Official GRcade F1 thread (Lewis 2008 WDC)

[Roonmastor]

The way Kimi won last season means I don't really recognise him as WDC. He had a dismal mid-season, got incredibly lucky with mistakes from Alonso and Hamilton in the last couple of races, and I don't think he led the championship at any point until the last race. So he was basically the benefactor of fortune. In contrast, if Alonso had won despite everything he did that season at least he was there all season fighting for those points and really proved why he was twice champion.

And this season it is more likely that Kubica can win the WDC than Raikkonen. Kubica! He's just been plodding around anonymously all season picking up 3rds and 4ths (and a win in Canada). If he won, or indeed Raikkonen, I would probably not value their championship. Again, Massa has driven spectacularly all season. I'd forgotten that he failed to finish the initial two races. We'd all written him off back then and he has proven how much he deserves to win the championship. Lewis goes without saying.

[rogwilco]

It sounds like the scoring system is wrong then if most of us agree that it would be 'wrong' if Kimi or Kubicia won the title now.

The old 10-6-4-3-2-1 points system had more emphasis on winning, to earn a greater margin over rivals, against just finishing in the points and racking them up. Now the points are 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 (introduced only about five years back), it places greater emphasis on just finishing in the points, because in the ever-more-money-driven f1, it looks better for sponsors if the team they are supporting have some points to reflect their investment. I never have liked the new scoring system, but if the fia want to award points further down the placings, they should do what indy/champ car or touring cars does and give out something like 20-14-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1, therefore still stress that the title rewarded is for finishing first more than the guy who finishes most...

[JV]

I always find it a bit interesting looking at where we would be now with the old system. Going by my own calculations, if the old scoring system was in place the championship would look like this, current points in brackets:

Massa 67 (77)
Hamilton 64 (78)
Raikkonen 44 (57)
Kubica 43 (64)
Kovi 34 (51)
Heidfeld 29 (53)
Alonso 14 (28)

And the WCC would be:

Ferrari 111 (134)
McLaren 98 (129)
BMW 72 (117)

Also, the significance of the Spa incident would be even greater, as Hamilton would go from being 3 points behind to 7 in the lead.

[Pancake]

I think the point system is good how it is, bar the margin between the top two. I would be very happy with the points as: 12, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. More value for a win. Or is that for the win?

[Cropolite]

I prefer the old top 6 method - Anyone care to chalk up how 1999 would have went under the top 8 method?

[Pancake]

Never mind me. I can't read.

[captain red dog]

I think the point system is good how it is, bar the margin between the top two. I would be very happy with the points as: 12, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. More value for a win. Or is that for the win?

Yeah that sounds like a really good system. Gives the incentive for the win, and gives the points as far down as now to give an incentive for the midfield.

I think if 1999 was run under today's points system (is that what you meant crop?) then Irvine would have been champion.

[Fishfingers]

I prefer the old top 6 method - Anyone care to chalk up how 1999 would have went under the top 8 method?

Isn't that what JV has done on the previous page?

Umm.. no.

[Pancake]

I prefer the old top 6 method - Anyone care to chalk up how 1999 would have went under the top 8 method?

Isn't that what JV has done on the previous page?

Umm.. no.

Damn you.

[JV]

Irvine would have had 90 to Hakkinen on 88.

[Cropolite]

I think the point system is good how it is, bar the margin between the top two. I would be very happy with the points as: 12, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. More value for a win. Or is that for the win?

Yeah that sounds like a really good system. Gives the incentive for the win, and gives the points as far down as now to give an incentive for the midfield.

I think if 1999 was run under today's points system (is that what you meant crop?) then Irvine would have been champion.

Yep - that's what I'm interested to find out - Irvine seemed to be far more consistent that year as Hakkinen was retiring far too often.

[Cropolite]

Irvine would have had 90 to Hakkinen on 88.

I thank you

[Pancake]

Irvine would have had 90 to Hakkinen on 88.

I thank you

I worked it out as Irvine on 94 to Hakkinen's 88... But judging by my form on this page I wouldn't trust me. Either way, Hakkinen retired too often.

[captain red dog]

It seems strange looking back at the start of the season. When Massa spun in Oz I remember the F1 community, myself included, pretty much slated him for not being able to handle the lack of traction control. For him to now be in with a chance of the title is astonishing. I love the guy for being able to stare constant criticism in the face and keep on coming back. Heck, I actually think I want him to win more than Hamilton!

If anything it has been Kimi struggling with the lack of traction control as he has been completely trounced this year. I'm so disappointed with Kimi as I loved him for being so exciting in 2003, 4 and 5 and for keeping those championships alive, but he seems to have been off colour since 2006.

In some ways, without traction control this title will be worth more than any over the last 10 years.

[JV]

In some ways, without traction control this title will be worth more than any over the last 10 years.

Yes, and for Massa to win it would be, quite honestly, unbelievable.

[Roonmastor]

I think if the points system was 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1 it would make things a little better.

Right now there is next to no penalty for sitting behind the guy in front. Hamilton finished behind Massa and lost a point. If that had been a 1-2 finish, Lewis would only have lost 2 points. It makes overtaking rather more effort than it is worth, especially if we consider overtaking collisions and incidents being costly already before penalties. Of course, the tight points structure means that we get close finishes at the end of the season, and reliability is rewarded, but I think it has perhaps swung too far in the direction of conservatism.

You can't apply point systems to different seasons. If I'm racing in a system where winning gives the greatest return as a team I may sacrifice some reliability. I'm sure McLaren may have put more emphasis on reliability in '99 at the cost of a little speed if the regulations were different.

[Pancake]

In some ways, without traction control this title will be worth more than any over the last 10 years.

Yes, and for Massa to win it would be, quite honestly, unbelievable.

Yet I absolutely agree with captain red dog. He has come under heavy criticism and/or skepticism ever since he joined Ferrari and I don't think it has ever been truly justified. I hope he wins this year, just so he can say that he proved practically everybody wrong.

[Adam Pollard]

I think the vast majority of us here, excluding one person maybe, would be happy with either Massa or Hamilton winning. However..... what IF Kimi was able to force his way back in over the next couple of races and ends up stealing? Would you be disappointed, or will you be hailing him a comeback hero? Having seen him drive the way he has this year, I would really be torn to change my attitude if he comes good at the end.

I'd be thrilled, since it would net me £26.

[Stig]

Right now there is next to no penalty for sitting behind the guy in front. Hamilton finished behind Massa and lost a point. If that had been a 1-2 finish, Lewis would only have lost 2 points. It makes overtaking rather more effort than it is worth, especially if we consider overtaking collisions and incidents being costly already before penalties. Of course, the tight points structure means that we get close finishes at the end of the season, and reliability is rewarded, but I think it has perhaps swung too far in the direction of conservatism.

Exactly. Hamilton decided to risk it and get that win in Spa because he's a winner. For just 2 points advantage, I bet he feels like he shouldn't have bothered now.

[jamcc]

*Sneaks back from holiday*

I've always said the points system should be exponential, as in one more point gained per position gained (if yagetmeh) and all positions on the track to earn points apart from zero points for last place.

i.e. Something like:

20th - 0
19th - 1
18th - 3
17th - 6
16th - 10
15th - 15
etc..

The only problem is that the points totals over the season would be huge and not as 'neat'. Also, if a team drops out (a la SA), however rare, it'd mess the system up a bit.

BUT, I think the main thing behind my idea is that it'd encourage people to overtake (and overtake...) as they'd want to get more and more points per position.