88 replies to this topic

[Moose11]

http://www.guardian....ls-championship

What do yous think about this one?

Could be interesting but does that mean Schumacher will forever remain the number 1 points getter of all time? Not that I am complaining there!!!

[jemstride]

The stupid old fool has lost the plot. Medals?!!!! Maybe he's joking with us all, cos he cant be serious.

And no points for anyone below 3rd? This ludicrous idea won't go through, ever ever ever

[Max Mosley]

I think it's an interesting idea.  He's right that it will encourage overtaking and risk-taking in general.  It might also encourage differences to develop between the cars, if you like that kind of thing.  The downside is there's probably more scope for luck to play a role but then again it does anyway.

[devilsinskirtsisback]

I think it raises as many concerns as it solves. The logic behind increased competition for 1st place rather than not taking a risk and accepting 2nd, 3rd etc etc seems sound enough, but how does that affect those further back on the grid - is there any point in them even turning up except to hope for a freak result? At least 1pt for 8th gives them some incentive.

I suppose if you really wanted to you could simply increase the number of points available for a win to say 16. Increases the likelihood of the driver with most points winning the championship but also maintains the competition further down the grid.

[Max Mosley]

None of the articles say it, but perhaps they'll just extend the same system to the lower positions.  So an 8th place finish will count more than any number of 9ths etc a bit like a countback system.

[Jean Todt]

I sense Judgement day closing in.

[monza gorilla]

Scenario (much simplified but not as unlikely as it sounds):
Driver A wins 10 races of an 18 race season. Fails to place higher than 4th in any of the others.
Driver B wins 8 races. Comes second or third in all the others.
Therefore driver A is WDC.........................
What absolute bollocks. The sooner they put Bernard Charles Ecclestone in a home for the terminally bewildered the better off we'll all be.

[dribbler]

Didn't I start a thread on this? Why am I asking? I know I did.

[monza gorilla]

Yep. Your memory is intact. But it was sooooo far down the page and my scrolling finger is soooooo weary.

[Insider]

It's a nonsensical scheme.  The driver with the most wins must be WDC in my humble opinion.  If there is a tie, then a count back on other placings should apply.  Bernie has become more unbalanced than a RA108!  Must be the divorce.

[DOF_power]

Murray Walker, on Nov 26 2008, 04:59 PM, said:

I think it's an interesting idea.  He's right that it will encourage overtaking and risk-taking in general.  It might also encourage differences to develop between the cars, if you like that kind of thing.  The downside is there's probably more scope for luck to play a role but then again it does anyway.

I think should watch the Fuji 2007 race (Massa vs. Kubica) or maybe the Nascar CWTS series where the point system is a lot lot lot closer but the racing is a lot lot lot better because of the cars and track that allow passing.

Does anyone think medals would have made Valencia less of a bore ?!

Drivers don't need incetives of any king, just the proper cars on proper track.
In fact the hole driver's championship and scoring should be eliminated altogheter and FIA should allow fully automated no-drivers required cars.

Edited by DOF_Renault_BMW, 28 November 2008 - 11:02 AM.

[maure]

To be honest, the worst thing about this move is how much it seems to confuse some people... and that is more amusing than bad.

So, position beats regularity? So what. If this were applied to last season Massa and Hamilton would swap positions and so would Alonso over Kubica as well as Vettel over Heidfeld... in other words, it would've made no difference at all whatsoever, except perhaps for Vettel. So no reason to flip out on account of this.

The medals thing will be amussing, so there, at least we get a comedy moment out of all this...

[maure]

DOF_Renault_BMW, on Nov 28 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

... FIA should allow fully automated no-drivers required cars.

That's sci-fi at this point. There is no AI today that could drive an F1 like human drivers do... although, granted, getting rid of heroworshippers would be nice, nice.

Edited by maure, 28 November 2008 - 04:58 PM.

[Max Mosley]

I bet the AI can easily be developed.  Don't be so anti-innovation, Maure.

[dribbler]

maure, on Nov 28 2008, 04:55 PM, said:

So, position beats regularity?

So Mrs drib tells me.

[maure]

Murray Walker, on Nov 28 2008, 06:23 PM, said:

I bet the AI can easily be developed.  Don't be so anti-innovation, Maure.

Easily?

Let me guess. It can "easily" be developed in the dream world where you claim I am "so anti-innovation".

Besides, I didn't say those AI's won't ever exist. Who can say? I just don't know of them existing now... why don't you describe to us precisely how these AI's can easily be developed? Don't bet. Tell us with details.

dribbler, on Nov 28 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

So Mrs drib tells me.

Many dreamers today...

[kuskor]

The points system was changed to hinder a dominant car-driver combo (MS-Ferrari)winning the championship all too soon. Instead we got a system that rewards reliability and consistency and will not favour risk takers.

The new system could provide us with closer racing as long as we have teams that are close together(yeah I know, pure genious...) . We might see more spins, drivers on second place chasing the leader untill they spin out, broken engines, banzai 1st corner manoevers etc. If we get a dominant driver-engine package then the championship could be decided very early on. If we look further back we can find situations where a win was all that mattered, it was usually after the constructor and drivers championships were decided and people drove to win.

I would prefere reverting to the older system( 10,6,4,3,2,1 or maybe 10,6,4,3,2, 1.5, 1, 0.5 to reward the first eight finishers)which imo was more balanced between risk taking and consistency. I cannot stand the current points system,  where if you fail to finish a race and your championship competitor wins, you will then have to win 5 races and he can be satisfied with second or even third position. Take it easy through the first corner, try maybe catching up before the pits not taking any risks and waiting for the other guy to make a mistake, oh well it didn't quite work, lets cut the revs and conserve second...

If I have to choose between the current system and the one proposed I will vote for change, in the end I don't care if it might be unfair for a guy with 8 wins and 8 second places to lose the championship, I can accept that knowing he lost a championship that was more entertaining for me to watch.

As far as medals are concerned I think it's idiotic, trophies are far better.

Edited by kuskor, 28 November 2008 - 10:41 PM.

[The Burro]

Murray Walker, on Nov 26 2008, 09:59 AM, said:

I think it's an interesting idea.  He's right that it will encourage overtaking and risk-taking in general.  It might also encourage differences to develop between the cars, if you like that kind of thing.  The downside is there's probably more scope for luck to play a role but then again it does anyway.

Right.  Because we've seen so many instances when one driver was running behind another and decided not to overtake because they were having a "good points day."  Oh yeah, remember all those times when they were running nose-to-tail, and you thought "if only Lewis would just pass Massa," but he was just doing math in his head and held back.  Oh so many times.

And don't tell me it's a two-pronged approach with this AND spec cars because you're wrong.  Spec cars work so well that IndyCar, A1GP, GP2, etc are the most viewed series in the world with the best racing.  Clearly.  And NASCAR's US TV ratings have been WAY up since they went spec.  Oh yes, nothing excites me like spec cars.  It isn't like ALMS, dirt late models, midgets, sprints, supermods etc have the best racing and the most variety, no, that would never happen.

DOF_Renault_BMW, on Nov 28 2008, 06:01 AM, said:

I think should watch the Fuji 2007 race (Massa vs. Kubica) or maybe the Nascar CWTS series where the point system is a lot lot lot closer but the racing is a lot lot lot better because of the cars and track that allow passing.

Does anyone think medals would have made Valencia less of a bore ?!

Drivers don't need incetives of any king, just the proper cars on proper track.
In fact the hole driver's championship and scoring should be eliminated altogheter and FIA should allow fully automated no-drivers required cars.

I agree with you, DOF.  The trucks are great because they are a lot like the older stock cars in terms of aero, but driveable enough that you can run side-by-side.  The trucks had some great shows this year, made Sprint Cup and Nationwide look awful.  The Whelen Modifieds and Camping World East/West Series are also really fun.

Exactly, it wasn't like they were running single-file because they weren't motivated.  There's no where to pass.

Yep, drivers will always overtake when they can.  They're young and driving fast cars, this isn't Mama Murray driving her Toyota Prius home from King George's Royal Tesco.

Okay, now you've gone too far.  Keep the drivers.  Just because I said so.

[marlops]

there's nothing wrong with the points system currently in place. encourage overtaking? don't the stewards already discourage that?

[Max Mosley]

maure, on Nov 28 2008, 08:32 PM, said:

Easily?

Let me guess. It can "easily" be developed in the dream world where you claim I am "so anti-innovation".

Besides, I didn't say those AI's won't ever exist. Who can say? I just don't know of them existing now... why don't you describe to us precisely how these AI's can easily be developed? Don't bet. Tell us with details.

  Anyone with some intelligence, artificial or not?  Computers can play chess at the same level as the finest human players.  I'm pretty sure controlling an F1 car isn't any more computationally demanding.  If you're so pro-innovation, why not let teams choose whether to run a driver or a computer so we could see who's right?   That would be some innovation I'd genuinely like to see.

kuskor, on Nov 28 2008, 10:39 PM, said:

The points system was changed to hinder a dominant car-driver combo (MS-Ferrari)winning the championship all too soon. Instead we got a system that rewards reliability and consistency and will not favour risk takers.

The new system could provide us with closer racing as long as we have teams that are close together(yeah I know, pure genious...) . We might see more spins, drivers on second place chasing the leader untill they spin out, broken engines, banzai 1st corner manoevers etc. If we get a dominant driver-engine package then the championship could be decided very early on.

Yes, I tend to agree with all that.

The Burro, on Nov 28 2008, 11:12 PM, said:

Right.  Because we've seen so many instances when one driver was running behind another and decided not to overtake because they were having a "good points day."  Oh yeah, remember all those times when they were running nose-to-tail, and you thought "if only Lewis would just pass Massa," but he was just doing math in his head and held back.  Oh so many times.

Entertaining as always Eric but drivers do do the maths.  Maybe things were different when you last watched F1 back on Plymouth Rock?   Lewis and McLaren were saying all season that they need to avoid taking too many risks.   There were quite a few times when Lewis was right behind someone and didn't race him as hard as possible but more than that, if you aren't going to race someone why be nose-to-tail with them at all?  The top teams generally hedge their bets and adopt strategies with relatively low risks, which tend to avoid wheel to wheel racing.  Alonso was a notable exception this season and the risk paid off for him in the end, but of course he only did that because he had nothing to lose.

The Burro, on Nov 28 2008, 11:12 PM, said:

And don't tell me it's a two-pronged approach with this AND spec cars because you're wrong.  Spec cars work so well that IndyCar, A1GP, GP2, etc are the most viewed series in the world with the best racing.  Clearly.  And NASCAR's US TV ratings have been WAY up since they went spec.  Oh yes, nothing excites me like spec cars.  It isn't like ALMS, dirt late models, midgets, sprints, supermods etc have the best racing and the most variety, no, that would never happen.

It's a 2-pronged approach with this AND spec cars; and you love it!  And if not, I'll join you watching ALMS sometime.

marlops, on Nov 29 2008, 12:25 AM, said:

there's nothing wrong with the points system currently in place. encourage overtaking? don't the stewards already discourage that?

Hi Marlops!  Yes, the stewards are a disgrace.  They have been ever since they stopped favouring Lewis.

[maure]

Murray Walker, on Nov 29 2008, 02:22 AM, said:

  Anyone with some intelligence, artificial or not?  Computers can play chess at the same level as the finest human players.  I'm pretty sure controlling an F1 car isn't any more computationally demanding.  If you're so pro-innovation, why not let teams choose whether to run a driver or a computer so we could see who's right?   That would be some innovation I'd genuinely like to see.

You continue to "argue" with fantasy and that is amusing enough to motivate a reponse.

So, first and _one_more_time_, that it might be possible to develop those AI's _does_not_imply_ that they exist today or that their development is "easy" as you, my loopy fellow, claim.

Second, your equating chess playing with F1 racing says a lot about your poor understanding of the subject. Entertain yourself doing a google search (which is, after all, what _you_ consider "reputable" research) and find out the important differences that exist between the two problem domains. You can start anywhere, say, on pattern recognition...

Third, your desire to see AI's racing humans drivers is _again_ indication that you have no clue regarding the problem domain. Heck, even from the point of view of driver safety, it would be unsustainable.

Fourth, the innovation that I argue will benefit the sport is, _first_of_all_, REAL innovation that already EXISTS today but that is not allowed under current regulations. Which part of that remains confusing to you? Existing versus hypothetical, how hard it can be...

[rodders47]

Bernie wants this idea to SAVE him paying for those lesser teams that currently score points and get paid for transportation costs etc, because of the points they have won.

The GREEDY OLD b#####d is just looking after the pot of gold that he collects from every race. F(*&^%$#%^&* whatever happens to the SPORT of F1

The sooner Bernie is off and out of F! and for that matter the surface of Earth the better F1 will be.

[kuskor]

rodders47, on Nov 29 2008, 08:38 AM, said:

Bernie wants this idea to SAVE him paying for those lesser teams that currently score points and get paid for transportation costs etc, because of the points they have won.

The GREEDY OLD b#####d is just looking after the pot of gold that he collects from every race. F(*&^%$#%^&* whatever happens to the SPORT of F1

The sooner Bernie is off and out of F! and for that matter the surface of Earth the better F1 will be.

I think they mention that the current points system will be maintained for the constructors championship

[maure]

kuskor, on Nov 29 2008, 10:13 AM, said:

I think they mention that the current points system will be maintained for the constructors championship

Yep. You are correct.

The confusion created by the _proposed_ changes remains the most amusing thing about the whole business...

[Max Mosley]

maure, on Nov 29 2008, 03:17 AM, said:

So, first and _one_more_time_, that it might be possible to develop those AI's _does_not_imply_ that they exist today or that their development is "easy" as you, my loopy fellow, claim

  OK so we both agree that they probably could be developed but you object to me saying it would likely be easy.  Well, I think you'll find the people involved are merely scientists and therefore ''prostitutes'' (in Maure's ''fantasies'') who will probably be the first to admit they are ''easy''.

maure, on Nov 29 2008, 03:17 AM, said:

Second, your equating chess playing with F1 racing says a lot about your poor understanding of the subject. Entertain yourself doing a google search (which is, after all, what _you_ consider "reputable" research) and find out the important differences that exist between the two problem domains. You can start anywhere, say, on pattern recognition...

Your inference about everyone's understanding of a topic that they have corrected you on says a lot about your appreciation of their expertise.  Please, do a literature search for all the seminal contributions I myself have made to the field of pattern recognition, and other cognate disciplines.

maure, on Nov 29 2008, 03:17 AM, said:

Third, your desire to see AI's racing humans drivers is _again_ indication that you have no clue regarding the problem domain. Heck, even from the point of view of driver safety, it would be unsustainable.

Drivers would be left trailing behind anyway.  It would be as safe as it is now.

maure, on Nov 29 2008, 03:17 AM, said:

Fourth, the innovation that I argue will benefit the sport is, _first_of_all_, REAL innovation that already EXISTS today but that is not allowed under current regulations. Which part of that remains confusing to you? Existing versus hypothetical, how hard it can be...

Innovations that already EXIST aren't innovation any more.  Once upon a time, using a wheel was enough to make a caveman cool but now even Force India understand the basics of wheel technology.  But I know that doesn't bother you, Maure: given your lack of expertise in such technology I suppose you can sit back and enjoy F1's being the pinnacle of wheeliness.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

The AI idea is not a terrific one - the problem is that using standard AI you would end up with a moving road block taking all the corners perfectly....

One of the things that makes a human "human" is their flaws, personality, etc. Hard to replicate, especially the changes and fluxes - e.g. someone carves you up, you react aggressively, etc... The team boss comes on the radio and tells you to slow down to help your team mate, you sulk, you get a high from passing someone and this fires you on to pass someone else.

Moreover what's the point?

And besides, it would be impossible to replicate Alonso's eyebrows by any artificial means

[Jean Todt]

rodders47, on Nov 29 2008, 08:38 AM, said:

Bernie wants this idea to SAVE him paying for those lesser teams that currently score points and get paid for transportation costs etc, because of the points they have won.

The GREEDY OLD b#####d is just looking after the pot of gold that he collects from every race. F(*&^%$#%^&* whatever happens to the SPORT of F1

The sooner Bernie is off and out of F! and for that matter the surface of Earth the better F1 will be.

Amen.

[maure]

Murray Walker, on Nov 29 2008, 04:35 PM, said:

  OK so we both agree that they probably could be developed but you object to me saying it would likely be easy.  Well, I think you'll find the people involved are merely scientists and therefore ''prostitutes'' (in Maure's ''fantasies'') who will probably be the first to admit they are ''easy''.


Your inference about everyone's understanding of a topic that they have corrected you on says a lot about your appreciation of their expertise.  Please, do a literature search for all the seminal contributions I myself have made to the field of pattern recognition, and other cognate disciplines.


Drivers would be left trailing behind anyway.  It would be as safe as it is now.


Innovations that already EXIST aren't innovation any more.  Once upon a time, using a wheel was enough to make a caveman cool but now even Force India understand the basics of wheel technology.  But I know that doesn't bother you, Maure: given your lack of expertise in such technology I suppose you can sit back and enjoy F1's being the pinnacle of wheeliness.

And so, unable to pursue any further the exvcuse that I am against AI's, you change your tune to... what again? Your claim to have made "seminal" contributions to what "cognate disciplines"? As expected as it is hilarious.

Beyond this latest goof up, you post some additional handwaving concerning regulations that prohibit existing techonology although, you claim, allow its innovation. Not as funny as your "academic credentials" but worthy of a chuckle.

Now. Please post here a list of references detailing your academic work on the subject of pattern recognition. Don't run around. Don't pretend it away. Don't post a bigger lie in another futile attempt to cover your last one. Post the references to your work. Let's review it together...

[maure]

Meanioni, on Nov 29 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

The AI idea is not a terrific one - the problem is that using standard AI you would end up with a moving road block taking all the corners perfectly....

One of the things that makes a human "human" is their flaws, personality, etc. Hard to replicate, especially the changes and fluxes - e.g. someone carves you up, you react aggressively, etc... The team boss comes on the radio and tells you to slow down to help your team mate, you sulk, you get a high from passing someone and this fires you on to pass someone else.

Moreover what's the point?

And besides, it would be impossible to replicate Alonso's eyebrows by any artificial means

Actually, the subject has some interest and work has been done on it, inside and outside the track. We are just too far for it to matter. Of course, some contributions in that direction have been made like launch and traction control, etc. But the jump to a full fledged autonomous AI driving an F1 (over the tracks we've got nowasdays) is not likely to happen any time soon. Simulations, sure. Actual AI's able to perform like human drivers, not quite yet.

[cavallino]

maure, on Nov 29 2008, 02:17 PM, said:

So, first and _one_more_time_, that it might be possible to develop those AI's _does_not_imply_ that they exist today or that their development is "easy" as you, my loopy fellow, claim.

There are already cars that drive themselves. As long as we can make the car know its exact position and orientation on the track (easy enough) I am sure we can make cars that can do test laps pretty fast. While judging overtaking etc I would think humans would stll have an edge.

Quote

Second, your equating chess playing with F1 racing says a lot about your poor understanding of the subject. Entertain yourself doing a google search (which is, after all, what _you_ consider "reputable" research) and find out the important differences that exist between the two problem domains. You can start anywhere, say, on pattern recognition...

The pattern recognition part isn't that hard, unless you take out positioning systems. Even then..

Quote

Third, your desire to see AI's racing humans drivers is _again_ indication that you have no clue regarding the problem domain. Heck, even from the point of view of driver safety, it would be unsustainable.

You are clueless. AI drivers will be a lot safer than human drivers.

maure, on Nov 30 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

And so, unable to pursue any further the exvcuse that I am against AI's, you change your tune to... what again? Your claim to have made "seminal" contributions to what "cognate disciplines"? As expected as it is hilarious.

I don't have reason to doubt his claims. However most of your posts are arguments from authority which make very little sense without presenting any credentials. I know more than enough about the fields in question, I don't remember MW ever making specious claims though I have my disagreements with him of course. Most of what you post is a load of crap, so unless you can back it up, it merely funny.

Quote

Beyond this latest goof up, you post some additional handwaving concerning regulations that prohibit existing techonology although, you claim, allow its innovation. Not as funny as your "academic credentials" but worthy of a chuckle.

Now. Please post here a list of references detailing your academic work on the subject of pattern recognition. Don't run around. Don't pretend it away. Don't post a bigger lie in another futile attempt to cover your last one. Post the references to your work. Let's review it together...

How about you post yours, I am more interested in those. All the claims you make here and the ones you made about climate change ?