Jump to content


Photo

How the top four would of looked in 2007 with pre-2003 points system


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,226 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 08 June 2008 - 21:38

Now.........Pre 2003
10............10
8..............6
6..............4
5..............3
4..............2
3..............1
2
1


Raikkonen.......93 points instead of 110 (-17)
Hamilton.........85 points instead of 109 (-24)
Alonso............85 points instead of 109 (-24)
Massa............72 points instead of 94 (-22)

Interesting. So with the old points system, last year's season wouldn't of been as close as with the current system.

Advertisement

#2 Nathan

Nathan
  • Member

  • 2,596 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 08 June 2008 - 21:42

It's kind of neat Hamilton and Alonso still would have scored equal points.

#3 Crazy Ninja

Crazy Ninja
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 08 June 2008 - 22:10

Bring back the old system or increase the race winners points to 12.

#4 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,126 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 08 June 2008 - 23:53

No points system will change the fact that Raikkonen scored two more wins than anyone else last year. :lol:

#5 Kenaltgr

Kenaltgr
  • Member

  • 892 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 09 June 2008 - 00:48

Originally posted by Risil
No points system will change the fact that Raikkonen scored two more wins than anyone else last year. :lol:


GP wins should count more heavily. The only anomaly when the highest GP winner over a season didn't win the title was 1989 Senna (6 wins)Prost(4 wins) under political reasons.

#6 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 9,961 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 09 June 2008 - 00:55

Originally posted by Kenaltgr


GP wins should count more heavily. The only anomaly when the highest GP winner over a season didn't win the title was 1989 Senna (6 wins)Prost(4 wins) under political reasons.


1987 - Piquet 3 and Mansel 6.
1984 - Lauda 5 and Prost 7.
1982 - Rosberg 1 and Prost 2.

#7 Nathan

Nathan
  • Member

  • 2,596 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 09 June 2008 - 00:57

I don't think the person who wins the most races should neccisarily be the one winning the championship.

#8 kikanny

kikanny
  • New Member

  • 5 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 09 June 2008 - 01:39

Yup. I agree. Maximum race wins does not equal to the mark of a champion. A race car driver driver should be evaluated on consistency. So I think the current points system should stay.

#9 Bluesmoke

Bluesmoke
  • Member

  • 880 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 09 June 2008 - 02:06

Originally posted by kikanny
Yup. I agree. Maximum race wins does not equal to the mark of a champion. A race car driver driver should be evaluated on consistency. So I think the current points system should stay.


While I agree, the current point system does not reward the winner. 2 point difference for winning? It's bullshit!

If they want to award 8 drivers, it should be:

Win - 12
2nd - 9
3rd - 7
4th - 5
5th - 4
6th - 3
7th - 2
8th - 1

I don't see how this is so difficult to implement. It rewards wins while rewarding consistency.

#10 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,226 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 09 June 2008 - 07:04

Originally posted by Bluesmoke


While I agree, the current point system does not reward the winner. 2 point difference for winning? It's bullshit!

If they want to award 8 drivers, it should be:

Win - 12
2nd - 9
3rd - 7
4th - 5
5th - 4
6th - 3
7th - 2
8th - 1

I don't see how this is so difficult to implement. It rewards wins while rewarding consistency.


That looks good. :)

#11 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,549 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 09 June 2008 - 07:11

Why are we worrying about last year's points with a 6 year out of date points system?

#12 ex Rhodie racer

ex Rhodie racer
  • Member

  • 3,002 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 09 June 2008 - 08:43

It´s totally irrelevant how many points one awards. What matters is the percentage difference between them. At present the 2nd place man gets 80% of the winners total, a difference of 20%. That´s horse manure. A win should count for more than that. The 40% difference of the previous system was far more reflective of who was the most dominant driver. The present point allocation system is an attempt to keep the championship close for the sake of public interest, that´s all. :down:

#13 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 1,995 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 09 June 2008 - 08:58

Thank goodness for the present point scoring system :up:

Gone are the days when the championship could be easily won halfway through the season. :down:

#14 CaptnMark

CaptnMark
  • Member

  • 1,015 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 09 June 2008 - 09:07

IMO, every race finisher should get equal points :)

#15 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 09 June 2008 - 09:19

Originally posted by Fatgadget
Thank goodness for the present point scoring system :up:

Gone are the days when the championship could be easily won halfway through the season. :down:


Solution : Success ballast!

#16 PNSD

PNSD
  • Member

  • 3,276 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 09 June 2008 - 13:31

Originally posted by Dudley


Solution : Success ballast!


No.

More weight = more momentum, and we do not want more momentum in a crash do we. I think this is one of the whole points of lowering the cars min weight year after year in the regs.

#17 Hippo

Hippo
  • Member

  • 2,378 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 09 June 2008 - 15:08

What i hate about the present system is, that it is actually rewarding the most reliable car. Luckily in 08 only the weakest of the contenders is really reliable. Remember 03 or 05 anyone? In 03 Räikkönen was close to WDC although had won only 1 race. In 05 he won 7 races just like Alonso so one could say they were about equally good - but still Alonso was Champion before they traveled to last GP.

Why i hate that? It's destroying racing because more often than not drivers stick to second or third place instead of trying to actually win the race. It sucks.

#18 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,126 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 09 June 2008 - 15:20

Originally posted by Kenaltgr


GP wins should count more heavily. The only anomaly when the highest GP winner over a season didn't win the title was 1989 Senna (6 wins)Prost(4 wins) under political reasons.


Did Balestre make it rain in Adelaide too? :p

And adding to Atrieu's list, there was obviously the most famous example of the runaway racewinner not taking the title, in 1958. In fact, Both Moss and Brooks scored significantly more wins than Hawthorn's single victory, but he left the sport with the Drivers' Championship. I understand there are a few people in the Other Forum who are a little hung up about this. :lol:

#19 Tigershark

Tigershark
  • Member

  • 996 posts
  • Joined: August 03

Posted 09 June 2008 - 15:35

Originally posted by Hippo
In 05 he won 7 races just like Alonso so one could say they were about equally good - but still Alonso was Champion before they traveled to last GP.

While there is no doubt winning should be rewarded better, I have to disagree with this example. Leaving aside the point of judging just the drivers, when the Raikkonen-McLaren combination wins race one and doesn't finish race two, can you really say they are about equally good as Alonso-Renault who finishes say, third, in race one but goes on to win race two? I don't think so. Yet that is roughly what happened during the early stages of the 2005 season.

Advertisement

#20 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,335 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 09 June 2008 - 16:13

would HAVE looked, not OF

#21 Hippo

Hippo
  • Member

  • 2,378 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 09 June 2008 - 17:44

Originally posted by Tigershark

While there is no doubt winning should be rewarded better, I have to disagree with this example. Leaving aside the point of judging just the drivers, when the Raikkonen-McLaren combination wins race one and doesn't finish race two, can you really say they are about equally good as Alonso-Renault who finishes say, third, in race one but goes on to win race two? I don't think so. Yet that is roughly what happened during the early stages of the 2005 season.

Well, if you think back you might remember, that Räikkönen not only won 7 races but his car failed at least twice when he was leading other races which thus fell into Alonsos hands. So i am pretty sure most people would argue, that the Räikkönen-McLaren combination was indeed faster. Anyways my point was not, that Alonso won because of the point system (he would have won with the old system too). My point was more like he didn't even need the last race although he won only as much races as his rival. The endurance character of the present points system is what caused this.

I don't like it because imho it makes drivers avoid risks. Therefor it makes racing less entertaining.

#22 Bluesmoke

Bluesmoke
  • Member

  • 880 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 12 June 2008 - 03:30

Originally posted by Fatgadget
Thank goodness for the present point scoring system :up:

Gone are the days when the championship could be easily won halfway through the season. :down:


Yea, and also gone are the days drivers really fought for the win, because risking their car for 2 measly points is not worth it over 2nd place.

#23 mark f1

mark f1
  • Member

  • 1,931 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 June 2008 - 04:59

Applying this to 2008 (after Canada)

Current Points using current system
Kubica 42
Hamilton 38
Massa 38
Raikkonen 35
Heidfeld 28
Kovalainen 15

Using pre 2003
Hamilton 32
Massa 32
Kubica 32
Raikkonen 30
Heidfeld 18
Kovalainen 8

Using 12,9,7,5,4,3,2,1 which was mentioned above and one that I've been wanting for awhile
Kubica 47
Hamilton 44
Massa 44
Raikkonen 41
Heidfeld 30
Kovalainen 16

#24 gerry nassar

gerry nassar
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,880 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 12 June 2008 - 06:35

Originally posted by Hippo

Well, if you think back you might remember, that Räikkönen not only won 7 races but his car failed at least twice when he was leading other races which thus fell into Alonsos hands. So i am pretty sure most people would argue, that the Räikkönen-McLaren combination was indeed faster. Anyways my point was not, that Alonso won because of the point system (he would have won with the old system too). My point was more like he didn't even need the last race although he won only as much races as his rival. The endurance character of the present points system is what caused this.

I don't like it because imho it makes drivers avoid risks. Therefor it makes racing less entertaining.


Not to mention the fact that he had 2 or 3 starts outside of the top 10 thanks to mechanical problems on the saturday. Yet he still managed to pick up a couple of podiums. Without all the mechanical failures that year (and i wont include Nurburgring) he should have won over 10 races!