The news came today that a new points system will be implemented from the start of the 2009 F1 season. While it will use the 10-8-6-etc. structure of the previous iteration, the raw number of wins of a driver will now decide the championship.
Initially, it seems that this idea is critically flawed, as it allows for a driver to be very inconsistent throughout a campaign, yet still walk away with the championship. However, further analysis proves it is not such an alarming change after all.
The idea almost certainly originates from Lewis Hamilton winning the 2008 championship despite winning just five events to Felipe Massa's six. That made it apparent that the old system didn't necessarily reward the fastest driver, but instead the most consistent racer or the team that was the most reliable.
Initially, Bernie Eccelstone wanted to introduce a "medal" system, which would only award points to the podium finishers. What we get with the new system is a hybrid of both the old 10-8-6-etc. system and a top-three system.
In effect, the driver who wins the most races will win the championship. While the points accumulated will decide the championship if a tie occurs, the system is based on outright victories, not so much on consistency.
Of course, the negative of this is that it leaves open the possibility of rather bizarre scenarios like a driver winning the championship by midseason, or someone being named champion despite having only participated in six or seven events (assuming he won them all).
But this criticism seems rather far-fetched and doesn't take into account the general trend of F1.
Generally, it is the driver who wins the most races that wins the championship. This is due to the fact that, usually, the driver who wins is the fastest or the most consistent. This is especially evident in modern F1, where reliability has become key.
Thus, a situation in which a driver only finishes a couple of races but takes the championship seems unlikely.
Having said that, consistency was important in the 1980s. Under the new system, seven out of 10 seasons during that decade would have had a different outcome. Prost would have been a five-time champion and Nigel Mansell a three-time best. Clearly, evaluating solely wins in that period would have led to a very different outcome.
But the 1980s were during the "Turbo Era," when circumstances were very different than those of today. One side of the field ran turbos on their engines, and they were much faster than the normal aspirated machines, but far more unreliable.
That meant that the turbo-using cars would often finish only a handful of races each season. In that way, the normally aspirated cars would benefit from their unreliability. But generally, they could earn the most points, because in races that they did finish, they typically took a high position.
But this situation does not persist. Ferrari was often criticized for their poor reliability last year, but they only had four mechanical failures on race day.
Compare that to the Renault team (that used turbos) in 1982: They had 14 mechanical failures. Under the new system, Alain Prost would have won the championship. Under the old system, he finished fourth.
13 Comments
Loading more comments...
This comment and all replies have been deleted This comment has been deleted Undo delete