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

#51 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 01 May 2008 - 02:03

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

Oh, I had that "proverb" in mind when I wrote my post. It was meant to cement my point even further, which actually makes it somewhat ironic now that you decided to bring it up.

Advertisement

#52 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 01 May 2008 - 02:11

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
Certainly puts the emphasis on being in first place when the race is over...

Since there are other players besides those who can actually make it to first place, it would seem rather pointless to compete for second place if all you get is 10% of what the winner gets.

To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't say no to a system that gives one point to each position gained; the winner gets as many points as there are competitors, and the biggest loser gets one. Points to everyone, halleluja, and the winner gets the most. Competition is ensured throughout the whole field, everyone get to fight for a single point at every chance of a pass.

#53 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 5,701 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 01 May 2008 - 04:35

According to points systems suggested in this thread so far, and with some real points systems listed for comparison, this is how the 2007 driver's ranking would have changed (or not);

Posted Image

So really, all this blather about extra points here and there only make a difference to a select few drivers. None of the points systems is any more 'just' than any other.

#54 KiwiF1

KiwiF1
  • Member

  • 399 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 01 May 2008 - 07:27

I have just had another idea about the scoring of points for the Driver & Constructors championship.

Like others I would like to reward teams who manage to consistently finish the race as this also rewards teams who work hard, and would maybe encourage drivers and teams to do repairs during the race and get back out instead of just retiring.

So my idea? Well my other favourite sport is Yachting, and in a few long competitions they give the winner 1 pt, 2nd place 2 pts, 3rd get 3 pts etc. therefore the winner of the competition is the one with least points. What this will do is stop the people winning the title even though they are inconsistent during different events. Plus it does give points to all those that finish and a set amount of points for those who fail to finish for one reason or another ie. a DNF scores 25 pts.

Just an idea, I daresay it will be torn to pieces for here on in.

Have a good one!!!! :wave:

#55 KiwiF1

KiwiF1
  • Member

  • 399 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 01 May 2008 - 09:24

Just did the numbers on the lowest points wins here is the result for the 2007 Championship

Fernando Alonso 1
Lewis Hamilton 2
Kimi Raikkonen 3
Felipe Massa 4
Nick Heidfeld 5
Heikki Kovalainen 6
Robert Kubica 7
Giancarlo Fishichella 8
Nico Rosberg 9
Rubens Barrichello 10
Jarno Trulli 11
Alexander Wurz 12
Mark Webber 13
David Coulthard 14
Takuma Sato 15
Jenson Button 16
Ralf Schumacher 17
Anthony Davidson 18
Vitantonio Liuizzi 19
Adrian Sutil 20
Christijan Albers 21
Sebastien Vettel 22
Sakon Yamamoto 23
Scott Speed 23
Sebastien Vettel 25
Kazuki Nakajima 26
Winkelhock 27

#56 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 01 May 2008 - 09:56

Originally posted by KiwiF1
Just did the numbers on the lowest points wins here is the result for the 2007 Championship

Fernando Alonso 1
Lewis Hamilton 2
Kimi Raikkonen 3
Felipe Massa 4
Nick Heidfeld 5
Heikki Kovalainen 6
Robert Kubica 7
Giancarlo Fishichella 8
Nico Rosberg 9
Rubens Barrichello 10
Jarno Trulli 11
Alexander Wurz 12
Mark Webber 13
David Coulthard 14
Takuma Sato 15
Jenson Button 16
Ralf Schumacher 17
Anthony Davidson 18
Vitantonio Liuizzi 19
Adrian Sutil 20
Christijan Albers 21
Sebastien Vettel 22
Sakon Yamamoto 23
Scott Speed 23
Sebastien Vettel 25
Kazuki Nakajima 26
Winkelhock 27

I would agree with this, I always felt that KR was somewhat an undeserving WDC in 2007. He is on the way to put it right in 2008, though.

#57 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 01 May 2008 - 10:27

Originally posted by VresiBerba
Oh, I had that "proverb" in mind when I wrote my post. It was meant to cement my point even further, which actually makes it somewhat ironic now that you decided to bring it up.

No idea about the point you were trying to make then.

#58 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 01 May 2008 - 11:04

Originally posted by VresiBerba
Since there are other players besides those who can actually make it to first place, it would seem rather pointless to compete for second place if all you get is 10% of what the winner gets.


All points systems are fundamentally flawed because there will always be conflicting goals when deciding how to determine the outcome of the championship -- winning versus consistency just for starters.

My proposal was a reaction to the usual namby-pamby, incremental, stuck-inside-the-box proposals that usually accompany the endless bitching, moaning, and whining sessions about the points systems. The real problem is that championships have relegated the individual events to little more than heat races in a long, drawn-out season. Few of the events have any level of individuality, being near identical clones of each other. Monaco is an anomoly and probably the worst event on the f1 calendar. Its only saving grace -- and that is a stretch in and of itself -- is that is distinct and different from the other events.

I deliberately put more points for establishing the fastest lap than placing second because there is some real motivation to be quick when you do that. If you accept second as being the "first loser," then setting fastest lap is a matter of proving something.

#59 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 01 May 2008 - 11:07

The point system is overrated.

Championships are decided by the race results, not by the point system.

Advertisement

#60 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 01 May 2008 - 11:39

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
I deliberately put more points for establishing the fastest lap than placing second because there is some real motivation to be quick when you do that. If you accept second as being the "first loser," then setting fastest lap is a matter of proving something.

But there's a problem with your system here: let's imagine a driver who had worked hard in his not-the-fastest car out there to earn 2nd place. With your system in place, he would earn 10 points. In the mean time, someone who, by chance, could have been placed outside points, perhaps due to his own mistake, and driving a good car, could dive into the pits three laps from the end, put on a new set of softest tyres available and then do a "qualifying run" in the last 2 laps to earn 25 points.

It seems unfair to me. I vote for, for example, 12 (or 13 or 14)-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system. Fastest laps and pole position shouldn't earn any points and here's why: pole winner is already graced by having a clear track ahead and the clean side to start from while fastest lap for the fastest lap's sake doesn't mean anything in a race. The object of a race is to finish as high as possible and it's a matter of skill and intelliegence to do it with the slowest possible speed and not by going for outright fastest time just for the record.

#61 HDonaldCapps

HDonaldCapps
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 01 May 2008 - 13:02

Originally posted by pasadena
It seems unfair to me. to


Life is unfair. Next....

#62 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 01 May 2008 - 13:30

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps


Life is unfair. Next....

It is but if you put up with unfairness like this when building an arbitrary set of rules, then you better not try at all. You'll save the surplus effort.

#63 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 01 May 2008 - 13:45

Originally posted by pasadena
It is but if you put up with unfairness like this when building an arbitrary set of rules, then you better not try at all. You'll save the surplus effort.

No idea what you are trying to tell us: Every point system is arbitrary, and someone might feel it being unfair.

Nick Heidfeld who finished 9th in Spain might feel it being unfair that only the top 8 are scoring points... Bad luck for him, he should have been 8th then.

And by the way: Every set of rules is valid for all competitors. So how exactly should a point system being unfair?!?

#64 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 01 May 2008 - 13:56

Originally posted by pasadena
But there's a problem with your system here: let's imagine a driver who had worked hard in his not-the-fastest car out there to earn 2nd place. With your system in place, he would earn 10 points. In the mean time, someone who, by chance, could have been placed outside points, perhaps due to his own mistake, and driving a good car, could dive into the pits three laps from the end, put on a new set of softest tyres available and then do a "qualifying run" in the last 2 laps to earn 25 points.

It seems unfair to me.

It only seems unfair to you, but it isn't.

Every driver is informed about the point system, so every single driver has the option to do the mentioned quali run in the last 2 laps.

See? No benefit for anyone.

#65 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 01 May 2008 - 14:28

Originally posted by giacomo
No idea what you are trying to tell us: Every point system is arbitrary, and someone might feel it being unfair.

Nick Heidfeld who finished 9th in Spain might feel it being unfair that only the top 8 are scoring points... Bad luck for him, he should have been 8th then.

And by the way: Every set of rules is valid for all competitors. So how exactly should a point system being unfair?!?

For example: let's give 10 points to the winner and 25 to the 9th place finisher. This is a bizzare example, of course, but could you call it fair, even if it's the same for all?

In the same sense, while I agree with some ideas of Mr Capps, I see awarding of 2.5 times more points to the fastest lap setter then to the 2nd placed man as a similar injustice. But of course, it's only my opinion.

#66 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 01 May 2008 - 14:33

Originally posted by giacomo
Every driver is informed about the point system, so every single driver has the option to do the mentioned quali run in the last 2 laps.

See? No benefit for anyone.

You are wrong here. Think about this: the 2nd placed man has a 2 secs lead over the 3rd placed driver. He cannot set the fastest lap because his tyres are almost shot. But, overtaking being hard, he can defend his place. He cannot go for new tyres because it would cost him several places. His teammate made a mistake during the race that dropped him to 12th place with no chance of scoring points. What would he do then? He would go into the pits, take some fresh rubber and drive a banzai last lap.

Of course, the 2nd placed driver could do the same because it's much more points for fastest lap than for 2nd place. So, we could have all the drivers behind the leader (if it's not a close fight for the lead) goint to the pits and for fastest laps. The result: all the placings behind the winner would be irrelevant. And it simply doesn't conform with my point of racing which is to finish as high as possible.

#67 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 5,701 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 01 May 2008 - 15:11

Originally posted by pasadena
For example: let's give 10 points to the winner and 25 to the 9th place finisher. This is a bizzare example, of course, but could you call it fair, even if it's the same for all?

You're both right, you're just talking about two different kinds of fairness.

Giacomo is talking about fairness between competitors, but you are talking about fairness with respect to the concept of the sport, i.e. Drivers who are 'x' times better should get 'x' times more reward. Giacomo's point regarding fairness is almost self-evident while your point is much more a question of opinion and feeling, and therefore amenable to debate.

#68 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 01 May 2008 - 15:19

Originally posted by pasadena
For example: let's give 10 points to the winner and 25 to the 9th place finisher. This is a bizzare example, of course, but could you call it fair, even if it's the same for all?

It's a stupid example. One of many you provided here.


But: It depends. Back in the 30ies we had a point system that gave 1 point to the winner and 2 points to the second.

And the driver with the lowest point total won.

#69 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 01 May 2008 - 15:23

Originally posted by pasadena
You are wrong here. Think about this: the 2nd placed man has a 2 secs lead over the 3rd placed driver. He cannot set the fastest lap because his tyres are almost shot. But, overtaking being hard, he can defend his place. He cannot go for new tyres because it would cost him several places. His teammate made a mistake during the race that dropped him to 12th place with no chance of scoring points. What would he do then? He would go into the pits, take some fresh rubber and drive a banzai last lap.

Of course, the 2nd placed driver could do the same because it's much more points for fastest lap than for 2nd place. So, we could have all the drivers behind the leader (if it's not a close fight for the lead) goint to the pits and for fastest laps. The result: all the placings behind the winner would be irrelevant. And it simply doesn't conform with my point of racing which is to finish as high as possible.

But that's the essence of the Capps system: All the placings behind the winner should be more or less irrelevant.

So you are wrong in seeking something in the Capps system that was intended not to be there.

#70 sensible

sensible
  • Member

  • 1,893 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 01 May 2008 - 16:14

I definitely think the winner should get more points relative to second and third - ie the gaps should be bigger. However I also think every start should get points - it could be one point per place - whatever, I dont care. Right now once you get beyond 7th or 8th in the championship, the table is meaningless as if you score one big lucky score it completely biasses your position. If you always scored we'd see a more accurate reflection of how well every team/driver did.

#71 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 01 May 2008 - 17:50

Originally posted by giacomo
But that's the essence of the Capps system: All the placings behind the winner should be more or less irrelevant.

So you are wrong in seeking something in the Capps system that was intended not to be there.

OK, I agree.
However, for me, the places behind the first one is *not* irrelevant. After all, the winner's rostrum has three steps. It's never been irrelevant who finishes at what place and it shouldn't ever be. Even in the "win-only" system it's not irrelevant because in the case of a tie, the WDC would be decided by the number of the next-level placings.

My point is that FL is nowhere near as important as finishing as high as possible but that's only my opinion, of course.

#72 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 01 May 2008 - 17:51

Originally posted by sensible
I definitely think the winner should get more points relative to second and third - ie the gaps should be bigger. However I also think every start should get points - it could be one point per place - whatever, I dont care. Right now once you get beyond 7th or 8th in the championship, the table is meaningless as if you score one big lucky score it completely biasses your position. If you always scored we'd see a more accurate reflection of how well every team/driver did.

That's what I agree with!

#73 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 01 May 2008 - 17:54

Originally posted by sensible
I definitely think the winner should get more points relative to second and third - ie the gaps should be bigger. However I also think every start should get points - it could be one point per place - whatever, I dont care. Right now once you get beyond 7th or 8th in the championship, the table is meaningless as if you score one big lucky score it completely biasses your position. If you always scored we'd see a more accurate reflection of how well every team/driver did.

I don't agree.

Even if you hand out points down to dead last position, one big lucky score will completely bias the position of backmarkers. Just like it is now.

#74 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 01 May 2008 - 17:57

Originally posted by giacomo
I don't agree.

Even if you hand out points down to dead last position, one big lucky score will completely bias the position of backmarkers. Just like it is now.

But there's a difference between a big lucky score for Super Aguri and for BMW. For the former, it would be let's say 7th and 8th place. For the latter, it would be a 1-2.

Therefore, a big lucky score for SA would not bias the opposition who consistently finishes 9th or 10th.

#75 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 01 May 2008 - 17:58

Originally posted by pasadena

My point is that FL is nowhere near as important as finishing as high as possible but that's only my opinion, of course.

I also think that the fastest lap is meaningless and should not be rewarded with points.

However, back in the 50ies the fastest lap was rewarded with an additional point.

#76 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 01 May 2008 - 18:00

Originally posted by pasadena
But there's a difference between a big lucky score for Super Aguri and for BMW. For the former, it would be let's say 7th and 8th place. For the latter, it would be a 1-2.

Therefore, a big lucky score for SA would not bias the opposition who consistently finishes 9th or 10th.

How exactly does a big lucky 7th place not bias the position of a competitor who usually finish as 16th?

#77 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 01 May 2008 - 18:00

Originally posted by giacomo
I also think that the fastest lap is meaningless and should not be rewarded with points.

However, back in the 50ies the fastest lap was rewarded with an additional point.

Yes but it was changed as early as for the 1960 season. But what's even less sensible is to award the pole position, even with 1/20 of the winner's score, as CART used to do.

#78 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 01 May 2008 - 18:02

Originally posted by giacomo
How exactly does a big lucky 7th place not bias the position of a competitor who usually finish as 16th?

A big lucky 7th place for a team that usually scores 16th would be compensated with points a team who usually finishes 12th scores over a season.

In the present system, one lucky 8th place with myriad of 17th cannot be compensated by a whole consistent season of 9th places.

#79 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 01 May 2008 - 18:04

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps
My proposal was a reaction to the usual namby-pamby, incremental, stuck-inside-the-box proposals that usually accompany the endless bitching, moaning, and whining sessions about the points systems.

Then I just misunderstood you, as I completely agree with this above quote. It's also proven without an ounce of a doubt with imaginesix's post, that any point system would work, as long as the winner gets more points than the second etc. etc.

Posted Image

Advertisement

#80 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 01 May 2008 - 18:08

Originally posted by pasadena
A big lucky 7th place for a team that usually scores 16th would be compensated with points a team who usually finishes 12th scores over a season.

In the present system, one lucky 8th place with myriad of 17th cannot be compensated by a whole consistent season of 9th places.

Well, one lucky result within the points is better than a myriad of results slightly outside of the points.

Just like in soccer: One lucky goal is better than a myriad of close misses.

#81 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 01 May 2008 - 18:10

Originally posted by giacomo
Well, one lucky result within the points is better than a myriad of results slightly outside of the points.

Just like in soccer: One lucky goal is better than a myriad of close misses.

But if all the places are awarded points, you eliminate that variable.

About the soccer analogy: I always considered soccer the most nonsense and boring popular sport existing. It's silly, unfair (way too often matches are decided by a referee mistake) and dull and I never wasted my time on it.

#82 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 01 May 2008 - 18:18

Originally posted by pasadena

But if all the places are awarded points, you eliminate that variable.

But do I want to eliminate that variable? No, I don't want to.

Points should be a reward for the good ones only, not for the backmarkers.

Originally posted by pasadena

About the soccer analogy: I always considered soccer the most nonsense and boring popular sport existing. It's silly, unfair (way too often matches are decided by a referee mistake) and dull and I never wasted my time on it.

Many people I know are saying similar things about Formula One.

#83 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
  • Member

  • 8,951 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 01 May 2008 - 18:23

Originally posted by pasadena
About the soccer analogy: I always considered soccer the most nonsense and boring popular sport existing. It's silly, unfair (way too often matches are decided by a referee mistake) and dull and I never wasted my time on it.

Usually, if there's a contest, there's a judgement. Motorsport have referees too, and more than often have those made an error in judgement which had an deciding outcome.

#84 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 01 May 2008 - 18:26

Originally posted by giacomo
But do I want to eliminate that variable? No, I don't want to.

Points should be a reward for the good ones only, not for the backmarkers.

Many people I know are saying similar things about Formula One.

OK, that's the difference in our approaches. I would like to eliminate that difference. Even if they score several points, backmarkers would remain backmarkers. But why not distinguish those who on average finish in 10th from those who finish 15th? In fact, they are being rated by their placings when it comes to money from TV ratings.

What do you say about this system:

1st 100
2nd 50
3rd 30
4th 25
5th 20
6th 18
7th 16
8th 15
9th 14
10th 13
11th 12
12th 11
13th 10
14th 9
15th 8
16th 7
17th 6
18th 5
19th 4
20th 3
21st 2
22nd 1

Of course, you have to be classified to score.

#85 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 01 May 2008 - 18:27

Originally posted by VresiBerba
Usually, if there's a contest, there's a judgement. Motorsport have referees too, and more than often have those made an error in judgement which had an deciding outcome.

Yes, but such things have to be fought not put up with.

#86 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 01 May 2008 - 18:34

Originally posted by giacomo
Deleted post?

I don't agree. It would put quite a lot of emphasis to the first three places putting them at the 2:1 and 5:3 ratio (10:3 from 1st to 3rd), in comparison with the present 5:4, 4:3 (5:3). Also, today 9th and 22nd places are the same (0 points) while in my system there would be 13 points difference. *Every* place would be worth fighting for.

#87 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,824 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 02 May 2008 - 09:06

Originally posted by pasadena
OK, that's the difference in our approaches. I would like to eliminate that difference. Even if they score several points, backmarkers would remain backmarkers. But why not distinguish those who on average finish in 10th from those who finish 15th? In fact, they are being rated by their placings when it comes to money from TV ratings.

What do you say about this system:

1st 100
2nd 50
3rd 30
4th 25
5th 20
6th 18
7th 16
8th 15
9th 14
10th 13
11th 12
12th 11
13th 10
14th 9
15th 8
16th 7
17th 6
18th 5
19th 4
20th 3
21st 2
22nd 1

Of course, you have to be classified to score.

I endorse this for all the reasons you cite. But you have to appreciate that it isn't any more 'meaningful' than any other system put forwards really. What it does for the fans is highlight those teams and drivers who were able to be more consistent and finish a race. With two race engines and four race gearboxes reliability is a matter of great importance to the championship and this should be reflected in the final positions of the teams.

#88 howardt

howardt
  • Member

  • 2,102 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 02 May 2008 - 11:31

The present system is weighted too much towards reliability IMO. Finishing 2nd in every GP would be enough to claim the WDC most years. In order to counter this, I'd like to see a return to the previously-used system of counting only the "best-X-results". Thus drivers can have a DNF without putting such a serious dent in their championship race.

#89 pasadena

pasadena
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 02 May 2008 - 13:07

Originally posted by howardt
The present system is weighted too much towards reliability IMO. Finishing 2nd in every GP would be enough to claim the WDC most years. In order to counter this, I'd like to see a return to the previously-used system of counting only the "best-X-results". Thus drivers can have a DNF without putting such a serious dent in their championship race.

Today's high reliabilty of the cars somewhat justifies putting the emphasis on reliability because the reason for not finishing the race is now more often a driver error (that should be punished) than a car breakdown. But counting 16 out of 18 would be OK.

#90 Andrew Ford &F1

Andrew Ford &F1
  • Member

  • 246 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 03 May 2008 - 11:47

Originally posted by giacomo

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


Are you out of your damned mind? By introducing this points system we would know the name of the champion by June.

And why do you think that somebody, who finishes tenth, is a loser. He is definitely not a winner either, but the last time I checked there were 22 cars on the grid, so one has to do quite a lot of work to finish tenth, even fourteenth, so why should he get the same reward as the one who finished behind him?

Nevertheless, I agree that guys like Ide should not be allowed to race, having lost 7 seconds to the leader on Saturday afternoon.

#91 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,541 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 03 May 2008 - 11:55

Rearranging the points doesn't help the little guys. They're already ranked by best finishes, even if none of them score points. You can give points to the top 2 or the top 20, it won't change the constructor's payout.

#92 Arska

Arska
  • Member

  • 744 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 03 May 2008 - 12:52

The problem with that is this: a 7th or 8th place is worth more than 5x9th and 5x10th.

#93 imaginesix

imaginesix
  • Member

  • 5,701 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 04 May 2008 - 03:05

Originally posted by Arska
The problem with that is this: a 7th or 8th place is worth more than 5x9th and 5x10th.

Exactly. Rubens is a perfect example of the problem. He finished 11th place or higher nine times last year, but never in the points. As a result he was ranked below Sato Liuzzi and Sutil who never finished better than 12th except for those one or two lucky points paying finishes. Clearly, Rubens deserved better.

pasadena has the right idea.

#94 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,088 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 04 May 2008 - 04:15

F1 points system was always unfair when it came to properly scoring midfield teams. Usually the midfield team that comes ahead in the standings at the end is the team that got lucky in the one or two wacky races that happen every year and jumble up the finishing order. However, F1 world is very unforgiving to midfield and below teams to the point of utter stupidity and shortsightedness, so I don't expect to see this problem recognized, much less addressed.

#95 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,531 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 04 May 2008 - 07:35

F1 need a better system to rank the mid field. Now luck is too important and consistent good races to finish outside top-8 are not rewarded enough.

10-8-6-5-4-3-2.5-2-1.5-1.25-1-0.75-0.5-0.25

And people who say racing will be boring with such a system... maybe the cars should be changed to make better racing? I dont think it's good racing that DC&co crash while racing for position, because it's not worth finishing below 8th.

#96 Frank Booth

Frank Booth
  • Member

  • 796 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 05 May 2008 - 14:16

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:


You have it backwards.

Drop WDC and only count WCC points. The "TEAM" with the most point wins all of it and the "Employees" share in the victory.

#97 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 07 May 2008 - 20:53

Originally posted by giacomo

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

Originally posted by Andrew, Ford &F1

Are you out of your damned mind? By introducing this points system we would know the name of the champion by June.

Obviously you are combining the Tourette syndrome with total ignorance about the consequences of my suggestion.

And now, sir, especially for your information:
The earliest WDC ever was Michael Schumacher in 2002, who won the title after his win in France in July.
He did that under the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system.

Under my suggested 12-6-4-3-2-1 system Schumacher would have decided the WDC in... France as well, with 112 points against Barrichellos 34 points.
So your claim that my suggested system would accelerate the title fight decision is based onto exactly nothing but hot air.

It seems that several birdbrains don't understand that a big point gap between the winner and the second does not only support the setup of a point advance, but also supports a pursuit race.

#98 giacomo

giacomo
  • Member

  • 6,977 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 07 May 2008 - 21:02

Originally posted by Andrew, Ford &F1

And why do you think that somebody, who finishes tenth, is a loser. He is definitely not a winner either, but the last time I checked there were 22 cars on the grid, so one has to do quite a lot of work to finish tenth, even fourteenth, so why should he get the same reward as the one who finished behind him?

Usually the guy who finishes 10th is more than one and a half minute behind the winner.

I have no idea why people want to reward suchlike performances with points.


BTW, 10th place and 14th place don't get the same reward.
Both of them don't score WC points, but 10th place earns more prize money than 14th place.