regardless of how the points are structured there will always be the other driver that deserved the title.

 

I agree. I do think that this is change just for the sake of interfering though.

 

Flash in the pan sensationalism trimuphs over consistent driving. I'd hate to see the next world champion get his title at the expense of someone that has driven more consistently and has higher points, albeit fewer wins. I also hope the FIA sees the folly of their myopic ways, but then thats asking too much.

 

Holy crap, thinking this out as far as you did just proves this is yet another f'ing stupid FiA decision...

 

it is stupid. imagine someone is very consistant...2nd and 3rd place all the time...maybe has one win. he loses because the other guy has 2 wins, but overall did worse in the points.

 

hmmm, let's see now...
brawn appeared to have an early speed advantage and maybe things go well for them early and RB and JB each notch up three wins but fade for the rest of the season.
Mclaren and Ferarri get it together and dominate the latter stages of the season.
Hamilton gets 3 wins, Hieki manages to get 2 and kimi has 3 with massa having 2.
so the last race of the season hieki is leading with ham in second.....

you can hear the screaming already when heiki needs tires and hands the lead off to hamilton.
you can just as easily substitute kimi and massa.

let's assume we have a competitive season with 4 or 5 teams pulling in multiple wins.
Mclaren and Ferrari are short odds bets for wins.
it isn't that big a stretch to expect BMW and Brawn to be competitive with even money on a winning races at this point.
I wouldn't down much of a wager against vettel.

so you wind up with most likely the champion will be winning with only 3 or 4 wins.

 

And the opportunity to fix something that was badly broken is lost and the damage is increased....

 

Well, one possible result is that the drivers with a chance at the championship will absolutely not settle for second place. Which might lead to some spectacularly optimistic passing attempts. Which might lead to less parade laps that so many people complain about, but also increase the number of crashes and mid-corner bumps.

 

Bingo.

This system is fine if somebody wins the majority of the races. Or even if two guys split 90% of the races between them. You can make a legit argument that the guy who won more races should win.

But what if nobody wins more than three or four races? Then it's really random. What if there are four rain races, and the same guy wins all of them. But he doesn't win a single dry race. If four wins are more than anybody else, he wins the title.

Or what if somebody wins a bunch of races early? Say Kimi has won 5 after the first eight races, and Hamilton came in second each of those five. Now Kimi only wins one after that, but Hamilton wins three more. Let's say they are within 10 points of each other with three races to go. But Hamilton can't catch up in wins. Season over, forget the drama from the last couple years with the championship coming down to the last race.

What was so bad about the championship being won on a pass in the last corner of the last lap of the last race? Was that too exciting for people?

 

Seems like last year the stewards did everything they could to penalize anybody who tried to make exciting passes.