Jump to content


Photo

New points system for the 2010 FIA Formula One Championship [merged]


  • Please log in to reply
492 replies to this topic

#1 Brawn BGP 001

Brawn BGP 001
  • Member

  • 2,553 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:05

25-20-15-10-8-6-5-3-2-1

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/80521

Edited by Brawn BGP 001, 10 December 2009 - 19:11.


Advertisement

#2 D.M.N.

D.M.N.
  • RC Forum Host

  • 7,136 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:06

Very interesting news: http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/80521

In today's Commission meeting, chaired by Bernie Ecclestone and attended by FIA president Jean Todt, a new scoring system was put forward which will award 25 points to each race winner, 20 for second place, 15 for third and 10 for fourth, before descending 8-6-5-3-2-1 for fifth through 10th positions.


Much better than what they have now... at least the winner will actually be awarded a lot more for winning.

#3 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:07

JUST PICK ONE AND STICK WITH IT FOR ****s SAKE!

#4 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 7,917 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:08

20-15-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/80521


25-20-15-10-8-6-5-3-2-1

Better than what we currently have.

#5 Brawn BGP 001

Brawn BGP 001
  • Member

  • 2,553 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:10

25-20-15-10-8-6-5-3-2-1

Better than what we currently have.

Thank you. :blush:

#6 Jedi_F1

Jedi_F1
  • Member

  • 747 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:10

I'm all for it,
the first 10 drivers and much more points for the winner and the drivers on the podium!

:up:


*Merge this with the other topic about it, please.*

#7 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,740 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:11

To be fair, that's actually a very sensible proposal for a points system. Although the constant gaps between 1st-2nd-3rd-4th are a bit... erm... incentive-less compared to each other.

But, anyway, for a 26-car grid, it would be a pretty good system.

#8 fer312t

fer312t
  • Member

  • 764 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:11

This is quite distressing...stop changing things that don't need to be changed... :mad:
All that was needed was perhaps an extra point for a race victory to increase the split 1st to 2nd...

#9 Rob

Rob
  • Member

  • 8,097 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:14

5th-6th : 2 points difference
6th-7th : 1 point difference
7th-8th : 2 points difference

Weird. If they want this sort of points system, they should just adopt the one MotoGP are using.

#10 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:14

Looks pretty stupid to me. 25-20 is the same ratio as 10-8.

2nd,3rd, 4th all have the same increment :confused:

Just have to hope someone with half a brain was sitting in and got it changed.

#11 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:14

FFS, leave the scoring system alone.

Points should be sacred, something that a team earns with a decent performance.

In my opinion they should stop at 6th place like the old days.

Edited by potmotr, 10 December 2009 - 19:18.


#12 Lazarus II

Lazarus II
  • Member

  • 4,527 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:16

:down:
I didn't see it as broke when it was just the top 6.

Why not just give everyone who shows up a point. Why even award points - it just breeds competitiveness. They can just run around in circles (already done :lol: ) for us to cherish and stare in amazement at their state-of-the-art engineering prowess and inginuity (even no they aren't cutting-edge). All the drivers can read from their team scripts (oopps already done :lol: )....er ahh they can push their sponsors agendas....er I mean....tell us about their wonderful products made by their generous sponsors and how these fabulous products have changed their lives.

A pot for every chicken and a chicken for every pot :clap:

#13 craftverk

craftverk
  • Member

  • 2,810 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:17

This is going to make the once coveted and illusive F1 championship point look like a mere peanut.

#14 Mastah

Mastah
  • Member

  • 3,679 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:17

This is quite distressing...stop changing things that don't need to be changed... :mad:
All that was needed was perhaps an extra point for a race victory to increase the split 1st to 2nd...


This. 12 points for winner and current points system would be fine :well:.


#15 highdownforce

highdownforce
  • Member

  • 3,677 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:20

So, who will be the first to calculate 2009 standings with this new point system?

#16 Heasven

Heasven
  • Member

  • 205 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:20

It's good they are rewarding winning but I would have gone with 20-15-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1



#17 anbeck

anbeck
  • Member

  • 2,021 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:21

April fools day already???

What was wrong with 10-6-4 when we had 26 cars on the grid?

20-25 is the most absurd system ever.

With 10-6, three wins equaled five (!) second places.
With 10-8, five second places already got you more points than three wins, 1/3 more to be exact.
With 25-20 this ratio remains unchanged, but that's IMHO the wrong way to go.

With 25-20 one 3rd and one 4th place equal one win.
With 10-8 one 3rd and one 4th place were more than a win.
With 10-6 one 3rd and one 4th place were only slightly better than a 2nd place!

All these points-systems-tinkering ruins the internal balance, which I think worked quite well for quite a long time (if you include 9-6 as well, which is not as good as 10-6, but better than 10-8)

I preferred even Bernie's winner-takes it all...

#18 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,307 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:21

It's better than the current system, so, who is gonna start retallying up all the previous championships then? :-)

#19 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:21

It's good they are rewarding winning but I would have gone with 20-15-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1


As someone else points out, rewarding winning is precisely what they're NOT doing, 25-20 is EXACTLY the same as 10-8.

Edited by Dudley, 10 December 2009 - 19:22.


Advertisement

#20 Jay

Jay
  • Member

  • 957 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:22

FFS, leave the scoring system alone.

Points should be sacred, something that a team earns with a decent performance.

In my opinion they should stop at 6th place like the old days.


x2 :up:

#21 zepunishment

zepunishment
  • Member

  • 576 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:22

i've always thought they should award points to tenth...maybe even further back. otherwise, if you're in 11th in the closing stages of a gp, why bother to push?

#22 anbeck

anbeck
  • Member

  • 2,021 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:22

It's good they are rewarding winning but I would have gone with 20-15-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1


Where do they reward winning?

#23 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:25

Hmm, beginning to wonder if at the end of the day we'll find out Our President JT worked 'behind the scenes' to get it changed from this absurd thing to the sensible set we're going to end up with?

#24 highdownforce

highdownforce
  • Member

  • 3,677 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:27

25-20 is EXACTLY the same as 10-8.

I would say that was the intention.
More chance of reward to the new teams, plus keeping the same balance as nowadays on the WDC/WCC front.

#25 MegaManson

MegaManson
  • Member

  • 2,102 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:27

Its not ****ing NASCAR Bernie leave it alone

This proposal must have been dreamed up after lunch when they had all had too much to drink

If it ain't broke don't fix it

#26 Kristian

Kristian
  • Member

  • 430 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:28

I don't like it, 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1 would have worked fine.

Historically it will be an abomination, too.

#27 MegaManson

MegaManson
  • Member

  • 2,102 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:28

i've always thought they should award points to tenth...maybe even further back. otherwise, if you're in 11th in the closing stages of a gp, why bother to push?


Professional pride and racers instinct and the fact they are getting shitloads of money to try their hardest

#28 OnyxF1

OnyxF1
  • Member

  • 547 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:28

i've always thought they should award points to tenth...maybe even further back. otherwise, if you're in 11th in the closing stages of a gp, why bother to push?


The idea that drivers outside the points will not fight or race is bullshit. Actually of what little action there was this season came from the midfield fights. Hamilton/Alonso at Silverstone and Trulli/Glock at Monza for example. In neither case were the drivers fighting for a point and yet they still wanted to beat each other. F1 drivers are competitive types, they don't need point incentives.

Personally I liked the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system myself. I hate systems like NASCAR and IndyCar where they hand points out like sweets for kids. Points should be hard to earn.

#29 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,403 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:30

This is almost exactly what I wanted, good move. I like that more people get points given this is the era of mega reliability; and I like that there's a bigger proportional difference between the top positions and the lower points positions.

Two minor complaints:

- the gap between 1st and 2nd remains exactly the same in proportion, I thought this would've been a good opportunity to increase that. The points system does increase the gap from say, 1st to 4th, which is good.

- make the last positions 8-6-4-3-2-1 instead of 8-6-5-3-2-1 for the sake of mathematical obsessive-compulsive sanity, please.

I hope it gets passed, it's better than the current system.

#30 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:31

This is almost exactly what I wanted, good move. I like that more people get points given this is the era of mega reliability; and I like that there's a bigger proportional difference between the top positions and the lower points positions.

Two minor complaints:

- the gap between 1st and 2nd remains exactly the same in proportion, I thought this would've been a good opportunity to increase that. The points system does increase the gap from say, 1st to 4th, which is good.

- make the last positions 8-6-4-3-2-1 instead of 8-6-5-3-2-1 for the sake of mathematical obsessive-compulsive sanity, please.

I hope it gets passed, it's better than the current system.


They have, it's just been the victim of the legendary Autosport drunken monkey proofreading.

#31 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 36,656 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:33

So a 2nd and a 6th beats a win and a backmarker assault. Very different from the current one, eh?

#32 jeze

jeze
  • Member

  • 2,973 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:33

**** off Bernie, leave my ****ing points alone!

#33 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,403 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:34

Historically it will be an abomination, too.


I am baffled why people always come up with this argument. It doesn't make any sense.

There has been many different points systems throughout history, so it's always been quite pointless to sum points from different eras. "Most points scored in a career" is already an irrelevant stat.

#34 Heasven

Heasven
  • Member

  • 205 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:35

The ratio from 1 to 2 is pretty much the same, but the ratio between 1 and 4 has increased.

#35 salamin

salamin
  • Member

  • 1,692 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:35

well it's good to keep the new teams in F1, but there should be a bigger gap to 2nd place

#36 ashnathan

ashnathan
  • Member

  • 5,018 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:37

I like this, and i usually hate any change in F1.

#37 Kucki

Kucki
  • Member

  • 1,237 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:39

That sucks. The points system we had was great

#38 potmotr

potmotr
  • Member

  • 9,999 posts
  • Joined: January 08

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:40

who is gonna start retallying up all the previous championships then? :-)


Exactly.

It makes comparing between various generations even harder.


#39 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Writer of 2013's Best Opening Post

  • 6,762 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:41

10-7-5-3-2-1.

IMO, of course.

Advertisement

#40 anbeck

anbeck
  • Member

  • 2,021 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:41

Personally I liked the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system myself. I hate systems like NASCAR and IndyCar where they hand points out like sweets for kids. Points should be hard to earn.


Or in MotoGP, where it's no exception that everybody who finishes gets a point!

#41 sumpthy

sumpthy
  • Member

  • 290 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:43

They have, it's just been the victim of the legendary Autosport drunken monkey proofreading.

Everywhere I've looked has said 6-5-3-2-1, but I suppose that could just be using Autosport as a source tbqh.

#42 DOF_power

DOF_power
  • Member

  • 1,538 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:46

So it's
10 8 6 4 3.2 2.4 2 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4
instead of
10 8 6 5 4 3 2 1


It's goof that the gap to 4th place has increased.

Edited by DOF_power, 10 December 2009 - 19:47.


#43 fullcourseyellow

fullcourseyellow
  • Member

  • 835 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:47

This seriously penalizes a non-finish!

#44 Dudley

Dudley
  • Member

  • 9,245 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:48

Or in MotoGP, where it's no exception that everybody who finishes gets a point!


Well not quite, they have 15 points places and 17 entrants.

#45 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 13,158 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:49

Giving points to more of the field makes sense -- it isn't fair that a freak result can send one set of backmarkers into the points, whilst another set stays mired on zero. Makes divvying up prize money, and deciding who gets free transport (do they still have the top-10 provision?) a lot more sensible.

Smaller points totals are easier to get your head around, though. This year's WSBK championship drove me half insane trying to figure out the permutations -- thankfully Eurosport employ that rare example of a commentator who knows his sums, James Whitham. :lol:

#46 Les

Les
  • Member

  • 2,059 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:49

FFS, leave the scoring system alone.

Points should be sacred, something that a team earns with a decent performance.

In my opinion they should stop at 6th place like the old days.


:up: Well done your taking sense here.

#47 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 7,917 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:50

Its not ****ing NASCAR Bernie leave it alone

This proposal must have been dreamed up after lunch when they had all had too much to drink

If it ain't broke don't fix it


That's nothing like the NASCAR scoring system.

#48 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 7,917 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:52

From a quick calculation of last years top 10, the top 6 remain in the same order but Trulli moves ahead of Rosberg and Glock moves ahead of Alonso.

Button
Vettel
Barrichello
Webber
Hamilton
Raikonnen
Rosberg
Trulli
Alonso
Glock

becomes

Button
Vettel
Barrichello
Webber
Hamilton
Raikonnen
Trulli
Rosberg
Glock
Alonso


#49 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,403 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:52

So it's
10 8 6 4 3.2 2.4 2 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4
instead of
10 8 6 5 4 3 2 1


It's goof that the gap to 4th place has increased.


Erm, you just proved that it did. Not by a huge amount, it's not going to make any difference in the racing but I prefer this system.

This seriously penalizes a non-finish!


I think the opposite actually. The bigger the proportional differences between top and last places, the less it penalizes DNFs.

Edited by paranoik0, 10 December 2009 - 19:53.


#50 kNt

kNt
  • Member

  • 1,694 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 10 December 2009 - 19:54

It's a bit stupid and one would think people with some math capability could come up with a more sensible system but it wont kill F1.