Driver Mistakes Enliven Race

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 74 total)
  • Author
  • #302855

    I don’t agree in points for any other reason than for finishing positions.

    Otherwise, it makes the history books very confusing. Like “Schumacher’s points in the past were all for race finishes, while Nasr in future years scored xx points for finishes, and xx points for overtakes, poles and fastest laps.”

    Where does it all end?!

    Giving so many points out (as it is, 10 points positions for 20 starters is too generous) is like a ribbon for showing up at sports day – it devalues the hard work in getting a top 6/8/10 in a race.

    There was a time when there were 36 entrants, 30 to pre-qualify, 26 to start and only 6 points positions available. And still teams like Rial, March, Larrousse and Tyrrell would achieve this from time to time. Now THAT’s achievement!



    I may be kicked out of the minds of many here, but points-for-overtaking is not a gimmick…pitstop strategies are. Take the IndyCar Mid-Ohio race of last weekend. Sage Karam’s controversial spin and the resultant caution cost Montoya’s strategy and suddenly lifted Graham Rahal into contention. I know F1 and IndyCar are a lot different but isn’t that an “outside influence”?

    Take the Monaco Grand Prix – Max Verstappen smacks into the barriers and the Mercedes team erroneously calls in Hamilton and he loses the race. Isn’t that an “outside influence”? The team’s influence in a driver’s performance should be limited to the car they manufacture and the set-up. It shouldn’t be in deciding who comes in first for a tyre change. The action should be on the track and not in the minds of race engineers and team strategists. Why can’t people figure that out?

    As things stand right now, pitstops are the only action-inducers, if you like (we’re not including the Hungarian race here). But that’s “outside influence” in my mind. The only other way action can be induced is through overtakes. Points for overtakes increases the motivation and incentive to do it.

    Overtaking is the essence of racing. Go back to the roots of why a race is held – to know who wins. Otherwise why have a race if people will finish in the order they start. Theoretically, on paper, a Mercedes-Benz AMG and a Manor Marussia all line up on the grid to win. If Manor has an opportunity to win, it will take it whether it has the performance or not. That’s why it lines up on the same gird as the Mercedes. It has the right to win, if it can. The rules don’t say that only the superior car should win, remember? Any of the cars that line up on that grid has the right to win, if it can.

    If Manor wins, it doesn’t make F1 “WWE on wheels”, if you really know what WWE is.

    The problem is after years and years of watching teams and drivers dominate races, people find my idea totally preposterous when in fact it is closer to the real spirit of racing.

    I just hope people figure that out sometime!


    Points for overtaking? Is this some kind of wind-up?

    All I can say is I am glad that the powers that be haven’t suggested anything quite that silly just yet (although double points wasn’t a million miles away.)


    +1000 – Definitely No points for overtaking!



    Good observation. But we are not racing to make the history books look good.

    The points system needs a complete overhaul in terms of not just classification, but understanding. The way the competitors of the past scored points must be seen separately and their achievements understood in such a manner.

    When change is necessary, it needs to happen. We can’t be thinking of history when we need to move forward. Sometimes, aggressive change is needed.



    The very fact that you are comparing points-for-overtaking with double points shows that you have not understood or even tried to understand what I’m lecturing about. You’re just like many of the others who see “points for overtaking” and brush it aside just because it sounds so different and radical.

    As I said earlier, I may be kicked out of the minds of many here just because of the mindset people like you have but I stand by my view. And you have the right to stand by yours too…


    So for example last year, when both Hamilton and Rosberg at points made a mess of qualifying for whatever reason or started from the back of the grid and with their massive performance advantage manage to drive through the field to 2nd place, you would be happy giving them effectively double points in the championship?

    As far as I am concerned, the points system should reflect the results of the race and the championship positions reflect each teams results over a season, not the ‘story’ of a race or race build up.

    Would we not start seeing teams who have the performance to finish say 3rd-5th deliberately qualifying down the order so that they can ‘top-up’ their points total by overtaking cars that are easier meat? Knowing the way that F1 teams optimise their performance and strategies, this is exactly the way your suggestion will go.


    Yes you are right it is radical. I understand plenty enough what you wrote, thanks, and I think it is ludicrous.

    Your points for overtaking scheme is significantly worse than double points. At least that was only for one race, this would change the entire fabric of what motorsport (notice the word ‘sport’ in there) is all about. It would be the gimmick to end all gimmicks. Under your scenario, what would there be to stop teams with a demonstrably faster car deliberately qualifying further back on purpose? If you get points for overtaking, what would stop that from happening? It would be a complete farce.

    You mentioned above that you need a race with as much action as Hungary to not get bored… Somehow, I don’t think you’re watching the right sport. Dragoll’s comment was perfect. For me it’s enough to watch the best cars in the world driven by the best drivers in the world and see who is fastest. I don’t need a classic race every other weekend to keep me entertained. That is why I would like to see the cars being made more difficult to drive, then we would really see who is the best and at the same time you’d see more mistakes (which is what you want) without resorting to a ridiculous gimmick.

    The first car over the finish line wins. If someone drives off into the distance from lap one then that’s fair enough by me, they have the best package and did the best job. Excellence should be rewarded, and it should be hard to overtake in Formula One. That is why I dislike DRS, and it’s why I find artificial, overly complicated gimmicks such as this pie in the sky idea that you have ridiculous.


    Yes overtaking is fun (and I think the DRS has allowed much more of it than before), but the end goal – and end reward – is bringing the car home. So if someone overtakes 15 cars, scores 15 points, and then crashes into the 16th car, he should not be rewarded with anything. Under ‘points for passes’ he would still have 15 points, even if he crashed off. So in theory, the championship could be won by a person who never even won, or even finished, a race!

    The idea is unworkable and thankfully will never happen.


    I don’t remember many drivers blasting 2011-2012 tyres for being too fragile. 2012 season was very positively rated. Were 2013+ tyres different from the ones Pirellis brought before? That would make sense as I heard drivers saying they no longer have any influence on tyre life from 2013 onwards.


    @pt It’s like telling Yes every single album should be 90125.

    Yes, I get it, Relayer may not satisfy too much (on the 1st listen anyway), but should every album sound like 90125? Goodness me….NO!

    But we are not racing to make the history books look good.

    Motorsport’s #1 reason isn’t entertainment either………..That it’s a bit entertaining is a bit of a coincedence, really.


    @safeeuropeanhome and @Rodney

    I think I have mentioned this before…A scenario where a driver could get more points by just overtaking rather than winning can be easily averted with a RADICAL POINTS OVERHAUL. Hope that makes it CLEAR!

    Now if you want, I’ll work out a points system and hand it to you guys tomorrow. Hopefully that will stop these repetitive arguments!


    Go search in the dictionary what a “gimmick” is. Seems you have no idea… Gimmick is artificially induced action. Points for overtaking is none of that. Double points certainly is, as is DRS and this stupid two compounds per race rule…


    @pt I wasn’t having a go at you specifically, I had noticed quite a few comments about trying to “entertain” the sport in general.

    However, while I’m on the topic, your idea of giving points for overtaking will end up being very complicated very quickly; you need to work out rules on how to stop team mates from overtaking each other 400 times a race and then duke it out for the championship in the last race. You also need to stop a faster car from dropping behind say a marrussia and then overtaking it just for a point. You also need to work out how you would be able to show spectators at the track who has racked up points from overtakes, etc… While not impossible, I just see it being too complicated for what purpose? For artificial scenarios where you have a Mercedes drop to the back of the grid and passing everyone for points.



    Thanks for your comment. The rules need to be fine tuned and the possibility you suggested can and will be avoided. I’ve already mentioned that with regard to team mates overtaking each other just to wrack up the points. I have mentioned that in my earlier post and have put that in one of the comments in this post itself.

    And even with those points, I doubt there will be any more than 5 moves (at the maximum) per driver because you just can’t overtake as easily as that. If that were the race we wouldn’t need this rule in the first place. With regard to team mates doing that, isn’t it quite easy to police thanks to its obviousness? And isn’t it even more obvious for spectators and race organizers if a Mercedes or any other dominant car purposely starts from the back? The rules will clearly be stating that creation of artificial scenarios will be significantly penalized with even race exclusions being a possibility.

    Besides, the sport needs a revolution, not the kind of half baked changes we keep seeing every now and then. A bit of confusion for the long term future of the sport isn’t too high a risk to take.


    @PT The whole thing is starting to sound exceptionally gimmicky to me.

    Gimmick – a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or trade (or in this case overtaking). – pretty much sums up your proposal.

    I agree wholeheartedly with Dragols first post, I don’t need a Hungary 2015 every race and in fact would prefer not to have that. I managed to watch most of the 80’s, throughout the 90’s to date with many many seasons where there were only a handful of overtakes of note.

    For me F1 is a sport, not entertainment, a race and not a show.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 74 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.