Isnt it crazy to decide Classical Chess champion by Rapid games?

Nothing like  classical chess championship?
World chess championship is about  Classical Chess! Else we could have many variants of chess to decide tie breakers!
I understand they have penalty shootout in Football ... which is crazy. But in chess it is  crazier,

Since ... There are separate Rapid ratings, and rapid chess tournaments. So its like a different sport event deciding the normal championship.
May be you could have additional games/ start from different (unprepared) positions/ Introduce an engine to  play with them the same format of chess, and compare results. That would be fairer, and surely much more interesting!!

the need to change the format. the hype will fade if we have another 12 game tie with what 10 draws..that's the way chess is i know.. but for the "sport" they need to change things up. give the players money bonusex for wins or something..some kind of incentives

I agree that 12 games is too little.  18 sounds about right.

In the event of a tie, how about the winner being the guy who used less time (totalled in all 18 games)?

I don't have a problem with the champion retaining the title if tied, which forces the challenger to try some aggressive tactics.

+1

I didn't read previous comments but the title of the topic is already wrong. There is no such thing as Classical chess champion. It is called World chess champion, not classical! Therefore it makes perfect sense to have rapid tiebreaks. We also have rapid and blitz world championships but in those only specific chess is played. 

The challenger would always overpress and simply lose. You can't take risks in a 12-game format. They were practically about to crown Karjakin when Carlsen lost just 1 game.

^ Very true. Maybe not always, but the bottom line is that draw odds in a 12-game match is simply too large an advantage nowadays to just freely hand out to one of the players before the match even begins.

I do, however, agree that (ideally) any potential for rapid/blitz tiebreaks should be phased out of the WCCs entirely. Here's a summary of what I suggested in a recent topic of mine (referenced here already, but only with a link and no further elaboration) for possibly higher-quality matches in the future:

• 16 games, with only 2 rest days (to condense the full event down to 20 days, just like the currently followed schedule); rest days follow games 6 and 12, so that they fall on the same day of the week.
• Award more points (relative to draws) for White wins than for Black wins, so that the player with White always has less to lose by pursuing winning chances in dangerous variations. E.g. in a system where White wins count as 3-0, Black wins as 0-3, and draws as 1-2, White can "break even" with 1 win and 2 losses, and profits from 1 win and 1 loss.
• If a playoff is necessary, the players must bid (in minutes and seconds) on the time they will accept with Black for moves 1-40 of an Armageddon game. Draw odds (along with the Black pieces, of course) go to the lowest bidder. Apart from a minor tweak concerning increment, the time control in the playoff is otherwise the same as in the regular classical chess games.

In the event of a tie in the final settle it in the Snug Bar with a game of fox and geese. "Best of three?"

AGAIN: NO!