andrew wrote:Having drivers knowing when to say enough is enough and settle for getting the car home for a good points haul rather than keep pushing and make a mistake and loose all points is surely better for the sport.
Nope. That's what makes dull processions and boring races.
Win or nothing was exactly what made racing so great in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. Once they became point-pickers F1 became boring.
In the good old days, winning a GRAND PRIX really meant something, for the team, for the driver, for the fans. Drivers who managed to achieve that were respected and praised as much as championship winners. Gilles Villeneuve for example. Always all or nothing, several wins, but greater than many WDC.
Now winning means nothing because all that matters is final score which decides what sponsor will put his sticker on car that will carry No1 next season.
Bernie's logic is ok, and it could be translated into point system too by awarding win with let's say 3 times more points than second place. Let them fight, make calculations equal to pointless cruising and you'll have real racing that will separate man from boys, average drivers from true masters.
First place 120 points, second 40, third, 20 etc.