97 replies to this topic

[glorius&victorius]

I just read Jarno Trulli's comments about how hard it is to fight for the final points... I feel that teams doing all the hard work are not rewarded... especially since reliability in recent years has gone up considerably.

I think that instead of the top 8 the top 10 should get points, so that there is also more "points competition" between the midfield teams.

[lukywill]

recent times show us that reliability is a true fact.

so points 1 to 6th isn´t enough. possible all the positions are taken in advance. 12 or 18 races per year. or 20.

8th is ok with a grid of nearly 22. if it was 26 maybe 10 with rewarded points would suit it.

[glorius&victorius]

Originally posted by lukywill
recent times show us that reliability is a true fact.

so points 1 to 6th isn´t enough. possible all the positions are taken in advance. 12 or 18 races per year. or 20.

8th is ok with a grid of nearly 22. if it was 26 maybe 10 with rewarded points would suit it.

Thanks Lucky, now with your cryptic answer everyone is confused and nobody will dare to comment...

[Atreiu]

For F1, giving points to any more than 8 cars would be too forgiving.

[cathal]

Our midfield is the only interesting thing in F1 right now. Let then coninue fighting for the points, if only the guys at the top tryed as hard.

[Jodum5]

Originally posted by Atreiu
For F1, giving points to any more than 8 cars would be too forgiving.

+1

[Raelene]

points to 8th is ok - they should however reward the winner with more points...they only changed it to 2 points (as opposed to 4) because of Schumacher - they can change it back now with 12 points for first and so on

[CatharticF1]

Wow are you running the wrong way!

When 2 x 4th places are rated as equal to a win in points earnt I think the lever needs to be pulled the other way.
F1 is NOT children's athletics. It is intended to determine the best car/driver and giving people points almost for turning up is patently ridiculous. The whole point about F1 is that it IS hard to get to the top.

I voted 'other' and would prefer it went back to the top 6 with 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Oh and I think it's quite a biassed poll to have two options to change it in one direction and none in the other.

[FPV GTHO]

I think if we look at the current situation where Toyota, Renault, Red Bull, Williams and now Honda are trying to score points, thats 10 cars fighting for 2 positions. Some of the teams are tight enough that if just one of them gains just a tenth or so enough, or they nail the setup right they could potentially get both those positions to themselves. We havent seen that so far this year though, and we rarely saw it last year. Extending the current 8 positions to 10 i think would be a good thing, especially if we consistently get 4-5 teams fighting about equal behind the leaders, and theres more than 20 cars on the grid.

[KWSN - DSM]

Don't give points at all.

Count the wins, driver with most wins is the WDC.

Use all other placings for tiebreaker.

Drop WCC.

[FA and RK fan]

A lot was said about this ''problem'' in the past end it will be in the future. The thing is, people will never be totaly satisfied with it. Imo it sould be top 10 to get points.

1st - 15 pts
2nd - 11 pts
3rd - 9 pts
4th - 7 pts
5th - 6 pts
6th - 5 pts
7th - 4 pts
8th - 3 pts
9th - 2 pts
10th - 1 pt

But to get a fairer point sistem, we would have to change qualyfying and reward pole position. But thats different story.

[Gecko]

That the points go to 8th place is just about right. Putting points for lower places would make the battles in the midfield less interesting, not more. Fighting for that last point becomes interesting now, whereas with more points available further down everyone would just settle into the cruise mode much like the guys further up do. However, as many others, it is the distribution of points that I find wrong.

[BlackCat]

i'd still go with points for the first six only.

[thiscocks]

[list=1]
[*]12
[*]8
[*]6
[*]5
[*]4
[*]3
[*]2
[*]1
[/list=1]

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by FA and RK fan


But to get a fairer point sistem, we would have to change qualyfying and reward pole position. But thats different story.

Pole is an award.

[UPRC]

I'm all in favour of 10. With 22 cars, that is still less than half the grid.

Nothing wrong with such a number.

[undersquare]

Originally posted by thiscocks
[list=1]
[*]12
[*]8
[*]6
[*]5
[*]4
[*]3
[*]2
[*]1
[/list=1]

I like this one. It keeps the single point special for the midfield/tail end teams, and rewards a win properly.

[9 Degrees 12 Min]

Originally posted by thiscocks
[list=1]
[*]12
[*]8
[*]6
[*]5
[*]4
[*]3
[*]2
[*]1
[/list=1]

What he said. Rewards a win like the old 10,6 system. Cruise-and-collect is a problem with the current system.

[Ross Stonefeld]

It's really not. I don't think I've seen people race in F1 'for points'.

The problem is they just cant race each other, regardless of what the prizes are.

[noikeee]

Originally posted by CatharticF1
Wow are you running the wrong way!

When 2 x 4th places are rated as equal to a win in points earnt I think the lever needs to be pulled the other way.
F1 is NOT children's athletics. It is intended to determine the best car/driver and giving people points almost for turning up is patently ridiculous. The whole point about F1 is that it IS hard to get to the top.

I voted 'other' and would prefer it went back to the top 6 with 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Oh and I think it's quite a biassed poll to have two options to change it in one direction and none in the other.

Awarding points up to 10th and increasing the reward for 1st place aren't mutually exclusive. In fact I want both of these things:

1st - 20
2nd - 12
3rd - 10
4th - 8
5th - 6
6th - 5
7th - 4
8th - 3
9th - 2
10th - 1

Or something similar.

The logic behind awarding 9th and 10th place with points is that there's so few retirements nowadays that smaller teams don't have enough chances per year to score points. Also at the end it makes the standings fairer, imagine someone gets a big run of 9th or 10th places, and never get awarded for it - sorta like Barrichello last year who did much better than it looked like in the final standings.

Of course, you could stretch this logic and say everyone that finishes should get a point, but then it gets a bit ridiculous as the slower teams would depend on retirements on an even more direct way - if 10 cars retire they get the points for 12th, if 8 cars retire they get the points for 14th, etc. And it would encourage cars crawling on track just to make it to the end.

It's just a matter of finding which is the "right" place to end the points system at, and in my opinion right now 10th place seems good. But 8th as it is, is allright too. And I agree that increasing the margin between 1st and 2nd placed is a bigger concern right now.

[kismet]

Interestingly, if I'm not mistaken, MotoGP uses a points system that embodies everything F1 folks like to complain about, and they seem to live with it just fine - at least that's the impression I've got by not following the series quite religiously. Perhaps it's not the points system per se that's the problem? Or perhaps I'm just not up to date on what riles bike people up.

[noikeee]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
It's really not. I don't think I've seen people race in F1 'for points'.

The problem is they just cant race each other, regardless of what the prizes are.

That is true, points systems aren't the biggest problem in F1 and will never make much of a change to the show. Might encourage or discourage people to take a little bit more risks, but overall drivers and teams are always there to win.

The thing is, the fairness of the points system can be debated. I mean, as much as I would've preferred Kimi to win it in 2003, if it had happened it just wouldn't seem right.

[John B]

Another vote to cut it back to the top six here, which they did back when 26 cars plus a few non qualifiers actually showed up. Make getting a point an accomplishment. Remember when Damon Hill celebrated 6th at Silverstone with an Arrows more than Senna and Prost did most of their wins?

[Buttoneer]

Points for everyone to reward consistency and help to properly sort out the rankings near the bottom. Don't care how you do it at the top - 4, 3 or 2 points difference.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by John B
Another vote to cut it back to the top six here, which they did back when 26 cars plus a few non qualifiers actually showed up. Make getting a point an accomplishment. Remember when Damon Hill celebrated 6th at Silverstone with an Arrows more than Senna and Prost did most of their wins?

You'd have the same thing now. Cracking the top 8 is freaking difficult today.

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
It's really not. I don't think I've seen people race in F1 'for points'.

The problem is they just cant race each other, regardless of what the prizes are.

You seem to be saying lots of things I agree with lately. This is beginning to worry me......

[Sergino]

I'd go for the AQUA Championship

[VresiBerba]

Originally posted by 9 Degrees 12 Min
What he said. Rewards a win like the old 10,6 system. Cruise-and-collect is a problem with the current system.

When there's no problem in GP2, WRC or Moto GP, why is it in F1

[giacomo]

No idea why people want to reward 10th and 11th places with WC points. Their hard work should be rewarded, OMG... hard work that results in double digit results does not deserve any reward, as it is a waste of effort.
Soccer doesn't give points for the loser, why should Formula One?

I want to see DNQs again, so bring back the 107% rule in quali. Guys like Ide with a 7 second delay to pole have no business in a Grand Prix race.

And the point score should be reserved for the top six, in the system 12-6-4-3-2-1.

[Dave Ware]

Points for the top 6 only. I'm pretty comfortable with 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1.

[glorius&victorius]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
Don't give points at all.

Count the wins, driver with most wins is the WDC.

Use all other placings for tiebreaker.

Drop WCC.

thats also interesting... let the results decide who is the best. Problem here is that you need a grid where multiple winners are possible throughout the season. Wouldn't have worked in the Schumacher era

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by glorius&victorius


thats also interesting... let the results decide who is the best. Problem here is that you need a grid where multiple winners are possible throughout the season. Wouldn't have worked in the Schumacher era

But he won many races before the end anyway.

Looking at the last couple of seasons it would have been close, and only settled in last race.

Would also mean that there were no onus on anything but racing to win.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by glorius&victorius


thats also interesting... let the results decide who is the best. Problem here is that you need a grid where multiple winners are possible throughout the season. Wouldn't have worked in the Schumacher era

Why not?

[jcbc3]

What about a system whereby a place earns twice the points of the place below?

If 6 points scorers:
1,2,4,8,16,32

If 8:
1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128

That way you need two seconds and an eighth to beat a win. Would pretty much ensure that the winner of most Grands Prix also won the WDC as in KWSN's suggestion (Wonder ™) but keep an interest and possibility of revenue distribution for the lower placings.

[pasadena]

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
Don't give points at all.

Count the wins, driver with most wins is the WDC.

Use all other placings for tiebreaker.

Drop WCC.

That would be a very bad idea. A driver of the fastest car could that way ensure the number of wins large enough thanks to the speed of his car while his overall performance may not match the performance of a driver with a slower car who simply cannot win enough facing two drivers in a team with faster car. In other words, this system would put even more emphasis on machinery and only the drivers of the fastest car (if not extremely unreliable, like Renault in 1980, for example) would have the chance.

My second argument is that by no means e.g. 5 wins and 13 10th places should beat 4 wins and 14 second places. This system has an inherent unfairness built in that looks more significant than with points systems.

It's very hard to say for any WDC since 1950 that his title wasn't deserved. But some WDC winners would be different had the "win only" system been adopted (from the memory, 1987, 1984, 1983, 1982, 1979, 1977, 1964....). Could you say that Lauda didn't deserve the 1977 title only because Andretti had faster car?

I vote for points.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by pasadena
That would be a very bad idea. A driver of the fastest car could that way ensure the number of wins large enough thanks to the speed of his car while his overall performance may not match thge performance of a driver with a slower car who simply cannot win enough with two drivers in a team with faster car. In other words, this system would put even more emphasis on machinery.

Above all, a driver with a slower car who simply cannot win enough has no business to win the WDC.

[pasadena]

Originally posted by giacomo
Above all, a driver with a slower car who simply cannot win enough has no business to win the WDC.

No. He may perform at the very limit of his machinery and score a lot of second places and a few wins. But a driver of the dominant car could afford to try hard much less often, just to score enough easy wins and then sleep over when everything is not so easy.

Let me repeat: imagine, for example, driver A with 7 wins and 10 quite low placings (e.g. 10th or lower - he simply didn't want to try harder and made many mistakes) and driver B with 2 wins, 8 seconds and 7 thirds. I know it won't happen in reality but hypothetically, whom would you award the title?

[giacomo]

Originally posted by pasadena
Let me repeat: imagine, for example, driver A with 7 wins and 10 quite low placings (e.g. 10th or lower - he simply didn't want to try harder) and driver B with 2 wins, 8 seconds and 7 thirds. I know it won't happen in reality but hypothetically, whom would you award the title?

I never saw a driver in the fastest car who didn't want to try harder than for double digit placings.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by pasadena
No. He may perform at the very limit of his machinery and score a lot of second places and a few wins. But a driver of the dominant car could afford to try hard much less often, just to score enough easy wins and then sleep over when everything is not so easy.

Sounds like nonsense for me. A driver in a dominant car who does not care about winning races and the WDC?

Give us historic examples when drivers were in the position to win all races but prefered to score 10th places instead.

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by jcbc3
What about a system whereby a place earns twice the points of the place below?

If 6 points scorers:
1,2,4,8,16,32

If 8:
1,2,4,8,16,32,64,128

That way you need two seconds and an eighth to beat a win. Would pretty much ensure that the winner of most Grands Prix also won the WDC as in KWSN's suggestion (Wonder ™) but keep an interest and possibility of revenue distribution for the lower placings.

I agree either make it worthwhile to battle for position, or use the Wonder system.

[pasadena]

Originally posted by giacomo
I never saw a driver in the fastest car who didn't want to try harder than for double digit placings.

OK, I agree. But imagine then that he made a lot of mistakes and they resulted in 10 out of the points finishes and/or retirements. When he didn't make a mistake he won but he made serious mistakes in 60% of races. Yet his wins would give him the title over a driver who didn't make any mistakes but didn't have a car fast enough to win consistently. It would be ridiculous and a system must be put in place to prevent such a possibility.

(On a side note: a good example of a driver who didn't have to try (and certainly didn't go nowhere near to his limits) was Prost in 1993.)

[giacomo]

Originally posted by pasadena
OK, I agree. But imagine then that he made a lot of mistakes and they resulted in 10 out of the points finishes and/or retirements. When he didn't make a mistake he won but he made serious mistakes in 60% of races. Yet his wins would give him the title over a driver who didn't make any mistakes but didn't have a car fast enough to win consistently. It would be ridiculous and a system must be put in place to prevent such a possibility.

Also that scenario is unprecedented and as ridiculous as the scenario above. Or are you able to deliver historic examples of a driver who won 40% of a season's races only to crash in the remaining 60%?

BTW, no system is able to eliminate every single undesired theoretical possibility.

Did you know that a theoretical driver X who scored 5 second places and 12 third places would have won the 2007 WDC without winning one single race?
Or that a theoretical driver Y who scored 16 third places would have won the 2003 WDC?
Does that possibility make the current system a crap system?!?

Originally posted by pasadena
(On a side note: a good example of a driver who didn't have to try (and certainly didn't go nowhere near to his limits) was Prost in 1993.)

Prost did good enough to win the title in superior style. So what? Also Fangio only went to his limits when needed.
Nothing wrong with that attitude, as long as you are winning.

[KWSN - DSM]

Originally posted by pasadena
OK, I agree. But imagine then that he made a lot of mistakes and they resulted in 10 out of the points finishes and/or retirements. When he didn't make a mistake he won but he made serious mistakes in 60% of races. Yet his wins would give him the title over a driver who didn't make any mistakes but didn't have a car fast enough to win consistently. It would be ridiculous and a system must be put in place to prevent such a possibility.

(On a side note: a good example of a driver who didn't have to try (and certainly didn't go nowhere near to his limits) was Prost in 1993.)

I do not see that many driver errors in F1 as you seem to see. And 1983 was 'ancient' compared with how reliable all the cars are today.

The past 10 seasons we have reached a level that mechanical breakdowns are something that fewer and fewer drivers experience consistently, and if you are 'only' having a consistent season then you should NOT win the WDC anyway. 2003 is a perfect example of how 'wrong; that could have been. Raikkonen winning the WDC only winning once, over Schumacher who won 6 times.

[VresiBerba]

Originally posted by giacomo
Soccer doesn't give points for the loser, why should Formula One?

Eh, are you joking : There's a difference between one winner and one loser, and one winner and 21 losers.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by VresiBerba
Eh, are you joking : There's a difference between one winner and one loser, and one winner and 21 losers.

Eh, are you joking? You omitted the major part of my posting.

[VresiBerba]

Originally posted by giacomo
Eh, are you joking? You omitted the major part of my posting.

So I quoted a minor part, so what, what you said still makes no sense.

There's an incentive to play a football match because there's always a chance that you can win. But Force India and Super Aguri will never win a race, so their sole incentive to compete is to score a point, or maybe two, like Minardi did in Australia 2002, and that was actually enough to beat Toyota for the championship. Take that away and competing just for the sake of competing will ruin the sport.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by VresiBerba
So I quoted a minor part, so what, what you said still makes no sense.

There's an incentive to play a football match because there's always a chance that you can win. But Force India and Super Aguri will never win a race, so their sole incentive to compete is to score a point, or maybe two, like Minardi did in Australia 2002, and that was actually enough to beat Toyota for the championship. Take that away and competing just for the sake of competing will ruin the sport.

You chose to quote the least important part of my posting.

And what you say makes no sense at all. My suggestion was to award the top six with points. That's how it was for the major part of F1 history. And it did NOT ruin the sport.

BTW, I cannot see how Minardi beating Toyota for the 2002 WCC did save the sport. It didn't even save Minardi in middle term.

[VresiBerba]

Originally posted by giacomo
You chose to quote the least important part of my posting.

And what you say makes no sense at all. My suggestion was to award the top six with points. That's how it was for the major part of F1 history. And it did NOT ruin the sport.

BTW, I cannot see how Minardi beating Toyota for the 2002 WCC did save the sport. It didn't even save Minardi in middle term.

Yes I know, I actually agree with all your points, I just wanted to point out the slight (!) difference between one loser and 21 losers.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by VresiBerba
Yes I know, I actually agree with all your points, I just wanted to point out the slight (!) difference between one loser and 21 losers.

"Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose." - Ayrton Senna

[HDonaldCapps]

1st place = 100 points
Fastest lap = 15 points
2nd = 10 points
3rd = 9 points
4th = 8 points
5th = 7 points
6th = 6 points
7th = 5 points
8th = 4 points
9th = 3 points
10th = 2 points
Thanks for playing = 1 point for any finishers ("classified") below 10th place

Certainly puts the emphasis on being in first place when the race is over as well as making the fastest lap meaningful.....

Oh, and no "constructors' championship," which is now rather a rather moronic title since it utterly meaningless outside those belonging to The Club..... Who actually cares?