BF2S Forums [F1] Ecclestone plans "Most wins - champion"-system

I'm not into sports where you race around the same thing.  Wether that be in a Car, on a Bike, on a Horse or in a pair of Nike's.  I also belive 'If it isn't fucked don't try fixing it'.

So I voted the 2nd option ' the current system is fair'.  I could be wrong but I havent seen anyone complaining.

Last edited by 1927 (2008-11-27 02:24:20)

10-6-4-3-2-1

I think a medal system work better, 'cause that way there is a bigger incentive to win races, encouraging more overtaking and ultimately, a better season for the spectators.


Edit:

500th Day today!!!

Last edited by SirSchloppy (2008-11-27 05:22:16)

said it before, he's a headcase

Varegg wrote:

Naturally the best driver is the one with the most points after the season is over, a combination of both medals and points perhaps ?

A different points system would change the driver with the most points at the end of the year. Basically you must decide if you want to reward the driver who is really fast and wins a fair share of races but also is very inconstant and crashes often or the driver who is not as fast but consistently up near the front.

DonFck wrote:

Personally, I believe that taking back the old point system (10-6-4-3-2-1) would be the best choice.

9-6-4-3-2-1 tbh

I think they should bring back the old qualifying also, and give them fuel tanks that last the whole race... pit stops imo are pointless and just wreck the racing, and decent fucking tyres.... from multiple companies.

I couldn't care, I don't see the attraction in watching some guy race around the same track about 50 billion times..

effectively with the proposed plan, someone who finishes second in every single race can't win the championship and may finish as low as 19th. Sound fair.... I don't think so.

Bell wrote:

as much as I wanted hamilton to win, I do agree its a bit shitty that at the moment, you can loose yet still win.

Why? he spent the previous 17 races getting a lead in the championship. By your theory the previous 17 races should just not count and the championship should be decided on the final race of the year.

Bell wrote:

If wins became much more of an insentive, the other teams would strive to make up time that they generally dont do so well in.

On the contrary, 'luck' should not be a factor in deciding a championship and should therefore reward more consistent drivers.

Last edited by DrunkFace (2008-11-27 07:57:18)

kylef wrote:

Bring back the old points system, but implement that 1 point for qualifying first regime too.

I think the new system would work if you had 1 gold = 2 silvers = 3 bronzes = then so on and so forth as you run down to 8th

I think that would create more competition, but then again this also has its dis advantages.

think of the poins going 10 then 5, 3.3, 2.5, 2, 1.66, 1.42 and then 1.25 if a certain number was eaqual to ten if you get me.

Bell wrote:

as much as I wanted hamilton to win, I do agree its a bit shitty that at the moment, you can loose yet still win.

DrunkFace wrote:

Why? he spent the previous 17 races getting a lead in the championship.

Since, it promotes the idea, that, they can sit back, and let the pack fight it out on the front, while he coasts around. 

DrunkFace wrote:

By your theory the previous 17 races should just not count and the championship should be decided on the final race of the year.

I never alluded to this idea. 

I think the champion should be the one who adapts to the unique set of circumstances that arise, and ultimately deal with best, consistently, over the season.

I do however feel that the drivers should be chasing after as many wins as possible, even if they literally have twice as many points as anyone else.  From, an entertainment perspective at least, F1, like practically any other sport is a type of entertainment after all.  We want some action.

Bell wrote:

If wins became much more of an incentive, the other teams would strive to make up time that they generally dont do so well in.

DrunkFace wrote:

On the contrary, 'luck' should not be a factor in deciding a championship and should therefore reward more consistent drivers.

Why luck?  Someone who is consistently winning races will most likely, have the better car under them, and be the better driver.  Does these two attributes come about by ''luck'' as you put it?  Maybe Ferrari should curb the 500million odd that they spent this year, and employ my mother to drive, if wins come down to luck.

If you want to reduce it to luck, then any over take, crash, win, loss, or indeed any event that affects the championship, could be argued as being, ''luck''.  I prefer to think of it as being a battle between drivers, and the designers.

Martyn