Double Points Confirmed

[Jericoke]

Medals does not an Olympics make.

One major difference between F1 and most other sports is that other sports don't change very much. Big changes in hi-tech motor-sport are  natural enough ANYWAY, without having the comedy of double-points added as a desperate lunge for 'bolted-on excitement'.

I imagine that if you're a huge fan of curling, you always will be. I don't think the same can be said for F1. How often do we read a fellow member's post about maybe having had enough of F1?? It happens. F1 needs more stability and less senility.

Too many people are involved in F1 for 'stability'.  If everything stays the same, then what's the point of FIA, FOM or FOTA?

If you want stability, then hand the reigns to one person.  Otherwise everyone is going to fight to get their ideas in the sport:  everyone gets something, no one gets everything.

Not stay the same, just more stability than we have now. Double points and unnecessary tinkering makes for a fair-weather fan-base. I agree about handing the reins to one person - I'm not against that or Bernie per se, just double-points and desperate measures.

In fact, I love Bernie, don't tell anyone though.

F1 teams are more stable now than ever.  They may struggle, but most of the teams on the grid have been continuously in operation since I started watching F1 in 1996 (even if the ownership has changed).  The barrier to entry in the sport is enormous, but it's a serious enterprise:  if you're not prepared, you won't make it.

I don't think the double points is a 'good' idea, but I don't see it as the end of days either.  No one is going to stop watching F1 because of it, and some people might start.  Most fans start as fairweather fans, so the sport needs to attact them.

[lkjohnson1950]

I have pretty much lost interest in NASCAR since they instituted "The Chase". That and the cars are all the same. Used to be you could tell a Ford from a Chevy from a Dodge anywhere on the track. Now you need a full frontal shot because only the grills and taillights are different. I have other issues, but this is an F1 forum.   

[vintly]

I don't think the double points is a 'good' idea, but I don't see it as the end of days either.  No one is going to stop watching F1 because of it, and some people might start.  Most fans start as fairweather fans, so the sport needs to attact them.

I agree double-points isn't 'the last straw', but as Lonny clearly illustrated how unnecessary tinkering alienates fans. I bet some people are turned off enough by it to stop watching.

I'm hoping it becomes a pointless exercise, i.e., whoever is leading by then is too far enough ahead for it to matter.

[Monty]

I hate the idea. Double points will make such a significant effect I can imagine team strategies being specifically tailored towards the last race. Teams may choose to accept a lower finishing position in the penultamate race but hold a new engine for the last race so they can go four a double points win.
In 2013 I would suggest Vettel's dominance was exceptional (I still maintain that the RBR car was in a different league to the others). If I remember correctly, the other WDC points after the pennultimate meeting were close enough that a 50point last race win could have made massive changes to the finishing positions of any of the next 6 drivers.

[vintly]

2013 WDC
01    Sebastian Vettel    397
02    Fernando Alonso    242
03    Mark Webber    199
04    Lewis Hamilton    189
05    Kimi Räikkönen    183
06    Nico Rosberg    171

2013 WCC
01   Red Bull Racing-Renault   596
02   Mercedes   360
03   Ferrari   354
04   Lotus-Renault   315
05   McLaren-Mercedes   122
06   Force India-Mercedes   77

If this had been in force last year, it would have affected things only slightly. Last year the Brazil podium was Vettel, Webber, Alonso. So in the WDC Webber would have been slightly closer to Alonso, but not ahead.

In the WCC, Ferrari would have jumped Mercedes for second, as in Brazil Ferrari were 3rd and 7th, with Mercedes 5th and 9th. Neither would have had half the points of Red Bull.

[Monty]

I can't remember who was where at the end of the penulimate race but even on these final positions you can see that double points could have made a difference to positions 2-6 and a great deal of difference to 3-6. I still feel that in a more typical season where the WDC does not have such a run-away leader the double points system will result in teams preparing specific strategies for the last race.

[vintly]

Nope, there would have been zero change to the top 6. I'm not arguing, here's the maths!

2013 WDC
01    Sebastian Vettel    397
02    Fernando Alonso    242
03    Mark Webber    199
04    Lewis Hamilton    189
05    Kimi Räikkönen    183
06    Nico Rosberg    171

Would have become

2013 WDC
01    Sebastian Vettel    422
02    Fernando Alonso    257
03    Mark Webber    217
04    Lewis Hamilton    191
05    Kimi Räikkönen    183
06    Nico Rosberg    181

So no change there.

2013 WCC
01   Red Bull Racing-Renault   596
02   Mercedes   360
03   Ferrari   354
04   Lotus-Renault   315
05   McLaren-Mercedes   122
06   Force India-Mercedes   77

Would have become

2013 WCC
01   Red Bull Racing-Renault   638
02   Ferrari   375
03   Mercedes   372
04   Lotus-Renault   315
05   McLaren-Mercedes   142
06   Force India-Mercedes   77

So the ONLY change would have been Ferrari jumping Mercedes in the WCC.

[Monty]

I think you are missing my point.
Of course the maths don't work on last years results because there was no special strategy in place.
However,if a team had worked a strategy to help win the last race; with double points it could jump them up the table.
Last year Vettel, and to a lesser degree Alonso, scored exceptionally high so for this example I choose to ignore their results, but to make a point if Mercedes could have somehow ensured that Rosberg won the last race gaining 50points and, just for arguments sake, none of the top 5 scored he would have jumped up the table.
I am simply pointing out that this stupid double points rule suddenly makes it necessary for teams to plan special strategies for one race, which is ridiculous.

[Jericoke]

I can't remember who was where at the end of the penulimate race but even on these final positions you can see that double points could have made a difference to positions 2-6 and a great deal of difference to 3-6. I still feel that in a more typical season where the WDC does not have such a run-away leader the double points system will result in teams preparing specific strategies for the last race.

That certainly encapsulates the problem doesn't it?

One race to decide it all!  It all comes down to this.  This ONE RACE is the race to watch...

So... why bother watching the other 19?  (or however many actually happen)

F1 risks giving up a series of 20 high profile events in exhange for one?

[vintly]

Gotcha. So it's a stupid rule for even more reasons!

I take your point but don't think strategies will be unduly affected. It might even encourage sabotage, perish the thought.

Double points make one think of 50 points up for grabs. But the difference between first and second only changes from 7 points to 14. Hence the likely scenario is that nothing will change. If that's the case, then it'll only really come in to play if scores are very tight, and if scores are tight then no one's run away with the championship anyway, so it's simply unnecessary.

[Scott]

I don't think they'll put their beans in one pot just for the DU race.  Last year nobody had a chance, regardless of strategy, to beat Vettel in the last race.

The only hope to take advantage of the DU rule is if a team develops the car right through to the end of the season instead of abandoning development over the last 3-4 races to concentrate on the following year's car.  Only the big teams are capable of financing that, so again, this is a rule that doesn't help anyone.

[Jericoke]

I don't think they'll put their beans in one pot just for the DU race.  Last year nobody had a chance, regardless of strategy, to beat Vettel in the last race.

The only hope to take advantage of the DU rule is if a team develops the car right through to the end of the season instead of abandoning development over the last 3-4 races to concentrate on the following year's car.  Only the big teams are capable of financing that, so again, this is a rule that doesn't help anyone.

They could develope the car with an eye towards the types of tracks that offer the most points, essentially giving up points at other tracks. 

Currently it's not uncommon to see different teams stronger at different types of tracks, but if there are more points available at a similar layout, then we'll see the resource strapped teams homogonising their strategies.  (While this is an attempt to make the championship a nail biter, the real effect is that a suprise podium for a midfield team could bump them up a couple places in the concorde prize money)

[Scott]

I get that, but I still don't think it will make a difference if all the backfield teams are gunning for the same race (s). 

[Jericoke]

I get that, but I still don't think it will make a difference if all the backfield teams are gunning for the same race (s).

I think it's more interesting when some teams are stronger at fast tracks and some teams are stronger at 'technical' tracks.

If the points are loaded to one type of track, the teams would be foolish not to focus on those types of tracks.  That will affect sponsorship, local sponsors aren't going to be interested in sponsoring a team that isn't giving 100% at the 'home' race.

Drops in sponsorship certainly hurts the small teams more than the big ones.

[lkjohnson1950]

I get that, but I still don't think it will make a difference if all the backfield teams are gunning for the same race (s).

I think it's more interesting when some teams are stronger at fast tracks and some teams are stronger at 'technical' tracks.

If the points are loaded to one type of track, the teams would be foolish not to focus on those types of tracks.  That will affect sponsorship, local sponsors aren't going to be interested in sponsoring a team that isn't giving 100% at the 'home' race.

Drops in sponsorship certainly hurts the small teams more than the big ones.

This is why Jimmy Johnson is a 5 or 6 time champion. The Chase races are tilted toward 1.5 mile tracks like Charlotte that he excels on.