nuzzaci - an online journal

After Michael Schumacher won the 2002 driver championship by 67 points over his team-mate, Rubens Barrichello, Bernie Ecclestone (Formula 1 “boss”), in an attempt to close the gap and spread the points, decided to change the point-scoring system so more points went to drivers finishing 2nd place down to 8th — from top six finishers (10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1) to top eight finishers (10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1).

That same scoring-system put in place in 2003 is still used today, but Bernie is planning to change it once again in 2008, this time in an attempt to do the opposite of what he wanted to achieve back in 2003 — make the win of a race matter more; encourage drivers (and teams) to fight for first place rather than settle for second and third.

Many people argue that the system never should have been changed back in 2003. Since it was done for the wrong reasons, a reason that left the sport at the end of 2006 — Michael Schumacher.

And I agree.

The current system is wrong. When introduced I remember drawing similarities to amateur golf and it’s handicap system — which enables golfers of all skill levels to compete on an equitable basis. There were also discussions about adding extra weight to the Ferraris…

If you look at the current stand in the 2007 Championship, after three races, we have three drivers on the same points.

But isn’t Fernando Alonso’s 1st, 2nd, 5th, and Kimi Räikkönen’s 1st, 3rd, 3rd worth more than Lewis Hamilton’s 2nd, 2nd 3rd? As well, if you look at the current 4th and 5th place, only 2 points difference Felipe Massa and his 1st, 5th, 6th and Nick Heidfeld’s 4th, 4th, 4th. Theres a thought, thought, thought.

If we apply the old point-scoring system to the current standing, it would look like this:

And if we would introduce 1 point for the fastest lap and pole position as well, it would look like this:

If we do the same three lists for the Constructors Championship, it would look like this:

Personally I believe that the old 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 system (introduced 1991) is the best, and the above lists prove it. If you have followed this years season the 2nd and 3rd lists reflects better what has happened so far.

10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 rewards the winner and consistency.
A 2nd and 3rd place is equal to a win and not better.

Giving 1 point for pole position and 1 point for the fastest lap might be interesting… but i’m not sure how that would pan out with the current qualifying system and it’s race fuel tank in Q3. A bit worried that some teams then would put more value in getting those points than fighting for them in the race (a bit like Toyota’s political pole position attempt at the 2006 Japanese Grand Prix).

So… how would the tight 2006 Championship have looked if Bernie never introduced the Schumacher-golf-handicap-system?

Well, the same really.

It’s easy to sit here now and analyse the above graph and say,

“Well, with the old point-scoring system, leaving race number 16 (China) M. Schumacher would have been in the lead and not just tie with F. Alonso, and then maybe have a different and less aggressive strategy going into race number 17 (Japan) where the engine blew”.

But so many other things would have been totally different along the way if the old point-scoring system was in place so it’s not fair or reasonable to draw these kind of conclusions.

BUT! Having said that.

If the old point-scoring system was in place in the 2006 season, Ferrari would most probably have won the constructor championship. Felipe Massa’s 6 podiums (2 victories, 3 second places and 2 thirds) would have been more rewarding against Giancarlo Fisichella 5 podiums (1 victory and 4 thirds) and given Ferrari the Constructors title. And I have a hard time believing that any change in strategy would have changed that.

So intstead of a 5 point win for Renault (206 Renault against 201 Ferrari), Ferrari would have won with a margin of 3 points (159 Renault against 162 Ferrari).

So, Scuderia Ferrari, with a cheeky smile on my face — congratulations ;)