‘Most wins’ system confirmed for 2010

Posted on

| Written by

The world champion in 2010 will be the driver with the most wins

Contrary to what I wrote here yesterday, F1 will be using ‘most victories’ to decide the champion in 2010. Leahonard_e pulled me up for missing a crucial line in the new 2010 regulations:

The Formula One World Championship driver’s title will be awarded to the driver who has been classified first in the greatest number of races, all official results from the Championship season being taken into account. Points will be awarded to all drivers in accordance with Article 6.4 below and, in the event that two or more drivers win an equal number of races, the driver with the greatest number of points will be awarded the driver’s title.

Is the FIA doing the right thing by changing the F1 points system?

The rules for 2010 are starting to look a real headache. We’ve already got teams running to two different sets of technical rules depending on whether they’re competing under the budget cap or not.

And the FIA has confirmed the driver with the most points won’t necessarily be the world champion in 2010 – it will be the driver with the most wins.

It’s not clear from the regulations what the value of a win is in a shortened race. Was Jenson Button victory at Malaysia a ‘whole win’ or a ‘half-win’?

Will the new systen make much of a difference to the championship? And does it disprove the conspiracy theory that the FIA were never interested in introducing the ‘most wins’ system, and only proposed it to deflect attention from the budget cap?

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

133 comments on “‘Most wins’ system confirmed for 2010”

  1. Disaster. Why doesn’t the FIA listen to the teams and the fans? At this moment, I wish all the teams formed a breakaway series, and refashioned F1 in the manner the fans and teams would like, not how obersturmfuhrer Max wants it!

    1. If McLaren and Ferrari wanted to, a lot of other teams would follow.

    2. Is Max Mosley on a vendetta against F1 or what? Someone stop this mad man now.

  2. Yorricksfriend
    4th May 2009, 9:19

    Not cool

  3. I think I am going to stop watching F1 next Year! This is absolutely ridiculous!! What is the FIA trying to do, kill off F1?

  4. Is it a joke?

  5. I’ve been quite a huge fan of F1 over 20 years. But Mosley is really doing everything that the sport I love so much, will be spoiled!
    Hopefully FOTA will create new serie! With Kimi, Massa, Alonso, Hamilton, Kubica, Vettel, actually all drivers from F1 would go, then who would like to watch that Mosleys F1, where would be racing second class drivers with second class cars?

    1. Exactly. If the big guns in F1 formed a series, who would watch the old F1? If you can think it, it can be done!

  6. Now Keith can you tell us all if FOTA have an option to challenge against having the most wins rule for 2010? Or is it going to be like some other FIA rules where they don’t even have a right to appeal a decision.

    Also Keith, and this is not a dig at you, Promise…, could there possible be some hidden rule you and others may have missed that FIA have made all the races from 2010 shorter? It wouldn’t surprise me if the FIA just brought in shorter races by the backdoor.

    It’s like the FIA/Max Mosley are determined to ruin the sport for the fans. Most of the new rules coming into the sport, i feel are going to make formula one a sport that is too complicated to follow easily.

    Formula 1 was running along fairly smoothly before 93/94. Why did it have to be messed with so much.

    I get the impression that Max Mosley wants to bury F1 as we know it and start a new series in it’s place that has his total rules and no-one elses. Basically his own personal true life scalextric.

  7. what the hell, do they now think that the week’s between race’s are for them to keep changing the whole structure of our sport.
    To hell with what we think , do as you’re told what next!
    Someone call Mr montezemolo and tell him to get the other series started.

  8. Although this version of the ‘most wins’ system is still unfavourable to many (and me), I much prefer it to the medals system… Glad to see at least some element of the points system still remains.

  9. HounslowBusGarage
    4th May 2009, 10:05

    So we will have a two-tier F1 next year, based on the nimber of wins for the Drivers, and the quantity of points for the Teams.
    So there will be-
    1. A World Champion Driver according to wins
    2. A Different World Champion Driver according to wins
    3. A Possibly Different Champion Driver From An Un-Capped Team according to points
    4. A Possibly Different Champion Driver From An Un-Capped Team according to wins
    . . . and so on and so forth. Same for the Constructors Championship, too.
    Mind you, I think I can understand what this is all about. It’s like the Nursery School Sports Day where everyone gets a prize so they don’t feel left out!

  10. Whewbacca the Cookie
    4th May 2009, 10:08

    So, under extreme circumstances a driver with a mere 20 pts (2 wins only) could be crowned Champion if all the other GPs are won by different drivers… Ridiculous at best.

    1. 1982 Rosberg senr. won title with one win!!

    2. Yes, and it gets really silly if one driver wins 2 races and fails to finish all the other races whilst somebody else has 1 win and 16 second places.

  11. Nick Caulfield
    4th May 2009, 10:08

    I’m disappointed because too many results are decided after the race by the stewards. Spa and Valencia last year have been done to death now but would have been a real problem if they had determined the title because both were controversial and if either had been different then Hamilton rather than Massa would have officially had the most wins.

    Also, Hamilton driving for 5th in Brazil was a better spectacle than almost anything I have seen in years. With Massa out in front and the official results to that point standing, Hamilton would have had nothing to drive for at the end of that race (yes, I know the argument that the season would have played out differently with all teams knowing in advance what they were racing for but such a situation could still happen).

  12. how dreadful. and here i was, saying all kinds of nice things about max. since he’s giving bernie his lame-ass medals, i wonder what he’s getting in return ???

  13. Stupid, stupid and more stupid.

    If it aint broke etc….

    1. well, it is broke. in 2008 liar lewis won the championship by 1 point even though he won 5 races to massa’s 6.

      In 2007 lost it by one point with 4 wins while kimi had 6. do you think it’s fair to give hte championship to a racer who comes second 17 times if he has the most points?

    2. Yes, Bob, because for the other races, Lewis’ consistency and brilliance earned him those points. If Lewis hadn’t had Spa snatched from him wrongly, he would have won more races than Massa in 2008. Imagine how tainted Massa’s championship would have been with Spa in everyone’s mind. And this year is showing who is the real champion driver: Lewis not Massa!

    3. what he said.

      we havent needed ‘most wins’ for 60 years. why now?

    4. I would hardly say ‘broke’ just because Lewis won the title with one less win than Massa. I was firmly in the Massa camp for the title last year, and I dont agree at all that if Massa had taken the title it would have been tainted by Spa, but there is no doubt in my mind that Lewis deserved it also. Both drivers had an excellent year, couple of mistakes for each guy, but overall they were quite evently matched. The fact Lewis had one less win is not really important – it was only one win less after all. Plus even if he had been say three or four wins short of Massa, to have won on points would have meant that over a season he was consistently at the front, rather than every now and then, therefore would be equally deserving. Had BMW not given up on the title so early last year, Kubica would have been as deserving also, even if he had won less races.

      Whilst wins should be rewarded, so should consistency – its no good being able to win a few, if you cant maintain a good performance over the season. Thats why the 12-9-7 system is perfect – rewards both. Really cannot see why they havent taken that idea – I think it is better than both 10-8-6 and 10-6-4.

      HounslowBusGarage – I agree with the point about the ‘different champions’ – what with the optional budget cap and the points/wins thing, whilst there will be an official winner, there will be debate about winners of four different scenarios. It will belittle the achievements of whoever takes the title unless they would have won with most wins and most points – would have been bad enough debate if Massa had won with the Spa thing last year, let alone when there is four options for debate!

      Also wary of the team orders thing too which is bound to happen if its winner takes all. Positions swapping at the front all over the place if teammates are 1-2!

      Cant beleive they sneaked this one in covered by the budget cap – brilliant job for noticing, because I certianly wouldnt have!

  14. Ugh The current system works and rewards consistency… A great shame.

    1. I agree fully with Clare msj; We need to go back to the 4 point advantage of a race win. It’s ironic that in 2004 I think it was the FIA moved away from that scoring system because Schumaker was winning all the races and would have won the championships before the halfway stage if they did not do something.

      But the 4 point gap from 1st to 2nd will encourage teams to go for the win more.

  15. A breathe a sigh of relief. The most-wins system should have been introduced for this season: there is no doubt it encourages the drivers to push for the win.

    1. Mussolini's Pet Cat
      4th May 2009, 10:48


    2. More points for a win would have been far better.

    3. Lol so your saying that drivers didnt aim to win and push to win in the first place?

  16. Another giant two fingers to the real fans that keep the sport alive.

    Cheers Bernie. The feelings mutual.

  17. While I strongly doubt this will have any impact in changing the results (judging by past seasons), I do find the concept sickeningly stupid, and I am not looking forward to it one bit. Hopefully we’ll get a U-turn before then.


    So, this season it would’ve been:
    3 – Button and 1 – Vettel so far. Barichello is irrelevant, despite often coming in second and having plenty of points.

  19. This point system makes sense with a capped budget environment (fixed money, lots of technical freedom).

    Teams can be encouraged to experiment solutions moving budget from reliability-related development to speed-related ones without fearing compromising their championship.

    Teams willing to be less conservative, drivers willing to be more aggressive (thanks also to the refuelling ban) lead to interesting races to me…

    And, Keith, I think a win is a win (no half-wins), and this is an example of how this system can really make things simpler (and funnier).

    1. I fail to see the funny side :(

  20. actually, part of my problem with the wins system being introduced this year was the refuelling. This might actually spice the racing up a bit as drivers will race on the track. Some may stay out on long shot tyres in order to win and we could well see some very dramatic final few laps.

    It will be interesting to see how it works out.

  21. @Paolo, A win is a win. Its silly then to then give half points for it. It will be contentious of such a race like we had in Malaysia were to occur in 2010, when a win is classified as such but awarded 5points. If 2 drivers then end up with the same number of wins, and lower positions, but without the same number of points, how will that be decided.

  22. Sush Meerkat
    4th May 2009, 11:40

    leahonard_e gets this months Columbo award for outstanding detective work.

    Keith, shame on you young man.

    Firstly damn and blast, just increase the score differential, secondly the medal system will turn into “sponsorship” city, with medals based on sponsor logo’s which makes them doubly rude, rubbish and worthless.

  23. 2mins silence on the blog before the start at Catalunya for the death of F1…..!

  24. Bigbadderboom
    4th May 2009, 11:45


  25. I think I’m going to cry. :(

  26. I said it many times before and I’ll say it again…the current points was introduced to reduce “certain” drivers’ chance of winning the championship mid-season.

    Just reset the points system to what it was pre shoemaker’s era of terror and be done with it!

  27. I do wish people would stop using extreme examples to back up their arguments against most wins. I’ve nothing against that opinion, but I’d rather it be backed up with realistic arguments. Extreme examples are easy to conjure up but do little to help either side of the argument. EG, under the current system a driver could win the title without winning a race.

    Personally I think most wins could work. But that’s just my opinion. And clearly not many others share it!

    This rule change has caused the most controversy but I don’t think it will have anywhere near as much impact on F1 as the 2 tier technological rules.

  28. Well, it looks like the 2009 Abu Dhabi GP will be the last F1 race I ever watch…

    1. Me too mate, this is just too much.
      F1 is about to die……….

  29. so one of the most competitive driver ONLY NEEDS TO WIN HALF OF THE SEASON ROUNDS (plus one). then he could go shopping or whatever, cause he is ALREADY A CHAMPION. TOTAL CRAP!

    1. Just winning half is enough as he would have the most points anyway.

      I wonder if the teams can threaten to boycott this weekends GP unless Mosley is out. Its the only way to save F1 against this mad man.

  30. The most wins system is meant to make drivers ‘battle’ for the win – but as soon as they do so they are penalized by the stewards (think Spa 08 or Australia this year).

    The 201o season might be over a year away but it is looking like a right complicated mess of a season already.

  31. I have to agree with S Hughes… How many more reasons does the Mosley GESTAPO regime have to give the teams & fans to create a break away series? I don’t understand why it hasn’t happened already!

  32. As I read the regulations from this year Keith, Jenson’s win would have counted as a ‘whole’ win as the race lasted more than 2 laps. I presume it’s the same for next year.

    Oh how I wish in vain for 12pts for a win.

  33. Robert McKay
    4th May 2009, 12:45

    If they’d implemented it this season, Button, with 3 wins (despite one being a half points win) would be pretty much halfway to the title already – you’d think 6, 7 wins would do it.

    Even though we’re barely a quarter of the way into the season.

    It’s a bad idea and as has been said a million times all we need to do is increase the number of points for a win.

  34. Well it was nice watching F1, but as of next year I’ll take a break from watching it.

    1. I will too. What is the point? As someone has said, if Button in the space rocket wins a few more races, if we had the most wins rule, the whole season could be over half way through. And those that say that we are using extreme examples, NO, we are using a real possibility that could happen this year. STUPID STUPID STUPID!!! It won’t even be a matter of not wanting to watch next year, it will be more a matter of what’s the bleeding point?

  35. What Bernie also doesn’t seem to fathom (for some inexplicable reason since he’s been in the sport for god knows how long) is that a motor race is not just for first place.

    Now nobody is going to race for 2nd and 3rd for example, or 6th and 7th. What’s the point in risking your life and car if there’s no cahnce of it helping your championship bid.

    Hence less overtaking.
    Utter stupidity as we all know.

  36. I agree with the posts here.

    This is an awful rule and was only introduced because Ecclestone demanded so. How a man reponsible for the commercial rights can have such a significant influence over the rules highlights the skewed governance of the sport.

    The teams don’t want it.
    The fans don’t want it.

    But perhaps more importantly, it is solving a problem that doesn’t exsist and creating more questions than it answers.

    The sport doesn’t even need it, let alone want it.

  37. drivers willing to be more aggressive (thanks also to the refuelling ban) lead to interesting races to me…

    What does that mean? Will they roar and make funny noises? Will they bite their lips? Huh?

    Who will be “more aggressive”?
    The driver in the 10th place?
    The driver in the 4th place?
    The drivers in the 17th and 18th places?
    Does this change do anything for them? No, it doesn’t. They will score their points regardless of there being a gold medal for the win or not.

    The only one who could think of being “more aggressive” is the driver in the second place. But if he’s 20sec. behind the leader and already going as fast as he can, then the race won’t be anything different to what it is now.

    1. What does that mean? Will they roar and make funny noises? Will they bite their lips? Huh?

      @Damon :-D
      I just imagined Felipe being “aggressive” as you described… “Calm down, Felipe baby”

      You are right, it doesn’t change a lot for someone battling for 10th place, but I think it does change a lot for the first four or five positions’ battle (I can’t imagine having more than 4 or 5 drivers involved in a battle for championship under any point system).

      And, let me stress this, it completely changes team’s mindset regarding the races. Think about the current championship, Toyota and BMW holding back potential improvements (like KERS and aero development) fearing that losses of points now could harm their drivers later in the season.

      I’d really like teams introducing radical changes, technical solutions at races, and see them figure out what’s working and what’s not, instead of letting them work behind closed doors for months and then looking at teams fine tuning their package during race weekends.

  38. KingHamilton&co
    4th May 2009, 13:15

    Everyone, get ready to watch a great racing series next year:


    I think Ill see how it pans out, and if its cr*p Ill definatly be putting indycar, nascar, BTCC and WTCC as my priorites!

    yes, I like indycar and nascar now, I feel morally wrong but cant help being intrigued……..Im sorry everyone……………

    Only when bernie is out will i return, America: Here I come!

    (well, touring cars more aswell)

  39. Why when I’m really enjoying F1 does the FIA have to ruin it with new rules?, its as if they are trying to push away current fans in an attempt to gain new ones.

  40. Mouse_Nightshirt
    4th May 2009, 13:31

    Say hello to one driver teams!

    This will just encourage teams to field a superb driver with a weaker one, or fiddle with the team so that one of their driver wins everything.

    We’re going to see plenty of “behind the scenes” team orders and a lot of unhappy drivers next year.

    1. Or, more sinisterly, use their second drivers as moving roadblocks.

  41. This is ridiculous. I really don’t see why the points can’t be upped for first place.

    Would this not have a similar effect to the ‘most wins’ rule but still award consistency and not alienate fans?

    1. That’s too logical and sensible for EcclesMax.

    2. Or use the second driver for developing parts during the race.

  42. Last time I checked, you need consistency for a championship not just wins…

    Great job destroying F1. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but it looks I’ve got to get back into the IRL..

  43. What is up with the FIA, you are changing the very core of a sport which you are only in power for a few years, if FIFA came out tomorrow and said 10 points for a win and the first goal scored in a game wins the game do you think it would be allowed. No!

    But because max and bernie have the power they do they can run F1 as if it is theirs and it has to stop. The sport has always and will always be bigger than these two blokes and the sooner the teams and the race tracks realise this the sooner we get some proper racing back.

    Senna, Hill, Clark. Will be turning in their graves :(

  44. fed up with a system that was only there to make money on the back of the riders, Terje Hakkonsen (the Michael Schumacher of snowboarding) went on to create his own snowboarding competitions, created by the riders, for the riders and judged by the riders.

    It won’t take a team but a driver like Shumacher or Alonso to go create another and better F1.

    That’s my humble opinion, and I’m eagerly waiting for it to happen.

    1. Unfortunately, F1 pilots have not had a great success, as a group, running teams — let alone running racing series.

  45. chaostheory
    4th May 2009, 14:16

    Every time I hear about medals/most wins/budget capped two-tier formula (and so on…) the perspective of new series with Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and BMW is so tempting. But even if they think about it they wont do it in times of financial crisis, so we will be stuck with Mf1 for couple of years. Unless the teams will finally do something (but seems like they will need Ecclestones support).

  46. The real problem what I see in all this new & re-edited rules, is that I’m afraid Max Mosley is not going to resign as he promised last year.

    On the other hand, why one should be worried by something that surely is going to change 100 times from now to May-June 2010?

    I don’t believe more in wich FIA says. If something has taught us FIA, is that everything can be changed even with the season started.

    Max Rufus Mosley an his Flying F1 Circus: Impossible is nothing!

  47. AnOldFormulaOneFan
    4th May 2009, 14:41

    The cherry on the top of the cake…!


    A1GP RULES !!!

  48. “It’s not clear from the regulations what the value of a win is in a shortened race. Was Jenson Button victory at Malaysia a ‘whole win’ or a ‘half-win’?”
    I think that a whin is a win regardless of the laps covered.

    But in any case, I have a love hate relationship with this regulation. it’s only fare that the one that wins the most wins the championship but i can see scenarios where that would be unacceptable… I still prefer the increase of points attributed to the race winner so that the guy finishing second would try to take the lead and not contend with finishing second.

    Keith. you should start a poll about what system is best

    1- 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1
    2- 11-8-6-5-4-3-2-1
    3- 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 (most wins wins…)

    1. Leahonard_e
      4th May 2009, 15:02

      To keep a 10-point win and 8 positions with points, what about this points system:
      which would mean winer takes 10 points, and every one else gets from 1 to 7… going up one position means +1 point, but from 2nd to 1st is +3 points.

    2. We probably want to also have a larger differential between 2nd and 3rd — otherwise, if the 1st-placed driver is off in the distance, 2nd and 3rd will just complacently go round lap after lap.

      The oldest 9-6-4-3-2-1 rule is a good starting point. Expanded to 8 places, we can have 18-12-8-6-4-3-2-1 or 15-10-7-5-4-3-2-1.

  49. @ Leahonard_e
    YES!! This is it.
    10-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 Best proposition.

  50. I don’t know what was wrong with the FOTA proposal. To me it seems to fit the bill better than most.


    I was quite favourable to Keiths idea of championship by finishing position (as opposed to just the winner). However the more I thought about it, I much prefer points systems, it is what F1 was created on and became what it is with. More points for the podium, even more points for the win, its the way forward.

  51. Freakin’ BS is what the “most wins” system is. The championship has always been, and always should be, based on a seasons worth of CONSISTANCY. Button could win the next 4 or 5 races in the calander, (next season), then DNF every race thereafter and win the championship. Thrilling!
    The two teir system is crap also. Make some rules that the fans, (the people who this sport is supposed to be about), want.
    It is becoming harder and harder for this 30 year fan to continue wanting to be a supporter of F1.

  52. MotoGP has had the same point system for as long as I can remember and it has ALWAYS delivered the right champion (maybe with the exception of Nicky Hayden but there’s always one…).

    Points paid down to 15th, 25 for a win, 20 for second – it always rewards the ballsy rider who goes for the win. I can see the FIA’s point with the wins thing, I really can, but F1 is not MotoGP. In Moto the rider makes a massive difference to the performance of the bike – look at how Rossi changed Yamaha’s fortunes and the difference between Stoner and the other Ducati riders this year and last.

    In F1 the performance is almost totally dependent on the car, thus why we now see two guys in Button and Rubens who were languishing down the back last season all of a sudden up the front this season – their car is great relative to everyone else.

    Most wins would work in MotoGP but not in F1. There is not, and has never been, enough variety in winning cars. There were 5 winning cars in ’08 with 7 drivers winning a race. Of those only four won multiple rounds, and only two or three (I forget how many races Kimi won) winning more than two each. So instead of having both Ferrari drivers, Lewis and Kubica in the hunt up till Spa for example, we would have known by then that it was a 2 horse race. Then you have the stewards step in and cock it all up…

    No, Mosely and the FIA are very wrong on this one. Nice idea in theory, but in practice it won’t work. A bit like Communism really

    1. Great comparison- MotoGP dose many things very well that Bernie, Max, and their people would be wise to learn from.

  53. It doesn’t really matter. The teams/drivers will adjust their strategies as necessary to win. It’s not valid to compare previous results with different rules.

    If the big two take leave and form a new series, they still need another ten teams to compete with … so that’s not going to happen.

    Two tier championship is short tern just like turbo/Cosworth era. After a couple of years everyone will move to the budget cap rule book. Staying outside the budget cap and Ferrari and Mclaren run the risk of going backwards.

  54. 1st of april was a month ago!

  55. Well here we go again with this stuff. You know what I will still watch F1 next year. I dont agree with this but there are a lot of things in racing I dont agree with but I still watch. I hate to say it but some times we the fans have to suck it up and go out and support or drivers even if we dont like what the govering body comes up with. So lets just bear it and enjoy the rest of what is looking like a great 09 year.

  56. No, imagine the point system was:

    This would be fun!! They would overtake one another like crazy!

    1. Brilliant!! :D

  57. Maybe 15-11-8-6-4-3-2-1?

  58. David, no.

    Either this:

    Or that one:

    1. So the guy in 3rd that has no chance of getting to 1st, but is right behind 2nd won’t bother to pass? But, in the mean time, the guy in 2nd is deliberately running wide and making mistakes to try and force the guy in 3rd place into 2nd so he ends up 3rd and takes an extra 9 points.

      I didn’t think it was possible, but that’s even more ludicrous that Max’s idea! lol

  59. I think its very unlikely that we’ll have any more championships decided in the last race under this ‘most wins’ system. I will certainly miss the late-season suspense and build up to the final race.

  60. This shows that Bernie and Max do not like FOTA as they fear for power. FOTA’s proposal was a very good one that is even better than the ones we currently have.

    So why is Forumula One digging its own grave?

  61. I point You People to the AMA SuperX championship this year. Under the Medal system, it would have been over 1/2 way thru the Season. Only the Diehards would continue to watch. How far will attendance figures drop? Who suffers? The Promoter. Stoopid Idea.

  62. What about
    for the top 12 finishers?

    The 1st/2nd proportions would be equivalent to 10-7, which is about right IMO, the current 10-8 is too small but the old 10-6 was to big, more people scoring points would make the fight for the lower championship positions more interesting, and reduce the advantage of a fluke result. It’s 1 point per position increase untill 2 from 4th-3rd, 3 from 3rd-2nd and 6 from 2nd-1st; the advantage is steadily increased once you get to the podium.

  63. This is so stupid it beggars belief. Apply the most wins system to this year as an example. Button 3 wins Vettel 1.
    The championship would not be interesting again until another driver also has 3 wins. At best it would take until the end of the season for another driver to catch up in the wins table. With the points system a driver in a slightly inferior car as for example Hamilton this year can still stay in touch in the points table until the car is good enough to win with. With the most wins system he would already practically be out of any chance to win the championship. And what about drivers like Barrichello and Webber. Their teams could not take the risk of allowing them to win a race instead of Button or Vettel. I think Eccelstone wants to simplify F1 so it can be sold to the casual fan more easily and for more GELT. No one in the sport or among the fans seems to like this at all.
    Bring in the 12 9 7 5 4 3 2 1 system and the problem of drivers not fighting for the win (if it at all exists)would be solved.

    1. Yeah that’s the worst one. It will create more team orders. The number 2 driver certainly won’t be allowed to win, unless there is no way the number 1 can win it instead.

  64. I think, we have finally found something to surpass the NASCAR playoff idea to decide the championship in shear stupidity.

  65. oooooo, just had an idea. The mainstream F1 media usually start the season off with whoever wins the first GP of the year being tipped immediately being the favorite to win the championship. Lets scrap the points system altogether and just have one GP a year, rotating the venue each year,winner take all! Bernie can then sell the rights to only one track for a billion dollars. Remember, before Max proposes this one, I said it first!

  66. There are too many changes, now. However I like this idea. More incentive to win, people go faster, etc.

  67. Now there is the idiotic ‘most wins = WDC’ all the questions regarding refuelling, tyres, strategy, skilful consistent drivers. It’s all knackered now.
    I really don’t want to believe my own hype but 2010 is looking like (and I’ve never said this before) a season I may well not go out of my way to watch.

  68. I never understood the problem with the pre-2003 system of 10-6-4-3-2-1.

  69. Well looks like that’s the end of my involvement in watching F1

  70. I absolutely hate the idea that a driver could win 7 races in a row, then DNF the rest of the season and STILL be deemed the champion, despite being 20 or 30 points behind 2nd and 3rd. That is utter garbage.

  71. this is crazy! is there not anyway we can stop it?

  72. there is no prize for coming second..period. so if the WDC is determined with say 4 races to go….who would want to race those final 4 races?…and more importantly who would want to watch? only thing left to race for is the constructors championship…i dont know about u guys but i dont care much for who wins the constructors championship. that red team has won it 16 times…and how many in a row? until some1 catches them up i dont care who wins it nor will i watch those final 4 races

  73. They are doing EVERTHING they can to run this sport into the ground,I have a feeling I will lose interest in F1 soon after this or the next season.

  74. I think the “most wins” system is retarded, demotes #2 drivers and is bound to deliver skewed and unfair results, but still it’s not all that bad. In reality it will usually give us the same result as with a revised points scoring system. It won’t change the racing itself. Only problem is that the odd season there will be whining about undeserving winners of the WDC.

    I think the problem is more that we the fans are not taken seriously. It’s like every few months Ecclestone or Mosley come up with some other ludicrous idea, KERS, standard engines, standard everything else, budget cap to 10% of current budgets, scrapping great races to make a few bucks more on some other crappy venue etc etc etc.

    Every time there is a new straw that breaks the camel’s back.

    Yet we are completely powerless to save our beloved sport. These two senile geezers go more and more insane on their powertrip. They don’t listen to anyone else anymore and sadly they don’t need to either since they have complete control.

    It’s so sad that Ferrari weazeled out when the teams wanted to break away last time. Now it’s too late. The teams will never trust each other enough to attempt something like that again. There is no money either and Mosley and Ecclestone have gained even more power than before.

  75. It rewards winning, not consistancy; because no one cares who comes second

  76. I’ll go against the majority here…in 1958 Mike Hawthorn won the world championship with one win, five seconds, a third, a fifth and one retirement to Sterling Moss’s four wins, 1 second and 5 retirements.

    That’s a WC for a lot of second places…

    I have no problem with Constructors Championship based on consistency (points)that is perfectly logical, but a drivers championship is an individual award… for winning so I have no problems with the “most wins” system.

    Try plugging your favorite drive into Moss’s stats and try reviewing your opinions against the medals system from that perspective rather than a knee jerk reaction from the perspective of doom and gloom.

    P.S. Bernie did not hold a gun to my head to make me say that….Cheers :D

  77. Well, this is a crap solution to something that wasn’t a problem to begin with. But barring last season, almost all the previous seasons were won by drivers with the most wins, but we have to stop and think here.

    With budget caps, and a gazillion other rule changes, could we see a front running team sit out GPs in order to save cost if they’ve already racked up a healthy set of wins? For example, if this season’s scenario repeats it self, lets say Button has won 8 races by the time we get to round 10, he technically has already won the championship…so Brawn doesn’t really have to park Button on the grid come Sunday.

    Likewise, if a team are confident of a race winning car, they might sit out the GP if they feel they don’t want to stress their machinery for a particular weekend, they’d rather just race next week and win. So, if I’ve already won in Melbourne and Sepang, I might not be interested in racing in Sakhir because there’s every chance my engine would blow, that would mean cost incurred. So I sit it out, come Catalunya, I know I’ll be fast enough to win.

    Is this realistic?

    Anyways…the guys running the greatest show on earth are absolute nutters

    1. See it from the perspective of the sponsors. Would they like to pay millions for a team that won’t even display the ads on TV?

      And what of the manufacturers championship?

  78. Considering that F1 has tried so many different rules, and oftentimes they turn out to be good as bad, why not try something new again? Might provide amazing racing, or it might go wrong. No way to know for sure until it’s tried. Theorycrafting only goes so far. :)

    The two tiered racing sounds interesting too. More technical variation is something I do appreciate. Teams running engines with more than 18000rpm and more active parts, more brutal Kers etc, vs big money fine tuning and research but within smaller confines. I wish I had seen the days of grids with V8, V10’s as well as V12’s all at the same time. This brings it a bit closer.

  79. To add: The F1 drivers want to WIN, it’s what brought them to F1 to begin with. A hunger. All of them are like this, except Kimi Räikkönen ;) I am sure you have before noticed that they are so consumed with winning the race that they forget to ‘get the points’ for the championship instead? Even if the champ might be lost, winning a race still adds to their personal statistics, raises their prestige and accomplishment as drivers etc.

  80. there is going to be a lot of black flags next year whin peoples team mates start to take out race leaders

  81. I actually quite like the new system. The only thing I don’t like about it is that the championship will be over early every year.

    But look on the bright side. Imagine last minute jostling for the lead between two drivers – all or nothing, absolutely going for it. Rather than one of them sitting back and settling for 80% of the points he’d get if he won.

    I like the theory. I just think the points should be restructured more to something like 20-10-7-5-4-3-2-1.

    Let’s be honest though it will change again the second Vettel or Hamilton establish any “schumacher-esque” kind of dominance.

  82. I really hoped that we had seen the back of this. The only change that needs to be done is to change the spread of points, so that the the gap between 1st and 2nd is more.

  83. Wayne Andrews
    5th May 2009, 13:51

    9-6-4-3-2-1 was a good points system. Don’t forget that we used to have a system where only the best 11 results out of 16 races were counted. Points awarded for Pole Position and Fastest Lap would be good too. Think of times when the winner of the last race of the season was not crowned champion. In 1984, Prost lost by half a point to Lauda, even though Prost had more wins (7-5). The 2008 showdown at Brazil (arguably one of the most exciting final races in a championship) would not have been as dramatic. A driver could win a few early races, have some races off/concentrate on developing the car (even for specific circuits) and come back to win again.

    1. Points awarded for Pole Position…would be good too.

      We don’t want the championship deciding on a Saturday do we?

  84. “9-6-4-3-2-1 was a good points system. Don’t forget that we used to have a system where only the best 11 results out of 16 races were counted.”

    Hence, Senna knew that he take out Prost’s Ferrari and become WC… The math was just too weird…Now that could happen under system…I spose that a “Wins” system is just as vulnerable
    to such skulduggery.

    Agreed with Keith…on the Saturday 1 point qualifying point.

  85. Great just when the results are getting interesting they add “Most Wins” to make it boring again … so we’ll have the no2 drivers there just as blockers and won’t even have a chance at trying … I sure hope they find a way to squirm out of that rule change!

    So you can podium in all races and be beat by the guy that only cares about wins and drives like an idiot and maybe wins 3 or 4 races … how BORING!

  86. They better get REAL busy with the blue flags next year !!!!!!!

  87. The FIA should just leave the point system the way it is. This is becomming a rediculous joke but then again its probably a bargaining chip/strategy for them in the wider scheme of things…

  88. Not a good deal, and the issue of what happens in a “half points” situation is indeed one that will need to be resolved.

  89. I say it should be most podiums, not most wins.

  90. Keith, have you done, or is it possible to do, a post about the pros and cons of the ‘most wins’ system?

    I’d be interested to read arguments against most wins other than ‘one driver will win the first 9 GPs then go for a long holiday’ – the reason that, if comments here are to be believed, many F1 fans will turn off, watch something else, or slit their wrists.

    The only sensible con I’ve read in the comments here is that team orders could be more prominent. Did FOTA put up reasons for their position on most wins?

  91. Feels like deja vu with all these comments being the same as they were acouple of months back when we discussed the most wins thing before

  92. This is all Schumacher’s fault. They didn’t know what to do to stop his winning so they changed some rules and now they’re addicted to it. the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 would be almost the same as saying “who wins most races wins the championship” but without all this complaining from the fans.
    What I do like about all of this is that all these changes bring out the necessity for creative solutions, not expensive ones, and then maybe it won’t be a Ferrari x McLaren decade. I wish Eddie Jordan would get back as a F1 team manager now. And Peter Sauber.

  93. For the drivers who are racing for slow teams, there isn’t even going to be a point to show up. All that money wasted…


    If the teams don’t like it, expect some of them to think about boycotting F1. I can’t wait to see if anyone shows up to races halfway through next year.

  94. Brilliant! Introduce this stupid ‘most wins’ system, ban refuelling, cap the budget, wait for Ferrari, BMW and maybe someone else to leave and what you get is the most “exciting” racing in the history of F1…

    Just another proof that FIA is just a bunch of billion-ankers who don’t really care about mortals out there who watch this sport. I wish mr. Bernard Charles Ecclestone would have kept his mouth shut when this “marvellous” idea came to his mind.

    I don’t see what the incentive for the less capable teams will be to fight if one will basically get nothing for coming anything less than first. “Jenson, you’re fourth, push on”, “Nah, it doesn’t change anything anyway…”

    Another thing that I am a bit afraid of is that the teams will not pit that often because of the refuelling ban. We might end up with races where noone would be trying to overtake towards the end of the race just to not lose the position and preserve the tires.

    Just my 3p :)

  95. Also, what if the leading team will have 10 wins long before the season is over? It will be clear that they are the winners and they won’t have to race anymore just because they have already won. I’m sure that will attract many Schumacher era fans where the champion was already known before the end of the season.

    // apologies for another post, couldn’t edit the previous one

  96. The FIA say these sorts of changes are for the the spectacle. Its no much of a spectacle when noone’s watching….

  97. I may be wrong, but article 6.1 of the 2010 Sporting Regulations reads “The Formula One World Championship driver’s title will be awarded to the driver who has scored the highest number of points, taking into consideration all the results obtained during the Events which have actually taken place.” This means that we’re back to the regular points system of 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1.

    1. Oh, what mshekerov said. (I hadn’t bothered to read all previous posts…) ;)

  98. Well Keith it would seem an official confirmation is needed in the points vs wins debate.
    Is it most wins? or is it normal points?

    I think we all deserve to know the truth.


  99. It would see according to f1-live.com that the inclusion of the “most wins wins” rule was most probably accidental by the FIA… in that they forgot to take it out of the document after the botched attempt to include it this year.

    Now that they have seen sense, and the fact that Button could sew things up long before seasons end, and that in similar circumstances the WRC would be over pretty much already (but lets be fair, it probably is anyway, Go Loeb!!) they’ve recinded.

    I just wish they’d do something about the points… 2 points is not enough of a difference for a win.

  100. Good news, Keith and readers…

    The winner-takes-all concept now HAS been dropped!


    1. Sorry, I didn’t see that Dougie had already posted the link… but it is news worthy of hearing twice I guess!

Comments are closed.