339 replies to this topic

[Yorkie]

Using 10-6-4-3-2-1 times by 5 to in order to incorporate top 10 scoring system giving:-

1st 50pts
2nd 30pts
3rd 20pts
4th 15pts
5th 10pts
6th 8pts
7th 6pts
8th 4pts
9th 2pts
10th 1pt

WDC after Malyasia (actual points):-

1. Alonso 65 (37)
1. Vettel 65 (37)
3. Button 60 (35)
4. Massa 56 (39)
5. Kubica 45 (30)
6. Rosberg 40 (35)
7. Hamilton 36 (31)
8. Webber 36 (24)
9. Sutil 10 (10)
10.Schumacher 9 (9)
11.Liuzzi 8 (8)
12.Barrichello 5 (5)
13.Alguersuari 2 (2)
14.Hulkenburg 1 (1)

[OwenC93]

Kubica and Button have benefited then

[Yorkie]

Kubica and Button have benefited then

Yes because wins and seconds get rewarded more, just shows how important consistency is now

[Kovalonso]

Excuse me, but how could Alonso have 37 pts if the max afetr 3 races would be 30 pts [3x10]?

[bigmikel]

Excuse me, but how could Alonso have 37 pts if the max afetr 3 races would be 30 pts [3x10]?

Alonso has 37 pts now. You've got current points in brackets.
The other points are the old system x5 to incorporate 10 rewarded places instead of 8.

[Willow Rosenberg]

Kubica and Button have benefited then

Not by as much as Massa.

[beute]

Excuse me, but how could Alonso have 37 pts if the max afetr 3 races would be 30 pts [3x10]?

37 points is what he has now...

[Willow Rosenberg]

Actually its the other way round, RK and JB have lost out with the current system. Maybe thats what he meant. I'm confused.

[screamingV16]

Excuse me, but how could Alonso have 37 pts if the max afetr 3 races would be 30 pts [3x10]?

Yes, don't get the point of the thread. It says based on the old points system and then x 10 to give 50 points for 1st

This is the correct table based on the old system

1 Felipe Massa 16
2 Fernando Alonso 15
3 Sebastian Vettel 15
4 Robert Kubica 13
5 Nico Rosberg 14
6 Jenson Button 13
7 Lewis Hamilton 12
8 Mark Webber 9
9 Adrian Sutil 4
10 Michael Schumacher 3
11 Vitantonio Liuzzi 2
12 Rubens Barrichello 1

Shows how pointless the new system is, points for the first 8 is plenty enough!

[screamingV16]

Alonso has 37 pts now. You've got current points in brackets.
The other points are the old system x5 to incorporate 10 rewarded places instead of 8.

What's the point of that comparison though if it's entirely fictional?

[bigmikel]

But why is it calculated according to pre 2003 points system? Why only 6 and not 8 scoring places?

[screamingV16]

But why is it calculated according to pre 2003 points system? Why only 6 and not 8 scoring places?

It isn't

Here's the points under the 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 system when drivers really had to work to get a point....

1 Fernando Alonso 13
2 Sebastian Vettel 13
3 Jenson Button 10
3 Felipe Massa 10
4 Robert Kubica 9
5 Nico Rosberg 8
6 Lewis Hamilton 6
6 Mark Webber 6
7 Adrian Sutil 2
8 Michael Schumacher 1

[Lights]

So far the current system works fine. It makes it very close upfront.

1 Fernando Alonso 13
2 Sebastian Vettel 13
3 Jenson Button 10
3 Felipe Massa 10
4 Robert Kubica 9
5 Nico Rosberg 8
6 Lewis Hamilton 6

Here, Hamilton would have less than half the points of Alonso and Vettel.. unbelievable.

Edited by Lights, 04 April 2010 - 17:06.

[bigmikel]

It isn't

Here's the points under the 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 system when drivers really had to work to get a point....

1 Fernando Alonso 13
2 Sebastian Vettel 13
3 Jenson Button 10
3 Felipe Massa 10
4 Robert Kubica 9
5 Nico Rosberg 8
6 Lewis Hamilton 6
6 Mark Webber 6
7 Adrian Sutil 2
8 Michael Schumacher 1

You're right, but Yorkie's point was to make it this way so he mixed the pre 2003 system with something and then multiplied by 5

[screamingV16]

You're right, but Yorkie's point was to make it this way so he mixed the pre 2003 system with something and then multiplied by 5

Ahh yes I see, I thought you were refering to me. I agree with your original point!

[Guizotia]

The title of this thread is misleading.

It should be called "WDC - based on some scoring system I just made up".

[prty]

Shows how pointless the new system is

I don't think pointless is the right word ;)

[Ross Stonefeld]

Sorry, but the only points system that matters is the one they use at the time. Anything else is irrelevant and you'd no more prove anything that if you gave points out at random. There is no right or wrong way to award championship points as all systems are arbitary.

[Yorkie]

Actually its the other way round, RK and JB have lost out with the current system. Maybe thats what he meant. I'm confused.

Sorry yes Kubica and Button have lost out, Massa has gained with the present system

When a change to the points system was made this year quite a few forumers said they preferred the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system which was abandoned after 2002 when MS won 11 races and won the WDC in September.

A change was made to this years points system after crticism that wins weren't properly rewarded and also to enable the top 10 finishers to score points. However this years points system is in effect no different to last years system it rewards wins no better, for instance the difference between 1st and 3rd is just the same.

I'm now totally confused i find it hard to believe that by in effect changing 2nd place points from 8 points to 7.2 points the system is now just how everyone wants it after all the previous criticisms of not rewarding wins enough.

It was just an interest of mine to see how much things might look different reverting back to the old system with an increase in points to incorporate the top 10 finishers rather than the top 6 finishers

[mstar]

wow button seems to be progressing well he is in the WDC hunt

[Kucki]

It isn't

Here's the points under the 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 system when drivers really had to work to get a point....

1 Fernando Alonso 13
2 Sebastian Vettel 13
3 Jenson Button 10
3 Felipe Massa 10
4 Robert Kubica 9
5 Nico Rosberg 8
6 Lewis Hamilton 6
6 Mark Webber 6
7 Adrian Sutil 2
8 Michael Schumacher 1

I like that one best

[Arska]

Sorry, but the only points system that matters is the one they use at the time. Anything else is irrelevant and you'd no more prove anything that if you gave points out at random. There is no right or wrong way to award championship points as all systems are arbitary.

So even if Bernie's medal system were in place, it wouldn't be wrong in your opinion? In that case I'd have to disagree.

[ensign14]

So even if Bernie's medal system were in place, it wouldn't be wrong in your opinion? In that case I'd have to disagree.

Yes, we don't want any of those rubbishy things like wins cluttering up the place. Much better to compile a run of sixths. That's why Philippe Alliot is one of the most beloved drivers ever.

[Arska]

Yes, we don't want any of those rubbishy things like wins cluttering up the place. Much better to compile a run of sixths. That's why Philippe Alliot is one of the most beloved drivers ever.

Oh, ok. Which championship would mr Alliot have unfairly stolen with his sixth places with any one of these new points systems?

[ensign14]

Oh, ok. Which championship would mr Alliot have unfairly stolen with his sixth places with any one of these new points systems?

Not the point. The championship, for what it's worth, should put a premium on winning. After all, that's what matters. If I want accountancy I will speak to Deloitte, not watch Martin Whitmarsh with his abacus and weather report.

[Kaiser]

What about the old 9 points for a win system? This thread is incomplete until we have that.

[MrAerodynamicist]

Sorry, but the only points system that matters is the one they use at the time. Anything else is irrelevant and you'd no more prove anything that if you gave points out at random. There is no right or wrong way to award championship points as all systems are arbitary.

I'd argue there's a single system that isn't arbitrary; a Tour de France-style total elapsed time. A second is a second, and you couldn't argue about the relative merits. It's be pretty interesting, effectively turning the championship in to long long race; no slowing down to conserve your engine or wave as you cross the line. Unfortunately, you'd have to find a way of accounting for drivers who fail to complete given GPs, which would introduce an arbitrary element.

So you're right; there's no non-arbitrary ranking system.

[onemoresolo]

The title of this thread is misleading.

It should be called "WDC - based on some scoring system I just made up".

[ensign14]

I'd argue there's a single system that isn't arbitrary; a Tour de France-style total elapsed time.

Other than they give the peloton the same time.

[Lights]

I'd argue there's a single system that isn't arbitrary; a Tour de France-style total elapsed time.

In the Tour de France they don't have safety cars...

[Bloggsworth]

I've devised a scoring system in which only drivers I like score points, followed by all the drivers whose sisters I fancy, and anybody with a hard "ch" in their name gets no points at all. All other drivers get awarded points after the season has ended in order to ensure that my personal choice wins. So anybody who doesn't support Chandhok is in for a hard time at the end of the season...

[stevewf1]

What about the old 9 points for a win system? This thread is incomplete until we have that.

1. Alonso - 12
1. Vettel - 12
3. Massa - 10
4. Button - 9
4. Kubica - 9
6. Rosberg - 8
7. Webber - 6
7. Hamilton - 6
9. Sutil - 2
10. Schumacher - 1

[D.M.N.]

Conclusion: no matter what realistic points system you use, the title race after three rounds is pretty damn close.

[stevewf1]

Except with the new system, the Championship Leader has not scored a win...

[Yorkie]

What about the old 9 points for a win system? This thread is incomplete until we have that.

With that system it was the best 11 results out of 16 races that counted as well

[Yorkie]

Except with the new system, the Championship Leader has not scored a win...

....and theorectically win the WDC without winning a race especially this year with there being quite a few quick teams and drivers

[Risil]

I'd argue there's a single system that isn't arbitrary; a Tour de France-style total elapsed time. A second is a second, and you couldn't argue about the relative merits. It's be pretty interesting, effectively turning the championship in to long long race; no slowing down to conserve your engine or wave as you cross the line. Unfortunately, you'd have to find a way of accounting for drivers who fail to complete given GPs, which would introduce an arbitrary element.

So you're right; there's no non-arbitrary ranking system.

Angel Nieto, Jan de Vries, 1972 50cc world championship...

[Tenmantaylor]

I like that one best

Me too. I like the idea of points being spread further down the field but the pre 03 points system best reflects the drivers who've had the best results so far this season.

The biggest negative for the new points systems is they penalise a driver more heavily for a DNF as more points finishing positions are available IE for every top comptetitor that drops out there are more points available that wouldnt otherwise score at all.

Edited by Tenmantaylor, 05 April 2010 - 10:32.

[screamingV16]

I too prefer the pre 03 system, handing points out for simply finishing, as they seem to be moving towards, completely devalues the sport. I've alwasy hated the NASCAR Cart/IRL points systems where you'd get someone tooling around in 12th place for some points. Last year in NASCAR Montoya got himself into the sprint for the cup yet hadn't even managed to win a race in 09. I also think the old dropped scores system was also good, so only your best 12 or so results count. That means there is often no point in regular finishers tooling around for teh last point and allows the championship runners to take some risks and push a little knowing a retirement won't be the end of the world. The latest system is just crap in my opionion!

[trogggy]

....and theorectically win the WDC without winning a race especially this year with there being quite a few quick teams and drivers

Rosberg only won once in '82, and he still would have been wdc if he'd finished second in that race. The only way you'll guarantee a wdc has to win a race is Bernie's medals system - yuck!

[screamingV16]

Rosberg only won once in '82, and he still would have been wdc if he'd finished second in that race. The only way you'll guarantee a wdc has to win a race is Bernie's medals system - yuck!

Yes, although no driver won more than 2 races in 82 and Rosberg was unlucky not to have won more.

[aditya-now]

It isn't

Here's the points under the 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 system when drivers really had to work to get a point....

1 Fernando Alonso 13
2 Sebastian Vettel 13
3 Jenson Button 10
3 Felipe Massa 10
4 Robert Kubica 9
5 Nico Rosberg 8
6 Lewis Hamilton 6
6 Mark Webber 6
7 Adrian Sutil 2
8 Michael Schumacher 1

This was still the best system, it rewards the winner.
I don't see how the system change for this year is rewarding the winner more, except for the fact that is has lead to an inflation in points...

[ensign14]

Rosberg only won once in '82, and he still would have been wdc if he'd finished second in that race.

He nearly did; he only took the lead late on, from Prost in a Renault, and given that the race was in France the flagman seemed a bit keen to wave the race off early - Patrick Head had to dissuade him...

[Yorkie]

Rosberg only won once in '82, and he still would have been wdc if he'd finished second in that race. The only way you'll guarantee a wdc has to win a race is Bernie's medals system - yuck!

Yes i know but i think there should be a balance between the two, i think the present system is biased towards consistent points scoring too much

[Enzoluis]

Rosberg only won once in '82, and he still would have been wdc if he'd finished second in that race. The only way you'll guarantee a wdc has to win a race is Bernie's medals system - yuck!

Wrong, at that time were mandatory to be WDC have a win. And I think still is.

Edited by Enzoluis, 05 April 2010 - 11:53.

[sumpthy]

1. Alonso - 12
1. Vettel - 12
3. Massa - 10
4. Button - 9
4. Kubica - 9
6. Rosberg - 8
7. Webber - 6
7. Hamilton - 6
9. Sutil - 2
10. Schumacher - 1

Actually under the 9-6-4-3-2-1 system there was a point for fastest lap so the championship would look like this

1. Alonso - 13
1. Vettel - 12
3. Massa - 10
4. Button - 9
4. Kubica - 9
6. Rosberg - 8
6. Webber - 8
7. Hamilton - 6
9. Sutil - 2
10. Schumacher - 1

But yeah, the only system that matters is the one currently in place

[trogggy]

Wrong, at that time were mandatory to be WDC have a win. And I think still is.

The last bit's wrong. I believe the first part is too, but I'm happy to be shown different.

[anbeck]

Actually under the 9-6-4-3-2-1 system there was a point for fastest lap so the championship would look like this

I don't think so. The 9-6 system is the result of abolishing the point for the fastest lap. That was handed out under the 8-6 system, but timing was unreliable and unprecise, so they decided to give that point to the winner instead.

[screamingV16]

I don't think so. The 9-6 system is the result of abolishing the point for the fastest lap. That was handed out under the 8-6 system, but timing was unreliable and unprecise, so they decided to give that point to the winner instead.

Not quite, 1950-59 was 8,6,4,3,2 and 1 point for fastest lap. In 1960 they dropped the 1 point for fastest lap and gave it to the 6th place finisher instead. In 1961 they added an extra point for a win to make it 9,6,4,3,2,1. Not heard about the must win a race to win the WDC rule either?

[OwenC93]

I think the new points system will be more crucial later in the season. It was never going to make much of a difference this early.