Is this the end for Lewis?

[Wacky Racer]

johnfelstead said:

It was good to see Lewis on stage at the post race concert, top bloke.

[jellison]

Te point system was fine ast it was in the 90's - 9 6 4 3 2 1, it is balls NOW - consistancy is crap - you have to want to push for the win / higher placings. (all this shit of points to 8th is a crock and the 2 pt diff of the top 2 just COBBLERS).

[TimmyArt]

I do agree that there should be an extra point for pole or at least fastest lap. There should also be a bigger gap between 1st and 2nd. That would encourage more of an effort to the end.

[groomi]

The problem is the you're all looking at the points scoring against this seasons 'unusual' number of possible race-winners. When in the last 15 years have there been four possible winners at every Grand Prix?

The current points set-up was introduced because for a number of years the title was all but won by mid-season due to one dominant driver (Mansell/Prost/Schumacher) clocking up a streak of wins at the beginning of the season.

You can please some of the people some of the time...

[jellison]

groomi said:

The problem is the you're all looking at the points scoring against this seasons 'unusual' number of possible race-winners. When in the last 15 years have there been four possible winners at every Grand Prix?

The current points set-up was introduced because for a number of years the title was all but won by mid-season due to one dominant driver (Mansell/Prost/Schumacher) clocking up a streak of wins at the beginning of the season.

You can please some of the people some of the time...

Cobblers - the point system was like that for ever till they started dicking with it to close the pack up when Schmacher lept winning by a large margin year in year out. Points for pole is pointless as pole is meanless at present with all this carring fuel crap (not running all the same extreme low fuel load).

[TimmyArt]

A point for pole could mean a very different set up for the lower ranked cars just to get a point. So maybe scrap that - point for fastest lap then?? Or do I even care?

[groomi]

jellison said:

groomi said:

The problem is the you're all looking at the points scoring against this seasons 'unusual' number of possible race-winners. When in the last 15 years have there been four possible winners at every Grand Prix?

The current points set-up was introduced because for a number of years the title was all but won by mid-season due to one dominant driver (Mansell/Prost/Schumacher) clocking up a streak of wins at the beginning of the season.

You can please some of the people some of the time...

Cobblers - the point system was like that for ever till they started dicking with it to close the pack up when Schmacher lept winning by a large margin year in year out. Points for pole is pointless as pole is meanless at present with all this carring fuel crap (not running all the same extreme low fuel load).

Not cobblers at all. When Schumacher started dominating it was after a period where several seasons had already been dominated by one or at most two drivers. Too many seasons were either practically over or a two horse race by mid-season - and that wasn't just Schumacher.

[fozzi]

jellison said:

Cobblers - the point system was like that for ever till they started dicking with it to close the pack up when Schmacher lept winning by a large margin year in year out. Points for pole is pointless as pole is meanless at present with all this carring fuel crap (not running all the same extreme low fuel load).

They've been dicking around with the point system for years.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC in the 60s it was only the top 5 results that counted from the entire 9-10 race season, then during the 70s when more races were introduced into the calendar and to reward consistency through the season it was changed to best 4 results during each half of the season, certainly that was the case in 1979 when Scheckter won the title.

I'm sure there was a great deal more tinkering and this is very much a generalisation, but to say "the point system was like that for ever" is glossing over the subject.

[motormania]

flemke said:

loneranger said:

This just balances out the Is This The End For Kimi? thread.

Er, no.

That thread was begun in reaction to an actual magazine article in the real world:

TheOriginalGT40 said:

I was shocked to read in today's Autosport that Ferrari have approached Williams behind the scenes to see if they can obtain the services of Rosberg to replace Kimi at Ferrari. The piece goes on to say that Ferrari would be happy to pay Kimi's salary at Williams

Given that Kimi is the highest paid driver currently in F1, and that the majority of the 'scoops' that Autosport print turn out to be correct, what kind of message does this give Kimi when he reads this weeks edition!

When Autosport or another credible source publishes an article stating that McLaren have approached a competitor with a view to offloading Hamilton whilst still paying his salary, and in return hiring a relatively unproven driver who's much less experienced than the one they'd be replacing, please feel free to raise this topic.

Until then, don't you have better things to do?

I couldn't have said it any better, well done that man

[rubystone]

jellison said:

Points for pole is pointless as pole is meanless at present with all this carring fuel crap (not running all the same extreme low fuel load).

But this gives the tailenders a chance to bag a point. It also mixes up the front of the grid and may encourage some teams to shift strategies. It'll also see teams adopting strategies commensurate with their position in the championship/s and to split strategies across the two cars.

Can you imagine if Sato bagged pole - who'd dare overtake him

I'd also argue that pole is far away from being meaningless at present too.

[jellison]

Pole is meaningless as is the amount of fuel they take to the grid.

As is Strategy - they need to be in the car filled up and tyred to the end and bloody race - end of story - forget the team meddling - they build the cars christ that is enough.

Fast driver wins (teams just make the cars).

[Saied]

Agree with jellison's comments regarding the current points scoring system. Race victories IMO simply do not carry a significant enough premium and the Championship now rewards consistency more than speed.

Kimi is the only driver to have won three times this season, yet is 18 points behind Hamilton. Lewis has been somewhat flattered by the current points system.

[Marki]

Saied said:

Agree with jellison's comments regarding the current points scoring system. Race victories IMO simply do not carry a significant enough premium and the Championship now rewards consistency more than speed.

Kimi is the only driver to have won three times this season, yet is 18 points behind Hamilton. Lewis has been somewhat flattered by the current points system.

I also aggree but ,, winning 3 race is good but being in the top 3 for all races is also a pretty good achievment

There should be a bigger points gap between 1st 2nd 3rd

By the way where has Kimmi come in the other races ?

[rubystone]

jellison said:

Pole is meaningless as is the amount of fuel they take to the grid.

If that were true, why don't they all fuel light then? The level of fuel also depends onwhere the car is on the grid, how it is affected by high fuel - tyres, balance, aero etc...

jellison said:

As is Strategy - they need to be in the car filled up and tyred to the end and bloody race - end of story - forget the team meddling - they build the cars christ that is enough.

Fast driver wins (teams just make the cars).

Sadly it has been proven that a fast driver in a slow car cannot win

[Saied]

If the previous points scoring system was in operation, the Championship would be:
Hamilton - 56
Alonso - 44
Raikkonen - 43
Massa - 39

[flemke]

Saied said:

If the previous points scoring system was in operation, the Championship would be:
Hamilton - 56
Alonso - 44
Raikkonen - 43
Massa - 39

Not to mention some of the earlier points systems in F1, which excluded a certain number of one's worst results.
Not sure what the sense of that is, but it happened.

[Marki]

flemke said:

Saied said:

If the previous points scoring system was in operation, the Championship would be:
Hamilton - 56
Alonso - 44
Raikkonen - 43
Massa - 39

Not to mention some of the earlier points systems in F1, which excluded a certain number of one's worst results.
Not sure what the sense of that is, but it happened.

As in the Prost - Senna at Mac days

[deevlash]

jellison said:

Te point system was fine ast it was in the 90's - 9 6 4 3 2 1, it is balls NOW - consistancy is crap - you have to want to push for the win / higher placings. (all this shit of points to 8th is a crock and the 2 pt diff of the top 2 just COBBLERS).

it was 10-6-4-3-2-1 It was a far better system though and rewarded the winning drivers much more and allowed them to catch up without relying on the leader having failures or crashing, like alonso and schumacher last year.

[flemke]

Marki said:

flemke said:

Saied said:

If the previous points scoring system was in operation, the Championship would be:
Hamilton - 56
Alonso - 44
Raikkonen - 43
Massa - 39

Not to mention some of the earlier points systems in F1, which excluded a certain number of one's worst results.
Not sure what the sense of that is, but it happened.

As in the Prost - Senna at Mac days

Exactly - the most points don't win the championship?

[groomi]

deevlash said:

jellison said:

Te point system was fine ast it was in the 90's - 9 6 4 3 2 1, it is balls NOW - consistancy is crap - you have to want to push for the win / higher placings. (all this shit of points to 8th is a crock and the 2 pt diff of the top 2 just COBBLERS).

it was 10-6-4-3-2-1 It was a far better system though and rewarded the winning drivers much more and allowed them to catch up without relying on the leader having failures or crashing, like alonso and schumacher last year.

Nope, it was definately 9 for the win.