planetf1.com

Some intresting facts for you all in the off week before we head to japan for the Japanese grand prix.

> on this years championship standings 5 drivers would remain In the championship fight going into next weeks Japanese grand prix. Hamilton. Bottas. Leclerc. Verstappen and vettel.
> vettel would be eliminated from the championship picture after Russia if we did not have a point for fastest lap. This is only due to the amount of points remaining.
> only Ferrari and Mercedes are in line to win the constructors championship. This can be wrapped up in japan with Mercedes only needing to outscore ferrari by 7 points to seal the constructors title for a record 6th time in a row.
> the current championship becomes a 2 horse race after japan if Leclerc. Verstappen and vettel fail to outscore hamilton by more than 3 points (Leclerc) 6 points (verstappen) and vettel will be eliminated if he fails to outscore hamilton by 24 points.
> in the old championships. (2003-2009. (10;8;6;5;4;3;2;1). The title picture becomes a 2 horse race after japan if Leclerc. Verstappen and vettel fail to outscore Hamilton by 2 (Leclerc) 4 (verstappen) and 9 points. (Vettel)
> in the old championship format of 1991 - 2002. (10;6;4;3;2;1) it already is a 2 horse race. With the first champion crowned as Mercedes wrapped up the constructors championship in Russia with there 1-2.
> back to the present championship. The top 5 of Hamilton. Bottas. Verstappen Leclerc and vettel are scoring an average of over 12 points per race 6th place pierre gasley is scoring a average of 4 points at this present time.
> If hamilton wins in japan and bottas does not finnish 2nd. The old championship from 1991-2002. (10;6;4;3;2;1) hamilton will be crowned world champion with 4 races left.

I have a database that I can roll off the individual championships from each era if people are interested in seeing where the championship points situation is for each era from the 1991 era to present day.

wire2004 wrote:Some intresting facts for you all in the off week before we head to japan for the Japanese grand prix.

> on this years championship standings 5 drivers would remain In the championship fight going into next weeks Japanese grand prix. Hamilton. Bottas. Leclerc. Verstappen and vettel.
> vettel would be eliminated from the championship picture after Russia if we did not have a point for fastest lap. This is only due to the amount of points remaining.
> only Ferrari and Mercedes are in line to win the constructors championship. This can be wrapped up in japan with Mercedes only needing to outscore ferrari by 7 points to seal the constructors title for a record 6th time in a row.
> the current championship becomes a 2 horse race after japan if Leclerc. Verstappen and vettel fail to outscore hamilton by more than 3 points (Leclerc) 6 points (verstappen) and vettel will be eliminated if he fails to outscore hamilton by 24 points.
> in the old championships. (2003-2009. (10;8;6;5;4;3;2;1). The title picture becomes a 2 horse race after japan if Leclerc. Verstappen and vettel fail to outscore Hamilton by 2 (Leclerc) 4 (verstappen) and 9 points. (Vettel)
> in the old championship format of 1991 - 2002. (10;6;4;3;2;1) it already is a 2 horse race. With the first champion crowned as Mercedes wrapped up the constructors championship in Russia with there 1-2.
> back to the present championship. The top 5 of Hamilton. Bottas. Verstappen Leclerc and vettel are scoring an average of over 12 points per race 6th place pierre gasley is scoring a average of 4 points at this present time.
> If hamilton wins in japan and bottas does not finnish 2nd. The old championship from 1991-2002. (10;6;4;3;2;1) hamilton will be crowned world champion with 4 races left.

I have a database that I can roll off the individual championships from each era if people are interested in seeing where the championship points situation is for each era from the 1991 era to present day.

Interesting.

Which season had most drivers still within a mathematical chance of glory with say... 4 races to go?

Mikeyg123. I dont have that to hand I only have this seasons to hand. But I would presume off the top of my head. It would be 2010. Didnt we have vettel. Webber. Alonso. Button and hamilton with a mathematical chance of winning the title in Brazil. (2nd to last race of the season.)

If Hamilton wins in Japan and Bottas has a DNF, the title chase is all but over. Bottas would need to win all 4 remaining races and rely on Hamilton having 4 DNFs (i.e. very unlikely).

I am a firm believer that the race winner should get far more points than 25 - something like 30 (vs the same point scoring system we currently have for 2nd and lower). There is simply not enough reward for winning a modern F1 race imho.

I mean, let's assume Hamilton wins in Japan and then has 4 DNFs in the final 4 races, and Bottas wins the WDC by winning the last 4 races. It'd be 10 wins to 7 wins...certainly not fair and rewarding for being the dominant driver in the season imho...there is too much focus on reliability in the sport imho - something that is typically beyond the control of the driver. Punish the WCC, but not the driver.

dpastern wrote:If Hamilton wins in Japan and Bottas has a DNF, the title chase is all but over. Bottas would need to win all 4 remaining races and rely on Hamilton having 4 DNFs (i.e. very unlikely).

I am a firm believer that the race winner should get far more points than 25 - something like 30 (vs the same point scoring system we currently have for 2nd and lower). There is simply not enough reward for winning a modern F1 race imho.

I mean, let's assume Hamilton wins in Japan and then has 4 DNFs in the final 4 races, and Bottas wins the WDC by winning the last 4 races. It'd be 10 wins to 7 wins...certainly not fair and rewarding for being the dominant driver in the season imho...there is too much focus on reliability in the sport imho - something that is typically beyond the control of the driver. Punish the WCC, but not the driver.

Yes, but it would also be Hamilton 4 DNFs, Bottas 1.

But I agree, I have always thought the system should be best 19 or similar from 21 races like the old days.

Johnson wrote:

dpastern wrote:If Hamilton wins in Japan and Bottas has a DNF, the title chase is all but over. Bottas would need to win all 4 remaining races and rely on Hamilton having 4 DNFs (i.e. very unlikely).

I am a firm believer that the race winner should get far more points than 25 - something like 30 (vs the same point scoring system we currently have for 2nd and lower). There is simply not enough reward for winning a modern F1 race imho.

I mean, let's assume Hamilton wins in Japan and then has 4 DNFs in the final 4 races, and Bottas wins the WDC by winning the last 4 races. It'd be 10 wins to 7 wins...certainly not fair and rewarding for being the dominant driver in the season imho...there is too much focus on reliability in the sport imho - something that is typically beyond the control of the driver. Punish the WCC, but not the driver.

Yes, but it would also be Hamilton 4 DNFs, Bottas 1.

But I agree, I have always thought the system should be best 19 or similar from 21 races like the old days.

This got me thinking about recent championships, I think only the 2016 title would have changed hands if you removed the two worst results from the championship contenders

mikeyg123 wrote:

wire2004 wrote:Some intresting facts for you all in the off week before we head to japan for the Japanese grand prix.

> on this years championship standings 5 drivers would remain In the championship fight going into next weeks Japanese grand prix. Hamilton. Bottas. Leclerc. Verstappen and vettel.
> vettel would be eliminated from the championship picture after Russia if we did not have a point for fastest lap. This is only due to the amount of points remaining.
> only Ferrari and Mercedes are in line to win the constructors championship. This can be wrapped up in japan with Mercedes only needing to outscore ferrari by 7 points to seal the constructors title for a record 6th time in a row.
> the current championship becomes a 2 horse race after japan if Leclerc. Verstappen and vettel fail to outscore hamilton by more than 3 points (Leclerc) 6 points (verstappen) and vettel will be eliminated if he fails to outscore hamilton by 24 points.
> in the old championships. (2003-2009. (10;8;6;5;4;3;2;1). The title picture becomes a 2 horse race after japan if Leclerc. Verstappen and vettel fail to outscore Hamilton by 2 (Leclerc) 4 (verstappen) and 9 points. (Vettel)
> in the old championship format of 1991 - 2002. (10;6;4;3;2;1) it already is a 2 horse race. With the first champion crowned as Mercedes wrapped up the constructors championship in Russia with there 1-2.
> back to the present championship. The top 5 of Hamilton. Bottas. Verstappen Leclerc and vettel are scoring an average of over 12 points per race 6th place pierre gasley is scoring a average of 4 points at this present time.
> If hamilton wins in japan and bottas does not finnish 2nd. The old championship from 1991-2002. (10;6;4;3;2;1) hamilton will be crowned world champion with 4 races left.

I have a database that I can roll off the individual championships from each era if people are interested in seeing where the championship points situation is for each era from the 1991 era to present day.

Interesting.

Which season had most drivers still within a mathematical chance of glory with say... 4 races to go?

Without checking I'd say 2010.

With four races to go in 2012, 6 drivers could mathematically win the championship.

With four races to go in 2010, 8 (!) drivers could mathematically win the championship

dpastern wrote:I mean, let's assume Hamilton wins in Japan and then has 4 DNFs in the final 4 races, and Bottas wins the WDC by winning the last 4 races. It'd be 10 wins to 7 wins...certainly not fair and rewarding for being the dominant driver in the season imho...there is too much focus on reliability in the sport imho - something that is typically beyond the control of the driver. Punish the WCC, but not the driver.

I feel like 7-10 is close enough that it doesn't strike me as unfair for the driver with 7 wins to be champion. If it was something like 3 wins to 10 then maybe, but with 7 and 10 you're getting pretty close to just going with Bernie's idea of Olympic medal count-back.

Ultimately, I think that how well you do when you can't win is just as important as how many times you win. Particularly since winning is often down to the car being the best on the day. Where you place when the car isn't the best is often the better showcase of driver ability.

I'm all for either best 19 results, or all results minus the two worst results. I'm also all for a win being worth 30 points.

I think I’d change the points lower down first. Seems mad also that there are only 6 points between 2nd and 4th. In a grid of only 20 cars, I wonder if a return to only 8 points paying positions might be better.

Exediron wrote:

dpastern wrote:I mean, let's assume Hamilton wins in Japan and then has 4 DNFs in the final 4 races, and Bottas wins the WDC by winning the last 4 races. It'd be 10 wins to 7 wins...certainly not fair and rewarding for being the dominant driver in the season imho...there is too much focus on reliability in the sport imho - something that is typically beyond the control of the driver. Punish the WCC, but not the driver.

I feel like 7-10 is close enough that it doesn't strike me as unfair for the driver with 7 wins to be champion. If it was something like 3 wins to 10 then maybe, but with 7 and 10 you're getting pretty close to just going with Bernie's idea of Olympic medal count-back.

Ultimately, I think that how well you do when you can't win is just as important as how many times you win. Particularly since winning is often down to the car being the best on the day. Where you place when the car isn't the best is often the better showcase of driver ability.

But should a win be devalued so much? I personally don't think so. F1, like any sport, is all about winning. 2nd is the first of the losers. If you've ever played competitive sports, you'll know what I mean. I'm also not a fan of everyone getting a point just for competing. Finishing last is last, you shouldn't get a reward for it. Instead, get nothing, and be told to do better next time.

Now, I understand that the cars are a big part of the equation of winning, and this is why the sport must become a formula sport, with identical engines and chassis, etc. Then it comes down to driver talent, and that alone (other than that most unfair of fellow competitors, "bad luck"). If F1 continues to go the tech route, then it will never be balanced and the same issues will keep repeating ad infinitum.

Anyone remember '89 when Senna was absolutely killing Prost but Senna had a lot of bad luck that ultimately, cost him the championship. I'm a firm believer that the best driver should be the One winning, and not losing due to lady luck. 2016 is another example where luck has helped the WDC win over the far better driver who just had a lot of bad luck.

The present points system was devised for commercial reasons rather than sporting reasons, after Schumacher wrapped the title up in September, I can't remember if it was 2002 or 2004, they devalued the points given for winning a race.

Now we are in a situation these past 3 seasons were Hamilton is wrapping the titles up with about 3 races to go basically because he's winning so many races, so let's go for reversed grids that severely limits the amount of races an individual driver can win, that way Liberty Media might have the preferred model of titles going down to the wire.

pokerman wrote:The present points system was devised for commercial reasons rather than sporting reasons, after Schumacher wrapped the title up in September, I can't remember if it was 2002 or 2004, they devalued the points given for winning a race.

Now we are in a situation these past 3 seasons were Hamilton is wrapping the titles up with about 3 races to go basically because he's winning so many races, so let's go for reversed grids that severely limits the amount of races an individual driver can win, that way Liberty Media might have the preferred model of titles going down to the wire.

It was 2002, they changed the regs to the 10-8 format from 2003

pokerman wrote:The present points system was devised for commercial reasons rather than sporting reasons, after Schumacher wrapped the title up in September, I can't remember if it was 2002 or 2004, they devalued the points given for winning a race.

Now we are in a situation these past 3 seasons were Hamilton is wrapping the titles up with about 3 races to go basically because he's winning so many races, so let's go for reversed grids that severely limits the amount of races an individual driver can win, that way Liberty Media might have the preferred model of titles going down to the wire.

The current points system is somewhere between the 2002 and 2003 system in terms of ratios. In my opinion it's probably about right.

I think it's most people preference to have championship seasons that go down to the wire?

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:The present points system was devised for commercial reasons rather than sporting reasons, after Schumacher wrapped the title up in September, I can't remember if it was 2002 or 2004, they devalued the points given for winning a race.

Now we are in a situation these past 3 seasons were Hamilton is wrapping the titles up with about 3 races to go basically because he's winning so many races, so let's go for reversed grids that severely limits the amount of races an individual driver can win, that way Liberty Media might have the preferred model of titles going down to the wire.

The current points system is somewhere between the 2002 and 2003 system in terms of ratios. In my opinion it's probably about right.

I think it's most people preference to have championship seasons that go down to the wire?

No it's based on the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system otherwise it should be 25-15-10-7.5-5-2.5.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:The present points system was devised for commercial reasons rather than sporting reasons, after Schumacher wrapped the title up in September, I can't remember if it was 2002 or 2004, they devalued the points given for winning a race.

Now we are in a situation these past 3 seasons were Hamilton is wrapping the titles up with about 3 races to go basically because he's winning so many races, so let's go for reversed grids that severely limits the amount of races an individual driver can win, that way Liberty Media might have the preferred model of titles going down to the wire.

It was 2002, they changed the regs to the 10-8 format from 2003

Cheers.

2002. Schumacher won the title in France. In July.

wire2004 wrote:2002. Schumacher won the title in France. In July.

That early?

The frustrations of F1 in how commercial based it is and the need to pan out a season, in fact motorsport in general dominance is seen as an evil, it's even being said in MotoGP how boring it's becoming because of Marc Marquez and that's down to his genius and not the machinery.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:The present points system was devised for commercial reasons rather than sporting reasons, after Schumacher wrapped the title up in September, I can't remember if it was 2002 or 2004, they devalued the points given for winning a race.

Now we are in a situation these past 3 seasons were Hamilton is wrapping the titles up with about 3 races to go basically because he's winning so many races, so let's go for reversed grids that severely limits the amount of races an individual driver can win, that way Liberty Media might have the preferred model of titles going down to the wire.

The current points system is somewhere between the 2002 and 2003 system in terms of ratios. In my opinion it's probably about right.

I think it's most people preference to have championship seasons that go down to the wire?

No it's based on the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system otherwise it should be 25-15-10-7.5-5-2.5.

Nope.

on the 2003 system it would be 25-20. As I said, the current system is in the middle.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:The present points system was devised for commercial reasons rather than sporting reasons, after Schumacher wrapped the title up in September, I can't remember if it was 2002 or 2004, they devalued the points given for winning a race.

Now we are in a situation these past 3 seasons were Hamilton is wrapping the titles up with about 3 races to go basically because he's winning so many races, so let's go for reversed grids that severely limits the amount of races an individual driver can win, that way Liberty Media might have the preferred model of titles going down to the wire.

The current points system is somewhere between the 2002 and 2003 system in terms of ratios. In my opinion it's probably about right.

I think it's most people preference to have championship seasons that go down to the wire?

No it's based on the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system otherwise it should be 25-15-10-7.5-5-2.5.

Nope.

on the 2003 system it would be 25-20. As I said, the current system is in the middle.

That’s right they increased the value of a win with the new points system closest to the pre 1990 and most used 9-6 points system.

2010- ; 25-18
2003-2009; 25-20
1990-2002; 25-15
Pre 1990; 25-16.6

Personally, 10-6 I felt over valued a win, hence Schumacher winning the title in July.

Johnson wrote:Personally, 10-6 I felt over valued a win, hence Schumacher winning the title in July.

Shouldn't a totally dominant driver win the title early? You can use any point system you like and Schumi would have won the title pretty early in 2002.

Exediron wrote:

Johnson wrote:Personally, 10-6 I felt over valued a win, hence Schumacher winning the title in July.

Shouldn't a totally dominant driver win the title early? You can use any point system you like and Schumi would have won the title pretty early in 2002.

My very quick and mental calculations see Schumacher winning the title a race later in 2002 under the current points system.

Exediron wrote:

Johnson wrote:Personally, 10-6 I felt over valued a win, hence Schumacher winning the title in July.

Shouldn't a totally dominant driver win the title early? You can use any point system you like and Schumi would have won the title pretty early in 2002.

EXACTLY.

The owners of F1 are worried that crowd and TV attendance will drop massively if the WDC is won earlier on in the year. It's long since stopped being a sport.

Yes 2002 was a freak year, not just in terms of Schumachers dominance but the failings and retirements of all his rivals. France was also race 11 of 17, so July was well past halfway back then.

Schumacher had 8 wins, two seconds and one third. But the real reason it was wrapped up so early was at that point Barrichello had 4 DNFs, Montoya 3 (who he won the WDC from in France) , Ralf 2, DC 3 and Kimi 7.

Johnson wrote:Yes 2002 was a freak year, not just in terms of Schumachers dominance but the failings and retirements of all his rivals. France was also race 11 of 17, so July was well past halfway back then.

Schumacher had 8 wins, two seconds and one third. But the real reason it was wrapped up so early was at that point Barrichello had 4 DNFs, Montoya 3 (who he won the WDC from in France) , Ralf 2, DC 3 and Kimi 7.

Exactly. Freak year, Rubens had 2 DNS for goodness sake, when was last time a top team at the top of their game had that kind of failure twice? It was circumstances and Schumie being in awesome form that contributed to this, but both these "ingredients" were needed to achieve that.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:The present points system was devised for commercial reasons rather than sporting reasons, after Schumacher wrapped the title up in September, I can't remember if it was 2002 or 2004, they devalued the points given for winning a race.

Now we are in a situation these past 3 seasons were Hamilton is wrapping the titles up with about 3 races to go basically because he's winning so many races, so let's go for reversed grids that severely limits the amount of races an individual driver can win, that way Liberty Media might have the preferred model of titles going down to the wire.

The current points system is somewhere between the 2002 and 2003 system in terms of ratios. In my opinion it's probably about right.

I think it's most people preference to have championship seasons that go down to the wire?

No it's based on the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system otherwise it should be 25-15-10-7.5-5-2.5.

Nope.

on the 2003 system it would be 25-20. As I said, the current system is in the middle.

No it's not, 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 transforms into 25-20-15-12.5-10-7.5-5-2.5-2-1 which is hardly any different from what we have now 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1, they took 2 points off second place and that's all you see which is hardly anything anyway, the points distribution below first place currently is 76 points, transposed from 10-8.... it would be 75.5 points, it's virtually the same, it's little to no different.

Johnson wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:The present points system was devised for commercial reasons rather than sporting reasons, after Schumacher wrapped the title up in September, I can't remember if it was 2002 or 2004, they devalued the points given for winning a race.

Now we are in a situation these past 3 seasons were Hamilton is wrapping the titles up with about 3 races to go basically because he's winning so many races, so let's go for reversed grids that severely limits the amount of races an individual driver can win, that way Liberty Media might have the preferred model of titles going down to the wire.

The current points system is somewhere between the 2002 and 2003 system in terms of ratios. In my opinion it's probably about right.

I think it's most people preference to have championship seasons that go down to the wire?

No it's based on the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system otherwise it should be 25-15-10-7.5-5-2.5.

Nope.

on the 2003 system it would be 25-20. As I said, the current system is in the middle.

That’s right they increased the value of a win with the new points system closest to the pre 1990 and most used 9-6 points system.

2010- ; 25-18
2003-2009; 25-20
1990-2002; 25-15
Pre 1990; 25-16.6

Personally, 10-6 I felt over valued a win, hence Schumacher winning the title in July.

You forget that under the 9-6-4-3-2-1 system only 11 out of 16 races counted so in fact wins were very important, it would be going more towards Bernie's medals system.

When it was decided that all races were going to be scored then they increased the win points from 9 to 10 to compensate for the lesser value given to wins in respect of consistent points scoring.

Exediron wrote:

Johnson wrote:Personally, 10-6 I felt over valued a win, hence Schumacher winning the title in July.

Shouldn't a totally dominant driver win the title early? You can use any point system you like and Schumi would have won the title pretty early in 2002.

It's never good for business though in case we kid ourselves that it's purely a sport.

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Johnson wrote:Personally, 10-6 I felt over valued a win, hence Schumacher winning the title in July.

Shouldn't a totally dominant driver win the title early? You can use any point system you like and Schumi would have won the title pretty early in 2002.

It's never good for business though in case we kid ourselves that it's purely a sport.

There is nothing to stop a dominant driver winning the title early now...

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Johnson wrote:Personally, 10-6 I felt over valued a win, hence Schumacher winning the title in July.

Shouldn't a totally dominant driver win the title early? You can use any point system you like and Schumi would have won the title pretty early in 2002.

It's never good for business though in case we kid ourselves that it's purely a sport.

There is nothing to stop a dominant driver winning the title early now...

For now but measures were taken to delay it as long as possible, in the future reverse grids I would say will put paid to early title wins which is my main worry.

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Johnson wrote:Personally, 10-6 I felt over valued a win, hence Schumacher winning the title in July.

Shouldn't a totally dominant driver win the title early? You can use any point system you like and Schumi would have won the title pretty early in 2002.

It's never good for business though in case we kid ourselves that it's purely a sport.

There is nothing to stop a dominant driver winning the title early now...

For now but measures were taken to delay it as long as possible, in the future reverse grids I would say will put paid to early title wins which is my main worry.

Yeah, we've seen the same with Formula E and their qualifying system of having the contenders go out in championship order. The top drivers go out first when the track is extremely green, and as a result they qualify artificially low and the championship is prolonged. I can't help but to think F1 is trying to replicate that effect.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote: Shouldn't a totally dominant driver win the title early? You can use any point system you like and Schumi would have won the title pretty early in 2002.

It's never good for business though in case we kid ourselves that it's purely a sport.

There is nothing to stop a dominant driver winning the title early now...

For now but measures were taken to delay it as long as possible, in the future reverse grids I would say will put paid to early title wins which is my main worry.

Yeah, we've seen the same with Formula E and their qualifying system of having the contenders go out in championship order. The top drivers go out first when the track is extremely green, and as a result they qualify artificially low and the championship is prolonged. I can't help but to think F1 is trying to replicate that effect.

F1 is a business foremost, they'll do what they can to keep viewing figures (and thus revenue) high. Prolonging the championship fight would certainly do that and a few complaints from the purists won't make the smallest dent in the grand scheme.

Covalent wrote:F1 is a business foremost, they'll do what they can to keep viewing figures (and thus revenue) high. Prolonging the championship fight would certainly do that and a few complaints from the purists won't make the smallest dent in the grand scheme.

Then they should focus on prolonging it organically... by leveling the playing field between the teams so nobody has a massive car advantage.

Exediron wrote:

Covalent wrote:F1 is a business foremost, they'll do what they can to keep viewing figures (and thus revenue) high. Prolonging the championship fight would certainly do that and a few complaints from the purists won't make the smallest dent in the grand scheme.

Then they should focus on prolonging it organically... by leveling the playing field between the teams so nobody has a massive car advantage.

Sure, if only there was a simple solution to that.

Exediron wrote:

Covalent wrote:F1 is a business foremost, they'll do what they can to keep viewing figures (and thus revenue) high. Prolonging the championship fight would certainly do that and a few complaints from the purists won't make the smallest dent in the grand scheme.

Then they should focus on prolonging it organically... by leveling the playing field between the teams so nobody has a massive car advantage.

They're supposed to be trying to head that way in 2021, if you want a truly level playing field then you're looking at spec cars.

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Covalent wrote:F1 is a business foremost, they'll do what they can to keep viewing figures (and thus revenue) high. Prolonging the championship fight would certainly do that and a few complaints from the purists won't make the smallest dent in the grand scheme.

Then they should focus on prolonging it organically... by leveling the playing field between the teams so nobody has a massive car advantage.

They're supposed to be trying to head that way in 2021, if you want a truly level playing field then you're looking at spec cars.

I think somewhat levelling opportunity would be a good start.

mikeyg123 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Covalent wrote:F1 is a business foremost, they'll do what they can to keep viewing figures (and thus revenue) high. Prolonging the championship fight would certainly do that and a few complaints from the purists won't make the smallest dent in the grand scheme.

Then they should focus on prolonging it organically... by leveling the playing field between the teams so nobody has a massive car advantage.

They're supposed to be trying to head that way in 2021, if you want a truly level playing field then you're looking at spec cars.

I think somewhat levelling opportunity would be a good start.

Indeed rather than as the drivers put it trying to use a plaster to heal a serious wound.

pokerman wrote:

Exediron wrote:

Covalent wrote:F1 is a business foremost, they'll do what they can to keep viewing figures (and thus revenue) high. Prolonging the championship fight would certainly do that and a few complaints from the purists won't make the smallest dent in the grand scheme.

Then they should focus on prolonging it organically... by leveling the playing field between the teams so nobody has a massive car advantage.

They're supposed to be trying to head that way in 2021, if you want a truly level playing field then you're looking at spec cars.

No, since I view the competition as being between the teams that would just eliminate the competition entirely. A level playing field would be the teams having equal resources and opportunities and succeeding or failing on their own merit. What we have right now is a system where Red Bull, Ferrari or Mercedes could do probably the worst job in history and all they'd have to worry about is finishing 3rd at the end of the year.

1982 would have to come pretty close.

With a win worth 9 points in those days, there were 36 points on the table if you could win all remaining races. Pironi led the championship on 39 points, so, theoretically, if you had at least 4 points against your name you were still in with a chance!

List of those in contention after the 1982 German GP: Rosberg, Pironi, Prost, Lauda, Arnoux, Tambay, Alboreto, de Angelis, Patrese, Piquet, Cheever, Daly, Mansell, de Cesaris, and possibly a couple of others could have won on countback..

1981 might be worth a shout too, but I haven't' looked closely