The current constructors' championship doesn’t make any sense because it only judges the performance of each manufacturer’s fastest rider, which entirely defeats the point
Marc Márquez won the 2019 MotoGP constructors championship for Honda on his own, which isn’t the point of the constructors prize
The current constructor points-scoring system is daft. Only the top-scoring motorcycle of each manufacturer is awarded points, so the championship can end up in the hands of one rider, which is the exact opposite of the intention.
Obviously, the whole point is to judge which manufacturer is best, through each motorcycle’s performance and reliability. That can only be done by awarding points to more than the lead machine of each manufacturer.
Twice in the last two decades alone, the constructors’ title has been won by the results of a single rider, which really shouldn’t be possible.
Take 2019, when Marc Márquez was so dominant aboard his Honda RC213V that he won not only the riders’ championship but the constructors’ title as well. Márquez scored 420 points in the riders’ championship, so he scored all but six of the 426 points scored by Honda in the constructors, well ahead of the 269 constructor points scored by Yamaha riders, so Honda would’ve won the constructors even if it had only put the Spaniard on the grid.
The only other Honda rider to finish in the top 10 of the 2019 rider championship was Cal Crutchlow, down in ninth, while Ducati and Yamaha each had three riders finish ahead of Crutchlow, so there was little doubt the RC213V wasn’t the best motorcycle.
MotoGP should be careful about taking anything from Formula 1, but F1 does have a better constructors’ system.
Both championships started with the same system – each brand’s top-finishing car or motorcycle scoring points. F1 wised up in 1979, when every car that finished a race scored points for its constructor.
This is a much better system, because it judges the overall performance of each constructor, not the performance of its fastest rider or driver.
Stoner also won the constructors’ title on his own in 2007
Ducati
MotoGP needs to switch to a similar system, either counting every motorcycle entered by each manufacturer, or otherwise each brand’s top four or top two finishers, because (unlike F1) some constructors have more bikes on the grid than others.
This is how the actual 2019 MotoGP constructors’ championship ended for the top three manufacturers.
The four-bike score much better reflects machine performance, which is the whole point of the constructors’ championship, than the current system. During 2019, there was no doubt whatsoever that Márquez was the best rider, but Ducati’s Desmosedici GP19 was the stronger motorcycle.
The same happened in 2007, when Casey Stoner totally dominated MotoGP’s inaugural 800cc championship to win the riders’ title. The young Aussie also scored 367 of Ducati’s 394 constructor points, so the Italian marque would’ve won the title if Stoner had been the lone Desmosedici rider on the grid.
This is how the actual 2007 constructors’ championship looked.
Thus Honda should’ve won the 2007 constructors’ crown, because its RC212V had better overall performance than Ducati’s hard-to-handle Desmosedici GP07, which only Stoner really mastered, just like Márquez was the only rider to fully master Honda’s RC213V in 2019.
The inaugural 1949 MotoGP constructors’ championship was won by British brand AJS, using its E90 four-stroke twin, nicknamed ‘Porcupine’ for its spiky cooling fins
Bonhams
More often than not, scoring more finishers won’t have a drastic effect on the overall constructor standings, because years when one rider dominates, like 2007 and 2019, aren’t that common. But that’s not the point. The point is that this is the correct way to do the constructors.
Transforming the constructors’ points-scoring system isn’t only logical, it makes sense for other reasons too.
The constructors’ championship should be much bigger than it currently is, because MotoGP is a contest of man and machine.
MotoGP has always required self-sacrifice and always rewarded its fastest survivors with gold, glory and everything else. This interview with MotoGP’s biggest winner of all time paints a perfect picture of the risk and reward equation in racing’s golden age
By
Mat Oxley
And the constructors’ prize would be a bigger deal if it had more value, by involving all the engineers, riders and teams, not only those working with the fastest riders. Widening the scoring would involve the entire grid in this title race, which would add value to the lower teams and riders, whose results could be just as significant to the outcome of the championship.
A better system would increase the importance of the prize by better reflecting the work done by each manufacturer.
A four-bike or two-bike system would also make a better story for fans by involving more riders and teams in the narrative. In F1, the constructors’ championship gets much more attention because the manufacturers are fighting each other for the best overall result, just like the riders fight each other for the best individual result. There’s a whole other story there, involving everyone in every team, from engineers to technicians and management.
Counting more motorcycles than the machine ridden by each manufacturer’s fastest rider would also give a more realistic assessment of bike performance for MotoGP’s concessions system.
The current system is so daft that a manufacturer can take maximum points from a race if one of its riders wins the race, while all its other riders suffer technical problems and don’t make it to the finish. That’s nonsense, right?
