Montezemolo throws a tantrum again (about points system)

[jonathanc]

Ferrari's Montezemolo has thrown a wobbly at the point scoring system as he cant understand why KR ended up 2 points behind MS having won only 1 race.....

http://f1.racing-live.com/en/headlin...17133031.shtml

As far as Im concerned consistency is the key and as long as a driver is consistent it probably means more than outright wins. When will the prancing pony shut up and put their toys back in their pram??

[Red]

Ahh, Monty is Luca di, not Juan Pablo.

Anyway, what's wrong with this? Actually he's not the only one to pose same question. This point system is indeed stupid. (And just to inform you, Ferrari did win both championships; Luca di Monty doesn't whine, he just express his concern.)

And since you said "Monty"; Kimi got 10 podiums and 1 win. The other Monty got only 9 podiums, I agree, but 2 wins. He was out of the championship with still 1 race to go. Your sensitive mind doesn't notice anything wrong in this fabric? I would agree that Kimi deserved the second place in the final standings; the part with last race still buggers me.

[GP Racer]

I agree with Montezemolo! At this level winning is everything. C'mon, it was 6 wins to 1! Thats not even close. The point system rewards drivers who sit back and don't pass and why should they? The payoff isn't worth it. Why take the risk? The present point system is just rewarding mediocraty.

So why should the prancing pony shut up, when they make so much sense?

[climb]

I fell inthe same misunderstanding Red!
About the winnership/consistency dicotomy, many threads have already been posted, and, from I could evaluate, the majority on this site agrees that victories are currently underrewarded.
This just to say that Montezemolo's position is absolutely respectable.

[BertMk2]

Quick, write this one in the diary - I agree with Red - and that doesn't happen often!

With the points system as it stands drivers will settle for second rather than push for the win. Why risk losing everything for another 2 points when you can just sit there very comfortably and collect your 8 for 2nd. The number of points between places should be increased if anything - reducing the gaps reduces the incentive for throwing caution to the wind and making a move on someone.

Red - I'm sure normal service will be resumed soon

[Red]

Originally posted by BertMk2
[...] - I agree with Red - [...]

The end of the world is looming!

[F3lollipops]

Originally posted by Red
Ahh, Monty is Luca di, not Juan Pablo.

I too thought this was going to be about JPM, maybe the thread name should be amended :confused:

[Phoenix1]

You got remember though that if you take in account all the races JPM and KR where scoring whilst MS was crashing into cars on the first corner. Maybe we could just award points to those cars which are red and subsidised by FIAT? Will he also want to get a percent of Saubers points? F1 is a sport and sports have rules, sure sometimes you may not like them but adapt to them and stop winging I mean they won anyway!

Originally posted by jonathanc
When will the prancing pony shut up and put their toys back in their pram??

Pram, toys! I hope they where FIA approved and may I start I conspiracy that both Ferraris have been fast in 2003 because they have through so much over the side. I do hope Max and Bernie warm the milk right and have enough rusks and dummys for Ferrari in 2004.

[ASCII Man]

Owww, here i was expecting to see a 'Aw! You broke my f***ing head!' show again and this is what i get.

Extremely dissappointed?
You can bet your hairy ass i am!!

[KC]

It comes down to what it takes to win the title. As of now, the title goes to the most consistent racer. I would hazard that a driver finishing on the podium without a win could win the title as long as everyone else had DNFs and did not win most of the races. The problem you run into is that a points race can rapidly become a runaway using the old system. If a driver wins the first 3 or 4 events and everyone else has some DNFs the points leader can easily maintain his cushion. In this instance TV ratings fall as the intrigue is lost. I'm not talking about die hard fans that watch anyway, but the casual fans that get easily distracted. The current system keeps that intrigue alive by keeping everyone close. That translates into TV ratings and money. Its the age old NASCAR formula.

[paulzinho]

IMO the new system is unfair on the teams that win races, The devaluing of a win in points terms was something I was disappointed about when the points changed last year.

Did leave to a tense finale and a championship that went right down to the last few laps though so as a fan I can't really complain.

Not too sure where to sit on this issue. I'm not too big a fan of the points system thats for sure.

[Wrex]

Originally posted by F3lollipops
I too thought this was going to be about JPM, maybe the thread name should be amended :confused:

Agreed, I skipped this thread because I thought it was another driver bash.

Title Amended.

As for the points system, I like the fact they go past 6th (I would even prefer points paid to 10th), but I think the gap from winner-2nd-3rd should be bigger. When 2 driver fighting for the podiam are in the final laps, I want a 'dive down the inside' to be worth it.

[Wrex]

And one more thing

"The new rules are fine, but not the scoring system - Raikkonen can't end up just two points behind Schumacher having won only one GP compared to Michael's six. It doesn't make sense. From 2005 we'll try to change things."

Hardly a tantrum or a 'wobbly'.

I'm guessing jonathanc's driver lost.

[ensign14]

Agree with Luca, only the points system worked in Ferrari's favour last year, paradoxically.

Had there been the old 10-6-4, MS' lead after Hungary would not have been 1 point. Therefore the whingeing about Michelin would not have taken place. Therefore the rule change would not have happened just before Monza. Therefore Ferrari would have lost the last 3 races and the title.

[Led ZeppF1]

I think the new system is a bit unfair on
driver that win races. The gap between the winner and 2nd too small.

[climb]

One more point inMontezemolo's favour: he commented the past season results, but, of course, he knows nothing about the next ones. I mean nobody can know with certyainty what will happen inthe future; in particular it's impossible to predict right now whether Ferrari will still be the winnigest team;maybe things change and the rosse may become the most regular, who knows?
Therefore Montezemolo, whenproposing to modify the points system for 2005, is undisputably in good faith

[Mekola]

Agree with Montezemolo. My proposition to modify the point system is add two more points for the winner and one more point for the other podium finishers. Then, the system changes to that: 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1.

[paulzinho]

I personally liked the old system, maybe even the old 9-6-4-3-2-1

Points should be hard to get in F1, that way when the smaller teams do get them, they're something special!

Oh and it seems Mclaren are agreeing with Montezemelo, well sort of!

http://www.planet-f1.com/Home/story_13874.shtml

[high contrast]

Moving on to the points as an issue...the Americans have always understood the value to spectators as well as competitors of points..'loads of points'! Points for fastest lap, points for leading the race and points down to last place.

Imagine (under the current system) if you were say a Minardi driver (just imagine!) and you did a blinding start, dodged around the first corner pile up...made up places with slick pit stops...stole places off drivers who made errors and ended up just outside the points!!! Where's the reward for that!?

One of my drivers missed a European karting title once by a single point despite having won the most number of finals in the series!..Who said winning is everything!?

[jhansen]

Excellent points high_contrast. I see that consistency and wins are both important. How can you argue that a string of wins along with a mix of DNF's and lower points finishes is good driving? But, I don't think that a total switch to NASCAR style points is the answer. Maybe this year's system wasn't ideal. But it did make for a good points race. Although it would have been close with the old system to. TGF would have had a few no points scores this year under the old system. I like the idea of paying points at least through 10th spot. And maybe add another point or two for first. A balance of this years and last years system with points through 10th. Bonus points for taking pole, leading a lap and leading most laps is great IMO.

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by ensign14
Therefore the whingeing about Michelin would not have taken place. Therefore the rule change would not have happened just before Monza. Therefore Ferrari would have lost the last 3 races and the title.

Is it the fact that Ferrari may have been telling the truth about Michelin cheating that bothers you? If the roles had been reversed (McLaren whinging about illegal Bridgestones) you'd have been calling McLaren heroes.

Personally, I would just award 12 points for a win and leave everything else as it is. I mean, would you really want a driver to become champion with no wins?

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by paulzinho
Points should be hard to get in F1, that way when the smaller teams do get them, they're something special!http://www.planet-f1.com/Home/story_13874.shtml

Yeah, but that also means that smaller teams get artifically high placings in the championship which they do not deserve. Jordan would have been 5th under the old system thanks to the win in Brazil, but with this system, they came 9th, ahead of only Minardi.

[paulzinho]

Sometimes you luck into these things!

You could argue did Jordan deserve to be behind, Jaguar, Toyaota, Bar and Sauber even though they won a race and the others didn't.

Just depends what side of the fence you sit on.

[Gt_R]

I believe that's where the points system needs to find a balance.

That while bottom teams don't get unrealistically good standings due to freak wins (say Jordan), we can't hinder the top performers of the sports who wins far more than anybody else only to risk losing the WDC.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Yoong Montoya
Is it the fact that Ferrari may have been telling the truth about Michelin cheating that bothers you? If the roles had been reversed (McLaren whinging about illegal Bridgestones) you'd have been calling McLaren heroes.

More Ferrarista BS...Michelin was not cheating, which is why no Michelin car was ever disqaulified and why Ferrari never put in a protest cos they would have lost the protest. If you can answer Flavio's question as to tyres were ALWAYS measured at the start of the weekend for 3 years and no-one ever complained, but why suddenly did the FIA change their mind, then perhaps I can respond. But it is clear to anyone who reads the rules and understands legal interpretation (admittedly a very, very small proportion!) that the FIA changed the rules.