 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
Net
The 2002 Season F1fan-eBook 
| Do you see the eBook Contents pane on the left? No? Then access the entire F1-fan eBook here! |
Paradox?...
  |
A curious situation ensues as the points system and 'Article 26' of the Formula One World Championship Sporting Regulations are observed side by side.
'Article 26' states that "one first place is better than any number of second places, one second place is better than any number of third places and so on."
As evident in the chart on the Points+Article 26, and further observed on the page In- or deflation?, however, when it comes to the points granted by order of arrival at the final flag, the situation diverges conspicuously from the above-cited Article.
Lack of discrepancy is found with fifth and sixth places under the old rules (respectively granted 2 points and 1 point up to 2002), and seventh and eighth places under the new rules (likewise granted 2 points and 1 point, from 2003 on).These constitute the only order of arrival in which the place immediately subsequent is granted half the points. Thus, 2 sixth places (2002) and 2 eighth places (2003) are respectively equivalent in points to 1 fifth place (2002) and 1 seventh place(2003).
For in the final championship standing, whenever the figures obtained are tied, a single fifth place is better than any number of sixth places, and a single seventh place will likewise be counted as better than any number of eigth places. So, P5 and P6 (up to 2002) and P7 and P8 (from 2003 on) seem well harmonized with the dictates of 'Article 26.'
In all other instances, though, as shown in In- or deflation? and charted in Points+Article 26 the place immediately subsequent is granted a points tally in itself paradoxical to the spirit of 'Article 26.'
For example, as shown in In- or deflation?, from 2003 on, two fifth places (2x4= 8 points) are better than one fourth place (= 5 points). In contrast, one fourth place (= 5 points), or one fifth place (= 4 points), these are each worse than two sixth places (2x3 = 6).
The tables in the section What if 2002... easily evidence that the there would be a greater points difference separating the drivers and, more especially, the teams that are further down the order.
This means that the possibility of tying on equal points should now be significantly reduced. And it means, in turn, that there should be fewer occasions in which 'Article 26' must be used to determine the final championship standings.
It finally follows that the inflation granted the mid and lower placements, which is evident from the new points system, and which emerges paradoxical to the spirit underlying 'Article 26,' actually has greater force than it initially appears, that is, from a mere look at the figures.
Accordingly, finishing as many races as possible, even if down in the points, may prove quite more profitable, in the long run, than making the podium in a few races.
The award of one extra point to the driver making the fastest lap during a race, could have been a way of valuing good performance, which has been overall deflated, thus enabling the championship count to reflect performance more faithfully, though not necessarily leaning toward the race winner.
This extra point for the fastest lap has in fact been the case in earlier F1 Championships, and it is standart procedure in the American CART and IRL Series, as already mentioned in The New Rules. This extra point could possibly have made the championship more interesting -- what do you think? (so you can derive your own view, you've been tipped to check the fasted laps in 2002 on the page Season Statistics, and see as well F1-2001 Statistics and F1-2000 Statistics on MieNet's AutoRacing Section).
In view of a driver's or a team's performance throught the season, is the new system more accurate and fair than the one used from 1991 to 2002?
Points+Article 26 evidences a complete comparison of both the old and new points systems, whereas All Points Systems gives the new system a historical perspective.
 Grand Prix & Auto-Racing Image Gallery  Pictures + Posters: |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
 |
 |
|
||||||||||||||
