With the points system 25-18 7 points of a gap, compared to rewarding 2nd place man 8 to winners 10 points, I highly believe
some teams will be pushing for performance and taking risks, it has to be said, it's about time to get back to LIVING ON THE EDGE!!!!!!

The suspense of the end of the gp and keeping fingers crossed a car will make it will be back,
More attacking for top places

I also believe some teams will be making cars so fast as possible to even risk reliability just to be sure of pole laps and a good performance for 75% of the gp, and then gambling they can control the race from there on in.

We need attacking teams, I'm tired of consistent points finish playing it safe Professor Prost style, that's no fun, we need intensity, when everything is pushed to the limit, there are disasters as well as life saving operations during a f1 race, it truelly is a knife edge sport, and we lost that with the help of the old 10-8 lets celebrate the 2nd place more system, that system can burn in hell now.

We should welcome more DNFs, it's apart of the action and the game, of cource I understand when your driver/team get a DNF is no fun, but the ups and downs of life do exist in f1 as well.


So raise a glass and toast to BLOWN ENGINES, FUEL LEAKS, clutch problems, gear problems, the whole DUKEKARULE!!!

Like Bodi said in Point Break, if you want the ultimate ride, you have to pay the ultimate price,
ALL YOU F1 FANS STAND FOR SOMETHING AGAINST THE SYSTEM, THE FIA, YOU SHOW THE LOST SOULS OF THE CASUAL VIEWERS OUT THERE, that the INDIVIDUAL matters.


A SALUTE TO THE DNF WE NEED DRAMATICS AS WELL AS FASTEST LAPS, SOME Nigel Mansell Ferrari overtaking then DNF action he should of won the race ACTION!

But not too many

Do you reckon?

Most DNFs are caused by either crashes, hydraulic or engine failure.

The last two of those are really pretty rare these days.

Remember the days of albert park 2001 I believe, not many cars finished, I remember Michael Schumacher blown f1 engine in 1999 first race, Eddie Irvine won that.

Even Bernie has menstioned the finishing rate is too high, teams are afraid of losing too many points, as catching up is more difficult to do since points are too close up front. So the change in points system will at least wipe away the consistent smiles away from 2nd place, losing 7 points to winner in 2010 will hurt more then just losing 2 points in 2009, if you get hurt more, you'll try harder for the ultimate goal, to win, which is what everyone should be pushing for, not playing it safe after a few rounds, as the ultimate performing team/driver will get more points. Renault blatently didn't go for wins on purpose in 2005, they could of won more races if they wanted too, they coasted a faster car in too many races because they knew catching up is harder then keeping a finishing consistency onboard. Kimi and Mclaren were attacking and made it exciting, but the points system just didn't entice renault and alonso to attack as they should of been doing, why attack when 2nd place is just 2 points off the winner and you got a good lead as well.

I agree with you on this. I've argued for years that the points system mitigates against risk taking. Passing has to occur on track now, so we'll have more racing and... more racing incidents. And teams that are on the cusp of improving (especially teams that are pushing for wins) will have a greater incentive to push their development. With the points system as it was, and with refuelling, discretion was the greater part of valour...

But your looking back to a time when the engines didn't have to last for multiple races. Todays engines are virtually bulletproof, homologated and rev limited. The gearbox has to last multiple races as well. Mechanically the cars have never been built as strong as they currently are. I can see no reason why we should expect more mechanical DNF's.

Yep, my thoughts exactly.

We might see more crashes, but F1 is basically becoming a long life spec formula.

Too many championships in the past have been decided by reliability,
I don´t like that because in the end you remember whom won and not why.
Lets hope the good reliability stays

Me too.

Let's put it simply: no, we won't see more mechanical DNFs in 2010. At least, not from the established teams.

There's very little development these days in the mechanical side, so it's increasingly unlikely to see retirements.

And no, the change in the points system won't affect this. People, please, stop looking at "how many points": 25 against 18 means you take 7 points from every win, but it also means you LOSE 7 points to the winner if you don't! The real ratio between this system and the one we had in 2003-09 has not changed a lot: 25-18 is the same as 10-7.2, which is not so different from 10-8.

I loved those old races where you never knew if the leader was gonna make it. I like that unrealibility is part of the game, but it won't be back in 2010. We are already seeing that in testing, there are very few failures, while a few years ago they were pretty common (do you remember the 2004 McLaren car?)

I don't think so. Experience tells me that points system is not going to change the approach. Simple arithmetics: if you retire from lead and lose 25 points you have to win (in the worst case) four times to compensate the loss. Who can afford that?
Perhaps there will be substantial speed differences due to the new refueling regulations, but as mechanical parts remain largely the same, I can see no reason for reliability to drop. Only Cosworth engines and new teams can be question marks. But considering how many test-laps Williams has done I guess Cossie has no problems.

We need DC back in F1! He can make a healthy car dnf anytime lol

Ah poor Massa Hungary 08...but that's history now..I bet he wishes he had great reliability in 2008 lol