Points for pole, fastest lap and most laps lead.
#51
Posted 06 August 2013 - 22:24
#53
Posted 07 August 2013 - 01:47
That wouldn't make sense. Someone from the top10 can still have over 20 seconds gap to the next car and pit in order to get a point for fastest lap. Either give everybody an equal chance (in theory, because in practise it will never be equal) or don't give points for fastest lap at all.To all those saying teams will just pit late to get points for fastest lap, it should really only be awarded for those in the top ten that way you wont get drivers just pitting for the sake of it.
I think drivers pitting late to get points for fastest lap is rather advantage than disadvantage. You need to show some determination in order to get these points. Maybe it would enourage drivers to push more. Not only in the end to set the fastest lap, but also earlier in order to create enough gap for additional pit stop. Although I'm quite sure teams would adapt to the situation and prepare strategies that include late pit stop before the race. Other wouldn't bother and prepare alternative strategies in order to beat those who pit late. That would be interesting for me.
I would also like additional WCC (which wouldn't count for WDC of course) points for fastest pit stop. But that would perhaps require more accurate measurment of pit stop time than we have now.
#54
Posted 07 August 2013 - 03:08
Also, you'd see our heroes (you know, Alonso, Lewis, Kimi) who got front wing damage mid-race or a puncture or what have you, go for a flyer and it would soften the blow of a bad day a bit.
One thing I'd like to see is one point if you ever lead a lap in the race. That would also be interesting, with some weird pit strategies coming up to snatch a point. After that you'd have to think about two additional points for leading the most laps (so the car that leads the most laps gets three bonus points, one for leading _A_ lap and another two for leading _THE MOST_ laps).
But that's not as important to me. The funnest thing would be to just say one bonus point for fastest lap.
OH! How about a bonus point for most positions gained in the race? Tiebreaker is the position starting from, with the one starting closer to the front winning (the idea being it's harder to start 10th and finish 5th than it is to start 20th and finish 15th).
#55
Posted 07 August 2013 - 03:09
Ha! Just discovered the same thing. Very cool.Between 1950 and 1959 fastest lap gained a world championship point for the driver (not constructor). Also when you look at the margin of victory in the WDC during those years 5 times it was less than 6 points... similar in many ways to the last few years so I'd say it was more than relevant!
#56
Posted 07 August 2013 - 03:18
Points for practice sessions and most stylish team uniforms next?
McLaren are back in the hunt!+ 2 pts for best looking girlfriend!
What about, an extra point for Pole IF you take the win as well?
#57
Posted 07 August 2013 - 03:40
Or extra point if you do it from behind and put on a show? Hope Bernie doesn't read this to 'spice up' the race...What about, an extra point for Pole IF you take the win as well?
#58
Posted 07 August 2013 - 04:58
#59
Posted 07 August 2013 - 08:29
Advertisement
#60
Posted 07 August 2013 - 08:41
For example, in the pre-2010 system, I thought it could be modified to be:
1st - 12
2nd - 9
3rd - 7
4th - 5
5th - 4
6th - 3
7th - 2
8th - 1
Plus 1 point for pole, 1 point for fastest lap, and then a bonus point if you take the clean sweep (so a max of 15 points available per race).
Imagine all the top drivers going flat out on low fuel and new tyres at the end of the race trying to make sure Seb doesn't get his 15 points? It could be fun...
#61
Posted 07 August 2013 - 10:33
Pole is its own reward, and I don't agree with the point for most laps lead - winning the race is the point, if you'll excuse the awkward pun.
Nice idea for a discussion though
#62
Posted 07 August 2013 - 21:19
One thing I wonder is, how would it have affected previous championships? It would be nice if someone could sum those stats.
#63
Posted 07 August 2013 - 22:05
One thing I wonder is, how would it have affected previous championships? It would be nice if someone could sum those stats.
Well it would be nice of them, but also completely pointless - no pun intended.
We will never know. You can't retrospectively apply alternative point systems because drivers would have driven differently if the rules had been different at the time.
#64
Posted 07 August 2013 - 22:09
Mike Hawthorn became the 1958 WDC because of the extra points given at that time for his fastest laps.One thing I wonder is, how would it have affected previous championships? It would be nice if someone could sum those stats.
#65
Posted 07 August 2013 - 22:31
#66
Posted 07 August 2013 - 22:36
#67
Posted 08 August 2013 - 01:21
BREAKING:Or extra point if you do it from behind and put on a show?
Jilted Lewis releases secret Nicole sex-tape; FIA awards 2 Championship Points,
#68
Posted 08 August 2013 - 02:29
1 extra point for being black.
racist jokes aren't funny.
#69
Posted 08 August 2013 - 03:05
Pole is really about having the fastest car and it gives you a race advantage anyway. No one with the fastest car is sitting in the pits maintaining tyres.1 for pole, 1 for fastest lap, 1 for most laps led, 25 for win. Seems like a big emphasis to me.
Fastest laps in the current Formula is who has the freshest tyres on the light fuel at the end. You would see the midfield pitting and running for fastest lap. It would be a joke.
Laps lead usually results in a win anyway so the further advantage is not necessary.
#70
Posted 08 August 2013 - 10:49
Edited by Mihai, 08 August 2013 - 10:51.
#71
Posted 08 August 2013 - 11:27
#72
Posted 08 August 2013 - 12:58
Mike Hawthorn became the 1958 WDC because of the extra points given at that time for his fastest laps.
Who the **** would agree a set of pit signals that include 2 expressions easily mistaken for each other that mean almost the exact opposite? Fools.
#73
Posted 08 August 2013 - 15:16
Who the **** would agree a set of pit signals that include 2 expressions easily mistaken for each other that mean almost the exact opposite? Fools.
Care to elaborate?
#74
Posted 08 August 2013 - 15:52
Care to elaborate?
It rhymed with duck. Surprised it got censored, as in the Paddock Club you can get away with saying ****. And even **********.
Oh, you meant the pit board thing? I was on about Moss' pit signals at the Portuguese Grand Prix. HAW-REC meant "Mike has set the fastest lap, go and take it off him, we need the point". Moss misread it as HAW-REG meaning "Mike's just pottering along, so just chill, no need to hurry".
#75
Posted 08 August 2013 - 16:09
NO. NO. NO.
1, I imagined giving Trulli bonus points for an exceptional qualy lap, and next day all I felt was anger and regret. I would not like to separate racecraft from the ability to drive one lap fast. It's misleading and false.
2. fastest laps have no substance or meaning anymore. They are misleading and false.
3. That's not even worth a debate. It' totally misleading and false.
#76
Posted 08 August 2013 - 18:20
+1About the OP:
NO. NO. NO.
Neil
#77
Posted 09 August 2013 - 07:42
CART used to have 20 for a win, points for the top 12 and bonus points for pole and leading the most laps. It worked fine. You'd have that extra reward for a perfect weekend. If you started from pole but then lost the race through no fault of your own you'd still get a small consolation.
Overall I'd be supportive of the idea.
#78
Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:11
Edited by MikeV1987, 09 August 2013 - 08:46.
#79
Posted 09 August 2013 - 09:47
Not much change, but it did give a couple of drivers a boost of one place.
I'd forgotten that Hamilton had the most poles last year.
Edit:
Adding this year so far.
Not much change again, but the bonus points can make a small difference. Alonso would of course move up to second on account of having more wins than Kimi.
Edited by PayasYouRace, 09 August 2013 - 10:02.
Advertisement
#80
Posted 09 August 2013 - 10:25
In F1 however qualifying has a big impact on race result. It is valued and poles celebrated. Extra incentive is not needed.
#81
Posted 09 August 2013 - 17:35
Everything else you do is done with the purpose of winning the race. Giving points for anything other than race results is just a way to get losers into the game.
#82
Posted 09 August 2013 - 23:17
Lol I fear some people may take this the wrong way
NO NO NO NO NO!!!!! Point for race finishing position only. The other things are a means to the end, and should not be rewarded independently.
If it were me, I'd revert to 10-6-4-3-2-1, but in the case of WCC, you score only based on the order of your top driver, so 6 different teams would score each race.
For example at the 2013 Hungarian GP, the WCC points would be:
Mercedes:10 (Hamilton P1)
Lotus: 6 (Raikkonen P2)
Red Bull: 4 (Vettel P3)
Ferrari: 3 (Alonso P5)
McLaren: 2 (Button P7)
Williams: 1 (Maldonado P10)
#83
Posted 10 August 2013 - 10:00
That doesn't make much sense to me. WDC is about top driver. To do well in WCC you need to have both drivers performing well and that's how it should be IMO.If it were me, I'd revert to 10-6-4-3-2-1, but in the case of WCC, you score only based on the order of your top driver, so 6 different teams would score each race.
#84
Posted 10 August 2013 - 10:20
Nevertheless, from the inception of the WCC in 1958 to 1978 (inclusive) only the highest placed driver for a constructor scored WCC points.That doesn't make much sense to me. WDC is about top driver. To do well in WCC you need to have both drivers performing well and that's how it should be IMO.
#85
Posted 10 August 2013 - 11:14
Already been done:What about another class and points system within the race, like they have in Rallying?
1) In 1966 and 1967 at the German Grand Prix, F2 cars were allowed to compete but were not eligible for WDC or WCC points. It didn't make much difference in 1966 as the highest placed F2 car (Beltoise's Matra finished 8th) but the following year F2 cars finished 5th (Jackie Oliver's Lotus) and 7th (Alan Rees's Brabham) meaning that Jo Bonnier got 2 points rather than 1 for finishing 6th and Guy Ligier got 1 point even though he only finished 8th - the only WDC point he ever scored.
2) In 1987 the drivers of normally aspirated cars in F1 Grands Prix also competed for the Jim Clark Trophy, with points awarded on the same 9,6,4,3,2,1 basis as for the WDC (Jonathan Palmer won) and similarly the constructors of normally aspirated cars also competed for the Colin Chapman Trophy (Tyrrell were the run-away winners)
#86
Posted 10 August 2013 - 11:20
There is one and only one reason to race. That is to win.
Everything else you do is done with the purpose of winning the race. Giving points for anything other than race results is just a way to get losers into the game.
Exactly. No points of anything other than the race result, please.
As stated before, my preference would be to separate WDC and WCC and for the WDC award only one point for the win and nothing for any other position (WCC would have point awared according to position, right down to the last finisher).
#87
Posted 10 August 2013 - 11:25
#88
Posted 10 August 2013 - 11:49
So you'd just award the WDC on the basis of who has the most wins? Never mind concepts such as consistency and reliability?
If you want a competition that rewards consistency, then have one were, say, each driver goes out one at a time and has to do something like driving the lap closest to a set time or driving on an exact line for several laps.
However, if you're racing, then it's the winner that takes it all.
#89
Posted 10 August 2013 - 12:18
Vettel leads Hamilton by 24 points
Vettel has won more races on count back
Hamilton wins, Vettel has a messy race to 11th, 3 laps before the end he bolts on a new set of tyres, wins WDC.
#90
Posted 10 August 2013 - 12:25
If you want a competition that rewards consistency, then have one were, say, each driver goes out one at a time and has to do something like driving the lap closest to a set time or driving on an exact line for several laps.
However, if you're racing, then it's the winner that takes it all.
I'm not talking about consistency of driving. I'm talking about consistency of results, the ability to race and finish in high positions even on the days when you can't win for whatever reason. That's an important part of what being champion is about, not just winning the most races.
Edit: Just for clarification, I think the guy who finishes on the podium in every race is a more worthy champion that a guy who might have won one or two more races, but had hardly troubled the podium finishers in the other races. The consistent podium finisher has still beaten more of his rivals more often, and that needs to be taken into account.
Edited by PayasYouRace, 10 August 2013 - 12:38.
#91
Posted 10 August 2013 - 13:02
Brazil 2013
Vettel leads Hamilton by 24 points
Vettel has won more races on count back
Hamilton wins, Vettel has a messy race to 11th, 3 laps before the end he bolts on a new set of tyres, wins WDC.
But then Rosberg is told to go for the fastest lap, winning the championship for Hamilton.
Or, Vettel had 26 point lead and clinched by taking pole on Saturday. Or, he would have, but was dubiously blocked.
...
It's a good system to give points for one thing only.
#92
Posted 10 August 2013 - 13:21
At first sight, your idea looks even more radical than Bernie's medals concept - but looking back over the 62 year history of the WDC, it would only have changed the World Champion on 12 occasions:Exactly. No points of anything other than the race result, please.
As stated before, my preference would be to separate WDC and WCC and for the WDC award only one point for the win and nothing for any other position (WCC would have point awared according to position, right down to the last finisher).
1958 Moss Champion not Hawthorn
1964 Clark Champion not Surtees
1967 Clark Champion not Hulme
1977 Andretti Champion not Lauda
1979 Jones Champion not Scheckter
1982 Pironi Champion not Rosberg
1983 Prost Champion not Piquet
1984 Prost Champion not Lauda
1985 Mansell Champion not Prost
1986 Mansell Champion not Piquet
1987 Senna Champion not Prost
2008 Massa Champion not Hamilton
Looking at those changed outcomes I can see a lot of merit in your idea.
#93
Posted 10 August 2013 - 13:34
At first sight, your idea looks even more radical than Bernie's medals concept - but looking back over the 62 year history of the WDC, it would only have changed the World Champion on 12 occasions:
1958 Moss Champion not Hawthorn
1964 Clark Champion not Surtees
1967 Clark Champion not Hulme
1977 Andretti Champion not Lauda
1979 Jones Champion not Scheckter
1982 Pironi Champion not Rosberg
1983 Prost Champion not Piquet
1984 Prost Champion not Lauda
1985 Mansell Champion not Prost
1986 Mansell Champion not Piquet
1987 Senna Champion not Prost
2008 Massa Champion not Hamilton
Looking at those changed outcomes I can see a lot of merit in your idea.
I think you have some of the years mixed up. In any case, wouldn't there have been many years where this scheme would have resulted in a tie?
#94
Posted 10 August 2013 - 13:42
I did the list quite quickly so there could be the odd error. Yes there are some examples (actually not that many) of drivers with the same number of wins - but I have assumed that the tie-breaker would be the number of second places or if there was still a tie, the number of third places.I think you have some of the years mixed up. In any case, wouldn't there have been many years where this scheme would have resulted in a tie?
#95
Posted 10 August 2013 - 20:00
At first sight, your idea looks even more radical than Bernie's medals concept - but looking back over the 62 year history of the WDC, it would only have changed the World Champion on 12 occasions:
1983 Prost Champion not Piquet
Bollocks.
Think about it.
#96
Posted 10 August 2013 - 20:25
The point I was making is that, as I said a couple of days ago, you can't just retrospectively apply alternative point systems because the drivers would have driven differently as a result.
#97
Posted 10 August 2013 - 20:41
#98
Posted 10 August 2013 - 21:07
I say: why not? Rules are the same for everybody.imagine this - lap 17 completly random driver has just made fastest lap and then it suddenly starts to rain, he crashes out and because of the rain, no-one can do it better anymore - would you give that driver a point who actually DNF'd from race even when he didn't drove half of the race
#99
Posted 10 August 2013 - 22:05
Actually that was a bit rude, sorry. Had just come off an phone call argument and wasn't in the best of moods!
The point I was making is that, as I said a couple of days ago, you can't just retrospectively apply alternative point systems because the drivers would have driven differently as a result.
As you have highlighted, 1983 shows that principle quite clearly. Piquet relinquished the lead of the last race to his team-mate once Prost was out and he no longer needed to win the race.
Advertisement
#100
Posted 10 August 2013 - 22:05
So you'd just award the WDC on the basis of who has the most wins? Never mind concepts such as consistency and reliability?
Yes The whole point of racing is to WIN!
And over the course of a season to win the most.
Being the second best car, even if you can be the first loser often, shouldn't be a part of it.