GPWizard F1 Forum
F1 News & Discussions => General F1 Discussion => Topic started by: John S on November 06, 2013, 11:05:33 AM
-
Title's early wrap bad for TV views; 50 point win, some races, suggested. :swoon:
Does Bernie really think some races should be worth more than others, or is he just pedalling his usual twaddle to drum up shock headlines around the globe? :DntKnw:
Maybe having jokers sprung, with extra points awarded by the FIA when the conditions considerably change the natural order on the grid could spice up things though. ;) :D
This year, the title was finally won by Vettel at a poorly attended race in New Delhi, though it was effectively decided several races earlier. While the German celebrated with do-nuts, F1 supremo Ecclestone pondered the damage that winning the championship title so relatively early in the season would wreak in terms of falling TV audiences for the three remaining races.
Of course it's not as bad as 2002 when Michael Schumacher won the title with six races remaining, but it's still pretty bad and, as Ecclestone well knows, bad for business.
As ever, much like Baldrick, Ecclestone has a cunning plan, however, we can only hope that he's joking.
The F1 supremo has suggested to Gabriele Cagliani of Expansion, one of the leading economic newspapers in Spain, that he envisages a new points system based on that of the ATP World Tour.
Under the scheme, some events are ranked as more important than others and therefore more points are awarded. While the current 25 points for the winner would be retained for most races, some events could be worth as much as 50 points for the winner and the season decider as many as 100.
The "last race of the season could be worth 100 points, which would introduce an element of uncertainty," said Ecclestone. While the 'traditional events' would continue to be based on the current system, a win worth 25 points, "the races that would "be worth 50 would be the historically important grands prix - like Monaco and England - while the Brazil race would have a value of 100 points."
As if that isn't bad enough, it is suggested that the powers that be could change the circuits' rankings, in other words, suddenly there are 50 points for winning Abu Dhabi rather than 25.
---------
Though the idea is said to be "far from reality" we all know that Bernie always gets what he wants, and the money makers behind the sport know that winning the title early is not good for business.
Extracts from longer article on Pitpass.com, Today.
http://www.pitpass.com/50393/Complete-and-utter-madness
-
The problem with Bernie's theory is that the numbers don't support it, at least not in a way that would make changing the points awards any use.
Sky's figures have suffered a collapse between the (already poor) 2012 numbers and 2013. However, that collapse occurred after Spa (not after India, as would have been the case had deciding the title been any help). When people saw after the summer holidays that nobody had caught Seb, they knew he'd win the title no matter what else happened. At that point, there were still 200 points on the table under the current system. Making it 2000 points is no help if viewers have no faith that anyone other than the driver already leading has a chance of getting those points. Basically, the viewers crowned Sebastian Vettel 5 races before the series itself did.
2013's viewer collapse can be put down to a number of factors, including people being fed up of tyre/DRS-related shenenigans, teams knowing that development for 2014 is worth about 6 times the amount the same amount of development for 2013 is (due to radically different regulations next year), overlong calenders penalising small teams as staff start to get sick (thus preventing them from mounting an effective challenge against larger rivals) and the de-professionalisation of the series combined with better internet access making cheaper and more exciting series attractive.
-
That follows the same flawed rational that NASCAR sited when it inflicted "The Race to the Chase To the Cup for the Thing." Yes, the championship is important, but people want to see good racing. Look at the tracks in the time in question.
Singapore - crap
Yeongam - crap
Suzuka - very good
New Delhi - crap
Yas Marina - crap
Austin - super crap
Interlagos - very good
Try putting the races on good circuits where people actually care about the race and see what happens.
As for points, here's a novel idea:
10-6-4-3-2-1
-
Good point. The last third of the championship (as well as much of the first third, which always seems to do relatively badly in viewing figures) is weak in good tracks.
-
Craft bugger - 'some events ranked as more important than others' = 'Some events cost more to host than others'.
But don't knock the falling viewing figures - it might eventually mean free-to-air F1 to get them back up.
-
Or because Sky won't be able to justify a loss-making expensive series (it's estimated, at least by me, that Sky needs to average 1 million viewers per race to break even) and the other pay-per-view channels will be wary of a series that is doing so poorly. The combined Sky/BBC figures for many races in the UK struggle to match those of Pointless, which is a mid-week pre-prime-time quiz show that charges substantially less than Bernie does for his show. (The celebrity version does substantially better, but benefits from a weekend just-inside-primetime slot that F1 usually misses).
-
The ATP has different points systems because it's not run in a 'league' format like F1 is. Each tournament is technically independant, and players have a choice about which to attend. The points awarded are there to encourage the 'big' tournaments to actually be 'big'. Now, if F1 teams had a choice about where and when to race, it would make sense to encourage teams to attend the 'big' races, and be choosey about the 'small' ones. Since there is no such choice, there's not much point.
I DO like the idea of escelating points as the season finishes up. I know it sounds crazy for a race in Abu Dhabi to be 'worth' more than one in Monaco, but if you want to defer declaring the champion as long as possible, then that's an easy way to do it.
However, I find it weird that people watch F1 racing to find out who the champion is, rather than to see racing. If all you care about is who the champ is, you can find out from the press release without bothering with all the nonsense of watching drivers, mechanics, engineers and managers single mindedly pouring their heart out over the course of a weekend.
-
We are enthusiasts (some might say fanatics) and if the points system becomes so complicated that even we don't understand; there will be no hope for F1.
I was against the last change - the old points system had worked for many years. I am completely against a track-weighted points system or a change to the points system at different stages of the season - this would simply be 'manipulation'.
We now have a workable points system and if a car/driver combination is as dominant as RBR and Vettel then they will win the championship early no matter what system is used.
If we must have the chocolate tyres then perhaps additional points for the fastest lap (for a car that completes full race distance) might encourage teams in the mid field to say "to hell with the tyres" and give us a few extreme laps.
-
The problem isn't the points. The system was already changed to avoid declaring early WDC, and look at what has happened now. The problem is to somehow avoid one team and in particular, one driver in winning most of the races. For that you have to somehow even the playing field a bit more. If they simply ban Vettel from racing, the season would be much closer with possibly 4-5 drivers all in the hunt and still in the running. :D :D
Kill off Qualifying and simply reverse the grid to the finishing order of the previous race. They could fill Saturday with a couple of heat races for a few extra points.
Of course spec racing is another way, but not ideal for F1 (it's a four letter word for most of us). The other option is to do away with a lot of aero - minimize the wing size and shapes, lose the diffusers, and totally gut and redo much of the regulations.
Honestly, I don't know. I wish it would somehow improve, and I wish I could actually see the cars drift around corners instead of having to wait for the superslowmo replay. Wish there was more passing without as Ali mentioned, re-passing.
-
The problem isn't the points. The system was already changed to avoid declaring early WDC, and look at what has happened now. The problem is to somehow avoid one team and in particular, one driver in winning most of the races. For that you have to somehow even the playing field a bit more. If they simply ban Vettel from racing, the season would be much closer with possibly 4-5 drivers all in the hunt and still in the running. :D :D
They could literally sandbag the cars. Each point a driver/car earns would be one extra kg the car has to carry.
It's simple to enforce, easy to understand, and effective.
-
The problem isn't the points. The system was already changed to avoid declaring early WDC, and look at what has happened now.
The change in points structure had no bearing on an early WDC declaration, because the points were simply multiplied by 2.5, and a few more added at the bottom. This doesn't affect the top runners - just makes the gaps between them greater, but essentially pro-rata. The points system was changed to give some of the lower teams some points for a change, to make it more of a competition through the lower teams too.
And there simply isn't a problem with the points structure. If Man Utd won the Premiership at a canter, would they change the points system? Of course not - the other teams would simply have to buck up. It's no different, it's just a tall order considering Redb Bull/Vettel's combined strength.
Tough!
-
Kill off Qualifying
Scott go wash your mouth out! If they kill off qualifying there is going to be even less opportunities to see F1 cars screaming around the tracks.
There are literally dozens of ways to stop a car/driver combination running away with the title. BTCC have two methods, reduced boost and success ballast. The system works brilliantly but of course they have three races every meeting so adjustment of ballast works at the same track on the same day.
Somehow a handicap system doesn't feel right for the series that boasts to be the pinnacle of motor sport. Having said that, with F1 in its current state (chocolate tyres), I would love to see reversed grids.
Perhaps there should still be qualifying to determine the order plus a small number of points should be awarded for grid positions. Then the top 6 have to start (in order) at the back of the grid. That would spice things up!
-
Allow a certain amount of mid season testing. That way, if certain team have under performing cars, they have a better chance to catch up.
-
Allow a certain amount of mid season testing. That way, if certain team have under performing cars, they have a better chance to catch up.
I wish it were that easy. If Lotus can't afford to pay their drivers to race, how can they afford to pay them to test cars? much less engineers and contruction crews to design and build cars to test?
The FIA is right that testing only helps the teams that are already rich/winning. (Which means the goal is to make sure the teams can all afford to test!)
-
There is nothing wrong with the current points system, and Formula 1 does not need to introduce handicaps. Ecclestone is talking twaddle, again.