Most Wins=Champ? F1 09 Poll

Answer here, and let’s have a discussion group on the subject below.

Also, here’s the FIA list of what would have been, had the wins-for-title theory been implemented through racing history. Of course, considering that the drivers didn’t know the rules,the results might have been significantly different. Heh.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Comments (



  1. rajasen

    Personally, I think it’s interesting to see how drivers will react to this. It is a fact that the difference between first and second places had reduced to a laughable degree, giving far too much credit to consistency. On the other hand, saying that most wins automatically equals the world title seems pretty jejune, to say the least.

    So we aren’t really going to know till after this season, but instinctively I feel that this may not be as bad a move as the world currently thinks. Bernie might not be all that far off the mark. Yeah, I actually said that.

    What’s your take?

  2. Mo

    F1 has turned into Calvinball. A shiny and better packaged version.
    Don’t nitpick, but the only consistent rule of Calvinball is that it may never be played with the same rules twice.

    The rules keep changing too often to call it an organized team sport.

    1. rajasen

      I agree. Every time we — and the drivers and the teams — get used to something, find our groove, the ridiculously far-removed powers that be arbitrarily mix things up.

  3. Sparx

    I’m inclined to agree with Mo. Each year, there are more and more rule changes – most of which are just changes to rules that were previously changed.

    I remember when Michael & Ferrari were stamping their dominance, Max, Bernie and the FIA decided to collectively change the rules in a bid to ensure Ferrari didn’t keep running away with the Championship each year and reduce the number of viewers tuning in. Just beause the other teams weren’t up to scratch, the top team was “penalised” if you will by newer rules being brought in to place that made the playing field onto a more level plane.

    1. rajasen

      Absolutely. Call me an idiot, but I don’t get the idea of everyone *forced* into a level playing field. Formula 1 is about superiority, and because McLaren’s annual sandwich budget eclipsed Minardi’s overall budget (without travel, true statistic) it doesn’t mean the larger team should be penalised, as you say, for it.

      Enzo Ferrari created a company that sells sportscars to support racing instead of the other way around. Doesn’t that firm then enjoy long stages of dominance because of the commitment it has shown to the sport?

      1. Sparx

        Also, remember Schumacher brought championships to Ferrari 21 years after their last Championship victory with Jody Scheckter. So, there wasn’t any particular period of dominance except those consecutive WDCs in 2000-2004.

        In any case, this discussion is now moot coz the FIA have delayed the implementation of the “most wins = WDC” rule until next year.

        1. rajasen

          Exactly. Look up at Roshni’s Calvinball analogy.
          Or as Obelix would say, ‘These FIA folks are crazy.’

  4. Neeraj

    i would’ve to agree with your first comment here…i.e it’s a good move by FIA. why becoz it brings back more driver skill into the game….
    and also coz alonso has a chance to win again ;)

%d bloggers like this: