[vosteglog]

http://www.motorsport.com/news/artic...D=382701&FS=F1
If the 2009 points system was applied to this season's results so far, Mark Webber would not be leading the world championship. http://www.formula1.com/results/driver/2010/828.html
race 1 pos 3 = 6 points
race 2 pos 6 = 3 points
race 3 pos 6 = 3 points
race 4 pos 2 = 8 points
race 5 pos 14 =0 points
race 6 pos 5 = 3 points
race 7 pos 1 = 10 points
race 8 pos 1 = 10 points
race 9 pos 2 = 8 points
race 10 pos 2 = 8 points
race 11 pos 4 = 5 points
race 12 ret = 0 points

lewis 64 points

race 1 pos 8 = 1 points
race 2 pos 9 = 0 points
race 3 pos 2 = 8 points
race 4 pos 8 = 1 points
race 5 pos 1 =10 points
race 6 pos 1 =10 points
race 7 pos 3 = 6 points
race 8 pos 51 = 3 points
race 9 ret = 0 points
race 10 pos 1 = 10 points
race 11 pos 6 = 3 points
race 12 pos 1 = 10 points

mark 62 points

[Agitoligflise]

interesting-this is simply because when lewis has finished this year, he's always finished in the top 6, opposed to webber who's obviously finished 9th and got points for that whereas under last years system he wouldn't have done.

[rfceicizgm]

And under Bernie's medals system Webber would be leading every other driver 4-2 on wins.

[Dxwlxqvg]

who cares - in the end will the guy who wins the most races b champion

[Svatudjw]

And under Bernie's medals system Webber would be leading every other driver 4-2 on wins.

Thank God it never materialised.

[Hokimjers]

We can blame Bernie for this.

[texprofi]

Then the new points system is doing its job.

Not only Bernie wants the driver with the most wins to be champion - that was also always the view of Anthony Colin Bruce Chapman.

Under the most wins scenario Hamilton would still be trying to win a title. I thought he was supposed to be the next Senna? ROFLMAO!!!!

[DoniandaCoado]

Then the new points system is doing its job.

Not only Bernie wants the driver with the most wins to be champion - that was also always the view of Anthony Colin Bruce Chapman.

Under the most wins scenario Hamilton would still be trying to win a title. I thought he was supposed to be the next Senna? ROFLMAO!!!!

Alonso and Vettel have been expected to be the new Schumi, and Hamilton, the next Senna, but in the end, that's BS. In fifteen years, probably everyone will be saying "look, that guy is going to be the next Alonso/Hamilton/Vettel/whatever". How many times have you heard "that guy is going to be the next Jim Clark"?

[Drysnyaty]

Under the most wins scenario Hamilton would still be trying to win a title.

How could we ever know? Smart drivers and teams manage their races according to their needs. Look at Hamilton's championship clinching race: a decision was made to drive for 5th because, on the day, that's all that was required. Had a win been necessary they'd have gone for it. Whether or not they'd have achieved it is a moot point as we can never know.

With the points narrow gap between the podium positions in recent years, smart drivers recognised that sometimes it was better to hang on to a safe 6 or 8 points rather than risk all for a win. Under the "medal" system we may well have seen different tactics.

To blindly apply a different points system to a season is fun, but ultimately meaningless.

[Sleflanna]

Look at Hamilton's championship clinching race: a decision was made to drive for 5th because, on the day...

Can't agree with that at all.

No driver goes out to finish a race in a certain position, other than 1st. They may try to maximise their points without taking too much risk, but that's a little different. If Hamilton was driving for 5th in Brazil, he wouldn't deserve that championship. As it was, he was only good enough for 6th until Glock on the wrong tyres gave him 5th on the last corner before the last straight on the last lap. There's just too much risk sitting in 5th when 4th or 3rd gives you much more safety. It's poor tactics to not build in some sort of risk insurance. I'm sure Hamilton, being the good driver he is, would have much preferred to be higher up in the standings on that day.

[Drysnyaty]

Can't agree with that at all.

No driver goes out to finish a race in a certain position, other than 1st.

Hard thought it may be to believe, it was well documented and discussed at the time. Whatever the merits of that particular race, I bring it up merely as one example of how a team didn't necessarily need a win on a given day.

If you re-ran the 2008 season under the "medals" system, infinite variables come into play. Would Hamilton have been in that situation in the first place, that's the first question. In other races, when a driver might otherwise have had a safe 8 points in the bag, would going for the win have paid off or would they have crashed or stressed the car trying? Would teams have managed their engine allocations differently - perhaps sacrificing one until to bag a win rather than conserving it in the closing stages of a race? Would team orders have been used earlier in the season (not that they're allowed, but y'know... )?

Whatever, you can not simply overlay a different scoring system and declare that driver X would have won - it simply doesn't work like that.

[gniewkoit]

these comparisons between point systems are always popping up.

from what i've seen the changes have rarely altered the final outcome.

[orillaVar]

Under the most wins scenario Hamilton would still be trying to win a title. I thought he was supposed to be the next Senna? ROFLMAO!!!!

Firstly, no he was never supposed to be the next Senna, he's the first Lewis Hamilton.

Hamilton's career record so far is hardly a topic to laugh about. A WDC in his second season and currently with 13 wins and 18 pole positions. His current teammate has been in F1 more than double the amount of time and currently has 9 wins and 7 pole positions in comparison. Lewis is not doing badly by any means, and I'm sure both Mclaren drivers can learn alot from each other.

[texprofi]

Alonso and Vettel have been expected to be the new Schumi, and Hamilton, the next Senna, but in the end, that's BS. In fifteen years, probably everyone will be saying "look, that guy is going to be the next Alonso/Hamilton/Vettel/whatever". How many times have you heard "that guy is going to be the next Jim Clark"?

Those days have gone. The technical regs have seen to that. But it is also a question of attitude.

The only driver anywhere close to Senna is Schumacher. The essential difference is that Senna did not try and beat his opponents - he tried to destroy them.

His greatest opponent was the great Alain Prost and there is no driver today either deserving of such high praise.

The wonderful irony is that Senna was so very disappointed when Prost retired. They spoke often as Senna would often call him every day and tried to get him to come OUT of retirement!

[texprofi]

Firstly, no he was never supposed to be the next Senna, he's the first Lewis Hamilton.

Hamilton's career record so far is hardly a topic to laugh about. A WDC in his second season and currently with 13 wins and 18 pole positions. His current teammate has been in F1 more than double the amount of time and currently has 9 wins and 7 pole positions in comparison. Lewis is not doing badly by any means, and I'm sure both Mclaren drivers can learn alot from each other.

The first Hamilton? Okay .........

Well he did accomplish as much as Jacques Villeneuve did in his first two years but JV had to fight Schumacher for the title.

I do not laugh at that.

But it is on record the way so many people that ought to know better acted like giggling school girls seeing their favorite pop star, where Hamilton was concerned stating how amazing and wonderful this driver was - perhaps teh best EVER!!!.

At least that rubbish has calmed down as most people regain their senses.

[texprofi]

How could we ever know? Smart drivers and teams manage their races according to their needs. Look at Hamilton's championship clinching race: a decision was made to drive for 5th because, on the day, that's all that was required. Had a win been necessary they'd have gone for it. Whether or not they'd have achieved it is a moot point as we can never know.

With the points narrow gap between the podium positions in recent years, smart drivers recognised that sometimes it was better to hang on to a safe 6 or 8 points rather than risk all for a win. Under the "medal" system we may well have seen different tactics.

To blindly apply a different points system to a season is fun, but ultimately meaningless.

Does not change the reality - if it depended on wins then Hamilton would still be trying to win a title.

[Tibaveriafark]

Does not change the reality - if it depended on wins then Hamilton would still be trying to win a title.

Which does not change the reality that it does not depend on wins.

To me the fact that several drivers are still in the title fight is not amazing. The amazing fact is that the two Red Bull drivers aren't so far in front that nothing short of DNFs until the end of the season would give anyone else a chance.

[truck]

these comparisons between point systems are always popping up.

from what i've seen the changes have rarely altered the final outcome.

Agree with this.

For mine Webber is leading the WDC but has twice the wins of the next guy! With that in mind, he's not leading by enough.

I don't mind the new points system at all. I wasn't too sure of it entering the season but I think it's been really good. Has given us racing all the way down the field.

Just look at Rubens vs Schumy. That would not have happened before.

[orillaVar]

The first Hamilton? Okay .........

Well he did accomplish as much as Jacques Villeneuve did in his first two years but JV had to fight Schumacher for the title.

Yep the first Lewis Hamilton.
He sure did accomplish what Villeneuve did and to his merit he fought for the title against two dominant Ferrari drivers without help from other teams in terms of holding the Ferrari's up. Gaining a title in an era where your opponent does not try to ram you off the track at the final round does not mean its inferior IMO.

Anyway, the new points system has shown that there is little difference and apart from having someone with the most wins leading the championship, we have a close fight. Webber has won 2 more races than any other driver and apart from a couple of calamity crashes, he's driven a solid season where he's had to enforce his dominance to his own team. He might not be their favourite to win, but his experience in many areas has shone through. This four week break may well bring a string of surprises, and if Mclaren have managed to close the gap, I expect Lewis to get at least another 2 wins in the latter half. Vettel has shown he is easily rattled, and even Gerhard Berger who gave him his chance in F1, believes he has made mistakes which have cost him dear, whereas a more experienced driver like Webber has made the most of a sometimes fragile teammate.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns22524.html

[Drysnyaty]

Does not change the reality - if it depended on wins then Hamilton would still be trying to win a title.

You cannot use the words "reality" and "if" when trying to make the same point

I genuinely don't know why I waste my effort trying to explain things to you. As a self-proclaimed lifelong F1 fan you really do have difficulty grasping the most simple of concepts at times. One last try, then I'll have to leave you in la-la land.

Hamilton, along with everybody else on the grid, managed their 2008 season according to the rules and points system in place at the time. If you applied the medals system retrospectively then no he wouldn't have been champion. But if the system had been in place at the start of the season there is literally no way of predicting or calculating what might have happenned.

Just one example. Opening race: driver X is in P2 and rather than settle for a safe 8 points to kickstart his championship realises he needs the win if he is to stand any chance later in the year. So he attacks the leader and they collide, handing victory to the guy in 3rd. Straight away the championship table looks entirely different.

That's just one of a million different ways that individual race might have panned out had the drivers been racing to a different points system. We simply will never know. Elementary chaos theory. Sorry you're finding it so hard to understand.