airliebird9 wrote:I think it's a ridiculous idea. The whole point of a SEASON is to see who is the most consistent. Although most unlikely, what if a driver finishes every race in 2nd place and all the Grand prix victories are spread over 10 or 12 other drivers. The driver who finishes 2nd every week will probably have far more points than the other drivers who maybe have 1 or 2 victories each and the more consistent driver wins nothing


I agree that drivers should be attempting to win the race rather than being happy with taking 2 points less and staying in 2nd etc. Surely this can be achieved by just making the reward for winning the race much greater than finishing 2nd.

Saint Viper wrote:Being a Rugby League fan you should now that the season means nothing , its how you play in the last couple of games that matters.

Andy Gilder wrote:Funny how F1 works, isn't it.

Ferrari built themselves a car that was fast, but not as reliable as usual in 2008. As a result one of their drivers lost out on the title despite winning more races than anyone else that season.

Now, all of a sudden and as if by magic, Bernie the Pixie decides he wants to change the rules to reward teams who are quick but not necessarily reliable (like Ferrari).

Surely he can't be that desperate for some liquidity to settle his divorce that he's resorted to receiving brown envelopes from the Maranello boys?

If this system comes in within two years you'll have an F1 starting grid with about 10 cars on it. What's the point of the likes of Honda, Force India and Williams staying in the sport if only the top 3 (mainly McLaren, Ferrari and the occasional interloper from Red Bull, Toro Rosso, Renault or BMW) get any reward for where they finish in the race?