Driver Mistakes Enliven Race
- This topic has 73 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
@pt Oh….my bad (there goes the raison d’être of that last comment of mine…..sorry about that).
@David Not Coulthard
“The monarch of a worldwide absolute monarchy” does not need to put his suggestions forward. He just gets on with it, pal.
@David Not Coulthard
:) :) :)
@pt Well, that’s how things would be theoratically and maybe legally, but de facto the monarch would want to try to avoid coup d’etats (which surely can result from just getting on with things without people agreeing with him on it)! :)
@pt He bribed a few teams into “just going on with it” (think concorde agreement) if memory serves me :)
@dragoll, @pt, @anto What about this (I know I may be bashed for this, as I have seen a really fierce but good defense of not giving points for overtaking):
As I said once, I would give ONE point to the driver who bettered the most positions during the race. (If you started 23rd and ended up 4th, for example) Giving just one point to only one driver would ensure somehow:
1. That nobody risks qualifying position to assure just a point. I mean, Hamilton or Vettel (to say so) would risk qualifying badly on purpose to have just a point. But we could see interesting strategies by the backmarkers.
2. That it would be useless to overtake back and forth, because only the difference between finishing and starting position would count.
Have your say, I’m waiting for your opinions.They WOULDN’T risk quali, that’s what I wanted to say, but went autocorrected or something like that…
@omarr-pepper Actually, there is some merit in what you have proposed. I can see that if a driver falls back too much in qualy, i.e. to 20th and doesn’t make it through the pack, then the points they’ve gained may not be of any consequence, compared to the points of winning the race, however, if drivers attempted to lose maybe 3 or 4 places in qualy and try to pass each other to get the win, then it would be interesting.
However, my previous point stands, the idea of motorsport is to find out who has the fastest car, by changing the rules to essentially reward someone for making up spots will mean that drivers won’t try 100% qualifying, thus changing how qualy is perceived, and I don’t think for the better. At the moment, qualifying shows who has the fastest raw one lap pace, while the race shows who has better speed over a longer distance, I like this, as we saw Senna was better at qualifying than Prost, and we see today that drivers like Hulk are better over 1 lap than their counterparts.
The other point I’d make too, is that you would basically make the number of pole positions stat irrelevant; if we found Massa/Bottas and drivers who don’t necessarily vey for pole regularly take out pole after pole as other drivers like Vettel/Hamilton drop back a few places to pick up some extra points, then the number of pole positions statistics would become irrelevant, and the likes of Schumacher/Senna/Vettel/Hamilton who hold high numbers in this stat currently, would be among other drivers who may not necessarily deserve the accolades.
@OmarR-Pepper
Good on you for coming up with this. Appreciate that!
I’m neither in agreement nor in disagreement with what you’ve suggested. Am somewhere in between. It’s a good compromise solution though, which can be effected without a full points overhaul. Maybe this can be introduced first and we can see how things are…Then we may not need the radical move I suggested.
I am very strongly against any points for overtaking, gaining positions, pit-stop times, best top-speed, best apex speed. The points should be awarded for race finishing positions according to previously agreed scheme as it is now. People are complaining about F1’s complexity and yet they are trying to get it more and more complicated…
Since I started watching F1 I always thought the driver’s target is to get to the finish as high as possible using all allowed methods (P1 best possible place). Now I see it should be about being able to race flat-out longer than rivals (even compromising his race), doing the most overtakes (by sacrificing qualifying on purpose), gaining the most places in the race (by sitting out qualifying). I am confused.
@OmarR-Pepper’s suggestion does not make it complicated in anyway. What’s complicating in that? It does not compromise qualifying in any way, because you never know whether an overtaking move would take you out of the race if it goes wrong. So no driver or team in their right mind would recommend “sacrificing qualifying on purpose” or worse, “sitting out qualifying” just for one point.
This rule will be a major boost for the lower teams and it is the spirit of racing itself.
I’m all for it!
@pt You are looking for an incentive to increase overtaking. But there already is an incentive to overtake, namely more points at the finish (because you finished higher).
I am sorry if this is already posted (must be, it’s so obvious).
@omarR-pepper This is usually known as the ‘high climber’. There are also points for ‘laps led’ in NASCAR for instance, but I’d propose points for pole or fastest lap – which was awarded in the 1950s, instead of a point for 6th. This would still reward the best. Downside is championships being decided by a pole point on Saturday (e.g. Hamilton 2006 GP2).
F1 currently awards 101 points per race – making it 105, with 20 races, puts 2100 points on the table (3 for pole, 1 for fast lap?). Winner still gets the most, but those finishing below 2nd get the chance to jump up through performance.
PS. 20-15-11-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 = 75 total. 20 races = 1500 points, simple to follow, a logical progression from the old points system (10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1). Top 4 gain 5, 4, 3, 2 over the usual 1 for each placing. Plus, you could say it’s just an increase in the importance of the podium, added to the old points. Old points plus 1 for fast lap or pole gives 40 total.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.