Just stumbled across a stat I thought was worth sharing. Out of the 22 drivers confirmed for the 2012 grid 8 of them scored points in their debut Grand Prix:
Vettel
Hamilton
Webber
Rosberg
Raikkonen
Di Resta
Glock
De La Rosa
Now if Liuzzi keeps his seat at HRT that number goes up to 9 and if part way through the season they Toro Rosso call on Buemi to be back in the race seat again the number is up to 10 and then chuck in the fact that the only reason Perez is not on the list is due to a car technicallity that led to a DQ and you can pretty much say half the grid scored points on their debut.
In Formula One history only 60 drivers have scored points on their debut so with 8 on the gird and 2 sitting in the pitlane trying to negociate a drive basically a sixth of the entire drivers in F1 history to score points on their debuts are from the current era. This leave me with a question. Are we, like Fernando Alonso says, living in a golden age of F1 talent or is it far too easy to score points?
Now I will admit I have a bias leaning in this because I've always favoured the 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 system of scoring but it seems to me this is evidence that were rewarding drivers and teams too easily in the modern era and glorifying what used to be considered average. For instance can you really compare Paul Di Resta decent drive to a 10th place finish (after 2 drivers were disqualified) on his debut with the amazing 4th place drive Jean Alesi pulled off in a Tyrell at the 1989 French Grand Prix? I don't think they're even close.
I'm not going to do the stats because I've seen others do(and if you'd like to post them up here please do) but I think its been proved that the changing in the scoring system has made no difference to who has become WDC or WCC so why the need for the change? I know some will argue that due to the bullet-proof nature of the F1 cars these days that extending the points down to 10th is the only way to ensure the little teams get a piece of the pie. I see where you're coming from but I actually think the industructable nature of the cars came afterwards. I think the decision was soley made to please the sponsors and teams who were pumping too much money into the sport to be seen to be coming away with nothing. I also think the decision was made due to the current nature of how sportsman are paid and represented that they also can't be seen to be coming away with nothing.
Lets look at the situation this season if only the top 6 had been scoring points - that would have left a big car company like Mercedes with a massive reputation to protect in the car industry running a team that more often and not were not scoring any points in Grand Prixs or if they were they were only scraping the odd point over Felipe Massa. The Proton Group owned team Lotus would also have looked pretty poor having only scored 3 points finishes all season. The celebrated rookies of Di Resta and Perez would have 1 point scoring finish between them. Only 7 of the 12 teams would have scored points.
Well that makes it more boring and predicatable I hear you say and the points going down to 10th it means the drivers for the smaller teams get more focus and thats a good thing right? Well in some ways I guess it is but unfourtunatly I also think the giving of points willy nilly takes away the importance of it. For instance under the top six ruling Kobi's 5th place at Monaco would have been his and Sauber's only point finish of the season and it would have been hearelded as one of the drives of the season and remembered for a long time by most of us. As it is it was just another good points finish for Sauber and people are talking about Kobi having a poor season and being less exciting than he was.
So what do the people on here think? We've gone from less that a quarter of the grid scoring points to just under half scoring points. Like me do you think its a ploy to keep the sponsors and the big names happy and is glorifying the average drivers whilst taking away the glory from individual drives? Or do you think that the current system shares the points between the teams more equally and gives the drivers their fair dues?
Vettel
Hamilton
Webber
Rosberg
Raikkonen
Di Resta
Glock
De La Rosa
Now if Liuzzi keeps his seat at HRT that number goes up to 9 and if part way through the season they Toro Rosso call on Buemi to be back in the race seat again the number is up to 10 and then chuck in the fact that the only reason Perez is not on the list is due to a car technicallity that led to a DQ and you can pretty much say half the grid scored points on their debut.
In Formula One history only 60 drivers have scored points on their debut so with 8 on the gird and 2 sitting in the pitlane trying to negociate a drive basically a sixth of the entire drivers in F1 history to score points on their debuts are from the current era. This leave me with a question. Are we, like Fernando Alonso says, living in a golden age of F1 talent or is it far too easy to score points?
Now I will admit I have a bias leaning in this because I've always favoured the 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 system of scoring but it seems to me this is evidence that were rewarding drivers and teams too easily in the modern era and glorifying what used to be considered average. For instance can you really compare Paul Di Resta decent drive to a 10th place finish (after 2 drivers were disqualified) on his debut with the amazing 4th place drive Jean Alesi pulled off in a Tyrell at the 1989 French Grand Prix? I don't think they're even close.
I'm not going to do the stats because I've seen others do(and if you'd like to post them up here please do) but I think its been proved that the changing in the scoring system has made no difference to who has become WDC or WCC so why the need for the change? I know some will argue that due to the bullet-proof nature of the F1 cars these days that extending the points down to 10th is the only way to ensure the little teams get a piece of the pie. I see where you're coming from but I actually think the industructable nature of the cars came afterwards. I think the decision was soley made to please the sponsors and teams who were pumping too much money into the sport to be seen to be coming away with nothing. I also think the decision was made due to the current nature of how sportsman are paid and represented that they also can't be seen to be coming away with nothing.
Lets look at the situation this season if only the top 6 had been scoring points - that would have left a big car company like Mercedes with a massive reputation to protect in the car industry running a team that more often and not were not scoring any points in Grand Prixs or if they were they were only scraping the odd point over Felipe Massa. The Proton Group owned team Lotus would also have looked pretty poor having only scored 3 points finishes all season. The celebrated rookies of Di Resta and Perez would have 1 point scoring finish between them. Only 7 of the 12 teams would have scored points.
Well that makes it more boring and predicatable I hear you say and the points going down to 10th it means the drivers for the smaller teams get more focus and thats a good thing right? Well in some ways I guess it is but unfourtunatly I also think the giving of points willy nilly takes away the importance of it. For instance under the top six ruling Kobi's 5th place at Monaco would have been his and Sauber's only point finish of the season and it would have been hearelded as one of the drives of the season and remembered for a long time by most of us. As it is it was just another good points finish for Sauber and people are talking about Kobi having a poor season and being less exciting than he was.
So what do the people on here think? We've gone from less that a quarter of the grid scoring points to just under half scoring points. Like me do you think its a ploy to keep the sponsors and the big names happy and is glorifying the average drivers whilst taking away the glory from individual drives? Or do you think that the current system shares the points between the teams more equally and gives the drivers their fair dues?
