Formula 1: Are Medals Better than Points?

During the week, Bernie Ecclestone has insisted that his medals idea will be in place for the 2009 season. I've been thinking about this for a while now, and I am struggling to decide whether I would want to see it happen.

For anyone who isn't aware, Mr. Ecclestone is proposing that the current points system should be scrapped, and a system where the driver who wins the most races in a season is the champion. If there is a tie, then it would go down to who has the most second places, third places, and so on.

Take the 2008 season, for example. Felipe Massa and Lewis Hamilton would have gone into Brazil with five wins each, and both drivers would be fighting for the win and, ultimately, the championship. Under the medals scheme, Felipe Massa would be this year's world champion.

However, I have already noticed a few problems with this idea. The biggest being that there are only a handful of teams who are able to win races and challenge for the podium positions.

What happens to the smaller teams who are unable to challenge for the top positions? They will come away from the season with nothing, as the chance of a sneaky point for eighth won't be available.

The new system would also penalize consistency. For example, a driver who finished in second place at every race of the season would be classified behind a driver who won one race and crashed out of the rest.

In my eyes, this is not right. Reliability is an important factor in Formula 1 and, as the old motto goes, to finish first, first you have to finish.

Team orders would also start to be used much more often, as a higher position, or win, will be much more important. Team orders may be banned, but that didn't stopped Ferrari in Shanghai. Using of them will become more widespread throughout the field.

Recently, the Formula 1 website Pitpass had a viewer's poll to see how many people agreed with Bernie's proposal. About 95 percent said they disagree; whatever way you look at it, that's a vast majority opposed to the idea.

Yet there are two sides to every story, and I can see some benefits of the medals idea. The main goal of any driver in the field is to win, and therefore it makes sense that the driver who wins the most races in a season has done the best job.

The 2003 season provides a good example here. Kimi Raikkonen managed to keep the championship battle going to the final race, despite only winning one race compared to Michael Schumacher's six.

It also provides an incentive for a driver to push for the win, and not settle for a safe second place. In theory, overtaking should increase, and there should be many more close battles on the track.

But, no driver concedes a race deliberately, and it is often only when they know they have no chance of winning that they settle for a lower position, so I'm unsure about this point.

The use of this system would be very similar to how the Olympics are run at the minute, with the country winning the most gold medals coming first. Then again, the Olympics is a huge event, with many small countries being able to pick up a handful of medals in the obscure sports.

Then again, this season, fourteen drivers managed to score podiums, so it might not be as difficult for the midfield teams as I first thought.

Despite these reasons, I would rather see the points system stay; there are too many problems with the medals idea. I can see some of the potential benefits, but Formula 1 is more than just winning, especially for the smaller teams. Anyway, points have provided some great championship battles since 1950, so why change it now?