Silly Season and Pay - 2023/2024

[Aty]

Bottom post of the previous page:

Damn. I was looking forward to Red Bull lining up with Mazepin and Nicholas Latifi in 2025, and Jolyon Palmer as reserve driver.

Don't despair. Take notice that Max actually didn't promise not to change his mind. There is still time for it. Mercedes and AM are both waiting with fat pay cheque.

[Aty]

Brown got contract extension till 2030.

[Vassago]

Marko firing shots at Tsunoda & Ricciardo. Liam Lawson approves?

[Vassago]

Idea being discussed of expanding points scoring places to 12. Sounds more like a bone thrown to the non-power 5 teams (though Alpine could get their act together after 2024).

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/excl ... /10601483/

[DoubleFart]

I'm not a fan.

[Everso Biggyballies]

I mentioned in the race thread about it, and said just give them points for spelling their name correctly.... Im not a fan. It makes winning a point less of an achievement and more about ego and entitlement.

We have already confused the record books and made historical points irrelevant, which as someone who gets into the stats side of it is peed off by the last chane. Changing again for a fourth time (we have already had it changed three times.... first change was 1960 when it went to points for 1-6 from the 1-5 it always was before. Then 2003 it went to being from positions 1-8, then 2010 it went really crazy with points just being thrown around with the win score more than doubling, from 10 to 25 plus paying points for positions 1-10.

They should be tspending their time hinking about the actual car regulations and many more things far more important than how to make scoring points something you dont need to fight for.

[Vassago]

As old school as I am expanding points to 10th place made sense with the vastly improved reliability of the last decade plus. Five DNFs used to be extremely low number until the mid 2000s and now it would be called a race of attrition. So there is no bonus for slower cars being reliable anymore.

I would support expanding points to 12th place if we have 22 or 24 cars on the grid which may still happen despite the bruised egos...

[Everso Biggyballies]

As old school as I am expanding points to 10th place made sense with the vastly improved reliability of the last decade plus. Five DNFs used to be extremely low number until the mid 2000s and now it would be called a race of attrition. So there is no bonus for slower cars being reliable anymore.

I would support expanding points to 12th place if we have 22 or 24 cars on the grid which may still happen despite the bruised egos...

I must confess I read an article earlier advocating the points being expanded to 12th, along with how the points would be awarded. I am pleased to read that the increase in positions paid points would not mean increasing the winners points. Indeed the win would still take 25 points, but now 12 would earn the one point currently earnt for 10th.

Here is a table showing current and proposed.
The current allocation of points for the top seven positions will remain unchanged if the change is made (see table at bottom of story), but things will shuffle around from eighth and below.



The article highlighted that currently we have two divisions within F1, with 5 or 6 teams being quicker by a margin..... the lower end of the upper league is quite a lot faster than the best of the lower teams. Thus the lower teams have no opportunity for points unless one of the division 1 teams DNF. Of course that is exactly how it was back in the days of 1-6 getting points in a grid of say 26 cars, but in these days of total commercialism I do see some need to change.

In fact here is the article from Autosport which justifies the proposed change. As hinted it leaves me finding it hard to disagree with the motive to change. At the moment im a bit in the area of I understand their point but am a bit hot and cold on the need to change. Scoring points was never meant to be easy. Until of late.

Amid concerns that the effective current lock-out of the top ten positions by the leading five teams is unduly impacting the midfield battle, as there are so few opportunities to score, a proposal will be put to a meeting of the F1 Commission this week to change the points system.

The points shake-up has been framed in a way that it should not impact the leading teams from a competitive viewpoint, plus will not mean they score more, which could increase the points-based entry fee they must pay to the FIA each year.

For the proposal to go ahead and get implemented for the 2025 season, it will need to earn a simple majority support from the teams – so requires five outfits to approve it as well as being supported by the FIA and FOM.

And while it is not impossible for teams to say one thing in public and act another way when it comes to a vote, the indications are that even top outfits are not minded to move to block the change.

Ferrari team principal Fred Vasseur said: “I'm not against. And coming from Alfa Romeo, I perfectly understand sometimes the frustration that you are doing a mega weekend, but if there is no DNF in front of you then you finish P11 and the reward is zero.

“[At the moment] you can finish P11 or P 20 and it is the same, so I can understand the frustration for this.”

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner added: “It feels like there are two groups in Formula 1 at the moment, and the teams from six to 10 are in as hard a fight as one to five.

“I think it's one of those things where you've just got to run the numbers and look at the analytics and say: what would it actually change? So I'm impartial to it.”

Those teams that are locked in that midfield battle for the minor points positions are especially eager to see the change.

RB team principal Laurent Mekies told Autosport that he saw no negatives to the new system – which he felt would deliver an improvement for F1 as a whole.

“Of course, I will support that,” he said. “There are no backmarkers any more. There are six OEMs in F1, plus Red Bull Racing, so it's like seven top teams.

“Even the bottom five teams are large organisations now and it's very difficult to explain to the outside world, to our partners, and to our fans, that we battle for a P11 that actually grants zero points.

“If you look at the level of competitiveness of the top five teams and the reliability level of the cars, it means that most of the race you're battling theoretically for zero points, and we don't think this is right.

“We also think it's more meritocratic because, if you score points up until P12, you will avoid the effect where if something completely stunning happens and somebody scores a P5 or P4 in the rain, it means the other guys can stay home for 10 races.

“We think it's ticking all the boxes with virtually no downside, so hopefully it will go through.”

Haas team boss Ayao Komatsu added: “What’s the downside? Currently, we have three teams with zero points and I don't think that's good for sport.

“If somebody was awarded points for P11, P12, there will be less people with zero points. So, I think it's clearer for the fans and for the motivation of everybody working in a team as well. It's much better to come out with P12 with one point, P11 with two points - it's a reward.”

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1s-n ... /10602004/

[Everso Biggyballies]

Worth mentioning in the wish to revise the points, and one that highlights the Division 1 and 2 I have spoken of as being within F1 at the moment.,

The top five teams have collectively scored 534 points, and even the 5th placed team has scored 40...... the other five teams have picked up just 12 points between them.

(The difference in prize money between sixth and 10th places is tens of millions of dollars, so every point down at the back is worth a fortune.)

[XcraigX]

Again we are trying to cover for the new rules ruining the sport. In the older formula, the cars were more unreliable and the chances of the back teams scoring random points were much greater. So instead of going to rules where the teams would struggle (and we may see some actual competition and different winners), lets insert DRS into the points tables.

[MonteCristo]

Again we are trying to cover for the new rules ruining the sport. In the older formula, the cars were more unreliable and the chances of the back teams scoring random points were much greater. So instead of going to rules where the teams would struggle (and we may see some actual competition and different winners), lets insert DRS into the points tables.

[Aty]

Again we are trying to cover for the new rules ruining the sport. In the older formula, the cars were more unreliable and the chances of the back teams scoring random points were much greater. So instead of going to rules where the teams would struggle (and we may see some actual competition and different winners), lets insert DRS into the points tables.

Forgive me, but I am surprised over suggestion, that lack of reliability makes for interesting racing. (I am hoping my interpretation of above is accurate.) In reality the F1 has gone exceedingly too far (IMO) into direction you seems to prefer. Specifically, they slashed hours a team can spent in development, be it on a computer, wind tunnel, team size, or on the track. They are (quite deliberately) late with issuing car specs and letting engineers to gamble, in lieu of precise directions engineers live by. Audacity of it has been seen this year when pre-season track time, I hesitate to call it testing, was cut short and basically so close to the season that the team could not address properly any of their problems. It is not surprising to witness a race in which only 10 or 9 cars finish a race on a lead lap.

Admittedly I have no understating what state of the sport would please most of fans, but making Max to stand down every second race just to please other drivers and their fans is not what would make everyone happy either. Max is a fast driver in a fast car. That's the F1 we like. We can say that after checking where Sergio is on a score sheet, and he is not a slouch.

There is no doubt in my mind that Technical Specifications are at the root of majority issues and why people on side-lines moaning about. Letting teams properly develop vehicles would be a good start. Not every team has Newey on staff, but it doesn't follow that other engineers are incompetent. Many teams need more money and time with the car just to level up with the RB, nevermind overtake them, but FiA and FOM put brakes on that idea. Why? Well, ask them. I cannot even start guessing.

[DoubleFart]

Unpredictable reliability is what gives us dramatic finishes to otherwise dull races like Spain 2001 and Hungary 2008 - races which otherwise would have zero impact on our memories of the sport.

In theory it creates tension because nobody knows for sure if a car will make it to the end of a race, and I appreciate that the entertainment factor is increased.

On the flip side however, you have the theory that more cars on track means more possibility of overtaking or accidents. This is however balanced by the fact that a pass for 12th probably only means something to fans of backmarkers and Lewis Hamilton.

[Aty]

Unpredictable reliability is what gives us dramatic finishes to otherwise dull races like Spain 2001 and Hungary 2008 - races which otherwise would have zero impact on our memories of the sport.

In theory it creates tension because nobody knows for sure if a car will make it to the end of a race, and I appreciate that the entertainment factor is increased.

On the flip side however, you have the theory that more cars on track means more possibility of overtaking or accidents. This is however balanced by the fact that a pass for 12th probably only means something to fans of backmarkers and Lewis Hamilton.

Regarding teansion at the heart of reliability - it exists. I give you that, having experienced that myself in several races when we didn't know whether a Good-Year tire will last for a one lap more.

This is what Mr. Porsche said:

“The perfect race car crosses the finish line first and then crumbles into its individual parts.” ~ Ferdinand Porsche

Today we have no money for adopting such technical design philosophy, but it could be an interesting, nerve wrecking experience.

[XcraigX]

Unpredictable reliability is what gives us dramatic finishes to otherwise dull races like Spain 2001 and Hungary 2008 - races which otherwise would have zero impact on our memories of the sport.

In theory it creates tension because nobody knows for sure if a car will make it to the end of a race, and I appreciate that the entertainment factor is increased.

On the flip side however, you have the theory that more cars on track means more possibility of overtaking or accidents. This is however balanced by the fact that a pass for 12th probably only means something to fans of backmarkers and Daniel Ricciardo.

Has anyone actually studied the costs of an F1 team today, given all the rules around engines and parts that need to last for a good portion of the season, vs the old formula where it didn't matter? I'd be willing to bet someone that the cost today is the same as it was back then adjusted for inflation. The teams are not saving money and the show is worse.

[Everso Biggyballies]

Nothing re the new points system will change just yet.....


F1 defers decision over points system tweaks

For the change to go through, it needed support from five of the current teams.

Several outfits were in favour of the change when quizzed at last weekend's Chinese Grand Prix, while Red Bull's Christian Horner and Ferrari's Fred Vasseur also appeared to support the motion or at least be impartial to it, as the proposal doesn't affect the top teams.

But it has now emerged that at the F1 Commission meeting it was agreed that more time was needed to analyse the implications of the change.

With still plenty of time on the clock to make a final decision and adopt the new system in the FIA's 2025 F1 sporting regulations, it was agreed that there is no rush to make a quick call.

Instead, the matter will be investigated thoroughly and be put back on the agenda for the next F1 Commission meeting later this year.