The Weekly Grapevine

Last Sunday at Sepang, A1 Team Switzerland's Neel Jani leant forward to receive the winner's gold medal after taking the honours in the sprint race. In quick succession, Loic Duval and Earl Bamber received silver and bronze-ware respectively.

With that, in far away Malaysia, the first country to subscribe to Bernie Ecclestone's vision of going East (can it really be ten years since Formula One first left its traditional heartland?), the impact of awarding medallions rather than points - as recently propagated by Ecclestone - became vividly clear.

Earl Bamber, Neel Jani, and Loic Duval with their medals at the A1GP round in Sepang © XPB

Much as Formula One scorns the self-styled 'World Cup of Motorsport', there is no denying the former is increasingly embracing concepts introduced by the upstart formula. Consider: A1GP ran on control tyres two years before F1 mandated the same, it runs to a single chassis/engine configuration (supplied by Ferrari, undeniably F1's most evocative name) and uses a single fuel supplier.

Then, A1GP broadcasts in Hi-Def television - to be implemented by F1 next year - while its two-race format has of late been tabled for discussion by FOTA. Dig into its finances and it becomes apparent that a venture capital company took shares in A1GP some time before CVC Partners even sniffed about F1, and operates on a partner basis much like the Olympics - which F1 is said to adopt in the near future.

Why, A1GP even draws up its own regulations, merely presenting them to the FIA for ratification - as the Formula One Teams Association hopes to in the near future - and presently races on all inhabited continents, as F1 aims to do within three years.

But, back to the medal concept: Ecclestone contends that the awarding of medals will motivate drivers more than do points hauls, that rather than cruise along in fifth place (for example), they will go all-out for gold. But will they? In fact, why should a token inspire more than numbers, which can be recorded in books for posterity?

However, should the differential between first and second (and second and third, for that matter) be increased from the present two to, say, four, then drivers would have every motivation to go all out, particularly during title showdowns - with the race in Brazil, which saw Lewis Hamilton settle for safe points rather than risk his championship, being a prime example of just how a revised points structure could motivate drivers. It was, ironically, Hamilton's drive which is said to have inspired Ecclestone to seek an alternative solution.

However, all the medal system would reward is the first three finishers, while not recognising those who placed fourth to eighth - and it is precisely those who need to be inspired to charge and collect, not cruise. What better motivator than the prospect of a point or two more than the driver directly behind, particularly where championship tables, including the FIA's own website, list the full season pecking order and are used to categorise teammates?

The winner's trophy for the 2008 French Grand Prix © LAT

Rewarding just the top three would not reward consistency, i.e. putting a championship campaign together (a driver who won, say, five races but did not finish in any other would be champion over one who won four races but finished on the podium in all other races), nor does it reward great comeback drives - and F1 history remembers these particularly. The recent past alone is filled with classic drives that rewarded the likes of Michael Schumacher and Fernando Alonso with just a point or two which, though, proved vital in the long run.

Then there is the question of the constructors' championship: yes, Ecclestone has suggested that points still be awarded to teams on the existing basis of totalling the scores of both drivers over the season in order to decide a constructors' champion. But, given that points still need to be tabulated, that would surely result in a sort of parallel drivers' championship, with constant comparisons being made between the two systems by the media and fans alike. Talk about confusion.

In modern day Formula One it is more often the 'suits' and not the 'overalls' who decide whether to go all out for victory or settle for a safe second (or third or eighth), and the prospect of a medal (or not) is unlikely to coerce a driver into breaking a team instruction or order. After all, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

Talk to professionals in any field, and F1 drivers are first and foremost supreme professionals who fought their way to the very top through a combination of self-motivation and success, and one thing becomes crystal clear: motivation comes primarily from within and the need to do the best job possible under given circumstances. Of course professionals crave winning, but if medals become the only motivator, then no professional has the right to refer to him/herself as that.

Certain teams are known to retain any trophies awarded to drivers, and would that not also apply in the case of medals? What would stop a team from contractually obliging a driver to cede every medal to the team, thus leaving the driver with zilch, nothing to show for a hard-earned win? At least drivers presently have career points' tallies to show their grandchildren.

There are during the course of the season two distinctly different sets of contests: victory in individual races; and overall championship honours in both categories. Does it not therefore make sense to reward the contests accordingly by allocating increased points for victory for the purposes of championship positions (and other uses), and a token of some sort for individual race victories?

But, does F1 really wish to follow A1GP in every respect and award medals? First, the chances are that a race sponsor will demand that the medal be struck in the shape of his logo (remember the ghastly trophy Sebastian Vettel won at Monza and handed over almost immediately?). Second, if Ecclestone really aims to reward victory, why bother with silver and bronze tokens at all?

1950 British Grand Prix winner Giuseppe Farina © LAT

Why not some other victory token which enshrines F1 values of style and panache at the absolute pinnacle of the sport? There was a time when F1 awarded laurel wreaths to its winners - which not only followed Olympian convention, but was also a highly visible reward for victory.

It would set F1 apart from other series (and sports) while providing a retro element which is all too often lacking in a sport which can call upon an extremely rich heritage. Yes, laurel wreaths will hide certain all-important sponsor logos (the reason they were discontinued in the first place) but as that would apply to only to one driver for a few fleeting seconds, that is surely a small price to pay for such style.

Not only would F1 thus be seen to be really green, but adopting laurel wreaths would tick all the boxes whilst enabling the present points' system to remain in place. Plus, saliently, it would prove that F1 does possess a sense of history. Come to think of it, Jimmy Clark looked pretty cool with laurels around his neck.