less equal to a blown engine wihout engine change penalty. Before, they just let the engines go hoping to finish, and it's a DNF.
Now, they won't risk blowing the engine because it'll cost them later on. So essentially, it's the same.
Instead of blowing the engine up, they just retire, the race result is the same - but without the danger of losing out on the next race by a grid penalty.
So in the end, i'm neutral on the double-points. I think it doesnt really matter, it's all the same, except it makes the final race somewhat more 'exciting'. But the same result would have been an extra race without the double points. Hey, we even lost the Yersey race for this year, so it's essentially the same, so I think no need for complain, at all.
I think you are overlooking the point that bad luck/good luck should be random
incidentally I also disagree with your reading of massa having bad luck ...in reality he nearly had good luck caused by someone staying out on slicks and overtaking hamilton but it didn't quite happen ; or is not getting good luck defined as bad luck
to the optimist a glass is half full ; to the pessimist a glass is half empty ; to the F1 engineer the glass is twice as big as it needs to be
