Jump to content


Photo

Closed up midfield - unfair points system


  • Please log in to reply
97 replies to this topic

Poll: Closed up midfield - unfair points system (88 member(s) have cast votes)

  1. the first 10 should get points.. (22 votes [25.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.00%

  2. the first 14 should get points (to give the aguri's and Force Indias and STRs something to play with) (8 votes [9.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.09%

  3. NO change: leave it as it is... first 8. F1 should only reward the best teams (41 votes [46.59%])

    Percentage of vote: 46.59%

  4. Other... see my comment below (17 votes [19.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.32%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 glorius&victorius

glorius&victorius
  • Member

  • 4,327 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 29 April 2008 - 21:18

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.

Advertisement

#2 lukywill

lukywill
  • Member

  • 6,660 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 29 April 2008 - 21:28

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.

#3 glorius&victorius

glorius&victorius
  • Member

  • 4,327 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 29 April 2008 - 21:41

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... :lol:

#4 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,775 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 29 April 2008 - 21:46

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

#5 cathal

cathal
  • Member

  • 33 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 29 April 2008 - 22:15

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.

#6 Jodum5

Jodum5
  • Member

  • 1,247 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 30 April 2008 - 03:57

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


+1

#7 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,311 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 30 April 2008 - 04:23

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

#8 CatharticF1

CatharticF1
  • Member

  • 259 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 30 April 2008 - 04:58

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.

#9 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 836 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 30 April 2008 - 06:52

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.

#10 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,053 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 30 April 2008 - 07:14

Don't give points at all.

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

Use all other placings for tiebreaker.

Drop WCC.

:cool:

#11 FA and RK fan

FA and RK fan
  • Member

  • 255 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 30 April 2008 - 07:33

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.

#12 Gecko

Gecko
  • Member

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 30 April 2008 - 07:37

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.

#13 BlackCat

BlackCat
  • Member

  • 797 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 30 April 2008 - 09:08

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

#14 thiscocks

thiscocks
  • Member

  • 903 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 30 April 2008 - 14:32

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

#15 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,882 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 30 April 2008 - 14:35

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.

#16 UPRC

UPRC
  • Member

  • 4,596 posts
  • Joined: February 99

Posted 30 April 2008 - 15:22

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

Nothing wrong with such a number.

#17 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 30 April 2008 - 15:33

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

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

#18 9 Degrees 12 Min

9 Degrees 12 Min
  • Member

  • 121 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 30 April 2008 - 15:39

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.

#19 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,882 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 30 April 2008 - 16:00

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.

Advertisement

#20 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,433 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 30 April 2008 - 16:02

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.

#21 kismet

kismet
  • Member

  • 6,987 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 30 April 2008 - 16:11

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.

#22 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,433 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 30 April 2008 - 16:11

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.

#23 John B

John B
  • Member

  • 6,266 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 30 April 2008 - 16:13

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? :D

#24 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,240 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 30 April 2008 - 16:40

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.

#25 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 56,882 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 30 April 2008 - 16:43

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? :D


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

#26 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 30 April 2008 - 17:30

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......

#27 Sergino

Sergino
  • Member

  • 655 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 30 April 2008 - 17:46

I'd go for the AQUA Championship

#28 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 30 April 2008 - 18:05

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 :confused:

#29 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 30 April 2008 - 19:06

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.

#30 Dave Ware

Dave Ware
  • Member

  • 746 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 30 April 2008 - 19:12

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

#31 glorius&victorius

glorius&victorius
  • Member

  • 4,327 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 30 April 2008 - 19:23

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.

:cool:


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

#32 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,053 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 30 April 2008 - 19:26

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.

:cool:

#33 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 30 April 2008 - 19:27

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?

#34 jcbc3

jcbc3
  • Member

  • 5,057 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 30 April 2008 - 19:31

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.

#35 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 30 April 2008 - 19:41

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.

:cool:

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.

#36 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 30 April 2008 - 19:45

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.

#37 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 30 April 2008 - 19:51

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?

#38 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 30 April 2008 - 20:00

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.

#39 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 30 April 2008 - 20:06

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.

Advertisement

#40 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,053 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 30 April 2008 - 20:08

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.



:cool:

#41 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 30 April 2008 - 20:14

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.)

#42 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 30 April 2008 - 20:38

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.

#43 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,053 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 30 April 2008 - 20:40

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.

:cool:

#44 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 30 April 2008 - 20:46

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.

#45 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 30 April 2008 - 20:54

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.

#46 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 30 April 2008 - 21:04

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.

#47 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 30 April 2008 - 21:11

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.

#48 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 30 April 2008 - 21:26

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.

#49 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 30 April 2008 - 21:38

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

#50 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 30 April 2008 - 22:23

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?