F1 2009 Season discussion/development thread
- Thread starter Duke
- Start date
Oh. lol. I just assumed it was something new along with the points system, Doh!
Well I might as well say it.
(hello everyone by the way, looking forward to the 29th, albeit a little bit less after todays announcement)
Why dont they just make the new rule that says the red car wins the championship.
How the hell can it come down to number of wins, in theory then Lewis Hamilton (or anybody else for that matter) could finish 2nd in 16 races, but only win 1, and Massa could win 2 races, not finish any of the others, and still be awarded the drivers championship???
(hello everyone by the way, looking forward to the 29th, albeit a little bit less after todays announcement)
Why dont they just make the new rule that says the red car wins the championship.
How the hell can it come down to number of wins, in theory then Lewis Hamilton (or anybody else for that matter) could finish 2nd in 16 races, but only win 1, and Massa could win 2 races, not finish any of the others, and still be awarded the drivers championship???
Ok, I appear to have missed a lot today while at work, but let me get this straight...
The FIA have proposed 2 major changes for F1, firstly the winner will be the driver with the most wins, regardless of any other results? i.ee you could turn up, win 5 races, and then leave F1, yet still be crowned champion over someone who finished 2nd in all 18 races... and secondly, in 2010, there will be 2 classes within F1, those who race within the 30m budget and can design funky cars (altho, i dont see how that works if they have no money to spend on desigingin funky cars), and those who ignore the 30m budget, have loads of cash, but have to run FIA spec cars with no development?
So the fact the 2010 rule is completely backwards, and neither the drivers, fans or teams like the wins decides championship rule... how is this meant to be saving F1? It appears they have ignored the opinion of EVERYONE on F1 (excluding Mr Ecclestone) and put in place new rules nobody likes...
This is the biggest reason put forward yet to support a manufacturers breakaway series. All they need is for some arab Sheik to come allong and say "Hi guys, im starting a new series, all you with big budgets can come build funky cars with lots of freedom, and the guy with the most points wins!" and all the car makers would be out of F1 like a shot...
The FIA have proposed 2 major changes for F1, firstly the winner will be the driver with the most wins, regardless of any other results? i.ee you could turn up, win 5 races, and then leave F1, yet still be crowned champion over someone who finished 2nd in all 18 races... and secondly, in 2010, there will be 2 classes within F1, those who race within the 30m budget and can design funky cars (altho, i dont see how that works if they have no money to spend on desigingin funky cars), and those who ignore the 30m budget, have loads of cash, but have to run FIA spec cars with no development?
So the fact the 2010 rule is completely backwards, and neither the drivers, fans or teams like the wins decides championship rule... how is this meant to be saving F1? It appears they have ignored the opinion of EVERYONE on F1 (excluding Mr Ecclestone) and put in place new rules nobody likes...
This is the biggest reason put forward yet to support a manufacturers breakaway series. All they need is for some arab Sheik to come allong and say "Hi guys, im starting a new series, all you with big budgets can come build funky cars with lots of freedom, and the guy with the most points wins!" and all the car makers would be out of F1 like a shot...
Brundle on the changes, for those interested:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7949215.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7949215.stm
Sorry? Why would a rule like this automatically make it a certainty that a Ferrari driver would win the title?
It's a bull**** rule, not an anti-Hamilton one.
Sensible comments from Brundle - a lot of people posting in this thread should watch it
For (hopefully) the last time.....
The floor wasn't ******* illegal when it was ******* raced!
It was made illegal by a clarification of the rules post-Australia! It wasn't illegal when it was raced, so why the **** shouldn't the win stand?
You seem an intelligent guy, NathanE. But why you keep harping on about the Ferrari floor being illegal is beyond me, because it just wasn't. It was made illegal after the race. If they were to take away the Ferrari win for that, then they'd have to invalidate all the races that have ever come ahead of mid-season rule changes (the post-Imola changes in '94, the banning of high-mounted airboxes in the mid '70s, the ban on high-mounted wings in '69....).
The example of "this rule would have meant Massa would have won the championship last year and not Hamilton" that the media is using is stiring up the Anti-Hamilton speculators...
To be honest though, if the guy who wins the championship this year ISNT the guy with the most points, there will be uproar, regardless of who it is.
EDIT: Sudden thought, what about designing a stupidly fast car, but that is only designed to run one race weekend before the tuning you have done to the engin blows it apart. Turn up, race 8 races, win them all with a fresh engin each time, then just not bother racing in any of the other 10 races, and be crowned champion if no1 else wins more than 8...
There is also the distict possibility of the championship being over by the end of race 9... If Driver A won the first 9 races, and Driver B came second, although Driver B would only be 18 points behind Driver A in the championship, there is no point in pushing as there is no way of beating the guy... The medals system was stupid, but it did have its merits, and the points system has worked fine this far, but this mish mash of both will do nothing but confuse and annoy people.
To be honest though, if the guy who wins the championship this year ISNT the guy with the most points, there will be uproar, regardless of who it is.
EDIT: Sudden thought, what about designing a stupidly fast car, but that is only designed to run one race weekend before the tuning you have done to the engin blows it apart. Turn up, race 8 races, win them all with a fresh engin each time, then just not bother racing in any of the other 10 races, and be crowned champion if no1 else wins more than 8...
There is also the distict possibility of the championship being over by the end of race 9... If Driver A won the first 9 races, and Driver B came second, although Driver B would only be 18 points behind Driver A in the championship, there is no point in pushing as there is no way of beating the guy... The medals system was stupid, but it did have its merits, and the points system has worked fine this far, but this mish mash of both will do nothing but confuse and annoy people.
Last edited:
An uproar will be pointless.
Drivers know the rules from the start; if they want to win the championship then they have to get the most wins - simple
What about the teams then that used the dodgy Michelins which the rules then clarified. Mclaren kept their points then and changed the tire. So they knew the tire wasn't legal or they would have challenged the ruling.
The ferrari wasn't illegal.
The ferrari thing is hardly new in F1 to try something then have a rule re-visitied or clarified. Like the macca third pedal.
An uproar will be pointless.
Drivers know the rules from the start; if they want to win the championship then they have to get the most wins - simple
There wont be uproar from the drivers, there never is. Its like they have contractual muzzles to stop them having any opinion. The only driver to properly speak his mind (DC) is no longer racing.
The uproar will come from the fans and the teams. The very people the FIA are saying these rules are designed to please.
Total overreaction JRS. Calm down FFS. You act like I keep bringing this up?
It's the first time I've mentioned it in ages. And I rather innocently used it as an example of a situation that would bring the sport into disrepute if it turned out to define the WDC result. I have no problem with Ferrari keeping their race win but I was questioning whether it should be allowed to define the WDC result.OK let me try another example...
What if Brawn GP et al run their supposedly "questionable" diffusers in Australia? What if Brawn win but then a day later the FIA announces a clarification of the diffuser rule... so then the next race let's say Brawn become decidedly midfield again. But a couple times during the season they pick up a couple lucky wins through being in the right place at the right time... like how Barrichello/Honda lucked into a podium at Silverstone last year
The rule opens up all sort of weird but possible situations that are an unacceptable way to present the "sport".
It will be like that BBC Dancing on Ice show fiasco when this rule brings about an unacceptable result.
I always though you were a bloke...
Now you're talking about Dancing on Ice? When is/was the operation?
I always though you were a bloke...
Now you're talking about Dancing on Ice? When is/was the operation?
I don't watch it but it was all over the news and the equation they came up with for calculating the probability of an unacceptable result was interesting 
Slight tangent on this point alone - I think that is a bit harsh to say lucked!like how Barrichello/Honda lucked into a podium at Silverstone last year
Barrichello was the most sensible person on the track and put some wet tires on. I'd hardly call that luck!