Should we offer points down to last place

Is there a good reason why we do not offer points down to last place, especially if at the end of the season there is a tie these positions may matter. Having this point system will prevent much confusion , can be made to reward the winner, and offer rewards for skillful driving even if not in one of the top 4 teams. I feel it will lead to more overtaking and a better spectacle for the fan. I dont like seeing Sutil with no points when he is beating many other drivers. It does not feel like a fair reward.

It seems wrong not to reward a driver who starts in 26th place and makes their way up to 9th position. In Motogp the points are offered to most of the finishers and it appears a much fairer system.

How the points are allocated is another matter but assuming 26 starters :- 50 for 1st
40 for 2nd,
30 for 3rd,
25 for 4th,
23 for 5th
and then 22 for 6th down to 1 for 26th (at least he made the race)


Maybe someone could calculate what the points would be for this year and last year using this system.

Who's "we"?

..............Maybe someone could calculate what the points would be for this year and last year using this system.

....or maybe, if you feel at all inclined, you could do it yourself! **missing sarcasm smiley**

Noobs!

Tony.

It seems wrong not to reward a driver who starts in 26th place and makes their way up to 9th position. In Motogp the points are offered to most of the finishers and it appears a much fairer system.

It seems even more wrong to reward a driver, who starts in 26th place and ends in 26th position. In MotoGP there's no 'points down to last place' either.


Considering a field of 26 cars, I'd support a point system to reward the first 10 or 12 places, but to give a point to the last place is a very wrong idea, which kills the speciality and value of a point scoring finish.

Edited by hunnylander, 30 June 2009 - 07:19.

However, it keeps the back of the field racing.

Maybe have points down to 12th-16th place depending on how many cars are on the grid?

This pole is really inacurate, it should have another option.

However, it keeps the back of the field racing.

The back of the field has been racing in f1 without point for decades.

Points should be given down to 6th place. They should be a reward.

With 26 cars now on the grid I wouldn't be averse to a system that rewarded a little further back (but not all the way), and must confess to feeling a little sadness that Fisi got absolutely nothing for his drive at Silverstone despite only finishing 3 seconds behind 7th.

What might actually work is a secondary points system that would only be used in the event of a tie on real points. This way you could give something tangible to, say, 16 drivers with only 8 of them actually scoring (real) points. Snooker used to use 4 separate types of points within the same structure (Ranking, Merit, 'A' and Frames), with each one only being relevant if the previous one was tied.

So 1st to 8th could receive exactly the same as they do now, with 9th to 16th being given the same amount of 'secondary' points (10-8-6 etc). It wouldn't have much effect on the top of the Championship but would play a big part in separating those with nothing or next to nothing.

Just based on the last 2 races the Championship table would look like this :

Button - 64
Barrichello - 41
Vettel - 39 (5)
Webber - 35.5 (11)
Trulli - 21.5 (4)
Massa -16 (9)
Rosberg - 15.5 (12)
Glock - 13 (26)
Alonso - 11 (24)
Kimi - 10 (23.5)
Hamilton - 9 (20)
Heidfeld - 6 (27)
Kova - 4 (10)
Buemi - 3 (2.5)
Kubica - 2 (17)
Bourdais - 2 (14)
Fisi - 0 (32)
Piquet - 0 (22)
Nakajima - 0 (19.5)
Sutil - 0 (14)

The only change to the table is that Sutil moves from 18th to 20th. It does, however, illustrate that he's a country mile behind Fisi even though the existing table just shows them tied on zero.

With 26 cars now on the grid I wouldn't be averse to a system that rewarded a little further back (but not all the way), and must confess to feeling a little sadness that Fisi got absolutely nothing for his drive at Silverstone despite only finishing 3 seconds behind 7th.

What might actually work is a secondary points system that would only be used in the event of a tie on real points. This way you could give something tangible to, say, 16 drivers with only 8 of them actually scoring (real) points. Snooker used to use 4 separate types of points within the same structure (Ranking, Merit, 'A' and Frames), with each one only being relevant if the previous one was tied.

So 1st to 8th could receive exactly the same as they do now, with 9th to 16th being given the same amount of 'secondary' points (10-8-6 etc). It wouldn't have much effect on the top of the Championship but would play a big part in separating those with nothing or next to nothing.

Just based on the last 2 races the Championship table would look like this :

Button - 64
Barrichello - 41
Vettel - 39 (5)
Webber - 35.5 (11)
Trulli - 21.5 (4)
Massa -16 (9)
Rosberg - 15.5 (12)
Glock - 13 (26)
Alonso - 11 (24)
Kimi - 10 (23.5)
Hamilton - 9 (20)
Heidfeld - 6 (27)
Kova - 4 (10)
Buemi - 3 (2.5)
Kubica - 2 (17)
Bourdais - 2 (14)
Fisi - 0 (32)
Piquet - 0 (22)
Nakajima - 0 (19.5)
Sutil - 0 (14)

The only change to the table is that Sutil moves from 18th to 20th. It does, however, illustrate that he's a country mile behind Fisi even though the existing table just shows them tied on zero.

I think a secondary points system would only complicate things - IMO with 26 cars on the grid I would extend points down to 10th, maybe 12th at a stretch but absolutely no further than that...

No, why should you get points just for turning up? Cos that's what'd happen if you gave points to everyone basically. Not a good idea, and it wouldn't impact on ties, because you'd still just as likely end up with a tie anyway, even at the back! Plus if you did that system and someone was x number of points ahead of someone else in 2nd place and needed just 1 point to win the title, why should they basially win the title by being on the grid when the lights go out and get the 1 point they require?

I've always resisted the idea of extending the points in the past, but must admit that now with the cars so reliable and the field as close as it is it would be a good idea. Certainly far better than BE's medal idea which would kill the incentive lower down the grid.

Is there a good reason why we do not offer points down to last place...

There is a good reason: "we" do not offer the points, at least not you or me.
Are you a doctor? "How are we doing today?"

On a serious note, I think already offering points down to eighth place was an inflation, F1 should be different from other series. Points from 1 - 6 was the best, the air gets thinner and thinner and only few get to the top and get in the points.

However, it keeps the back of the field racing.

Have you ever competed in any kind of motor race? You will always want to catch the guy ahead of you, whether you get points for it or not. A racing driver is a competitive beast.

On a serious note, I think already offering points down to eighth place was an inflation, F1 should be different from other series. Points from 1 - 6 was the best, the air gets thinner and thinner and only few get to the top and get in the points.

The old point system worked well when half of the field kept retiring, even a Prost or Jordan could get podiums on their day because of that. With today's cars it would mean at worst 3 teams are getting all the points and the remaining 20 drivers end up on zeros which is not a very representative table.

I would like a system that holds in account how many car finish. If 18 cars finish, I think 10th place deserves a point. If 16 cars finish, first 8 cars. If 12 cars finish, 6th place deserves a point. Something like that.

So my suggestion would be:

1. Top 6 always gets points (12, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4).
2. Point for poleposition (1)
3. Point for highest improvement from starting position (1)
4. Further point division: 12, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Maximum lapdifference between winner and last pointscorer for points: ten percent of total.

I think Bernie / CVC may agree if they are not expected to pay teams withl lower points than they currently do. From the teams' perspective, it may be attractive saling points for attracting sponsors.

F1 is for the best of the best in the whole wide world and in that regard I personally think points awarded to the 8th finisher is very much on the extreme limit on how far down the system should go.

I think they should give points to everyone who finishes.
Because I think it's unfair that the guy in 9th place doesn't get more points than the one in 19th place.
And, for example, there can be a driver (let's name him Driver A) who finishes every race at the back, around 16-18th place, but in one crazy race he manages to get a 6th or 7th place. Driver B, however, is consistently around 9-12th place all through the season, but never has the luck to score points - therefore Driver A, who was obviouly slower all season, will finish higher in the WDC ranking - that's not too fair, I think.

Definately keep the points system simple.
Having an alternative secondary point counting and awarding championship positions in the event of a tie by positions below 8th when points were not given is confusing.

Ok I will not give points to last place. Just dont complain if drivers do not show up
!!!

Awarding points down to second to last makes virtually no difference to the top drivers but to someone who has just started it is very important as an incentive and as a reward.

Definately keep the points system simple.
Having an alternative secondary point counting and awarding championship positions in the event of a tie by positions below 8th when points were not given is confusing.

Ok I will not give points to last place. Just dont complain if drivers do not show up
!!!

Awarding points down to second to last makes virtually no difference to the top drivers but to someone who has just started it is very important as an incentive and as a reward.

The sport has existed up until now without needing to award points all the way down. Lets not change something for the sake of it. It's worked well up until now.

The sport has existed up until now without needing to award points all the way down. Lets not change something for the sake of it. It's worked well up until now.

Talk to Bernie, mate.

No, I dont like everyone could get points although it is acceptable for me extend the points to 10th place or 12th places.

1) I don't like the idea of TV commentators have to explain to general TV viewers every race "XX would take 23pts for 17th place, YY would like 19 pts for 18th place". The system would be too compliacted for them.

2) I like the idea of "fighting for the last point"

3) I don't like the confusion of first lap / first corner incidents with multiple cars retirements. How to define the rankings and thus points in a fair way ? -- If by qualifying order or car numbers ? Either way could create fairness issues.

The back of the field has been racing in f1 without point for decades.

Brilliant. That should be more than enough reason not to change anything.

no no no and no

the lesser amount of pts scoring places the better. hell points should be exclusive. only for the best not everyone. IMO top 6 is more than enough.
what do you want? drivers cruising around collecting pts. thats just wrong

Edited by brabhamBT19, 30 June 2009 - 11:22.

no no no and no

the lesser amount of pts scoring places the better. hell points should be exclusive. only for the best not everyone. IMO top 6 is more than enough.
what do you want? drivers cruising around collecting pts. thats just wrong

What the difference between cruising to pick up points, and cruising because there is no chance of getting any points?

I think only the podium places should get points, the top three. After all, they are the most celebrated drivers on the day of a race, and noone sees or cares about the other drivers, sure there are post race interviews with other placed finishers but really, they are just asked why there werent good enough for a podium really lol. Yea and in that way all teams and drivers will strive for exellence, and drivers wil fight hard to be in the top three. And make it 10 5 2 points for the top three, so the winner has it's best rewards. I the I bet only 5% of you agree with me!

why not keep the existing points system for drivers, but award points down to last place for the constructors championship? keeps them all racing, stops teams asking drivers to turn the engine down at the end of races, but for the drivers themselves only the best are rewarded.

best of both worlds. anyone else think i've just had a good idea?

What the difference between cruising to pick up points, and cruising because there is no chance of getting any points?

the answer is in nascar. look at them, their main goal is to finish, just to finish. the guy running 5th is not going to attack 4th, because he could loose more then 100 pts in the process and if we know that atm there are 5 guys inside 100pts who are looking to make the chase everything is clear.

If only 6 score than the battle outside top 10 wont be so dense I admit, but when do we actually watch fight outside top 10, furthermore and odd scoring (like barrichello last year at silverstone) would made slightly bigger difference under 10-6-4-3-2-1 system, If you have less pts scoring positions than pts became more valuable.

also there are too few mechanical retirements these days, they should prolong races to 500 kms, than those out of top 10 would stand the chance to score pts if they are conservative enough and they manage to finish.

It wasnt so long ago the mantra who finishes scores pts. In the mid90s it was usually 13 finishers out of 26 starters, its 50%

today all virtually of them finish, maybe retirement or two but due to driver error mainly, not mechanical

Edited by brabhamBT19, 30 June 2009 - 13:24.

besides todays circumstances do not reward smart and mechanically sensible drivers

Prost won his 4 titles because he was smart and mechanically sensible, in todays circumstances his average finish would be 3rd maybe 4th, he would be Heidfeld, if you know what I mean. Prost didnt win by speed he won because he knew how to nurse the car. And IMO that is more important, every bonehead can blitz around the circuit, but only few can really nurse the car and to please its needs while still being reasonably fast.

The only difference the bonehead who would blitz around would retire by the mid race, while today he would win, while the Prost-like guy would finish 3rd. That is unfair.

No, why should you get points just for turning up? Cos that's what'd happen if you gave points to everyone basically. Not a good idea, and it wouldn't impact on ties, because you'd still just as likely end up with a tie anyway, even at the back! Plus if you did that system and someone was x number of points ahead of someone else in 2nd place and needed just 1 point to win the title, why should they basially win the title by being on the grid when the lights go out and get the 1 point they require?

Because they won the championship in the other 15 races?

. Points from 1 - 6 was the best, the air gets thinner and thinner and only few get to the top and get in the points.

+1 with the exception 1st should be 10 points to make a win worthwhile.

10
6
4
3
2
1

points should be given down to 6th place and no more. to encourage losers is bad idea imho.

Why would you not want to reward drivers at the back of the pack for managing to run a good race?

Particularly in the scenarios we have now: Hamilton, Raikonnen, Alonso in the back - there's little measure of what's going on with them at the bottom, and then what if there were to be (albeit unlikely) an inversion of the car's performance, and suddenly we see them back at the top? In that situation what they've done until now effectively doesn't count.

Another scenario: Jenson and Vettel end up with only a point between them, but they both (for whatever reason) finish well out of the points; what would be the point to that?

It's completely an arbitrary choice to cut points off at a certain position, a choice to say "below this it doesn't matter".

A points system should simply be there to rank the driver/team's results and there's no good reason why only the top 6 or the top 8 should be ranked.

The sport has existed up until now without needing to award points all the way down. Lets not change something for the sake of it. It's worked well up until now.

No it hasn't. Its continually given a lack of representation of the performances of the lower teams and drivers.

Its not changing things for the sake of changing things. Its changing things because they can be improved upon.

Lets not keep things the same just for the sake of keeping things the same....

No it hasn't. Its continually given a lack of representation of the performances of the lower teams and drivers.

But all sense of reward then vanishes. If a team like Force India scores a point, they will celebrate because it means a lot. If you give everyone points then it becomes less of a deal. By dishing out points more often, you devalue them. No one worries that in athletics no medals are given out below third place. It's because the medals are a reward. So should points be.

I guess yea Sutil at Monaco 08 shows how it's important that the points should not be awarded to one and all. See how miffed they (Force India team) all were when he dnfed coz of Kimi? Points should be like money, hard earned lol...

But all sense of reward then vanishes. If a team like Force India scores a point, they will celebrate because it means a lot. If you give everyone points then it becomes less of a deal. By dishing out points more often, you devalue them. No one worries that in athletics no medals are given out below third place. It's because the medals are a reward. So should points be.

No, sense of reward does not vanish. Simply scoring a point wont mean a lot if the winner is getting 25.

Besides, why does it have to be a 'deal' when you score a point? The whole reason for a points system is to have an objective way of ranking the drivers and teams. This is not accurately done if you dont count most of the participants.

F1 is not NASCAR !!!

Just because a driver can walk, talk, breath & show up with a piece of junk to race does not , IMHO deserve any points. We should go back to the old system of the 1st 6 only which was not a poll option here!

Race Points are *not * candy. They should mean something.

F1 is not NASCAR !!!

Just because a driver can walk, talk, breath & show up with a piece of junk to race does not , IMHO deserve any points. We should go back to the old system of the 1st 6 only which was not a poll option here!

Race Points are *not * candy. They should mean something.

MotoGP isn't NASCAR either and they manage to give points to almost double the amount of positions that F1 does, and thats with less participants, too. And their system works great.

This whole 'points should mean something' argument makes no sense. Points systems are there to rank the competition based on results, and thats ALL. This whole glorifying of points is kinda stupid.

You can scale any points system so that the top guys would still get the same amount of 'reward' as they were before, but now you can have more people down the order being accurately represented and ranked.

Edited by Seanspeed, 30 June 2009 - 16:47.

But all sense of reward then vanishes. If a team like Force India scores a point, they will celebrate because it means a lot.

As did Minardi on occasion.

Without reading anyone elses replies:

I haven't voted, and won't as the options are too limited. I do not believe that points should be awarded all the way to last. However, I also believe that a higher % of race starters should be awarded points, provided they are a classified finisher. With 26 cars next year, I'd like to see the top 12 or 14 receive points. For this year's 20 car starting grid I'd like to see the top 10 get points.

I'd also like to see the podium places receive a slightly larger bonus than they currently do. Yes, I know that would mean Button & Brawn would be even further ahead right now.

As did Minardi on occasion.

They did but that was on the era when engines still broke down, hard to see that happen in today's f1 unless it's raining or Monaco...

Edited by Celloman, 30 June 2009 - 17:20.

Scoring points for just showing up is lame. Like others in this thread I like the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 scale where only the top 6 score points. No reason to overcomplicate things.

Scoring points for just showing up is lame. Like others in this thread I like the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 scale where only the top 6 score points. No reason to overcomplicate things.

Is rewarding points to more people really that complicated for some of you?

As did Minardi on occasion.

Points mean a lot in F1, it means that next season, a large portion of travel costs will be covered.

Zero point teams pay their own way.

MotoGP isn't NASCAR either and they manage to give points to almost double the amount of positions that F1 does, and thats with less participants, too. And their system works great.

This whole 'points should mean something' argument makes no sense. Points systems are there to rank the competition based on results, and thats ALL. This whole glorifying of points is kinda stupid.

You can scale any points system so that the top guys would still get the same amount of 'reward' as they were before, but now you can have more people down the order being accurately represented and ranked.

Still disagree!! MotoGP, NASCAR can do what they want. They are not F1 !!! What's next -> Everybody gets a Ribbon and Ice Cream because a mommy complained that her Kid was traumatized because he lost and got nothing??

Edited by iMacUser, 30 June 2009 - 19:38.

Points, IMO, should mean something and they should be earned. For me, this is one of the appealing things about F1. We don't need to turn it into a point system like Nascar.

When I first started following F1, it was a 9-6-4-3-2-1 points' system. I thought that was great.

Edited by 911, 30 June 2009 - 19:57.

I think they should award points down to last, will make for more exciting racing at the back of the field.