Changing the point system is needed and long overdue but winner going to the most wins in not the answer.

The FIA have approved that the 2009 Formula One Driver’s Championship will go to the one with the most wins.  As good as this may sound and yes, the one with the most wins should be the champion.  However, there is a very high likelyhood that this is not good enough.  A Champion should be based on his/her performance for the entire season.  This brings to light the old cliche, “we lost the battle but not the war”.  Here is an example:  Let’s say a driver wins five races throughout the season and nobody does any better than that.  This would make most sense for that driver to win.  Now lets say that every race he did not win, he crashed out, had mechanical falure or finished outside the points… like in last-place.  Should a champion go to someone who is only briefly at the top for short periods of time or should a champion be the best driver for entire season.  I have a feeling we will see a champion on the podium but in reality of the point system he/she could be place second, third or worse.  Then to top it off, the point system doesn’t apply to the champion but rather they are applied to second place and below. 

The better solution (and this has been proven in other forms of motorsports), is to incorporate more points.  So instead of 10 points being the maximum boost it to 20.  However there’s been complaints that if someone gets too far ahead then drivers will lose interest in going for the overall championship.  This is where I’ve stated in the past that there needs to be points handed out for qualifying as well.  

It will be interesting to see how things progress throughout the 2009 F1 season.  It could work out to the favor of the FIA or it could be a complete flop.  I feel that the risk is too high for playing games with the drivers and their overall championship.

Kimi Raikkonen 2007 Formula One Drivers' Champion