2014 Silly Season Thread

[Salamander]

With any number from #2 to #99 available to drivers to select (I'd assume #1 is reserved for the champion), what sort of numbers could you see? Someone taking #69 would be quite comical, #27 for a Ferrari driver could be a good move, and I think there could be some high numbers selected.

The numbers are for their entire career though.

This could be good. First of all, mandatory two stops seem to have been left off the table...

I think everyone is totally overreacting to this. Having double points at the last race isn't fantastic, but neither is it totally absurd. At least it means it's theoretically harder to have a total cakewalk of a year. As for the numbers - who even really cares? They're numbers, they only mean as much as you make them mean. Well, apart from the number 1, but that's not changing anyway. And as for the budget cap, well, I prefer not being totally pessimistic about the one thing that, if it was properly implemented, would most help F1 not collapse under it's own, super inflated girth.

Surprisingly, given my recent critics to the current state of F1's decision making, I tend to agree with this.

The point of this move is that, given an ever extending calendar, the chances of the championship being settled before the final race of the season are ever increasing, because a single race represents a smaller part of the season than it used to be. And, where a dominant driver would win the season in race 12/16, leaving four "meaningless" races at the end of the year, nowadays he would win it in race 15/20, leaving five such races. In fact, now that I'm using numbers I'm starting to find this move more pointless than I did before I started writing this paragraph after all, it is not such a big difference as I had first thought. So, yes, the idea is to increase the likelihood of the final race to be a title decider, but no, the chances of it being haven't decreased that much in recent years. Still, I don't think it's gonna be such a deal breaker, because the teams will plan taking this into account. There have been way worse ideas - namely, the medals system...

I will miss the current numbers system, if only because I don't like the idea of having car #80 overtaking car #93. If I was taking the shots I would go back to football players in the starting 11 using 1-11 shirts, with the players in the bench using 12-18. And basketball rosters would always use numbers between 4 and 15. But it isn't a big deal at all.

As per the cost cap, I believe it is the most relevant part of the announcement, but we'll have to wait and see what the final deal is. In the current state of the sport, I would be happy with a $150 millon cap for 2015, with the cap decreasing every year in exchange for bigger technical freedom.

Yeah, that's pretty much my take on everything. Thanks for putting it better in better words.

[James1978]

If the drivers knew of this forum's Car Numbers alternative championship, they would choose the highest number possible.

[the Masked Lapwing]

Double points? Idiotic idea. Unless they double the distance, which would be worth it. Not worth watching 110 laps of Abu Dhabi though.
The driver numbers I'm OK with, but that's only because I like V8 Supercars. It'll be interesting to see what numbers each driver takes, and if the teams get involved (it wouldn't surprise me if Ricciardo got #2 purely because Red Bull told him to).
As for the cost cap, even if it doesn't work it'll provide the off-track entertainment that is half the charm of F1 nowadays

[Ataxia]

The whole addition of double points shocked me, but it's a very good idea in my opinion. Crazy, but good.

Why? I'd suggest that about 95% of Formula 1 fans love the idea of a final race showdown; just as the FA Cup or the Champions League has a final, Formula 1 finally has the chance to guarantee most of the time that there will be a final battle between two or three of the greatest drivers in the world. Moreover, with the potential for a huge haul of points the drivers are going to have to ensure that they shake off the massive pressure and deliver. It'll be great to market the final race to all, ranging from business partners to the everyday fan, and it'll mean that instead of the curtain coming down on a limp, flaccid affair of a race with the championship being a foregone conclusion, we'll have a final crescendo on which to finish.

Not being one to go for one angle, I can see a couple of downsides which I'll go through. Firstly, there's the potential of the championship leader being so far in the lead that the final race is all academic, but looking back through history that's been a minority in the stakes. In addition, there's the chance that a driver who many people may feel have deserved the title might lose out through some kind of mechanical failure or just enduring a massive crash. However, in the last race it's up to the team and drivers not to take their collective feet off the gas, and perhaps increasing the reward of points on offer will provide greater impetus to those involved to step it up and continue their development. To refer back to my previous example of the FA Cup; you can score as many goals as you like in the tournament and you can put teams to the sword throughout. However, if you don't deliver on the final day then you've lost. The idea will give Formula 1 a true finale, and more likely than not leave the season on a very high note indeed as everyone races their hardest to maximise their points tally.

I hope I've explained my personal view of it enough, because I was perhaps disappointed to see many negative comments without any backing to them. I certainly see negative areas, and I've addressed them, but ultimately my feeling that it allows the Formula 1 season to go out with a bang has made this mad, crazy and potentially unpopular idea appeal to me.

As for car numbers, I don't think it matters to me. If somebody can enhance the profitability of the sport by creating their number into a brand, then I'm sure it can work nicely.

[mario]

I think everyone is totally overreacting to this. Having double points at the last race isn't fantastic, but neither is it totally absurd. At least it means it's theoretically harder to have a total cakewalk of a year. As for the numbers - who even really cares? They're numbers, they only mean as much as you make them mean. Well, apart from the number 1, but that's not changing anyway. And as for the budget cap, well, I prefer not being totally pessimistic about the one thing that, if it was properly implemented, would most help F1 not collapse under it's own, super inflated girth.

Oh god, the amount of bickering there will be next season over the budget cap will be biblical. Suffice to say, I can't see it being implemented.

Either that, or it will be implemented and then there will be an even bigger argument when teams throw accusations of false accounting against each other, forcing an embarrassing reversal of the rules.

... can you please explain how accusations will force a reversal? The only thing I can see undoing that is a team proving that it would be impossible to police, similar to what Ferrari did with team orders at Hockenheim 2010.

Basically, what I am envisaging is a situation along the lines of what you are proposing - we end up with an outfit taking the 2015 title, is accused of subverting the cost cap and the whole process eventually collapses into political wrangling that forces the cap to be withdrawn rather than continuing to rake up damaging headlines about the sport. There is even an outside chance that such arguments could end in legal action now that there could be questions of false accounting - whilst that may be a powerful deterrent against fraudulent accounting, might the lure of success prove to be even more powerful?

Now, a number of teams are, in effect, subsidiaries of larger corporate entities - Fiat has a controlling stake of Ferrari, McLaren is part of the wider McLaren Group and so on - have subsidiary companies that are related to F1 (Mercedes HPE or Red Bull Technologies for example) or subsidiaries that utilise F1 spec technology but are not directly involved in F1 (for example, Williams's Hybrid Power division).

What I am concerned about is the possibility that some companies could use creative financial accounting between subsidiary divisions to circumvent the regulations. What exactly could be considered a fair price between two related companies? What is a reasonable value of the services that Red Bull Technologies provides to Red Bull Racing, particularly given that there will be an increasing overlap between Red Bull Racing and Toro Rosso that could make it harder to distinguish what services are rendered to each company (bear in mind that Toro Rosso will now share the same powertrain as Red Bull).
It wouldn't necessarily have to be an especially major tweaks either - subtly slightly undervaluing the value of services provided by say, 1-2%, might be difficult to spot given that there is no real agreed value on what is a fair price for external consultants but potentially make a noticeable difference between exceeding and just staying within the cap.

Equally, what sort of limitations will be imposed on external suppliers that are involved in F1? Would an outfit like Renault Sport, which is involved in a great number of fields outside of F1, be subject to restrictions too? Again, the same issue of interchange of intellectual property remains - Renault Sport have already confirmed that they will partner with Caterham to develop their F1 spec engine for the World Endurance Championship. Is that technically a breach of the track testing restrictions given that there is a strong likelihood of technological transfer between the WEC and F1? What about the upcoming relationship between Honda and McLaren? In that instance, the separation between Honda and McLaren is absolute given that Honda's role is as an external supplier - would the FIA also demand access to Honda's accounts as a way to ensure that work wasn't being diverted through Honda?

Even if the above is sorted out, what sort of accounting standards would be followed? Would there be consistency between teams based in different jurisdictions? Even if the same standards are used (I believe that there might be international accounting standards), the manner in which those standards are interpreted would be different from firm to firm, and even more widely different from country to country (UK practise, for example, tends to take a much more liberal approach to interpreting accounting standards than, say, Italy or Germany).

[Alextrax52]

Well I'm surprised about the Double Points system. It's like Abu Dhabi has become a bonus race.

It would be nice to see different car numbers instead of the usual ones though

[BabyG]

With the exception of the cost cap, I've never been so disappointed by a set of rule changes. Its even prompted a rare post!

In my view, a win is a win (and a 10th place finish is a 10th place finish for that matter). Unless the race has been abandoned early, a win should be worth the same amount of points as any other race of the season. Its not as though the final race of the season is any harder to win. I don't think that it prevents a walk-over either, all it does is increase the total number of points available by 25. It won't change the dominance of any car during the season. The thought of several drivers still in contention going into the final race is an exciting prospect, but I would feel slightly cheated that a driver who had squandered opportunities earlier in the season going into the final race 49 points behind the leader and triumph following the championship leader being taken out through no fault of his own. The F1 world championship is a marathon not a sprint!

As to the numbers, is this a way of making the drivers more recognisable as helmet designs get changed more often than the drivers underpants? If so, its not a bad idea, but I will miss the old system. (Number '0' any Damon Hill fans?)

[UncreativeUsername37]

Double points? Idiotic idea. Unless they double the distance, which would be worth it. Not worth watching 110 laps of Abu Dhabi though.

Like pi said, I could maybe, just maybe, go for a double points endurance race. Anyone else want an F1 edition of the 6 Hours of Spa? Belgium's close enough to the UAE, they could transplant it into the final spot in the calendar. If only Spa had money....

[Barbazza]

The car numbers thing is only a bit daft - I'm more sad that it's for commercial reasons than for the fact that it degrades the sport or anything like that.

The double points thing, on the other hand......dreadful.
No other major series does this for its main championship - even the pretty awful these days WTCC reserves it for the independent trophy only. And there it usually makes no difference anyway, partly because the last race is at Macau!

[Nuppiz]

Cost cap: good if it works, which I unfortunately doubt it will.

Everything else:

[Salamander]

Basically, what I am envisaging is a situation along the lines of what you are proposing - we end up with an outfit taking the 2015 title, is accused of subverting the cost cap and the whole process eventually collapses into political wrangling that forces the cap to be withdrawn rather than continuing to rake up damaging headlines about the sport. There is even an outside chance that such arguments could end in legal action now that there could be questions of false accounting - whilst that may be a powerful deterrent against fraudulent accounting, might the lure of success prove to be even more powerful?

Now, a number of teams are, in effect, subsidiaries of larger corporate entities - Fiat has a controlling stake of Ferrari, McLaren is part of the wider McLaren Group and so on - have subsidiary companies that are related to F1 (Mercedes HPE or Red Bull Technologies for example) or subsidiaries that utilise F1 spec technology but are not directly involved in F1 (for example, Williams's Hybrid Power division).

What I am concerned about is the possibility that some companies could use creative financial accounting between subsidiary divisions to circumvent the regulations. What exactly could be considered a fair price between two related companies? What is a reasonable value of the services that Red Bull Technologies provides to Red Bull Racing, particularly given that there will be an increasing overlap between Red Bull Racing and Toro Rosso that could make it harder to distinguish what services are rendered to each company (bear in mind that Toro Rosso will now share the same powertrain as Red Bull).
It wouldn't necessarily have to be an especially major tweaks either - subtly slightly undervaluing the value of services provided by say, 1-2%, might be difficult to spot given that there is no real agreed value on what is a fair price for external consultants but potentially make a noticeable difference between exceeding and just staying within the cap.

Equally, what sort of limitations will be imposed on external suppliers that are involved in F1? Would an outfit like Renault Sport, which is involved in a great number of fields outside of F1, be subject to restrictions too? Again, the same issue of interchange of intellectual property remains - Renault Sport have already confirmed that they will partner with Caterham to develop their F1 spec engine for the World Endurance Championship. Is that technically a breach of the track testing restrictions given that there is a strong likelihood of technological transfer between the WEC and F1? What about the upcoming relationship between Honda and McLaren? In that instance, the separation between Honda and McLaren is absolute given that Honda's role is as an external supplier - would the FIA also demand access to Honda's accounts as a way to ensure that work wasn't being diverted through Honda?

Even if the above is sorted out, what sort of accounting standards would be followed? Would there be consistency between teams based in different jurisdictions? Even if the same standards are used (I believe that there might be international accounting standards), the manner in which those standards are interpreted would be different from firm to firm, and even more widely different from country to country (UK practise, for example, tends to take a much more liberal approach to interpreting accounting standards than, say, Italy or Germany).

The FIA isn't that stupid. Even if they don't think to do it in their first proposal, you can count on at least one of the teams bringing those issues up.

Either way, I'd prefer to wait until details of the budget cap were released before we get too worked up either way about it.

[watka]

I know it is very unlikely to have any great effect on the championship but I really am stunned by the double points rule the FIA have agreed to. I understand that the idea is purely to encourage a season long competition and have the chance of an exciting finale that will raise viewership. However, in all other principles its a terrible idea.

It's just downright unfair. Ataxia compared it a cup competition in football. However, Formula 1 is, and always has been, a league format. Why should Abu Dhabi be more important than any other race? It's no harder to win and we could end with a circumstance where a driver who has better results over the course of the season loses out on the championship. It would also be a travesty if someone loses the championship due to a mechanical error or an accident that wasn't their fault. It's bad enough when that happens as it is, but it would be a really bitter pill to swallow if a driver loses a championship as his opponent picks up double points for a win. The FA Cup and Champions League are great competitions but you can't seriously say that Wigan Athletic were the best team in England last season or that Chelsea were the best team in Europe two seasons ago. The championship should be won by the best driver & car combination, end of story.

I can think of one idea of a similar vein that is better than this (but still not a good idea); a joker system. The team's get to pick a race where they can get double points rather than it being fixed as Abu Dhabi.

On the other matters, I agree that a budget cap is unsustainable. There are always ways around it. That's what accountants are for. Regarding the driver numbers, I like the idea. It does no harm to the sport and gives drivers added identity. The numbers on the cars are barely noticeable as it is (which riles me) and I like how it works in MotoGP. Perhaps in historical terms, it would be best for the teams to have fixed numbers rather than the drivers, but I think it is a step in the right direction.

[Aerospeed]

(Insert obligatory rant here)

[Collieafc]

So no more than a budget cap being agreed "in principle?" right now that feels akin to other teams trying to challenge Vettel and Red Bull "in principle" - show some hard rules and I may be less sceptical (although I wouldnt be surprised to see PricewaterhouseCoopers-gate)

As for the other changes, I am sorry but that just doesnt excite me - indeed I just worry that it will make one driver finish the season ever more dominant. It doesnt really address any of the problems facing F1. Its still by and large too predictable.

[Ataxia]

It's just downright unfair. Ataxia compared it a cup competition in football. However, Formula 1 is, and always has been, a league format. Why should Abu Dhabi be more important than any other race? It's no harder to win and we could end with a circumstance where a driver who has better results over the course of the season loses out on the championship. It would also be a travesty if someone loses the championship due to a mechanical error or an accident that wasn't their fault. It's bad enough when that happens as it is, but it would be a really bitter pill to swallow if a driver loses a championship as his opponent picks up double points for a win. The FA Cup and Champions League are great competitions but you can't seriously say that Wigan Athletic were the best team in England last season or that Chelsea were the best team in Europe two seasons ago. The championship should be won by the best driver & car combination, end of story.

The way I see it is this; if a driver has truly deserved a championship, then his lead come the final race would be either unassailable or be very difficult to match. If, however, there's a 20-point gap between a pair of drivers come the final race, then it's fair game. If retirements through mechanical issues have been a mitigating factor, then there's the chance to make up for where the team has failed the driver. I wasn't suggesting anything like that the championship would end up being won by a Wigan or a Birmingham (sorry, FMJ!) but the chances are you've got two or three closely matched drivers who have worked very hard to be in that position come the final race. The championship will still, ultimately, be based on the drivers' work over the previous eighteen races. If you've done a crap job and therefore have no claim to the title, then you just won't be in contention. If the team/driver package has been spot on, or the driver has grabbed his car by the scruff of the neck and hurled it to places it shouldn't be, then they've got the chance of being awarded.

It's not going to be a case of throwing out all of the points and giving the championship to Esteban Gutierrez.

[good_Ralf]

I, erm... like the idea of double points, but I think they should be used for the most challenging race of the year e.g. Monaco, Spa, or Suzuka, not Abu Dhabi. As for the car number system, I'm giving that the nod too. I'd love to see a driver run under the No. 0 again like Damo in 1993-4. What if a driver wanted to change his number, though?

[mario]

Basically, what I am envisaging is a situation along the lines of what you are proposing - we end up with an outfit taking the 2015 title, is accused of subverting the cost cap and the whole process eventually collapses into political wrangling that forces the cap to be withdrawn rather than continuing to rake up damaging headlines about the sport. There is even an outside chance that such arguments could end in legal action now that there could be questions of false accounting - whilst that may be a powerful deterrent against fraudulent accounting, might the lure of success prove to be even more powerful?

Now, a number of teams are, in effect, subsidiaries of larger corporate entities - Fiat has a controlling stake of Ferrari, McLaren is part of the wider McLaren Group and so on - have subsidiary companies that are related to F1 (Mercedes HPE or Red Bull Technologies for example) or subsidiaries that utilise F1 spec technology but are not directly involved in F1 (for example, Williams's Hybrid Power division).

What I am concerned about is the possibility that some companies could use creative financial accounting between subsidiary divisions to circumvent the regulations. What exactly could be considered a fair price between two related companies? What is a reasonable value of the services that Red Bull Technologies provides to Red Bull Racing, particularly given that there will be an increasing overlap between Red Bull Racing and Toro Rosso that could make it harder to distinguish what services are rendered to each company (bear in mind that Toro Rosso will now share the same powertrain as Red Bull).
It wouldn't necessarily have to be an especially major tweaks either - subtly slightly undervaluing the value of services provided by say, 1-2%, might be difficult to spot given that there is no real agreed value on what is a fair price for external consultants but potentially make a noticeable difference between exceeding and just staying within the cap.

Equally, what sort of limitations will be imposed on external suppliers that are involved in F1? Would an outfit like Renault Sport, which is involved in a great number of fields outside of F1, be subject to restrictions too? Again, the same issue of interchange of intellectual property remains - Renault Sport have already confirmed that they will partner with Caterham to develop their F1 spec engine for the World Endurance Championship. Is that technically a breach of the track testing restrictions given that there is a strong likelihood of technological transfer between the WEC and F1? What about the upcoming relationship between Honda and McLaren? In that instance, the separation between Honda and McLaren is absolute given that Honda's role is as an external supplier - would the FIA also demand access to Honda's accounts as a way to ensure that work wasn't being diverted through Honda?

Even if the above is sorted out, what sort of accounting standards would be followed? Would there be consistency between teams based in different jurisdictions? Even if the same standards are used (I believe that there might be international accounting standards), the manner in which those standards are interpreted would be different from firm to firm, and even more widely different from country to country (UK practise, for example, tends to take a much more liberal approach to interpreting accounting standards than, say, Italy or Germany).

The FIA isn't that stupid. Even if they don't think to do it in their first proposal, you can count on at least one of the teams bringing those issues up.

Either way, I'd prefer to wait until details of the budget cap were released before we get too worked up either way about it.

I wouldn't necessarily say that they were stupid, but whether they have the resources to close those potential loopholes is another matter (Christian Horner has certainly raised questions about the FIA's ability to accurately monitor the accounts of the teams). Besides, there have been instances of complaints being raised through the Technical Working Group about potential ways of circumventing the technical regulations that were ignored (such as the famous "double diffuser" saga of 2009), so I am not sure that questions about financial accountability would automatically be solved via a similar process either.

As you say, we will have to wait and see what sort of compromise can be hammered out - it could be that I am unduly pessimistic about the scenario and that it is possible to impose such a cap. That said, I am not hopeful for a successful conclusion given that the relatively more straightforward Resource Restriction Agreement has proven difficult enough to manage - for example, before they withdrew from FOTA Red Bull were accused of flouting the restrictions on wind tunnel testing time, whilst McLaren were accused of breaching the restrictions on transferring intellectual property rights to Marussia though their technical partnership.

The other thing that makes me curious is the claim of "unanimous" approval from the Strategy Group and the F1 Commission - Williams, for example, have been publicly hostile towards the idea of a cost cap, whilst Horner has also publicly questioned whether it would be possible to adequately enforce such a cap. It also seems odd that, only four days ago, Todt publicly stated that "We did not have the support" to introduce cost cutting measures in F1 - where has this sudden turnaround in support come from? http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 1040170216
To a certain extent, there is a cynical side of me that wonders whether, given that only a majority vote is needed in the Strategy Group, whether the vote was in fact all that unanimous - it's certainly in the interest of FOM (who hold a third of the votes in the Strategy Group) for a cost cap to go ahead given that they could use it as a means to cut payments to the teams, and it'd serve the needs of a publicity hungry FIA desperate to distract from criticisms about indecisive leadership.

[dr-baker]

If the drivers knew of this forum's Car Numbers alternative championship, they would choose the highest number possible.

Yeah, and they would make sure that they won the double-points round as well, for good measure!

Seriously, if they are going to have double points, why is it not at one of the most prestigious races of the year (particularly Monaco, but possibly Silverstone or Monza, the three tracks that have been around since 1950)? If IndyCar had a double-points round, you would expect it to be for the Indy 500, right? And sportscars would award double points for the 24 Heures du Mans, so why not the Monaco GP? Illogical!

And I think car number 69 should be reserved for the foxy Wolff!



AND NOT THIS WOLF...

[watka]

It's just downright unfair. Ataxia compared it a cup competition in football. However, Formula 1 is, and always has been, a league format. Why should Abu Dhabi be more important than any other race? It's no harder to win and we could end with a circumstance where a driver who has better results over the course of the season loses out on the championship. It would also be a travesty if someone loses the championship due to a mechanical error or an accident that wasn't their fault. It's bad enough when that happens as it is, but it would be a really bitter pill to swallow if a driver loses a championship as his opponent picks up double points for a win. The FA Cup and Champions League are great competitions but you can't seriously say that Wigan Athletic were the best team in England last season or that Chelsea were the best team in Europe two seasons ago. The championship should be won by the best driver & car combination, end of story.

The way I see it is this; if a driver has truly deserved a championship, then his lead come the final race would be either unassailable or be very difficult to match. If, however, there's a 20-point gap between a pair of drivers come the final race, then it's fair game. If retirements through mechanical issues have been a mitigating factor, then there's the chance to make up for where the team has failed the driver. I wasn't suggesting anything like that the championship would end up being won by a Wigan or a Birmingham (sorry, FMJ!) but the chances are you've got two or three closely matched drivers who have worked very hard to be in that position come the final race. The championship will still, ultimately, be based on the drivers' work over the previous eighteen races. If you've done a crap job and therefore have no claim to the title, then you just won't be in contention. If the team/driver package has been spot on, or the driver has grabbed his car by the scruff of the neck and hurled it to places it shouldn't be, then they've got the chance of being awarded.

It's not going to be a case of throwing out all of the points and giving the championship to Esteban Gutierrez.

Good point, well made. Yes, of course my point about Wigan was over-dramatic. However, I just think it's more hassle than it's worth. I can't see past the inevitable bitterness that will froth up should someone win the championship because of double points in the last race. If a driver and team (note that I said team, this sport is as much about the constructor as the driver) are good enough, there'll go to the last race in the title hunt; 25 points is enough margin in my eyes. The perfect result would be for the title race to go to the last event because of the new points system, and then for the championship leader to win the championship so that all controversy is avoided.

Also, the double points implies that the drivers and teams are leaving something in reserve and would up their game if incentivised with double points. Whilst this observation may in fact be true, I don't like it if it's come to this to force them to compete properly. I suppose I could develop this into a whole rant about how there are no racers left in charge of Formula 1 teams any more, but it's not worth my time to write it or anyone else's time to read it!

[pasta_maldonado]

2/10, would not qualify

[Paul Hayes]

Not sure about this double points business at the final race. But it seems to be a done deal now, so we'll see how it pans out. Yes, it would have changed some previous championships, but so would the various different points systems we've had down the years, and nobody complains too much about that.

The numbers thing I'm less bothered about - it's very IndyCar, but hardly a major issue. People often used to wax lyrical for the days when Ferrari were always 27 and 28, etc, anyway.

[DanielPT]

It's just downright unfair. Ataxia compared it a cup competition in football. However, Formula 1 is, and always has been, a league format. Why should Abu Dhabi be more important than any other race? It's no harder to win and we could end with a circumstance where a driver who has better results over the course of the season loses out on the championship. It would also be a travesty if someone loses the championship due to a mechanical error or an accident that wasn't their fault. It's bad enough when that happens as it is, but it would be a really bitter pill to swallow if a driver loses a championship as his opponent picks up double points for a win. The FA Cup and Champions League are great competitions but you can't seriously say that Wigan Athletic were the best team in England last season or that Chelsea were the best team in Europe two seasons ago. The championship should be won by the best driver & car combination, end of story.

The way I see it is this; if a driver has truly deserved a championship, then his lead come the final race would be either unassailable or be very difficult to match. If, however, there's a 20-point gap between a pair of drivers come the final race, then it's fair game. If retirements through mechanical issues have been a mitigating factor, then there's the chance to make up for where the team has failed the driver. I wasn't suggesting anything like that the championship would end up being won by a Wigan or a Birmingham (sorry, FMJ!) but the chances are you've got two or three closely matched drivers who have worked very hard to be in that position come the final race. The championship will still, ultimately, be based on the drivers' work over the previous eighteen races. If you've done a crap job and therefore have no claim to the title, then you just won't be in contention. If the team/driver package has been spot on, or the driver has grabbed his car by the scruff of the neck and hurled it to places it shouldn't be, then they've got the chance of being awarded.

It's not going to be a case of throwing out all of the points and giving the championship to Esteban Gutierrez.

I share watka view on this. Yes you did make a good point, but in this day and age where a DNF due to no fault of the driver is quite rare, I still think that doubling the points in the final race makes having one DNF too punishing for a driver. I mean, that would transform a 24 points margin and the need to win the race to 'simply' cruising home 3rd. Yes, people would know the rules beforehand but it still looks unfair. And it looks unfair to those who start strongly but slowly fade to those who play catch up. Finishing strongly the championship will have more importance than before. What I mean is that it reduces the early season importance and I would still want the first race to be as important as the last one...

[Enforcer]

Ugh... I can't quite put this into a logical post, so I'll just say what I feel.

It's another sticking-plaster gimmick to make F1 more 'exciting'. All the previous attempts, KERS, DRS, tires etc. have just made it feel artificial to me, without really putting much excitement in. And this will be the same. Want to make it exciting? Get some aerodynamicists and engineers together and try to sort out the 'dirty air' issue so at least we can theoretically have close racing.

As for the competitive / fairness aspect, I just don't agree with Ataxia. At the end of the day, you're making once race twice as important as the others. Sure, someone who's been rubbish all season can't win it by suddenly turning up at Abu Dhabi, but it still doesn't make any sense to do that within the concept of a 19 round Championship, across different tracks, different countries and with differing levels of evolution on the cars as the season pans out. I'm sure you didn't mean it like this - but the justification you came up with implies that no WDC who had it close at the last race 'truly' deserved it. Which is nonsense, imo.

[Ataxia]

It's just downright unfair. Ataxia compared it a cup competition in football. However, Formula 1 is, and always has been, a league format. Why should Abu Dhabi be more important than any other race? It's no harder to win and we could end with a circumstance where a driver who has better results over the course of the season loses out on the championship. It would also be a travesty if someone loses the championship due to a mechanical error or an accident that wasn't their fault. It's bad enough when that happens as it is, but it would be a really bitter pill to swallow if a driver loses a championship as his opponent picks up double points for a win. The FA Cup and Champions League are great competitions but you can't seriously say that Wigan Athletic were the best team in England last season or that Chelsea were the best team in Europe two seasons ago. The championship should be won by the best driver & car combination, end of story.

The way I see it is this; if a driver has truly deserved a championship, then his lead come the final race would be either unassailable or be very difficult to match. If, however, there's a 20-point gap between a pair of drivers come the final race, then it's fair game. If retirements through mechanical issues have been a mitigating factor, then there's the chance to make up for where the team has failed the driver. I wasn't suggesting anything like that the championship would end up being won by a Wigan or a Birmingham (sorry, FMJ!) but the chances are you've got two or three closely matched drivers who have worked very hard to be in that position come the final race. The championship will still, ultimately, be based on the drivers' work over the previous eighteen races. If you've done a crap job and therefore have no claim to the title, then you just won't be in contention. If the team/driver package has been spot on, or the driver has grabbed his car by the scruff of the neck and hurled it to places it shouldn't be, then they've got the chance of being awarded.

It's not going to be a case of throwing out all of the points and giving the championship to Esteban Gutierrez.

I share watka view on this. Yes you did make a good point, but in this day and age where a DNF due to no fault of the driver is quite rare, I still think that doubling the points in the final race makes having one DNF too punishing for a driver. I mean, that would transform a 24 points margin and the need to win the race to 'simply' cruising home 3rd. Yes, people would know the rules beforehand but it still looks unfair. And it looks unfair to those who start strongly but slowly fade to those who play catch up. Finishing strongly the championship will have more importance than before. What I mean is that it reduces the early season importance and I would still want the first race to be as important as the last one...

That wasn't my point. If anything the first races are more important, especially for next year where the performance levels and the engine reliability factors will be complete enigmas. If you build up enough of an advantage in the first few races, you can transcend the potential points difference that the double points race will bring. If there's three or four contenders come Abu Dhabi, then it has the potential to be a thrilling finale.

However, I do thank you guys for actually taking the time to express your points in more than one line; having looked up and down the internet the new rules have been vilified in single-line comments in a reactionary manner. I am fully aware of the negatives having been exposed to them quite profusely, but I felt that I'd at least try and bring some positive thinking to the table. Perhaps next time I'll just copy everyone elses' opinions just to avoid future hassle.

[watka]

Ataxia, tbh my first reaction to the double points thing was one of pure disbelief and anger. Coming here and actually reading other people's posts actually helped me come up with a half decent post myself rather than just venting steam so likewise, I thank everyone for that.

[Ataxia]

I apologise if I was a little vehement in my opinions regarding the new rules, but it's just frustrating to see such a mass of uproar from a number of F1 fans despite the fact that it's never actually come into practice yet. It might be an amazing thing to bring in, it might not, but at the end of the day we have to see how it goes.

I'll shut up now.

[FullMetalJack]

I apologise if I was a little vehement in my opinions regarding the new rules, but it's just frustrating to see such a mass of uproar from a number of F1 fans despite the fact that it's never actually come into practice yet. It might be an amazing thing to bring in, it might not, but at the end of the day we have to see how it goes.

I'll shut up now.

I love how you apologised after mentioning my team.

[AustralianStig]

When I first heard the idea of double points, I had mixed feelings. On one hand, I love that it's going to make the finale a hard-fought affair, meaning that teams will need to push right up to the end (perhaps we will see development for the following year's car suffer?). On the other...if it ain't broke, why fix it? Old-school fans will become disenchanted with all the new changes, and I don't think it would really attract many new fans.

So, I'm tentatively supporting the double points thing, but I can see why many don't like it.

I actually don't like the numbers thing, I liked the idea that teams had to fight for the low numbers and that you could see how well/poorly a team had done in the previous year by their numbers. I was looking forward to seeing the Mercs in 3 and 4, but anyway, it doesn't really affect things that much I guess.

[Meatwad]

And I think car number 69 should be reserved for the foxy Wolff!

They really missed an opportunity by not introducing this number system earlier. I'm sure James Hunt would have gladly picked number 69 for his car!

I don't really like this new number system, either. I hope they'll start using the drivers' names in graphics more than before. It's already difficult enough to remember the car numbers when you see that car number 14 has a drive through penalty. Completely random driver numbers are basically impossible to memorize.

It should not have 99 as the highest number, either. If I was a driver, number 13 would be my first choice but car number 95352 or something similar would also be nice. I wonder if they'll be allowed to use decimals.

[AustralianStig]

I wonder if they'll be allowed to use decimals.

Or fractions? I'd love to be driver number 9¾.

Let's just hope they don't start retiring numbers...

[go_Rubens]

In my opinion, I think F1 has a few ideas that are interesting to say the least, but I quite honestly don't think are great for the fans' perspective. For example, the mandatory pitstops idea is just a bad idea. I think part of the action in F1 should be somewhat torwards strategy, so that we don't get boring processions and tyres that last the whole race (Vettel at Monza 2010 doing all but 1 lap on softs says it all). I mean, if they want to take out strategy, make super-hard tyres that last through the whole race like 2005. The way the potential rule was worded was unclear to me, as the way I saw it written, it said that no more than 50% of the race may be run on primes, and no more than 30% of the race on options. I hope that's just for stints if the rule comes into play. If it's just a misunderstanding, which I'm sure it is, as I tend to read quickly, then good, that's not messed up. But it's a BAD IDEA.

For permanent numbers. I can't realy say that I dislike it or not. I would rather have seen this happen with the teams than the drivers, and revert to the old system. So, that means a return to the 80s and 90s with the teams having assigned numbers. I would rather see that, as those who know the sport well can recognize who might be in the cars easier, and I think it would be much easier for me, and possibly newer fans as well. But having it for the drivers is one that I feel lacks logic. If you assign random numbers to the drivers, then fans won't be able to tell which driver is which as easily. It's allready too damn hard to tell from helmets anymore, unless it's Alonso's or Chilton's, and the TV pods have some sense in them. The numbers are usually too small from a distance to tell, so maybe it is a good idea. I mean, it could be easier to tell which driver from whom in a team with "Oh, so and so has a lower number than so and so," so there is a way around the problem. Overall, it's very 50-50 from me, so I'll wait to see what happens.

Double points in the season finale. Well, it won't make Abu Dhabi any more exciting, will it? I think that the FIA has screwed up big time. It takes away the prestige from the World Championship. One driver might win the title just because of double points and be thrust into the championship lead at the end when that rival wasn't realistically in the fight or anyone thought was in the fight. It takes away the reward for consistency, and a championship victory should either be about consistency, or domination, or outsmarting someone else. Double points doesn't make it a fair fight. If the double points system makes a result where a driver wins the title under the double points system, but not the old system, just think about how many fits fans, and teams and drivers, will be that will bring the sport into political disrepute. This may be a solution to make the season finale race more exciting by making the drivers push harder, and possibly making a more incident-filed race, but if they already screwed up the importance of historical stats by making a points system that didn't make drivers push harder in the first place for wins and podiums, and 10th place, etc., the FIA has screwed up big time. What if the scenario I described above became true? Then that means the FIA more than likely have no way to scuttle out of their little hole they may have dug for themselves and get away with it. Maybe an overreaction, but I don't care. I'm already pissed about this development about double points. Hell, maybe that's deluded me, and I'm not thinking clearly, coupled with the fact that I'm tired. Crikey...

So overall, it's more negative than positive.

[mario]

I apologise if I was a little vehement in my opinions regarding the new rules, but it's just frustrating to see such a mass of uproar from a number of F1 fans despite the fact that it's never actually come into practice yet. It might be an amazing thing to bring in, it might not, but at the end of the day we have to see how it goes.

I'll shut up now.

I guess that, given that there have been an increasing number of gimmicks imposed by FOM and the FIA on the sport in an attempt to liven things up, that the fan base will inevitably react to any move they perceive as a gimmick in an increasingly bitter way. As you say, it may be that the reaction is excessive and that in practise it works better than on paper - I guess that 2014 will be the test of that measure.

Personally, I must admit that I dislike the idea of overvaluing a race based purely on its position in the calendar and for FOM's commercial gain - we know Abu Dhabi has paid a premium in the past simply to be at the end of the season, and I have a feeling that such moves are designed to encourage tracks to pay higher fees by implying that their race is more "valuable" than the rest (another reason why I dislike the move). I also dislike the implication that the teams are somehow slacking off in the final races - some might, but Ferrari, Lotus and Mercedes didn't seem to abandon their fight for 2nd in the WCC, nor do I imagine that Force India and Sauber slacked off either.

[CoopsII]

Personally, I must admit that I dislike the idea of overvaluing a race based purely on its position in the calendar and for FOM's commercial gain - we know Abu Dhabi has paid a premium in the past simply to be at the end of the season, and I have a feeling that such moves are designed to encourage tracks to pay higher fees by implying that their race is more "valuable" than the rest (another reason why I dislike the move). I also dislike the implication that the teams are somehow slacking off in the final races - some might, but Ferrari, Lotus and Mercedes didn't seem to abandon their fight for 2nd in the WCC, nor do I imagine that Force India and Sauber slacked off either.

I agree with the above and it baffles me that at no point in the decision making process did someone weigh up how the artificiality of this rule change is going to play out to the masses. How do you explain the reasons for this to someone new to F1 without sounding like an idiot?

[AxelP800]

Oh Bernie......

Double points? Why not triple? Why not quadropke? Why not NASCAR style? Explains the nonsense created by the supremo
If they want, do Monaco 90 laps in reverse

[CoopsII]

Brundle summed it up quite well when he tweeted

Double points for the last F1 GP of the season looks like an answer to a question nobody was asking. Devalues the other races too

[DanielPT]

I apologise if I was a little vehement in my opinions regarding the new rules, but it's just frustrating to see such a mass of uproar from a number of F1 fans despite the fact that it's never actually come into practice yet. It might be an amazing thing to bring in, it might not, but at the end of the day we have to see how it goes.

I'll shut up now.

No need Ataxia. Really. We are just discussing the merits or otherwise of the rule. Sure there was some rage in other posts and my first post, well, wasn't devoid of it. I just can't understand why this constant need to fiddle with things that aren't wrong while turning a blind eye to others that are more important. Although I am optimistic about the cost cap. As for the numbers, well if it helps marketing wise...

Now, I really understood your idea but perhaps I expressed that in the wrong way. Yes, the championship will still be rightly decided in favour of the best match up. Still, I tried to introduce, from a perhaps extreme point of view, that the loser can make a faultless season and be double punished by a DNF. Which keeps looking a bit on the unfair side.
I understand too that some rage came mostly from what seems to be yet another gimmick, special one that appears benefit one of the least popular races. As for what I think, the Brundle quotation that Coops posted summarizes it entirely.

[good_Ralf]

Sigh.

[Collieafc]

And it looks unfair to those who start strongly but slowly fade to those who play catch up. Finishing strongly the championship will have more importance than before. What I mean is that it reduces the early season importance and I would still want the first race to be as important as the last one...

Thats a very good point. What if we have another mid-season tyre switch/rule regulation change which benefits some teams over others? Would the general viewers-at large-tolerate another Vettel championship win, that came about due to a mid season rule change benefiting Red Bulls car design, and double points at a track after this change came into effect?

It doesnt just have to be Vettel and Red bull, it could be anyone, but it highlights the point

[Whole Spanish Press]

About the drivers numbers, I don't have a problem unless drivers are forced to use only natural numbers.


The double point system for final race is not to my liking. See, the final race is set on a location, most of the time, because of hard lobbing from the organising country.

Thus organisers have more incentives to push for the final race. I have the feeling that this will end with more of one country getting "double points races"; last race and penultimate race if not the last one alone (after all, it changes next nothing). Then, Monaco organisers should complain that they are special because of the glamour and the tradition of the event, but, because of double points races, they feel that the race is losing it's allure. Solution? Monaco would become double point race or having something in between. Points would start to be arranged by pure bidding, and races would be attended with skeleton crews because they are the least important in points no matter when are placed in the calendar.

Maybe I'm going too ballistic about it, but I guess just the principle behind the idea is worrisome enough.

[takagi_for_the_win]

And I think car number 69 should be reserved for the foxy Wolff!

No, Maldonado should get 69. That way, when he inevitably rolls the car, he'll still be easily identifiable!