F1 demeans itself with double points gimmick


Posted on

| Written by

Yesterday’s FIA announcement that double points will be awarded for the last race of 2014 was a worrying sign Formula One’s dependence on gimmicks has become an addiction.

It was met with howls of derision from F1 Fanatic readers. Over 300 comments, the vast majority of which sharply critical of the plan, appeared on the article in less than 12 hours.

Some expressed the hope that this was not a realistic proposal, merely an exercise in off-season headline-grabbing, such as the suggestion that artificial sprinklers could be used to create more wet weather races.

I am not so optimistic. The sprinklers plan was concocted solely by Bernie Ecclestone and mentioned to a few reporters to guarantee F1 a few column inches in the winter months.

But the plan to double points for the final race of the season was unanimously approved by F1’s new Strategy Group and the Formula One Commission, and rubber-stamped by Jean Todt himself.

“These changes are immediately applicable, given the mandate assigned to the FIA President at the last World Motor Sport Council meeting, held on 4 December in Paris,” the FIA press release noted. Double points for the last race of 2014 will happen unless all concerned take their sensible pills over the holidays.

The decision to devalue 18 of the 19 races on the 2014 F1 calendar was taken “to maximise focus on the championship until the end of the campaign”.

One would not have to be unduly cynical to note this unexpected rules change coincided with Abu Dhabi’s relocation to the end of the season. Have the Yas Marina circuit owners coughed up some extra money for a double-points end-of-season ‘spectacular’?

Nor should it be forgotten that the teams’ FIA entry fees are directly linked to the number of points they score. That may diminish hopes the new rule will be weeded out before the V6 engines fire up in Melbourne in 94 days’ time.

But there remains the possibility that those in charge will realise the self-defeating folly of introducing a rule purportedly to make F1 more appealing which the vast majority of fans actively dislike.

In the social media era the FIA, FOM and teams have no excuses for failing to be aware of popular opinion. The reaction against the new rule has been voluble and extremely negative.

At the time of writing 90% of almost 600 responses to this F1 Fanatic poll are against the plan: a point made by The Times in its story on the new rules*.

It sends a depressing signal that those in charge of F1 no long view it as a ‘sport’ but merely as ‘entertainment’ – something to be manipulated by any means necessary to produce a storyline.

This is why so many fans oppose the plan so strongly and will no doubt continue to put those complaints to the teams and the FIA on Twitter, Facebook and every available avenue over the coming weeks.

It is a worrying trend in the development of Formula One’s rules. When a football match ends nil-nil a cry does not go up for goals to be widened for any team which is struggling to score. Yet in DRS that was F1’s response to the difficulty of overtaking.

If a football season is decided before the concluding matches, do they increase the points for the final game? Of course not.

Those running F1 need to have the some faith in their core product, wean themselves off their addiction to gimmicks and work at the deeper problems affecting the sport. Such as the negative effect aerodynamic turbulence has always had on the racing, and why F1 has gone 18 years without a full grid of cars.

*Subscription required


Browse all comment articles

Image © Ferrari/Ercole Colombo

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.

237 comments on “F1 demeans itself with double points gimmick”

  1. I don’t think there’s anything to add to that. I think you speak for the vast majority of us there Keith.

    1. I should say though, I hope somebody who has a direct contact number to Jean Todt or whoever sees this.

      1. That election was a scam and Todt is at the core of this problem.

        1. @kelsier Todt won the election fair a square! It was a vote based election, if people wanted someone else in charge they should have voted for… what was his… name….

          … oh wait…!

          If F1 is as boring as 2013 in 2014 I’m going to sack it off completely and just look at the results online rather than waste my time being insulted by the FIA, who seem to think I have the attention span of a goldfish and need these entertatinment orientated gimmicks to keep me interested. The irony is, all these things they’re doing to make it better… have all but killed it dead.

      2. If they want to go forward with this at least they should do it only for constructors points. It is the reasonable thing to do.

        But they won’t because they are after a season finale “spectacular” like 2007 and 2008. But 2010 finale was great to, which was in Abu Dhabi and at the time there weren’t gismos like DRS and double points. Only a russian guy with good top speed and no mistakes.

        F1 is so easy to be great for the spectator. The only thing FIA should do is let them race.

        No DRS. No Double points. Yes to testing. Let the drivers race at 100% not at a DELTA.

        And please…… bring back a tyre war!!!

        1. Although the driver’s championship is what people are interested in, I feel that this rule could be even worse for the constructors championship. It could have a huge impact on smaller teams financially. They could lose out on millions of important prize money just because one race awarding more points than another.

          Also, testing and tyre war would probably spell death to the small teams in the sport.

        2. No DRS. No Double points. Yes to testing. Let the drivers race at 100% not at a DELTA.

          And please…… bring back a tyre war!!!

          1. second (minus the tire war bit)

    2. The decision to devalue 18 of the 19 races on the 2014 F1 calendar…


      Why not just give an extra 100000 points to the winner of the last race, so every driver can be world champion and points-record scorer, FIA? Sarcasm!

      It’s a nightmare. All for marketing (permanent numbers) and entertainment (double points) instead of tradition and sport.

      1. I think you said the only word that was missing:


        Exactly what this is. We’re all taken for bloody fools!

    3. Nothing to add, yeah.

      F1 needs to avoid this decisions. They want to catch new fans, but all they are getting is the hardcore ones leaving, and gaining nothing.

      F1 wasn’t broken, yet they are overfixing it. It’s another terrible idea coming from the people that since 2011 have ruined the sport beyond repair and now our once beloved sport is as fake as a 3 dollar bill.

      They are pushing the boundaries. I don’t know how much more I can go… 2014 was getting really exciting with all the prospects of new engines and new regulations. But before it started, it’s already a farce.

      I’ll be rooting with my whole heart that Vettel (or anyone) seals the title before Abu Dhabi. The earlier they do, the better.

      1. Ryan Fairweather
        10th December 2013, 13:01

        I believe all the gimmicks started when they started tinkering with qualifying back in the early 00’s. Qualifying was boring so they spiced it up, fair enough it was.

        However even with all the gimmicks they still fail to realise the root cause of the issue is that the cars cannot overtake each other without assistance, which is fundamentally wrong. There is too much at stake for them to fix the problem, so they just constantly patch it up. It will come unstuck eventually and I hope it does.

      2. @fer-no65 I wouldn’t worry too much about this rules, they tried to do the same in 2005 with one set of tyres for qualy and race after Schumacher dominated 2004, this is obviously a knee jerk reaction and I don’t expect it will last more than one year.

      3. Next thing the FIA will introduce a rule stating that in any case they will create a rule to make sure that the title will be decided on the very last lap of the last race, so don’t bother to watch the first 18 races of the season or the first 54 laps of Abu Dhabi for that matter;-)
        FIA is so embarrassing for all of F1!

    4. It feels like we should soon decide not to watch a race, all together to make the point that fans should be listen to by FIA … Would probably be difficult, but really something to be considered in my point of view. More and more stupid decisions are taken lately without any consideration for real fans, what a pity !!!

    5. One of the most exciting and heartbreaking finishes in recent F1 history was the 2008 race in Brazil where Massa lost the World Championship on the last corner of the last lap of the last race. If it ain’t broke – don’t fix it!

      1. Luth (@soulofaetherym)
        10th December 2013, 17:36

        He’d have won the championship with this rule as well xD.

      2. But this plan would make that sort of finale more likely in future years!

        1. @casanova, no this plan would double the 7 point bonus for the winner.

          1. @hohum
            No, nail-biting season-closing deciders would be more likely, since it is more likely a pair of rivals will be within 50 points of each other than 25 coming into the final race.

    6. @keithcollantine, I read Vettel’s comment elsewhere so I’d like to know other drivers view on this. I believe you’ll update this. And Webber seems to be picking the right season to hang his helmet off…

    7. yeah, to me it feels they wanna get rid of the long-term fans with all the gimmicks. I was excited about 2014 but now I’m sort of becoming indifferent towards F1.

  2. I dont mind this. What ever improves the show and entertainment value for me.

    1. It won’t improve anything, the race will be the same, just means that championship battle will last a race longer (which would have made no difference this year or 2011)

    2. I’m with you Joshua, no two races are alike. 72 laps of Monaco is worth more then 50 odds laps of Bahrain, just as two hours at Singapore compared to 75 minutes at Monza.
      And the pressure of a season finale with the title of the line is the greatest challenge of all.
      Let’s not stop here. Double points for Monaco, Double points for Suzuka, Half points for Monza until the race is extended to 450km and then they can have the same points.
      There is nothing sacred about points – For years drivers had to sacrifice their lowest scores, and the change from 10 to 25 for a win made all the scores in the past 60 odd years redundant.

      So lets do it! –

      1. Just because no two races are alike doesn’t mean they are worth more, is 72 laps of Monaco really worth double when it is one of the harder places to overtake? That would reward a driver of a quick one lap car but poor race pace… Seems stupid to me. Why do you rate Monza lower? it is the hardest on the brakes because of the high speeds the cars reach, as well as cars with lower downforce. The pressure for the title fight is still the same regardless of whether it is worth double points or not. Drivers should not need more incentive to win, it should already be there. Finally, changing the points for every race is a very different thing to changing points for one race.

        1. James when they talk to the drivers about their career highlights, Monaco wins always pop up. Clearly they consider it more challenging and rewarding then other races.

          There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that all Grand Prixs are not equal and then rewarding them differently. Every race series in the world has their showpiece events, let’s reward the drivers who come out on top.

          Love your comment about drivers shouldn’t need the incentive to win. Totally agree! And with double points in the final race, there will be even more incentive to win since the stakes will be so much higher!

          I am actually, can’t believe this, excited about the 2014 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix!

          1. @terry-fabulous

            when they talk to the drivers about their career highlights, Monaco wins always pop up. Clearly they consider it more challenging and rewarding then other races.

            But that’s exactly the point – it’s completely subjective. There’s no specific attribute that makes one race ‘worth more’ – it’s completely arbitrary.

            When all races are worth the same amount, the championship is a true reflection of who was the most consistently successful across the entire season. Is that not what we want for the champion of our sport?

          2. @terry-fabulous We’ve found Jean Todt’s F1 Fanatic account!

          3. Does that mean that in football, any match played against the previous year’s champion should be worth double? Makes sense, right?

          4. @terry-fabulous – I completely agree. I am very sad to see such negative responses to the rule changes. I can tell they have come as a surprise, but I think we could do with a shake-up. Let’s be honest, if you speak to the average person on the street, they won’t know very much, if anything about F1 – doubly so at University (and I can say this, as I am there at the moment). F1 needs some more excitement, and the FIA are trying to get it. Don’t knock it until you see it work!

          5. *see it at work

          6. @philereid OUTSTANDING!!

      2. That’s an awful way of looking at things… To use the football analogy again – it’s 3 points for a win. By your reasoning if Crystal Palace beat Man Utd away they should receive double points because it’s a bigger feat.

        On a more F1 note though, one of the (usually) interesting things with the cars each year is how their cars are better suited for one track over another. Under these rules unless your car is competitive and you’re in the points in Abu Dhabi at the end of the season you may as well just not bother with the previous 2 races…

      3. FlyingLobster27
        10th December 2013, 16:32

        Comparing numbers of laps and race times eludes one basic and fundamental point: all Grands Prix (except Monaco for time constraints because the track is so slow) are roughly 305 km in length. So all Grands Prix ARE equal, in race distance. The number of laps is only the division of 305 by the length of the track, which is why “laps led” statistics covering several races mean nothing IMO, and the race time is a reflection of how intrinsically fast a circuit is.
        No two circuits are the same (except Tilkedromes, “ich habe two long straights, connected by hairpin, fast floving sector here, slow technical stadium sector to end ze lap, totall original ist, I’ve never done anyzing like zis…”), agreed, but it is the variety that makes the championship beautiful, and scoring less at a track just because it’s faster makes no sense – before you know it, Italy will move their GP back to Imola or to the streets of Rome, just to slow the cars down enough to bring the points haul up. Another football analogy: facing San Marino isn’t the same as facing Spain, but beating either will get you the same number of points in your Euro/WC qualy pool – but not in the FIFA ranking. You should take a look at how the FIFA rankings are calculated, I think you’ll find it brilliant.

      4. zak misiuda (@)
        10th December 2013, 17:13

        Ha! Try getting that one past the tifosi! Monza is on of the cornerstones of formula 1 as well as Monaco and Silverstone, if any those three should award double points not some random race in an oil mine that has only appears on the calender the last 5 years!
        The FIA need a kick up the ar*e and remove this stupid rule emidietly.

      5. Not two people are alike either, I’m not a fan of Monaco, I’d rather have two Italian GPs at Monza than one in Monte Carlo.

    3. Joshua,
      I can’t agree with this you on this: it will NOT improve the “show”. This is starting to make F1 appear like that fake Wrestling in the States where they script who will win and don’t even pretend it’s real…just “entertainment”.
      I think they did it for two reasons: 1) to keep more people alive in the WDC till the end of the season if possible and 2) because of extra money changing hands from the Abu Dabi crew.

      1. @daved Indeed. I grew up as a WWF fan, not for the same reasons I love F1 and I don’t think this rule will make F1 any better, actually it will only highlight the current state of F1: Reliance on gimmicks… DRS, weired tyre rules, fragile tyres…

      2. @daved: +1, they discredit F1 by pulling it down to “Wrestling” level. By this they damage F1 far more than the some seasons occuring lack of tense excitement over the title contest to the end.

    4. @joshua-mesh, Intriguing, please explain how you think this will improve the show and be more entertaining?

      1. Because in my own opinion makes it that much harder to win the title 2/3 through the season. That means that unlike this year, I will have something to look forward to hopefully just that little bit further into the year.

        I dont think this will change the sport or races in any way. It is purely to improve the show in the latter part of the season.

        Its just my opinion. You can have your own.

    5. @joshua-mesh – even more entertaining would be if they race all year and then make a lottery to pick the only race that counts towards the championship.

      1. I dont think so at all. Thats extreme.

  3. I hope this gets revoked. IMO if they want to make the racing tighter they should spread the money the teams earn at the end of the season evenly, I think as it stands there is a jump of £10mil per constructors championship place. That is too much, and should be abolished or at least significantly reduced perhaps to £500-100K extra per position. I would also go as far as scrapping DRS (there is more to F1 than overtaking, especially the boring motorway pass that DRS creates), introduce re-fuelling and make the tyres harder.

    1. That’s why I praised and was very happy that a budget cap is to be introduced in 2015. Still, a more even distribution would be great to attract more teams. I’d keep DRS only if the rule is modified for the drivers to use it anywhere on the track, once per lap, to overtake or to defend. I wouldn’t bring back refuelling, heavy cars are a challenge for the drivers and the fact that they get lighter lap after lap is a challenge for the engineers. And I’d want normal tyres, like Bridgestones. One more thing, please reduce the number of people in a pitstop! There’s so many things that can be done instead of this cr*p. Signed: a furious F1 Fanatic.

      1. I love the budget cap (as long as it is properly monitored and not set to high a cap of $1bn – to use an extreme number – would make no difference). I would only bring back refuelling to do something about pitstops being a factor in the race. I do not like the fact that a driver can gain a fuel tenths on his competitors because his team are more efficient at changing tyres. A limit in pit crews could have that effect, and then mean that the benefits of no refuelling could be seen. If only fans had more power…

        1. That’s the thing, why have the FOTA Fan Forum, which many of you on this site may have been to.

          It’s basically a complete waste of time. A fake attempt to say we are listening to the fans. The F1 Strategy Group is made up of, if not current FOTA members but previous ones as well.

          Again as I begin to look more and more into this it continues to leave me gutted and wondering why bother with a “sport” that is run by an 83 year old joke of a man, and members that ignore the thoughts of fans.

          1. It’s a shame that fans are not listened to more often. The only case I can think of recently is when Bolton Wanderers (I am a fan) changed their shirt sponsor from QuickQuid to a local company after massive backlash. Let’s hope the same happens here.

      2. Oh I like the idea of once per lap anywhere; or similar to KERS maybe, for a limited period of time. Would allow the drivers to use it where they feel it benefits them more… Short straight to get close and save the rest to escape after, all on a long straight to catch up; and it allows the driver ahead to defend as they see fit.

        1. Luth (@soulofaetherym)
          10th December 2013, 17:41

          You begin the race with 300 (let’s say) seconds of DRS. Spread it however you like, whenever you like.
          It’d be a non-recharging ERS, only more effective and more limited.

          1. They have that in IndyCar, and it rarely improves the racing.

  4. Chris (@tophercheese21)
    10th December 2013, 10:27

    “to maximise focus on the championship until the end of the campaign”

    To me, this is just ridiculous.

    Why are the FIA determined to make the sport more of a lottery? With rapidly degrading tyres (last season), fuel restrictions, and now this!?

    This one decision has the potential to make or break a smaller teams budget for the proceeding year. Not to mention the title fight.

    Say for example, Toro Rosso are having another usual season, and end up scoring only 8 points in total through 18 races. What if a massive crash, or several cars experience reliability issues, or both, occurs and Caterham manage to score enough points to beat Toro Rosso in the constructors.

    Just like that. A seasons worth of work gone down the drain. Now Caterham won’t have deserved it, but they got it, because they lucked into it.

    1. @tophercheese21


      If this goes into effect, it could potentially result in 1 driver being the champion despite performing, on average, worse than second place

  5. Thought I’d make an overview of the worldchampionship history if this rule had come into effect from the very start.

    1950: No change, champion Farina won the last race

    1951: No change, champion Fangio won the last race,

    1952: No change, champion Ascari won the last race

    1953: Fangio would be champion instead of Ascari. Even though Ascari would still have scored more points over the season (46.5 vs 29.5+8= 37.5) The rule of the time of only the top results from each half of the season counting would mean Fangio would lead Ascari 36 to 34.5 due to winning the last race

    1954: No change, Hawthorn won the last race, but this would not make up his deficit to Fangio, he would displace Gonzalez as the runner up though.

    1955: No change, champion Fangio won the last race

    1956: Moss would be champion over Fangio having won the last race, the score would be 35 Moss to 30 Fangio, instead of 27 Moss to 30 Fangio .Both had to discard points due to the rules, actual scores were 28 Moss vs 33 Fangio. Fangio would have had to ditch his second place at the last race if you count discarding his worst result as discarding his worst finish. If you say discarding his worst result would mean discarding the least points he would discard a victory, losing 8 but gaing 12 due to his double scoring second place at the last race. Still leaving him runner up at 35 to 34

    1957: No change, Moss won the last race but this would not be enough to catch Fangio

    1958: Moss would displace Hawthorn as champion having won the last race. The score would be Moss 49 vs Hawthorn 48 (55 for hawthorn before discarding points)

    1959: No change, Bruce Mclaren won the last race but ended up only 6th in the standings Tony brooks would equal Jack Brabhams score of 31, but Brabham would still take the title on countback, having one more 3d place

    1960: No change, Moss won the last race, but didn’t contest the full season

    1961: No change, Innes Ireland won the last race but was only 6th in the standings, the top 3 either didn’t start the last race or retired. Dan gurny would be 3d over Moss

    1962: No change champion Hill won the last race Bruce Mclaren would beat Clark to second instead of being 3d

    1963: No change champion Clark won the last race

    1964: No change, Dan Gurney won the last race but was only 6th in the standings

    1965: No change, Richie Ginther won the last race but was only 7th in the standings, the top 3 all retired

    1966: No change, Surtees won the last race, but it would not be enough to promote him from second to first over Brabham even if Jack would not also pick up double points for finishinh second

    1967: No change, Jim Clark won the last race, But Hulme and Brabham finished 3d and 2nd respectivly leaving the standings unaltered

    1968: No change champion Hill won the last race

    1969: No change, Hulme won the last race but was only 6th in the standings, runner up Ickx would not overtake Stewart even though he was second and Stewart only 4th in the final race

    1970: Jacky Icks won the last race, this would have given him the championship at the expence of deceased Jochen Rindt

    1971: No change Cevert won the last race, he would have overtaken Ronnie Peterson as runner up, but could not threaten Stewart

    1972: No change, Jackie Stewart won the last race, but double points would still leave him well behind Fittipaldi

    1973: No change, Peterson won the last race, promoting him to second over Fittipaldi, butt Stewart still takes the crown

    1974: No change, Carlos Reutermann won the last race but was only 6th in the standings

    1975: No change champion Lauda won the last race

    1976: No change, Mario Andretti won the last race but was only 6th in the standings, champion hunt finished 3d, enough to give him the title

    1977: No change, Hunt won the last race but was only 5th in the standings

    1978: No change, Gilles Villeneuve won the last race but was only 9th in the standings

    1979: Giles Villeneuve would be champion over Schekter having won the last race by 56 over 51
    points instad of 51-47 to scheckter ( 60-53 before discarding points) This is because Sheckter retired from the last race and scored no points

    1980: No change champion Jones won the last race

    1981: Alan Jones would win his second title at the expence of Piquet, beating him 55-52 instead of losing 50-46 (reuterman split the two at 49 promoting Jones from 3d to 1st with this rule)

    1982: No change, Alboreto won the last race but was only 8th in the standings. Watson would move up to second in the championship from 3d with 45, but Rosberg would still take the title with 46

    1983: No change, Patrese won the last race but was only 8th in the standings. Piquet finished 3d, his closest rivals retired

    1984: Alain prost would win the last race and take the championship from Lauda 80.5 vs 78 (originally 72 vs 71.5 for Lauda)

    1985: No change, Rosberg won the last race, the top 2 retired, but rosberg would remain 3d in the championship

    1986: No change champion Prost won the last race, Piquet would beat Mansell to second in the standings having finished the last race as runner up with Mansell retiring

    1987: No change, Berger won the last race but was only 5th in the standings, the top 3 didn’t score

    1988: No change, Prost and Senna would both have 96 points. But Senna would still win the title having one more win then Prost

    1989: No change, top 2 both retired, Boutsen won but was not in championship contention at 5th in the standings

    1990: No change Piquet won the last race but would remain third, Prost would go from 71 to 75, but still lose to Senna at 78

    1991: No Change, champion Senna won the last race, runner up Mansell was second

    1992: No change, Mansell would still be champion by an enormous margin, but Berger winning the last race would have promoted from 5th to 3d and Schumacher would be promoted from 3d to runner up

    1993: No change, Prost would remain champion over Senna by 105 to 82 instead of 99 over 73

    1994: No change, championship contenders Hill and Schumacher both retired

    1995: No change, Hill won the last race after Schumacher retired but was way to far behind

    1996: No change, champion Hill won the last race

    1997: No change, Villeneuve was third, but schumacher retired,winner and runner up Hakinnen and Coultard were not in the top of the standings

    1998: No change, champion Hakkinen won the last race

    1999: No change, champion Hakkinen won the last race

    2000: No change, champion Schumacher won the last race

    2001: No change, champion Schumacher won the last race

    2002: No change, champion Schumacher won the last race

    2003: Raikonnen would beat Schumacher to the title with 99 to 94

    2004: No change, Monyoya won but was only 5th in the standings

    2005: No change, champion Alonso won the last race

    2006: No change, champion Alonso was 2nd in the last race, challenger schumacher only 4th, winner Massa was too far behind

    2007: No change, champion Raikonnen won the last race

    2008: As already stated, Massa would beat Hamilton to the title

    2009: No change, champion Vettel won the last race, but champion Button was 3d and too far ahead

    2010: No change, champion Vettel won the last race, Hamilton would be promoted to 3d over Webber

    2011: No change, champion Vettel won the last and no changes in the top 3

    2012: Alonso would be champion over Vettel with 296 over 289 instead of losing 281 to 278, Button would be 3d instead of 5th having won the final race

    2013: No change, champion Vettel won the last race

    1. So to recap, in 63 years this rule would have meant a different outcome in 10 years.

      Fangio would lose the 1956 title, but gain the 1953 tile, leaving him with 5
      Ascari would only be a single instead of a double champion
      Hawthorn would lose is one tilte
      Moss would be a (deserved ) double champion
      Icxk would be champion over Rindt, though I doubt he’d be very happy with it
      Gilles Villeneuve would be champion
      Scheckter would not
      Alain jones would eb a double chamion
      Piquet would be a double champion instead of a triple
      Lauda would be a double champion instead of a triple
      Prost would have 5 titles instead of 4
      Schumacher would lose one giving him 6
      Raikonnen would be a doucble champion
      Alonso would be a triple champion
      Hamilton would not eb a champion
      Massa would be

      1. Vettel would lose one giving him 3

      2. OmarR-Pepper (@)
        10th December 2013, 12:49


        Moss would be a deserved champion

        There is not “deserving” champion, even if you are a fan. Champions are champions. Period.

        1. @omarr-pepper I beg to differ!

        2. I disagree. Moss would have been a deserving champion. Somebody like Kazuki Nakajima, for example, would not. Luckily I can’t think of an undeserving champion, but that doesn’t mean that Moss isn’t far more worthy of the title than other non-championship winners (and perhaps even some championship winners). Particularly if never being able to string together a single season with half-decent reliability is what keeps you from the title.

    2. Well done for that! Interesting to see how different the Hall of Fame would look!

    3. Excellent work. Thanks. :)

    4. Another thing to take into consideration is the effect it would have on the constructors’ championship. There it’s not only the winner who matters, but the top 10. For the smaller teams it could have a huge impact financially if they lost or gained a couple of places because of the idiotic double points rule.
      Considering that it would only affect the winning driver in 10 years out of 63 I think this rule could have a much greater impact in the teams standings.

    5. Very interesting, thanks for the hard work calculating all of that!

      1. Yes,right, let’s try it again with double points for,let’s say, the 1st. race.

    6. The only problem I see is that it’s never been a rule so it’s hard to predict how it would have played out. were it always a rule many of those results could still be different. Teams may have saved a new engine or planned new updates, had they known the final race was double points. There’s many small things which could have impacted on the result had a team known it was worth double points.

    7. The thing that seems to be overlooked is what difference it may have made further down the standings. It’s generally a lot closer towards the midfield at the end of the season, and given how important the prize money is to those teams, it could completely have changed things around for some teams.

    8. @erivaldonin yes, forgot that one :)

      @omarr-pepper you are right ofcourse, Though if someone asked me who was the betetr driver, Moss or Hawthorne, I would say Moss. hence the “deserved” between the brackets, as in Sir Stirling Moss was so goo he would have deserved at least one title

      @f190 Yes, it’s purely a mathematical exersice, had the teams been aware of the rules of the time things would likely have played out differently, it’s still fun and interesting in my oppinion though :)

      @hawkii I’ll see later if i can add complete stats, but it’s a lot of work

      1. Oh yeah totally, I wasn’t trying to subtly suggest you do it when I said it. As with the FOM TV cameras though, the middle of the pack battles seem to be being forgotten about.

      2. yeah I get what you’ve done and thanks for taking the time to put it together. I didn’t mean to sound like what you had done was pointless ! Huge kudos for taking the time to work it out, it was great to read and I agree really interesting to see.

        I just wanted to mention how the smallest things can have a huge impact. To add to that I guess the biggest change would be attitude. I mean if a driver only needed to finish say 5th to win the championship, then the team may go easy on the setup. With this rule in place that may not have been possible. Also the attitude of rival teams. If a team feel they are out of championship then they may go all in for the last race, turn everything up to 11 and have a blow out or a crash pushing to the limit. Or that may be the only reason some drivers won the final race, because the championship contender was taking it easy.

        What I really dislike about the new rule is it just seems too big of a gap. There’s 14 points different between 1st and 2nd ! Thats like driver A winning and Driver B coming 4th/5th at any other race !

    9. Excellent post. However you’ve considered the outcome (which to me is the most relevant thing to consider).

      The FIA have changed the rules “to maximise focus on the championship until the end of the campaign” which is something completely different (and entirely ridiculous). How many more people would have watched the final race on TV? How many more people would have tuned into the wireless to listen to the final race? How many people would have bought the newspaper the next day to see the result?

    10. Great research, would be interesting to see the old results using the new points system then compare it again!.
      Though I’d still be against it!

  6. @keithcollantine – What you must remember, Keith, is that this site is full of petrolheads. We will watch every race, no matter what, and therefore the FIA doesn’t care about us. Who the FIA does care about is Johnny-casual-F1-watcher who turned over to Holby City during the recent Vettel domination, and even to the most illogical individual, that is bad for F1, especially since casual F1 viewers make up the largest percentage of the viewership. If we can win back Johnny-casual-viewer by ensuring Vettel doesn’t win the championship several rounds from the end, than frankly it is worth fobbing off the occasional racing purist. F1 lost a large percentage of its casual viewership in 2013, and no matter how you cut it, that is a grave threat to the health of F1. And to be honestly, if it is a choice between gimmicks and another season like the one we just endured, then bring it on, FIA. It is desirable? No. Is it elegant? No. Is it necessary? Absolutely.

    1. I’m seeing a lot of petrolheads turning off too. It happened to WRC and it can easily happen to F1 too.

      As for why F1 lost so much casual viewership in 2013, that’s got far more to do with TV deals (no longer on free to air channels in many countries) than it has to do with the racing. Otherwise numbers wouldn’t have been down at the start of the season too.

      1. @textuality – I disagree. What happened in WRC was completely unrelated. The dismantling of the 1980s formula of WRC, which was frankly unsafe, robbed it of much of its spectacle, and that, coupled with sporadic TV coverage even turned the hardcore away. That is not about to happen in F1, and anyway, if someone turns off F1 in protest, they don’t fit my definition of a petrolhead. The impact of the TV deals was confined to 2012, where there was a apreciable drop in viewership, although some of that has since recovered. However is someone who likes F1 (likes not loves), and watches it when it comes on the BBC about to endure weekend after weekend of tedium at the hands of Sebastian Vettel just to satisfy their normal routine? No. A dull season is seeing the casual viewership tun off, and F1 very much needs to satisfy that viewership if it is to be financially sustainable and not just an elaborate way of burning petrol. Quite frankly, gimmicky F1 is a lot better than no F1 at all.

        1. Has it recovered? I’d be genuinely interested in seeing some data on that because what I saw towards the middle of the season said otherwise.

        2. do you watch the pinnacle of every form of motorracing, in case someone accuses you of not being in the cool kids “petrolheads” group?

          i have a friend who is elbow deep in his Audi engine every weekend, affixing new suspension parts for all his mates, and going on trackdays, yet he never watches F1; but id take a punt than he’s much more a “petrolhead” than me, who watches F1 every race weekend and endures the sport he loves being dismantled year after year. Watching one series of racing religiously (that conveniently you do), does not automatically give you authority to dish out/take away that particular moniker.

          Tbh this attitude of “people who dont like it anymore werent real car fans anyway” is stupid, elitest and doesn’t make sense. Many that are leaving are the ones who are angered the most by the dilution of a sport we remember as great from only a few years ago. And they are angered the most because they care so deeply for it, and what we had. I’d say that this latest direction the sport is taking is driving both the most ingrained viewership away, and a portion of the more casual viewers, coming back over to F1 in recent seasons “because they saw Rush/Senna and they watched it as a kid a few times”. Leaving a block of people that watch it but don’t have that an emotional connection to it and will watch it because on the surface its still cars racing around a track, and its called the same name; and a slice of increasingly embittered and embattled enthusiasts.

          I think the more casual set of people get a bad rep by us “harder core”. I don’t think every “fillthy casual” can be placated with gaudy bells and whistles and not care one iota about the racing integrity season after season. Even someone who saw a few races through the 90s, for example, would turn back over if songs-of-praise get cancelled, and acknowledge that what they’re seeing is a watered down form of what they remember.

          You say that the casual viewership will all saunter off if it wasn’t for the gimmicks, but i’d say the very same gimmickry is turning away a considerable portion of these people too. On top of a considerable slice of “petrolheads”.

    2. I don’t want to be picky but, Holdby City is not on at the weekend. That said, however, I did turn over during a qualifying session the other week to watch Strictly Come Dancing.

      1. @lotus49 – As an individual who watches both, I probably should’ve known that.

    3. OmarR-Pepper (@)
      10th December 2013, 12:54

      @william-brierty I’m a petrol-head with no money to give to the FIA, so my turning F1 off is not important for Mr. Ecclestone. That’s the saddest thing.

    4. @william-brierty I’d go as far as saying the FIA is the one who *does* care about the petrolheads – they know the true fans are the ones who will stick with the sport.

      It’s FOM (and their CVC paymasters) who are chasing the casual viewer because more viewers = more money. All these methods to mix up the sport invariably seem to originate from Bernie’s camp.

    5. @william-brierty
      This is exactly the problem most people have with gimmicks like this. Instead of encouraging casual fans to embrace the sport as it is, these rules are attempting (without any consultation with the mystical casual fans) to entice them in by adding more elements of luck and randomness.
      This doesn’t encourage causal fans to become dedicated followers of the sport, so once the excitement of a double points finale has worn off they’ll move on to something new and the sport has suffered for nothing.

      1. @mark-hitchcock – True, but gimmicky F1 is better than no F1 at all. There are a huge number of people who like F1, but don’t love it, and it is these people who start channel hopping once they see Vettel has a lead of over ten seconds. F1 needs to stop that from happening. We need as casual viewership every bit as much, if not more, than we need the hardcore viewers. A double points finale may just tip the balance in favour of the underdog in the dying seconds, and it is in the creation of a formula for a sporting comeback that we see the creation of a formula for sporting memories. Every sports fan in the world knows the story of 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix, even if they’d never heard of Felipe Massa before, and we need something of that nature, whether artificially and inelegantly produced or not, to maintain causal interest in this era of Vettel monopoly.

    6. Some good points, but the fact remains that this sport seriously risks losing even its core fanbase due to several factors. In recent years one major mistake in the UK was to allow Sky Tv to show F1 races and to charge such high prices for the service. At the time, people were comparing it to football and how Sky helped promote the Premier League. Forgotten in all of this witches brew was the fact that Sky Tv show nearly every match played in the Premier League live, and that’s a lot of games, compared to seventeen grands prix. And even then, the BBC were allowed to broadcast some of those races. It was, in short, Ecclestone’s and Sky’s way of shafting the British general public.
      You can get away with screwing people if they feel they are getting value for money, when the season is a nail-biter and you have several drivers going for the title. However 2013 was the opposite, as was 2011. You knew who was going to win three months before the season finale in Brazil.
      Another factor is the way in which this sport continues to treat its fans. Personally I think it is nothing short of disgusting. I will never buy the argument that fans, whether they be fanatics or moderates, should be treated with contempt. Its all well and good satisfying corporate big wigs with fancy suites and endless bottles of Mumm, but its the 95,000 other poor souls who dropped a consider chunk of change for their day out that should be given undivided attention.
      F1 should use social media more, Facebook and Twitter are great, but I am talking about Youtube and showing more of the recent grands prix. Make the sport more excessible and less aloof, less stiff and snobbish.
      I have never been a fan of the engine regulations. I don’t like the idea of going to V6 powerplants anymore than I did when the sport went to V8 engines back in 2006. They sound, in short, like a swarm of hornets compared to the old V10’s or V12’s. Afterall, F1 is supposed to be a racing series, not a knitting competition.

      1. I will never stop watching F1. I am addicted. I am the very definition of a petrol-head. I will watch the finale in Abu Dhabi, I won’t agree with it, but I will watch it, and I will keep watching F1 after DRS has yet more Belgian and Canadian GPs, because the thrill of seeing the cars and drivers on the edge superscedes even the most abhorrent gimmicks. I am also not alone. Most people on this blog will simply grin and bear it and keep on watching, but my point is the casual viewer won’t keep watching if it is dull. Certainly, even the hardcore fans were hit hard by the awful Sky deal in 2012, with those without the money for such things forced to watch overtly edited highlights of the sport they so love, which is on every level wrong and frankly quite tragic.

        However, has F1 been treating the casual viewer with contempt? The hugely strategic nature of F1 meant that it was nigh on impossible to follow for anyone less than a regular viewer, which is why Pirelli are bringing more conservative tyres in 2013 to neutralize the overtly strategic aspects of races. The occasional “gimmick”, whilst painful for you and I, may catalyze the intense on-track action needed to keep the attention of Mr Casual. The truth of the matter is, F1 can’t satisfy casual and hardcore at the same time, so the group that might require a little more stimulus to keep watching is going to inherently receive more attention, because, after all F1 is a business.

        And how would social media help? I quite like the way F1 attempts to adopt the “high brow” approach, because, after all it is at the cutting edge of science and technology and therefore it doesn’t need to concern itself with lower trivialities. And anyway there are plenty of people in F1 who use social media who you can follow! And are you saying that you are the only person in the world to have heard one of the new V6s out on track? Because it seems quite obvious to me that it is sheer folly to judge them purely on how they sound in a laboratory…

  7. I am very cynical that next year’s finale will actually award double points. No matter what the FIA say about unanimous agreement and ratification, we’ve seen rules and regulations change even in the middle of F1 seasons all the time. Given that this rule was apparently concocted by Bernie, I’m even more cynical. After all, Bernie was the one who came up with the concept of the championship being decided by medals, which was announced as a rule ahead of the 2009 season, before being dropped before the first race.

    Bernie is very crafty. He’s far more intelligent than me or the majority of us. He knows exactly what to do to manipulate the teams, the circuits that host his races and, most importantly, the media. Remember that debacle at the High Court doors when he appeared for question regarding bribery allegations? Like Keith himself noted at the time, that was Bernie’s attempt to deflect media attention away from the actual allegations against him by providing a bit of a circus sideshow that the media would focus on instead.

    This is exactly the same type of thinking we’ve seen from him before with announcing races at completely impractical places or rules that are totally ridiculous and I’d be very surprised if this new rule wasn’t partly to do with Bernie attempting to try and generate so publicity and controversy to keep F1 talked about after a totally one-sided and dull end to the last season.

    And the funniest thing about this is that it’s working. Despite a lot of comments recently from many respected fans on this site about how many are beginning to get disillusioned by the current state of Formula 1, the sheer reaction online to these latest regulation changes shows just how much people still care about Formula 1.

    As Vettel continued to dominate F1 and the races became increasingly more predictable as the season began to wind down, the volume of comments over race weekends slowly started to dwindle with it. But as soon as you have something like a series of dramatic rule changes happen yesterday, WHAM. More than 450 comments yesterday alone.

    Sure, 90% of them were negative. But if you’re Bernie, you know that the old adage is true – any publicity is good publicity. People are still extremely passionate about Formula 1 and what it stands for and are willing to speak out in defence of what the sport stands for whenever they feel it is being harmed. As a lifelong fan of the sport, that actually makes me pretty proud. We’re constantly being underappreciated by the FIA, FOM and the teams, to an extent, but we carry on watching and Tweeting and posting about F1 because we care about Formula 1 as a sport – not as a show or a business.

    Ultimately, I don’t think we have much reason to worry. Just like the medals concept of 2009, I believe that the 2014 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix will award just as many points as the Australian Grand Prix or the Monaco Grand Prix. Given how political and crafty the people who run this sport are, I’d urge us all to be a little bit more cynical about the people who run the sport and not take everything they say immediately at face value.

    1. I get this vibe too.
      Hope they do it though! (I know I’m alone on this)

    2. “And the funniest thing about this is that it’s working. Despite a lot of comments recently from many respected fans on this site about how many are beginning to get disillusioned by the current state of Formula 1, the sheer reaction online to these latest regulation changes shows just how much people still care about Formula 1.”

      Incredibly well said magnificent one.

    3. I’m not so sure about this. I think it would be so, if nothing else came out for next season. But with the massive set of new rules in place, people are talking about F1 a lot already.
      Why would he need a flame of controversy when F1 is a pretty interesting subject as it is?
      Although you could very well be right about one thing: this being a sweetening pill or a deflection of attention from another thing. Such as a new rule being sneaked in.

      1. Because what looks better in a red-top?

        “New V6 Turbo Formula due next year – Red Bull expected to continue to dominate” or “Crazy despotic ol-man rulers of F1 attempt to ruin heritage of sport ahead of technical shake up”

    4. I have the same feeling that it could be overturned by the time we get to that race, but that could be more in hope because of how much I don’t want double points to happen. Fingers are crossed nonetheless.

    5. What I’m wondering is whether a lot of race organisers might rebel. You think think that their contract gives their race equal billing in the championship.

      1. *You would think

  8. This smacks of desperation from all involved in the decision.
    We don’t need double points to make the racing exciting. Would double points have made the slightest difference in Brazil this year? No. Those that were bored of Formula one would still have been bored and still not have watched.
    I for one am excited about the forthcoming season although I believe more could and should be done.
    With the introduction of the recoverable energy systems, giving the drivers more boost for longer on a lap, this should herald the end of the DRS systems. Drivers will need to develop strategies for using the boost to the greatest effect around the entire circuit, rather than pressing a button when they cross a designated line.
    Something that has baffled me for the last few seasons is why teams are penalised on cost cutting grounds for engines and gearboxes not lasting a certain number of races. Although it’s perfectly acceptable and in fact encouraged to run on tyres that will only last 5 or 10 laps.
    Bring back 2 tyre suppliers. Admittedly there were issues in the past when 1 team had exclusive development access to their tyre supplier, but i’m sure in these days of limited testing that should no longer be an issue.
    In short, F1 isn’t too broken at the moment. There are many exciting changes ahead in the new season (double points NOT being one of them). Introducing too many changes at once is never a good idea. Finally lets give a nod to previous F1 carnations and look at what we can learn from them.

  9. What is it that they call F1,”the pinnacle of Motorsport”, yah right. Pull another one :)

  10. @keithcollantine you have hit the nail on the head. Another gimmick that devalues the sport. Such a shame that F1 is becoming less about being a sport and more about being a show.

    1. Twas always like that.
      And still, I love it.

  11. I don’t think the FIA should be overly concerned by what the fans want as far as the points system goes. The fans hardly ever want any change. A lot of them are opposed to a cost cap simply because it is difficult to police for instance. If anything the fans are most prone to knee jerky and overly emotional reactions because they are emotionally invested in the sport as any fan of any sport are. So any pool that comes out on the same day of the news announcement it is bound to contain some not very well thought out and overly emotional opinions and this article is just another example of that. The purists will be up in arms, it is a folly, an outrage. Nonsense. The fans are important no doubt, but their opinion is not always a good measure of what is good for the sport. As @melkurion pointed out, if this rule was in force from 1956, the champion would be different in only 10 occasions out of 63 years. If it comes to the final race and the championship leader finishes ahead of his closer pursuer he is still going to be champion. This is being completely blown out of proportion but it is understandable, it is off season, we need something to talk about.

    1. @pmccarthy_is_a_legend

      How is this article an example of “not very well thought out and overly emotional opinions”? Could you please also explain why this rule change is something positive? What is good about a driver winning the title just because he scored more points in a double scoring round of the championship? Surely the current points system is more fair?
      How does the fact that it would only change the outcome of 10 championships make the rule any better? What about the constructors’ championship? How much would it affect the order of the top 10 and the prize money for the different teams during these years?

    2. How is ‘only 10 out of 63’ okay?

      1. How is ‘only 10 out of 63′ okay?

        I agree. 10 out of 63 is nearly 16%. It would be equivalent to saying “Rule change X would only have affected 3 races this year”.

        1. If affecting ONLY 10/63 is to be concidered a good thing, then that still means that you dont want it to affect the outcome and isn’t a reason to have the rule in the first place.

      2. And one of those 10 would strip Jochen Rindt of his posthumous WDC. I think if you are prepared to die for your sport you don’t want your achievements de-valued just to “sex-up” the last race.

  12. @keithcollantine amen, +1000

    It’s rare to see a piece like this form you Keith and that fact alone is a clear sign almost evreyone is displeased by this. Time to share this like crazy on Twitter!

  13. I think that my first experience of motor racing was in the early sixties, when I was taken to Brands Hatch and saw, heard and smelt the brutal exitement of the racing. Jim Clark was one of the drivers on that day. I don’t know what year, what series, or any other details, but I was hooked. I have watched ever since. Now I am losing interest in a big, big way. Deprived of half a season by Sky TV, the rest for me, ruined by Ben (four words at a time) Edwards’ commentary.
    Crash test dummy drivers, controlled by the team PR dept. Shallow meaningless interviews, ‘for sure, the car is much faster now. We did some good changes in the garage and made good improvements today’. ********.
    “I think I deserve a drive next year as I have finished every race this year”.
    I could have done the same job, in my Volvo estate, and scored the same number of points!
    I have tried switching my attention to Moto GP but I can’t stay awake! World Superbike, ditto.
    British Touring Car Championship, good sport, open aproachable drivers (in radio contact with the commentry box), good TV coverage, crap website.
    It would seem that I am going to have to give up on any form of motorsport, learn the rules and force myself to love rugby, as it would appear that this is the only sport that Sky does not want to buy.
    PLEASE tell me that it can’t get any worse.

    1. How is a crap website enough to put you off a sport which it sounds as though you quite like?

    2. Luckily for me im into motoGP, no gimmicks just real racing lights to flag. Only factory Honda and Yamaha have a chance of winning and I like it that way. Its supposed to be a competition for the highest prize in their dicipline, the best riders will be asked to ride the fastest bikes.

      Bring on marquez v lorenzo v pedrosa 2014!! an dont forget rossi either

      1. yes there are plenty of motorsports that are highly entertaining, no gimmicks and no same driver winning 18 races in a row. F1 is a joke

    3. you were deprived of half a season by the BBC. they could not afford to show F1 so opted to keep the free-to-air rights, in a deal with sky, but only show half of the races. sky never were the bad boys in that old chestnut.

    4. Richard Fulwood
      18th January 2014, 21:21

      If you want to watch good motor racing tune into Australian V8 Supercars if you can get it. This year Ford,Holden,Mercedes,Volvo and Nissan will be entering cars so there is more variety. The tracks and formats also vary from 1000 Km enduros at Bathurst to short races on tight circuits like Winton in Victoria. Double points for last race in F1, what a gimmick. Agree with some other comments that Mark Webber is getting out at the right time. I hope Daniel gets a better shot than Mark did. I am a biased Australian.

  14. If you are going to have gimmick of having double points for the final race, why not have a joker where you can get double points for any race? How long before the lower teams are “selling” there services to block a team form winning double points? The FIA really need to let the fans and sponsors have a say before the sport becomes a complete joke.

  15. It might be an idea impossible to put in practice, but I think a fan boycott of the race would be appropriate.
    I find this rule to be so preposterous that I can’t figure out how it actually came to be. I understand there surely are huge financial benefits for the FIA, but this is too much! Potentially a driver can easily gain 2-3 championship positions over this rule, it is farcical!
    The least they could do was dress this up differently. Such as make the night races worth double. Or make the rain races worth double. Or whatever. But simply stating Yas Marina circuit is twice as prestigious to win than Spa or Monaco or Silverstone is simply breath taking absurdity!

  16. I hate how F1 is so worried about entertainment. The other sports I watch don’t seem to care about that too much.

    If an alpine skier wins by two seconds, he’s applauded and admired for it. If Vettel dominates a Grand Prix, it’s boring.
    This year’s French Open final was boring and predictable, but it makes tennis fans appreciate great matches more. When Monaco or Spa are boring races, F1 needs to improve the show.
    In 2010, the football World Cup final, surely one of the most watched sporting events this century, was fairly dull. But that’s a part of the sport and, again, it makes us appreciate good matches even more.

    Very rarely is there a Grand Prix as great as Monaco ’96, Nurburgring ’99, Interlagos ’08 or Interlagos ’12. The rarity makes them even more special. F1 shouldn’t try to make them frequent through artificiality.

    1. @Enigma I completely agree, we are not talking about a TV series where the producers need to invent some incredible turns of events to keep the spectators entertained. (And every TV series either ends after a few years or irreversibly loses its sanity).

      1. To continue the tv analogy… F1 has finally jumped the shark.

    2. But the Skier, Tennis player usually don’t hold a close to 1-sec advantage to the others in the field. That is when it is boring. If seeing Vettel go through the track as fast as he can is exciting, there need not be a race at all. We could stop on Saturday and give out the points.

      1. And giving him double points for it would make it more exiting?

      2. @evered7 – Many eras of F1 have been “boring”.

      3. @evered7 that’s actually not true at least with skiing. Vettel type dominance does occur. Ted Ligety has won 8 of the last 10 World Cup giant slalom events and been on the podium for the other two. Alberto Tomba dominated similarly 20 years ago. That doesn’t make it boring, it makes it exciting to watch a true master in a class of his own who will be remembered long after most of his competitors have been forgotten.

        1. Yeah, Ligety’s a very good example of that. Same goes for certain parts of this year’s ATP world tour that Nadal completely dominated.

      4. If the FIA mandated titanium skid blocks, aesthetically pleasing engine regs, and opened up the engine formula to allow for offbeat exotic designs… then yes, simply seeing the cars in action will be enough of a spectacle alone. Instead the cars look poxy and sound poxy.

        Give me a Ferrari 412T2 anyday, most beautiful F1 car in history and the last V12 monster

    3. petebaldwin (@)
      10th December 2013, 17:35

      @enigma – Sure, but when the skier has skis that are capable of going down the hill 10 seconds faster than the rest, it’s not so exciting….

      It doesn’t have anything to do with this double points rule though. All that would have happened in the last few years is that Vettel would have won by a greater distance!

      1. Seconded. As much as it is exciting to watch the drivers control these high powered machine, it isn’t racing if the lead person is 20 seconds at front and having a lonely drive.

        I am not saying that giving double points will make it exciting. I am only mentioning why I find it boring.

  17. This came out of the blue and I’m so angry at them for this lunacy. How dare they imply that Yas Marina is twice as important as Spa, Monaco or Suzuka. This is the most damaging thing they’ve done to F1. This doesn’t even come close to the one lap qualifying we had some years ago.
    I’m totally and utterly outraged by this travesty and will never watch the last race on principal. This is coming from someone who has rarely missed a race since his teenage years (now in late thirties).
    I hate to say it but Bernie is loosing it, so are the teams. First the bloody turbo/electric engines and now this!
    What the hell is going on, I’m so very sad.

  18. I’m aware I seem to be against the grain, but I think this is a great idea. Interest is heightened in the last race of the season because of what is still up for grabs in the championship. So in the last race of 2013, we were mainly focussing on Mercedes v Ferrari v Lotus for 2/3/4 in the constructors’ championship, and who might get 3rd in the drivers’ championship.

    With double points for the last race, so much more remains undecided until later in the season. Battles for places in both championships will last longer into the season, and be more intense in the final round. There is less incentive for teams to sap the life from the closing stages of the season by just going through the motions as they focus on the next year’s car.

    1. You used 2013 as an example, but you didn’t say what extra intrigue there would be.

    2. It will be effective at raising interest in the final race of the season, and will make the season potentially go longer before a WDC is decided. However, it is the fact that this is being achieved in such a contrived, artificial and gimmicky which is making people, myself included, so angry.

  19. I’ve been following F1 from about 1983. I’d like to think I’m a hardcore fan and I’m also somewhat of a traditionalist/purist. I have never had a problem with the technical advancements because that’s what F1 is all about. I’ve always believed that if F1’s critics want a level playing field then go and watch GP2 or Formula Ford.

    However where I draw the line is with artificial racing and gimmicks. I’ve been a constant and vocal critic of DRS and I’ve always been utterly baffled by the amount of F1 fans (not to mention prominent pundits) who were and still are ambivalent towards it as a solution. For me it was an affront to racing and a blatant shortcut around fixing the underlying problem of overtaking and ‘dirty air’. But for a reason I still can’t explain, people bought it and accepted it as an ‘entertaining’ solution.

    It now looks as though DRS served 2 purposes. Not only has it made for artificial overtaking but it now appears to have set a precedent for gimmicks and desensitized the fans towards that kind of ************ from the FIA happening a 2nd time.

    This is about trying to keep the championship going until the final race. Or to put it another way, it’s a fix for a short-term problem of Red Bull dominance. They tried to do the same thing when Schumacher was cleaning up by changing the points system to 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 and damn near made a balls of the WDC where Raikkonen nearly took it the following year with a string of 2nd places. But the era of dominance ended and now they’ve fixed the points again. But it seems they haven’t learned.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. My support and love for F1 is not unconditional. They’ve been walking a fine line for a while now and I think this is now the tipping point. I do not want to watch an F1 that treats its fans like this. I do not want to waste my Sunday afternoon watching a ‘sport’ that has become so rotten that it no longer fixes its problems, it invents gimmicky workarounds to keep the playstation-generation fan from turning over. Well done. You’ll keep those fans but you’ll lose me and I expect many others like me.

    I’m still hopeful this will be dumped. I kind of expect that it will be dumped because I think even the FIA aren’t that moronically out of touch with the fan that they’ll proceed with it. If they do, I’ll be back. If they don’t, then I’ll make a point of not watching a second of next season. And who knows, I might even enjoy the break and extend it.

  20. Don’t worry guys, the FIA will make this right by adding ballast to the top 5 cars! (Sarcasm).

    1. :-D Don’t even joke about it ! Given that it’s common-place in other formulae, I’m surprised it hasn’t been given a second thought for F1. By the fact it is elsewhere, it would even be seen as less of a gimmick than the double points *gulp*.

  21. Remember the idea to change the points system to a medals system? That was scrapped because the teams disagreed. I haven’t seen anything from any teams yet about this.

    1. They agreed with it. Not sure why but they have to (via strategy group) otherwise it cannot become a rule.

      Medals was a bit of a Bernie boiler to distract from other things happening

  22. is this an example of the politically most powerful team in F1 flexing its hooves?

  23. I dont get why there trying to dilute the sport with silly gimmicks. Its not as if this is a new racing category that needs a USP of sorts. It isn’t a lower racing category that needs a gimmick. This is F1, THE pinnacle of open wheel racing and THE pinnacle of motor racing. We watch it because the worlds best racers go head to head on the worlds greatest tracks, racing for the some of the greatest car companies in the world. We dont watch for needless gimmicks and rules. Whats next we get to vote for our favourite driver to save them from elimination.

  24. Shall we all boycott the final race next year?

    of course I’ll download it from a torrent site the day after so as to only negate the tv viewing figures, the likely outcome is vettel or whoever will win by a bigger margin anyway so we probably won’t miss much…it’s about time F1 catered for the hardcore petrol head fans first!

    1. They won’t know whether you’re watching or not anyway unless you’re one of the 5,000 homes with a device which records your viewing habits.

    2. I didn’t bother watching the Abu Dhabi race this year, and look what’s happened…

  25. If we want double points, so give hem for real tracks like Spa, Monza on Silverstone, not for boring gulf kartdrome….

  26. I don’t think DRS and KERS is good for the entertainment either.

    At the last race, my mother watched F1 with me, something she never does. I had to explain how DRS worked and why some cars receive an advantage to overtake the guy in front. It took me long to explain the KERS concept too. Does making the sport more difficult to follow as a casual viewer any good to the viewing figures? I don’t think so …

  27. I still can’t understand how such gimmick will improve the show.
    It may keep the fight to the final race in one boring dominant season, but in the same way it can destroy great, close title fight. I can’t believe this, season 2010 would have been for Sebastian even without the wrong strategy from Ferrari. The title in Brazil 2008 was decided few corners before the chequered flag, whit this gimmick Massa was going to be champion leading the race from start to end – where the …. is the excitement in this??
    Even the final in 2012 was going to be destroyed and i think this was the best race i have ever watched, my heart nearly gave up back then. Alonso was going to be champion because Hulk rammed HAM, and after VET had his large amount of misfortune? But like this wasn’t enough lets give and more points too… I don’t know why FIA don’t quadruple the points. You know, that way even 2013 final would be interesting. Really, is this the way we want to crown our champions?
    Thanks, but no thanks.

  28. I quite like it. It means the teams will have an incentive to keep developing their car right to the last race. It’s not a gimmick, it’s just another points system change.

    There should be more things like this. F1 is what it is and it’s going to be this way for a while so lets got in there and spice it up.

    If you don’t like the way it has become then remember to cancel your sky subscription and don’t watch the race. But I guess you complained last year and the year before but still watched all the races!

    1. @jaymz
      This incentive to keep developing the car until the end is something that will favor the big teams with enough resources to develop both the current car and next year’s car. The small teams will still have to switch focus to next year’s car at some point. Perhaps towards the end of the year we’ll see even larger gaps between teams as the big teams continue to develop aggressively while the smaller teams back off.

      It’s not just another points system change. Points have always been given out equally over the calendar. Choosing one race to hand out double the amount is unfair and unsporting.

      1. It’s not just the big teams fighting for points. In fact it might be even more of an incentive for the smaller teams who score the lowly points.

        I wish people would give up on this big team hating. All the while supporting one I bet. Yes it’s a bit unfair that a smaller team can’t really compete for championships but there is still money to be won even when you score no points at all. And being a big team is on guarantee you will be successfull in winning a championship, but if you have a good business plan then you can still go racing and even make a bit of money.

    2. The teams and drivers already had plenty of incentive to make a good showing all the way through the last race. Teams and drivers are always looking to score more points for WCC and WDC. Many championship races throughout the field are not decided until the last race, even without extra points. Also, drivers trying to get rides for the next season are keen to do well to impress prospective teams.

  29. Well said Keith. I hope the FIA realise how disliked this gimmick is and act despite the extra money they’re getting from Abu Dhabi, because let’s be honest, this wouldn’t be happening if the finale was in Brazil.

    Just think how hollow the title victory would be if the winner gains say 49 points on the leader at the last race due to the other having an engine failure, for example. They wouldn’t be the real champion in many people’s eyes.

    The decision needs to be overturned for F1 to retain some credibility.

  30. OmarR-Pepper (@)
    10th December 2013, 12:58

    I know we will be seen as the grumpy oldmen opposed to change, (I’m 29) but this is so much. I’ll see re-runs if they stay with this rule. If the 2014 champion clinches it due to this rule, I will not consider him that way, not even if it’s Vettel himself who gets benefitted from it.

  31. This decision is a disgrace. I love Formula 1 since 1996, I haven’t lost a race or a qualifying session for years now and I strongly thought until I read this that I will continue watching for the rest of my life , but this rule approved by some corrupt incompetents made me rethink it in an instant. The championship is no longer fair, it favors the car most well-suited to this track, it favors the better qualifier over the better driver, etc
    As others said, decisions like the medal system, shortcuts or water artificially sprayed on the track no longer seem unrealistic, the governing body seems determined to turn F1 into a scam, something as real as WWE.
    The race organisers of Abu-Dhabi have the most to win, their race being moved to the end of the year and the FIA accepting to ridicule itself and its main product to maximise this event. It’s obvious that Todt and the others received money for this and someone should investigate this.
    I accepted DRS but this is too much. I still think that they will rethink their position after the public reaction, but not only Bernie is braking the law up there, I think almost everyone does!

  32. David not Coulthard (@)
    10th December 2013, 13:14

    Here’s a simple solution (albeit more a patch than a fix): Double the length of the last race!

  33. Surely a gimmick dreamt up in order to prevent Vettel becoming World Champion whilst the season is still in Europe.
    Will this “rule” be aboilished when he hangs up his gloves or leaves Red Bull?

  34. David not Coulthard (@)
    10th December 2013, 13:21

    Or shouldn’t the FIA give double points for races on the Nordschleife, the best version of Spa (which isn’t the original as Spa originally came without Eau Rouge), or perhaps rebuild Brooklands and award double points there.


  35. Maybe at FIA Gala they can roll big lottery balls and play out which race had 0 points, which had double points etc.

    Fun,fun, fun.

  36. I’m fed up of this. F1 is dying, and it’s taking a piece of my heart with it.

    (This may sound over dramatic, but… no, it IS over dramatic. But it’s what it feels like at the moment.)

  37. I have been an F1 fan since 1986 and I was looking forward to 2014, but as each headline passes about 2014, I grow increasingly weary of F1. Yesterdays double points announcement is the icing on the cake and I think I am finally done with F1.

  38. Goodbye F1!!!! Bon Voyage, GOOOOOOOOD-bye! off to moto GP

  39. This is so retarded. I hope redbull do another 2013 and Seb wins 19 in a row just to shove it to the FIA.
    525 points to Seb and he can surely take the record of youngest driver with the most points.

    *please note my heavy use of sarcasm.

  40. What next? “Drivers on the lead lap can pass turns 5-6 and drive straight through to turn 7”? Mushrooms? 1 UP boxes on the long straights? Points just for finishing a race? Since 2009 F1 has become gradually more like Super Mario Kart, with KERS (which goes into ERS for 2014), unsafe degradable tyres, DRS and now Turbo boost. I wouldn’t mind the double points if the race was twice as long, but it’s the same length! Do what FIA WEC (of all things) does and only award more points for longer races.

  41. It’s already been said but this is spot on, Keith. I don’t have a single point to argue with here. If we could get everyone to print this out and post 5 or 10 copies to the FIA, teams, WMSC, we might actually get considered in this farce.

  42. If there is no change to this rule by the begining of the season, then I really hope that either Vettel or Alonso or Hamilton or anyone win the championship in Brazil with 51 points to spare!! Now that will be something!

  43. Hi guys, I think F1 is not a Tv show as someone will do, it’s a motorsport. Someone will kill it. I don’t believe it.

  44. The teams will reject this ruling as well….A ruling has been passed by the FIA but the teams have to accept it unanimously in order for it to be processed in the year 2014…Firstly, the ruling on minimum pitstops was suggested by the FIA…2 in this case…That ruling is out of the window now as teams have rejected it…….Soon, teams are going to reject this stupid rule as well and all will be placed in order again…………This rule is beyond ridiculous……its blasphemy…………..

  45. Not sure if it will help, but I created this facebook group “Boycott the Final F1 Race of 2014

    I am hoping that we will be able to get a decent no of likes which we can than forward to someone at FIA to reconsider this most stupid decision.

  46. It’s rather comical that FIA and the like are so worried about the entertainment value for a bunch of people who think F1 is boring. So to please them, maybe making them watch a few races. Heck even a whole season. But at the same time they push the long term fans away from the sport.
    F1 is a solid sport. It works. It has it’s flaws, yes. Try to fix that.
    If someone bumped into Jean Tod’s car, would he, instead of fixing the damage, cover his whole car up in bubble wrap and duct tape to stop it from happening again? No. Because then it would be useless as a car. But it’s what’s happening to F1 at the moment. To fix a couple of flaws, they are making EVERYTHING worse. Instead of focusing on ACTUALLY fixing the problem.

  47. Is it a bad idea? Yes.

    Is it worse than DRS? No. Actually, I’d welcome this with open arms, if it was traded in for the end of DRS. Why? This rule affects the championship, but it doesn’t affect the racing!

  48. Double points in the last race should also mean double the distance with my logic. Some reason more to promote the last race importance than the “keep the championship alive”-reason should be good to have to give the change more acceptance.

  49. I’ve got an idea for the FIA:
    Why don’t you do double points for every race? It adds value for every race ;)

    Think about it and if you choose to use the idea I’ll hand in an invoice :)

  50. My main problem with the double points idea is that it doesn’t solve anything or really caters to a need. It adds an element of uncertainty, sure, but that isn’t a good thing in business, while the business side of the teams are having hard times. Teams like Lotus, Sauber and the backmarkers could suddenly lose lots of positions in the final weekend and thus lose a lot of money. The effects extend far beyond what it intends to do; liven up the battle for the championship, of which we have seen great ones in the final races of ’07, ’08, ’10 and ’12. Does it create an even playing field? No. Would it have changed the finales of seasons like ’02, ’04, ’11 or ’13? Nope.

    It’s as if they made a brainstorm and threw a dart at it to pick the solution. I’m getting fed up with these random decisions and poor long-term thinking. Case in point: ‘we’re going to also form another group, which is going to try and do in 7 months what a former FIA president couldn’t do in years and the teams themselves have been trying to do for at least 4 years as well.’ If your department at work ever told the CEO ‘we’re going to start another department (sometime) which will do this (somehow)’, odds are, you’re not going to get a pat on the back and a press release.

  51. This idea has Bernie written all over it. (He is on the F1 strategy group that approved this, a rules think tank made up of the FIA, 6 out of the 11 teams and commercial boss Bernie Ecclestone.)

    The teams will go along with it because more points = more prize money.

    Very successful gimmick on many different levels. Any publicity is good publicity (in the mind of Bernie) and this ploy has received more media and social media attention than some of the actual races and will probably continue to do so. And, this is in the off season.

  52. This is what the target thinks about the idea:

    1. I just read that, too.

      Sebastian Vettel criticises ‘absurd’ F1 double points plan

      Makes it all look particularly stupid, doesn’t it?

    2. @magon4

      “This is absurd and punishes those who have worked hard for a whole season,” said the 26-year-old, who won the final nine races in 2013.

      Exactly. The idea is absurd.

  53. @pmccarthy_is_a_legend
    “I don’t think the FIA should be overly concerned by what the fans want as far as the points system goes.”
    No worries there. They are not concerned.

    “The fans hardly ever want any change. A lot of them are opposed to a cost cap simply because it is difficult to police for instance. If anything the fans are most prone to knee jerky and overly emotional reactions because they are emotionally invested in the sport as any fan of any sport are.”
    It’s taken years of observation to come to my “knee-jerky” conclusion that the teams will never come to a meaningful budget cap. ;-)

    I would just rather see better racing as a way to attract new fans and keep old ones. Gimmicks are not sustaining, you’ll need a new one constantly. Discerning new fans that will stay with the sport will do so because of the quality of racing and the mystique, legend and tradition that is F1. Gimmicks will only bring fans of gimmicks.

    1. Sorry, was supposed to be a reply…

      1. No need to apologise Bull, we’ve all read the legends insult to our intelligence 3 times now.

        1. Sad but true the budget cap idea, however well intentioned, has been a colossal waste of time, energy and resources towards an unproductive end repeatedly. Remember the anticipation, the endless negotiations, the numerous hopeful articles written about how a meaningful budget cap was finally going to forged and agreed to by all the teams. Look what we ended up with, a toothless pile of mush that was blatantly ignored by all who agreed to it. That was not the first attempt and failure either. History will repeat itself again if we do not learn from it.

          What can we learn from previous budget cap attempts? The teams most affected by the caps, the teams with the most money, will never agree to anything meaningful that will limit their spending and reveal their true budgets. They cannot be forced to do it, so why would they willingly agree? For the good of the sport? The richest teams would first resort to a scorched earth policy that eliminates all but the richest teams as long as they can still survive. They don’t care if it degrades the sport, they only care about their own glory and prize money. Even if F1 was on the brink of going out of business, there would likely still be dissenters on a vote for budget caps.

          This is not negativity, it is being pragmatic about the nature of the top teams in F1 and the dynamics of how F1, FIA and FOM are set up to operate. Until that changes, the top teams will not agree to give up their power. So, to be positive, let’s not waste time and hope on something so unproductive and burn our energy on ideas to improve F1 that could actually happen.

          1. @bullmello, we seem to inexorably marching toward customer cars, I think Ferrari would be perfectly happy to have half the teams running Ferraris and wouldn’t mind if f’rinstance Fernando had a really bad-luck year and Hulkenberg in the FIFerrari won the WDC, taking Le Mans 24 as an example, Ford, Aston Martin, Bentley, Jaguar etc. have all benefitted from having strong customer teams.

  54. petebaldwin (@)
    10th December 2013, 17:25

    Wait a second… “unanimously approved by F1′s new Strategy Group?”

    Christian Horner voted for something designed to stop Vettel winning the Championship before the last race? Why would he?

    1. More points = More prize money

      Given the Red Bull track record, they are most likely to benefit.

  55. ” … wean themselves off their addiction to gimmicks and work at the deeper problems affecting the sport. Such as the negative effect aerodynamic turbulence has always had on the racing … ”

    OK. What gimmick is going to be used to change aero effects?

  56. According to Sport Bild, Mercedes and Ferrari voted in favour of the double points rule, Red Bull against it. And Vettel thinks it is nonsense.

    1. Ferrari in the near past would have lucked into a WDC twice, but if they believe it’s likely to happen again it’s no wonder Bernie runs them in circles.

  57. The savior of all mankind, Sebastian Vettel, has come out against the double points race. He called it “absurd”. http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/formula1/25324100

  58. Oh my god, I’ve only just found out about this. What a complete joke. I wonder at what point I stop watching, I’ve gone off the sport a lot this year.

  59. i never thought i’d say this but i hope next years championship will be decided well before the last GP. just to **** off the FIA and the dollars from the emirates.

  60. I say: The new rule doesn’t go far enough.
    The top 3 drivers of the championship go for the title in the final race. The points don’t matter anymore in this race. Who comes out top in this final is champion. If all 3 fail to reach the podium, the best ranked guy in the championship who makes it onto the podium is champion.

    Take that, FIA weaklings!

    1. @rankx22 lol Yeah. They can do much better for the entertainment show.

      The season win should only qualify the driver for the chance to go for the “championship” in a special “jackpot” challenge, to be held right after the end of the final race. Here he must draw a number from a hat, he will then switch cars with the driver who’s race number matches the drawn number, and then the two of them will drive the track in the opposite direction for 5 laps with all timing withheld.
      After this is completed the driver will be put up on the podium with his choice of two team/family members. They will then be given the time put up by the other driver, and then they will have to endure 30 seconds of suspenseful music before being told if they beat the time of the other driver to win the championship.

      Just imagine it. Sebastian Vettel standing up on the podium with Helmut Marko and Christian Horner
      while a voice says this over the sound system
      “Sebastian Vettel you drew the number of Felipe Massa. In your car, Massa set a time of 1:32.564 seconds………… Driving Massa’s car you set a time of………………………….1:33.340”
      (sad music, sad faces on podium)
      “So this means this year’s championship will roll over to next year with the drivers all competing for a double championship!!!!”

  61. This is why so many fans oppose the plan so strongly and will no doubt continue to put those complaints to the teams and the FIA on Twitter, Facebook and every available avenue over the coming weeks.

    @keith I like what you’ve done there

  62. I think f1 has ridiculed itself enough with the tyres and DRS. In addition to that there is a lot of frustration from fans when the sport was dominated by a technical head over the past 4 seasons.

    But none of that compares to this ridiculous double points race in Abu Dhabi

    I cant watch this sport for much longer.

  63. Another concern: we’re talking about cost cutting but now teams must develop new componenents for the car until the last race, because the last race is so important … instead of already focussing on next year’s car …

  64. In other sports news, FIFA announce that goals scored in stoppage time will count double from next year’s World Cup.

  65. This is basically a slightly ahead of time glimpse at what the sport will be like when it is entirely, completely run by invisible soulless businessmen and not mostly run by invisible soulless corporate businessmen.

  66. What they could do instead is simply change the points structure to award more points for the win and less points for 2nd, 3rd.

    And they can restrict aerodynamic development. This is mainly where the costs come from and where performance between the teams can become uncompetitive. And like Keith said, current aero restricts overtaking.

  67. I’m suprised that Bernie hasn’t picked up an idea or two from other game-shows. Like audience participation. How about a phone in vote from viewers electing which driver gets a 10 second stop-go penalty, or bonus extra seconds for their KERS. I’m sure that this would bring in many more viewers of the type that Bernie is trying to attract.

    1. Or a great big puddle of mud in the run off area covered with a light tarpaulin painted like tarmac, imagine the fun when a car ran off the track and ended up buried in mud, hahahoho ha a anha ha then the driver has to hahahohoho wade through the mud hahahohohoha, priceless TV, the ratings will go through the roof.

  68. Nascar has the concept of Chase for the Cup where only the top 13 fight for the championship in the final 10 races This is considered as the chase. I AM NOT A SUpporter of even that concept as it undervalues the the effort put in through the 3/4 of the year. For me the double points seems to be more of a some commercial impact business decision than a decision made for the sake of the sport. If it was a sport related decision the teams and the strategy group would have very easily said no to this.

  69. I read through the press release for these changes with a smile of satisfaction on my face, until I got to this point. All changes were positive for F1 except for double points. It just doesn’t make any sense.

  70. It will go away when Ferrari first get bitten by it.

  71. why not introduce championship ballast. works great in btcc. even split the race into two one hour races and have a random reverse grid in the second. if all else fails introduce a mandatory safety car half way throughout he race. it would back the pack up you would guarantee at least two pit stops then. limit the drs to a set amount of time throughout the race and even a push to pass button. works great in indy car and gives a half believable way of areodynamic juggernoughts being able to pass each other

  72. If F1 wants to become gimmicky, don’t half-ass it; if you want gimmicky entertainment, go all the way. Bring in sprinklers. Bring in temporary nitrous boost. Bring in banana peels drivers can toss onto the course (everybody gets 3, unless they somehow can pick up the peels that other drivers have thrown). Bring in medals for the rest of the races. Bring in shortcuts that can be used only a few laps per race. Bring in fan voting systems that allow them to dictate who is penalized and who is rewarded.

    I’m sure there’s a fanbase for Super Formula Mario (let’s face it, I would probably watch it), but let F1 continue with the serious racing.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: heavily restricted aero, more mechanical grip, and increase power. I want to see F1 drivers struggling to put power down. I was watching some old Top Gear, and during their Senna tribute (Series 15) I noticed (again) how the old cars were always squirming under power/braking and you could see the drivers really having to work their cars. That’s what I want. Keep the modern gearboxes and brakes; aerodynamics are interesting, but not when they are the determining factor in a season.

  73. The conspiracy theorist in me is beginning to wonder if this isn’t all part of a master plan by the FIA to get rid of CVC, or FOM, or something.

    Step 1: Make F1 completely ridiculous. DRS and disintegrating tyres were only the beginning. Unique numbers means loud, driver-specific merchandise. Double points. Some more ludicrous proposals.
    Step 2: Proper fans leave. But because they’re motorsport junkies, they begin watching other classes of racing. Most of these are sanctioned by – surprise, surprise – the FIA. So the FIA retains the repeat eyeballs.
    Step 3: Without proper fans providing the base, the glitterati fall out of love with F1. They were only here because the crowds and the flashy cars made it seem glamourous. No crowds and anteater/phallus-nosed cars means no glamour.
    Step 4: No glitterati means tracks stop paying Bernie/CVC for the “privilege” of hosting a race.
    Step 5: F1 becomes toxic. CVC wants to sell.
    Step 6: FIA/Consortium of teams swoop in and buy the now-depreciated F1 for a pittance.
    Step 7: F1 is reborn with pre-’97 regs and no Bernie.

    Hey, a guy can dream!

    1. Too bad the actual plan is closer to:

      Step 1 – Regulation changes
      Step 2 – ???
      Step 3 – Profit

    2. What a great dream, if only I didn’t have to wake up.

  74. F1 is becoming wacky races ,it will be the laughing stock of motorsport .
    why not just have the last race and be done with it . being champion will mean nothing .

  75. Why don’t you make it a 1000 points for a win, and hold the final race on the Moon !

    I think this is well and truly the craziest thing I’ve ever heard. How can the best driver over the course of the season, just lose it in one final ( I could have a cold .. oh well !)race ? It devalues the previous races, and smacks of nothing more than a move to get more money. If not, whoever make’s these rules up, are seriously off their rockers. F1 is boring these days, I really think you’ve just killed the sport in one move.

    Good luck watching those numbers of fans dwindle.. You’ve lost me well and truly, F1 Champion now means nothing.

  76. I bet Bernie is already cooking up the next gimmick…pole sitter using only 3 tyres at Yas Marina :)

  77. This new rule is so inspiring – let me suggest some more:
    – Points awarded for best livery (phone-in vote)
    – Points awarded for evening drag race runs between qualy and race
    – Points awarded for most tires saved after the season – 5 points per tire
    – Points awarded for most fuel saved after the season – 1 point per liter
    – Points awarded for most daring podium interview comment
    – 1 points awarded for entering the Monaco tunnel on even seconds – minus 1 point on odd ones
    – “Safe” points awarded for anyone in row one and two who doesn’t enter the race – say 15 points
    – Points awarded for most even doughnut
    – 100 random points awarded to whoever has already finished at the number on a ball picked out of a crystal jar by a monkey wearing a smoking on the podium after the race…..

    – and so on and so on. What a fantastic show we could have!
    (No, really, I am crying!)

    1. That would be fantastic! LOL

    2. You forgot 15 points for Maldonado in every race he doesn’t crash into anyone else.

  78. David (@mansellsmoustache)
    10th December 2013, 23:34

    I honestly thought it was April 1st when I logged into F1Fanatic yesterday…

  79. I think if they want to add interest, they should award double points for the toughest, best tracks. Give double points for Spa, Suzuka and Imola. Maybe a bonus for winning pole at Monaco, and for staying awake through any race at a Tilke curcuit.

  80. This double points idea is DREADFULL right up there with sprinklers to wet the track on purpose!! All about “entertainment” to capture casual fans… All that’s missing now is for them to ask viewers to vote for their favourite driver for extra points and soap opera storylines for each of each of them. Why can’t they just ditch the crumbly tyres DRS kers and this latest pile of nonsense and go back to honest of goodness racing where the best man/car combo wins. As has been said f1 wasn’t booke so why wrek it?!

  81. While I’m certainly not in favour of this double-points rule, I can’t agree with the analogy between widening of goals in response to scoreless football games and DRS.
    It hasn’t become more difficult to score goals over the years, whereas F1’s ever-increasing downforce levels have made overtaking much harder.

  82. It is the more stupid rule of F1 history.

  83. F1 gets a lot of cash from each race. The tracks/countries/organizations that pay this money to Bernie all saw their races devalued relative to the last race of the year. They will not be happy. This will be overturned.

  84. I am actually not against this. i think it works like a “wild card” and can counter balance luck or certain issues that might hinder a team during a season. In the overall scheme of things, it will not influence much, I think, in the top half of the standings. it will, however, mean a lot if the midfield is as competitive as it was this year. Many “do or die” strategies in this race, I presume.

    What I don’t agree is that Abu Dhabi becomes the “de facto” end of season venue. I would love to see a “lucky draw”, or a “fan vote” for the end of season race, if it is to become so important. However, MONACO should NOT be included, or it would be a pole shootout affair.

    For an ending like this, I would love to see it in SPA, Montreal, Suzuka, even Silverstone . A driver’s circuit.

    1. Or create a special circuit just for this race: Something demanding, with lots of overtaking opportunities, but unforgiving, with sand traps and not long escape roads. A One of a kind spectacular circuit with hills that would also demand more from the engines. If it is to be a race that rewards double the points, it should mean double the challenge for the teams and drivers.

  85. F1 is becoming a reality TV show. Next you will be able to vote drivers off the grid.

  86. I was shocked when I heard the double points rule change, why should the last race be worth twice the points of races 1-18, and why should a dnf be twice the penalty just because it is at the last race? This goes against the idea that all races in the season should have equal weight in the championship.

    Double points would not ensure that in dominant seasons the title fight would be extended, this season the title would still have been decided in India even with a double points last race. In the recent seasons that went to last race deciders 2008, 2010 and 2012 the effect of double points would be for the championship to be less close, and the race less exciting, as the difference in points between positions would be greater. In 2008 the title would be won by 5 points rather than 1 point (Hamilton would have needed to finish 2nd to win rather than 5th), in 2010 by 23 points instead of 4 (Alonso would have needed to finish 2nd rather than the 4th he needed (he finished 7th)), and in 2012 by 7 points instead of 3 (Vettel would have needed 4th rather than 6th).

    I have read that the original idea was for the last four races to be awarded double points, this idea was completely ridiculous and unfair, 2 or 3 wins late in the season would be equal 4 or 6 wins in races 1-15. There would be a real risk that a driver who had performed the best during the season and had won the most races could be beaten to the title by a driver whose only wins came in the four double points races (this is also the argument against “Grand Slam” races that some have proposed). Do we want a world champion with four race wins, in the “right” races, over a driver with eight wins in the “wrong” races?

  87. Sorry if this is off topic but I can’t think where else to vent about the issue. Feel free to delete the comments if they have strayed too far off the subject matter on this thread.

    F1 is changing radically but for no good reason. The tail is wagging the dog methinks.

    Moving towards smaller engines, fancy energy recovery systems, and so on, is a drop in the proverbial ocean of energy consumption. Will the same amount of energy be expended on manufacturing the cars? Yes. Will the same amount of energy be utilised to move the F1 teams around the world? Yes. Will the same amount of energy be expended in moving fans to races? Yes. Pro rata, the amount of energy that will be saved by smaller engines is almost certainly negligible. Think about it: the energy consumption of 22 cars, running over 57 days – plus testing – is nothing compared to the amount of energy input required to get the cars and fans to the races.

    If F1 (and any other mass spectator motor sport for that matter) is going to have any real impact upon resource use, the focus should be on matters other than the engine size of the racing cars. Call me cynical if you like but I don’t buy the benefit of smaller engines for one minute. When one looks at the issues critically it becomes manifestly clear that reducing the engine sizes is nothing other than a marketing trick. To the casual observer it seems as if F1 has gone all ‘green’. The truth is little has changed.

    Like any sane person, I believe we should use resources wisely. However, the energy saving benefits of the smaller engines will be negligible. The new engines are highly complex, apparently they are very expensive, and some analysts predict problems with reliability. Maybe the latter point will only be a teething problem.

    The V8 engines are tried and tested. They could have been developed further in order to further the technical excellence of F1. Costs would probably have been reduced too. Instead, we are looking at massive changes that will introduce cost and design problems, while having virtually zero impact upon the issues they claim to address.

    I suspect the search for ways to spice up the races interfaces with introducing radically new engines. The engines are changing so we “need” to change the rules. Hence the daft proposal for double points in the final race. Mandatory pit stops might have been introduced but were headed off. They were proposed though so were probably part of the “we need new ideas because we have new engines” mindset.

    F1 is clearly the pinnacle of automotive engineering excellence, so it is essential that engineering innovation should be reflected in the sport. But the sport now seems to be suffering from the flip side of the search for excellence: complexity. The irony is the complexity of new year’s regulations are a corollary to an engine change that wasn’t even necessary. The V8s should never have been dropped because dropping them has created a lot of problems while solving…well none really.

    F1 is now suffering from the entropy that comes out of complex systems. The search for gimmicks is symptomatic of a wider malaise.

  88. I haven’t seen any ‘good’ arguments against this idea, except for a large number of emotional reactions.
    On the positive it certainly has the effect of dragging out the DWC and Constructors till the last race of the season (which is actually great).

    Yes it will heavily penalize poor performance on the final race, but why’s that a bad thing?

    1. Well it doesn’t just heavily penalize poor performance, it heavily penalizes someone who gets tapped by someone else in the first corner and ends up at the back of the pack through no fault of their own or their team’s.

      And I wouldn’t discount ’emotional reactions’ since by the tone of things it would seem a lot of people are getting more and more dejected with F1, and if for example this caused a drastic reduction in global viewership of F1, I would like to think F1 would react strongly to ‘mere’ emotional reactions. It is that which fans feel emotionally about the sport or their favorite driver and/or team which keeps them enthralled. When F1 becomes overburdened with gadgets, mid-season tire changes, rule changes, and now skewing of the points, there become just too many unnecessary variables beyond the usual ones to stay invested in F1.

    2. Seriously? No good arguments?

      This heavily penalizes whoever happens to have their fluke mechanical failure at exactly the double points race, essentially turning a close season into a ridiculous lottery instead of a serious battle of men and machines. You will potentially end up champions that most fans refuse to recognize as they have clearly not won by skill but purely by having their own mechanical failure at a ‘low cost’ race!

  89. Well guys do we all think f1 is going the same way as indycar and NASCAR did to get viewing figures up ,Too many gimmicks wrecked both sports and even killed drivers for example our own dan wheldon in which he was involved in a gimmick promotion at the Indy 500 last year what was it 1 million or something dollars bonus to go from last to 1st i am very worried for f1 at the moment Someone is going to get seriously hurt fangio ,hill ,clark,senna will be turning in there graves at this shambles f1 is no longer a sport its a commercial business exercise.

  90. Wondering why they chose the last race?
    Not the first or 13th etc.?
    Why not to allow double diffusers and double engine displacenments (i.e. 3.2 liter turbo) for the last race?
    Looks like Bernie’s brain has gone AWOL.
    Please remove the marasmatics from the strategy group – F1 is turning from a pinnacle of motorsport to a private freak show of Mr. Ecclestone.
    What F1 needs now is a fresh tide of raw talent – fast young drivers, cutting edge technology – this is what makes the show not the pay drivers using mandatory restricted machinery, stupid gimmicks and unfair point system.
    I lived in Soviet Union started following F1 in 1979 and my only source of any info back then were the Czech weekly car magazines I subscribed just to get any info on F1. I even learned Czech to understand the articles.
    You folks just can’t imagine what excitement it was! Reading the short articles in foreign language brought much more excitement than now when I have live timing on my tablet and all the footage from endless cameras on my TV.
    I still remember the shivers I got when I was just reading (not watching) about epic battles like for example Villeneuve vs, Arnoux at Dijon GP 1979


    Now when I watch it at youtube I got the same feelings – fearless folks fling their monster cars which are too powerful for their aerodynamics sideways, locking the wheels in huge clouds of smoke, slipstreaming each other in epic and clean wheel to wheel pure racing without stupid DRS, KERS and other gimmicks.
    Now when I watch F1 will live timing on my tablet I hardly suppress yawns.
    Thank you Mr. Ecclestone for killing the passion and the sport.

  91. I hadn’t had much time to be here in the past week until yesterday when I came on and saw the news and the massive outcry over the points skewing.

    Hopefully F1 will see this negative reaction which has not just been from those outside of F1 but from those within, and withdraw the concept.

    One of my reactions is surprise that they feel this is necessary now, when it was supposed to be the massive changes to the engines and chassis’, and as a result more sensible tires for 2014 that were going to shake things up and perhaps bring the Championship down to the wire. So I guess viewership must have really suffered with SV winning it all so early this year and they can’t trust that the new regs will prevent a team dominating, even in the first year.

    What a shame they refuse to simply reduce aero. I get that the teams are heavily invested in this type of racing, but I don’t suggest they have their wind tunnels taken away…why can’t the scales be zeroed by the teams being limited to their wings having a rake no more than they would use at a high speed track like Monza, for all the races? Yes we all know they will continue to work toward clawing the downforce back, but limiting what they can do with their wings and chassis’ surely would go a long way to enhancing the racing for a time.

    I also think that if only the racing was closer, and we didn’t have to witness DRS passes, but instead we saw a team, even a dominant one, at least have to work harder on the track for it, we wouldn’t mind so much if most of the season was enthralling and a driver won the WDC with a few races to go, but we really had the sense that he truly fought for it for 18/20 races. That’s always been a possibility in F1 and other forms of racing anyway, a Championsip being decided before the final race I mean, and what a shame that the viewing audience, F1 feels, isn’t capable of appreciating that.

    Put the racing back in the hands of the driver behind the wheel, on the track, and THAT will create the story. Without even witnessing a final, points-skewed race, we can already see, as should F1, that this is not the story line folks are looking for. The athletes should be creating the story on the track.

  92. This new raft of rules is complete bobbins. The thing i’m buzzing most about for next year is the BTCC at the moment, as their MO as always been about “fun” and “close racing”; and with a capacity grid and a full NGTC roster of cars its gonna be exciting; gimmicky exciting, but its never tried to hide that, and you accept that if you start to follow it as a series. It’s never tried to be the serious, bleeding edge search for ultimate pace that F1 should be. As for the more grown-up side of racing, i’ll probably keep just as much of an eye on the WEC next season, if i can find out where its broadcast.

    Formula 1 as i’ve known it has gone walkies. People can mention the tyre management of the 60’s, the fuel conservation of 80’s turbos, the “best results” rules of the pre-90’s – but i started watching as a kid in the mid-nineties (i think Senna’s death was one of my earliest memories, but i might have just planted that), and so F1 to me really should feel like the 95-05 seasons, probably minus the Ferrari International Assistance.

    And what it is at the moment is no-where near that; if the F1 of my childhood was a breakneck opera, then F1 of my 20’s seems to be some festive season pantomime where all the actors wear stupid, gaudy outfits to hide the fact that there’s no substance to the script.

  93. Don’t the FIA want any fans to follow F1.We started by having stupid electronic aids ,then putting the races on Sky, followed by rubbish tyres and now double points. Please can we go back to proper racing ,I don’t hold out much hope for next season.

  94. Seems every pronouncement/rule change increases the power of these arm chair-bound governors.
    Ever hiding behind the curtain, no meet the press after races like drivers and managers do to explain inconsistent decisions, and apparently don’t even bother to ask for opinions outside their closed group before they make an Important Announcement like this nonsense. One more change that increases their self-importance and power and that, not the ‘sport’ (and certainly not the fans), is their priority.

  95. Instead of double points for the last race, I would have preferred it if they gave bonus points for pole position and the fastest lap in the race. I think this is a better way to spice up the racing because it encourages all drivers to really go for it at all times instead of pottering along running their own race.

    1. Yes, bonus points for fastest lap would be good.

  96. I agree it is utter nonsense to give double points at the last race of the season.

    What they could do instead to make the sport more interesting is to scrap qualifying and always let the drivers start in the reverse order to their current standing. Then they should also give points to the top 15 drivers instead of just 10. The driver with least points should have pole position and the Championship leader should start at the back.

    Besides it would be a big improvement if they allowed the teams to use whichever tyre manufacturer they want as they used to.

  97. Suggested point system for 15 drivers.

    Points to 15 drivers: 1: 50, 2: 42, 3: 35, 4:30, 5, 26, 6, 22, 7:18, 8: 15, 9:12, 10: 10, 11:8, 12:6, 13:4. 14:2 and 15:1.

    And a bonus for fastest lap, perhaps 5 points.

    1. Crashtor Malfunctionado
      14th December 2013, 18:56

      Or they could go back to 10-6-4-3-2-1 … so beautiful and elegant in its simplicity. Apparently Schumi was too dominant so the FIA put an end to that nonsense quick smart >:(

  98. A small SCIFI Christmas story:
    Comming to the Abu Dhabi F1 race 2014: Before the race Alonso is leading the Championship by 42 points over Vettel, after a dominant autumn by Ferrari and in particular Alonso. However with the new rule of double points in the last race, it isn’t fully decided yet.
    Alonso starts the race on Pole and Vettel is on second row. The race unfolds and Alonso leads by a good margin over Vettel, who has fought his way up to second, but at the penultimate lap Alonso is hit when overtaking a backmarker and his left rear wheel is gone. Vettel storms past and wins the race, and his 5th Championship in a row.
    A month later FIA removes the rule about double points in the last race “because the F1 fans didn’t like the rule in the first place.”
    And for 2015 the FIA then wants to introduce Succes-penalties, i.e. for next race a driver get a weight penalty proportional with the number of points he got in the race.

Comments are closed.