I'm undecided on the idea of double points, but I don't agree with the idea that it makes the racing more contrived or artificial. For starters, what element of F1 are we classing as natural in this argument? Is the point system natural? What about the size of the tyres or the shape of a circuit? Is forcing teams to use v6 engines natural? If you're looking for natural motor racing then I'm afraid you are probably 50 years too late. There is barely any part of F1 any more that isn't designed. As I said, I am undecided on the idea of double points, but I don't think it can be dismissed for being "artificial".
I think what people really mean when saying these things are artificial is that they are untraditional. In my lifetime at least, Formula 1 has always been competed for over a course of a season with all races counting the same. But sport as a whole has changed massivhttp://cliptheapex.com/admin.phpely since then. With the rise of the importance of television, the battle to keep people's attention has lead to many sports evolving. Just look at Cricket or Snooker. Both have experimented with totally different formats with differing degrees of success. So based on this, it is not surprising that Formula 1 has made changes in recent times to increase the popularity of Formula 1. When you look at DRS, many were critical of that (and still are) but ultimately it appears to have achieved what it aimed to - boost ratings.
It is certainly not a new idea to have events at the end of the season be given greater value than those that preceded it. There are more sports that now have play-offs at the end of their season, than those that I can think of that don't. Double points is far less extreme than what we see with Nascar, where the points are essentially reset.
One of the effects of double points that I haven't heard talked about is the increased importance of mid-season development. We have seen it happen on a number of occasions where a team has started the season with the best car and have won the title simply because they were able to carry that advantage for long enough, even if by the end of the season there performance had dropped severely. I'm pretty sure most teams would choose to start the season with the best car than end the season with the best car (McLaren in 2011 for example).
That said, you have to question whether they are trying to fix something that isn't actually broken. Sebastian Vettel would've won the season in 2011 and 2013 regardless of this rule. The only time this will come into play is if the title race is close anyway. Ultimately, if a driver is 36 points ahead going into the last race then they are almost certain to win the title anyway. The only thing that will stop them is probably bad luck, but then again that is the nature of Formula 1. It is something we will see a lot of this season. You can go from 25 to 0 points in just a few corners and that is going to be made more extreme in the final race.
My biggest fear for the double points rule is not the rule itself, but the reaction to the rule. It is inevitable that people will compare the old and new point rules come the end of the season, and I would hate for a selection of fans to deem this years winner to have an asterisk next to their name as a result of this change. All drivers have been given the same rules at the start of the season. It is whoever takes advantage of these that deserves to be champion, regardless of how it happens.
