But that is not the point. Bernie Ecclestone, having had virtually no-one support his medals system, has convinced the FIA to introduce a watered-down version of his plan that carries the essence of what he has wanted all along. Politically, it reeks of the FIA and the FOM teaming up to launch a pre-emptive strike against the growing vociferousness of the FOTA, which itself had suggested a revised points system that would nonetheless provide more incentive to go for wins anyway.

Just what makes Bernie in his billionaire ivory tower the protector of what the fans supposedly want? He says that his medals plan, and now this 'winner takes all' championship system, has been designed to improve the racing by giving added value for wins and encouraging drivers to go for victory right to the very end. But even a cursory analysis of this rationale shows that it is flawed in so many ways that the only thing to do is to consign this idea to the scrapheap of F1 history, Mastercard Lola style.

The medals system that Bernie originally proposed is a gimmick that has only been relevant to the Olympic Games, Commonwealth Games etc. And even then, nobody has ever been fooled by the notion that a country which has won two gold medals and nothing else has performed better overall than a country which has achieved one gold but a swag of other medals. In other words, no-one ever seriously treats wins as the be-all-and-end-all.

There may not be a medals system in F1, thank goodness, but a 'winner takes all' system still far too radically goes against the grain of F1 history. A points system has decided the world champion for the past 59 years, with the accumulation of points being the key rather than the number of wins. This concept has been adopted by every motorsport series around the world - try to name one that doesn't. It would be absurd for F1 as the pinnacle of motor racing to be the first series to step out of line.

The current points system has certainly served us well in the last two years in terms of a thrilling championship finale. In 2007, the top three were separated by one point, and in 2008, the title came down to the last corner because of the interplay between track position and points. What chance a title being wrapped up much earlier under a wins system? As Jenson Button has said, "After nine races, we could find ourselves with a driver that has already won the title and can stand still eating ice cream."

On the most extreme example, in a 17-race championship, if a driver wins every single race and another driver finishes second in every race, under a 'winner takes all' system the championship would be decided by the end of the ninth event, as Button says. Under a points system, the championship would still be mathematically alive at the 15th race. More to the point, if a driver wins nine races and DNFs the rest, he takes the title on 90 points. A driver who wins eight races and finishes 2nd in nine scores 152 points, but loses the title.

How is that even remotely fair? The concept of a championship is to reward the driver and team which has performed the best over the entire series of races. A win-based system runs the risk of merely rewarding those who have been fastest over half the races. As Mark Webber has argued, the 'winner takes all' idea fails to reward consistency. It would mean that the likes of Robert Kubica in 2008 and Kimi Raikkonen in 2003 would have been denied being in contention for the championship.

A points system is understood even by casual followers of motor racing. If they are the ones whose interest needs to be generated and kept, confusing them is not the way to do it. Not only does the possibility of a person who scores the most points not being crowned the champion so defy logic that it is off-putting, but potentially two championship tables will need to be published at the end of every race, one based on points (since it is still relevant for other championship positions) and one based on wins.

Secondly, the system may not always provide an incentive for the driver coming second to try harder for a win. Take, for example, a situation later in the season when a driver who is 2nd in a race is not in title reckoning, but is, say, 5th in the championship but only a point or two behind those in 4th and 3rd. His points rivals are out of the race. Our man has a choice of going for a win he doesn't need, or settling for the 8 points that will safely enhance his championship position. It is obvious what he would choose. It is as obvious if the win was worth significantly more championship points.

Thirdly, the system only provides an incentive to go for a win if the driver is 2nd is in the title hunt, and he actually has the track position to launch an attack. It is obvious that, in the majority of races, sometime before the end the leader may have established a gap which the man in 2nd, try as hard as he may, can't bridge. What is the use of a 'winner takes all' system providing any incentive if a driver in 2nd finds himself, having driven hard all race, 5 seconds behind with 10 laps to go, catching at no more than 0.2s a lap?

A statistical analysis of the finishing gaps over the last three years bears this out. In 2008, only five races ended with a gap between 1st and 2nd under five seconds. Only one race (Singapore) finished with that gap under three seconds. Discounting results when 1st and 2nd were team-mates (i.e. where the race winner may have backed off and allowed the man in second to close up because he knew he was not genuinely under threat), it is only three races under 5s, and one race under 3s.

In 2006 and 2007 the numbers are slightly better. Taking non-team-mate 1st and 2nd combinations only, in 2006 there were six races where the gap between 1st and 2nd at the end was under 5s, and four races where the gap was under 3s. In 2007 there were four races under 5s, and three races under 3s. Not only is that is still a comparatively small minority of a season's events, but we have to reiterate, even gaps of five and three seconds towards the end of a race are insurmountable.

Therefore, the perceived benefits of a 'winner takes all' system, especially in encouraging better racing overall and more dices for the lead, will only have extremely minimal effect. On the other hand, there are real potential detriments in terms of how long the title battle lasts, and finding the most deserving champion over a year. Bernie and the FIA are completely out of touch on this issue. At most, bring back a 'best X scores to count' system, but the 'winner takes all' concept should be abandoned immediately.