339 replies to this topic

[holiday]

I think people are just being nostalgic for the sake of being nostalgic.

F1 has robbed itself a lot of history with the new inflationary points system as comparisons with other eras are now entirely impossible. Frankly, it is quite silly and the avalanche of points now reminds me of some thrash TV game show or cheap casino gamble where you get a ton of points for a minor success just because it looks better on your score card.

[Johnrambo]

The F60 wasn't as bad as people think but it was driven by mediocre drivers. The field was pretty close that year and when you put mediorcre drivers in an average car you get average results.

This years Ferrari is the best car but mediocre drivers are putting it into shame.

[Fastcake]

F1 has robbed itself a lot of history with the new inflationary points system as comparisons with other eras are now entirely impossible. Frankly, it is quite silly and the avalanche of points now reminds me of some thrash TV game show or cheap casino gamble where you get a ton of points for a minor success just because it looks better on your score card.

That is just nostalgia for the sake of nostalgia. You could never compare eras on points - even those that followed the same points system, at the very least every season has different amount of races, different points dropping rules, and it wasn't even mandatory to show up at every race in the first few decades.

Points are nothing more than a way to keep score, and it's silly that the ones at the bottom get to have one lucky finish to put them ahead of the other backmarkers.

Bring on points right down to P24 I say.

[aditya-now]

Thanks DMN. That gives a much clearer picture of the actual performance of the year.

Exactly, it is shocking how much the new system distorts the actual balance of powers, the 10-6-4-3-2-1 makes it much clearer to see, as does the 9-6-4-3-2-1, which I grew up with and still prefer:

1. Vettel 130
2. Button 76
3. Alonso 69
4. Hamilton 65
5. Webber 62
6. Massa 15
7. Schumacher 12
8. Rosberg 8
9. Petrov 6
10. Heidfeld 4

Massa is absolutely deplorable, few top 6 classifications, and the two Renault are higher up when top positions were still properly rewarded compared to 7th - 10th places.

[krea]

A system with points for the best 6 drivers is pretty useless if you have three top teams. And a reliability of ~100%

[KavB]

A system with points for the best 6 drivers is pretty useless if you have three top teams. And a reliability of ~100%

Yep. I was against having points all the way down to 10th, but with the top three teams locking out 1st to 6th and Mercedes usually able to get 7th/8th then it would be nearly impossible for any other teams to score points. You may say "so what, they should work harder to get a 6th" but it's difficult for a team like Sauber to be able to match a manufacturer like Mercedes. It also distorts the true performance of the midfield drivers and teams. Di Resta and Sutil would be even on points, when Sutil has beaten Di Resta more often than not. Kobayashi would be in the lead due to Monaco despite not being able to score points since July.. I think points up to 10th is good, but it would have been easier to award the winner somewhere around 10 points. It's difficult to calculate how many points a driver can extend his lead in the championship when the difference between 1st and 8th is so large numerically, despite proportionally being pretty much the same.

[holiday]

That is just nostalgia for the sake of nostalgia.

It is history and tradition, something very different.

[Gyan]

I still maintain that a 15-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 system would be the best.

[Crusoe]

It is history and tradition, something very different.

Except that the points system changed during the history (not to mention the number of races, number of cars, reliability), so your point is null and void.

Edited by Crusoe, 19 November 2011 - 22:03.

[Fastcake]

It is history and tradition, something very different.

Is there actually any advantage in using an old points system? Apart from because it used to be like that?

[Kucki]

Does it really, with points going much further down you'd think over the course of a year the current system gives a better reflection. Do Sauber and Force India really deserve to be level on points with the old system? You can even argue, HRT got one 13th at Canada otherwise always get beat by Virgin, yet they will most likely beat Virgin again for 11th in the WCC. Is that indicative of the performance over the year? If points went all the way down to 24th, HRT wouldn't be beating Virgin. There's upsides and downsides to everything.

But the goal should not be to finish 14th or 15th, the goal should be to win championship points. They should be something special that allows the midfield and backmarker teams and there fans to celebrate championship points like a win.

It would also mean they would have to race harder, take more risks etc. The new points system removed the emotion about winning championship points. Now they dont represent something that special anymore, giving even more points would mean winning a championship point is a even more of a formality.

Massa did not archieve alot this season, and the old points format represented that much clearer then the new one, by the numerology of it, just for example. If you follow F1 since a longer time you see Vettel's 130 Championship Points, and it only then really dawns to you what he was archieved in the historical sense. 370 or 380 championship points doesnt really say anything to your general F1 Fan. Its also not possible to quickly know current championship standings during a race on the fly.

Edited by Kucki, 19 November 2011 - 22:27.

[apoka]

I still maintain that a 15-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 system would be the best.

I got used to the current system. What still strikes me as illogical, however, is that the 2nd place gets 18 instead of 19 points (same gap between 2-3 and 3-4).

[Lights]

I got used to the current system. What still strikes me as illogical, however, is that the 2nd place gets 18 instead of 19 points (same gap between 2-3 and 3-4).

Agree, that would make more sense. But I guess they simply wanted to go back to a system in which a win was worth relatively more and 19 points for P2 would decrease that effect.

[PayasYouRace]

I've always thought that a win should be worth twice as much as second, 3 times as much as a third, 4 times as much as 4th, etc (with reasonable rounding and cut-off point in lower positions).

So something like 24-12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 for the top 9 places with a similar win value as the current system.

Variations could include:
12-6-4-3-2-1 for top 6;
36-18-12-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 for the top 11;
48-24-16-12-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 for the top 13;
depending on how many places you want to reward. As you can see it helps to use multiples of 12.

[Tenmantaylor]

A fan of divisible number systems I see

Breaking the 100 point barrier was an impressive milestone under the old system.

Edited by Tenmantaylor, 19 November 2011 - 23:15.

[flowerdew]

Just for kicks after reading this I took a stab at scoring them like it was NASCAR, and got (barring any errors, of which I am sure there are several):

1 Vettel 1158 pts
2 Hamilton 501
3 Button 449
4 Alonso 438
5 Webber 384
6 Massa 295
7 Rosberg 294
9 Sutil 253
10 di Resta 234
11 Schumacher 227
12 Petrov 214
12 Kobayashi 201
13 Alguersuari 197
14 Barrichello 177
15 Buemi 165
16 Pérez 161
17 Maldonado 135
18 Heidfeld 132
19 Kovalainen 119
20 Trulli 107
21 d'Ambrosio 104
22 Glock 86 (!!! didn't even notice this teammate battle until I typed it out)
23 Senna 81
24 Liuzzi 64
25 Ricciardo 41
26 Karthekeyan 35
27 de la Rosa 13
28 Chandhok 5

Rules from here but on a 24-to-1 scale instead, for obvious reasons.

Take out the points for laps led and the top 7 re-sort like this (Schumacher drops to 224 points but maintains position):

1 Vettel 447
2 Alonso 370
3 Webber 366
4 Button 361
5 Hamilton 351
6 Massa 288
7 Rosberg 277

[SpaMaster]

The F60 wasn't as bad as people think but it was driven by mediocre drivers. The field was pretty close that year and when you put mediorcre drivers in an average car you get average results.

I remember reading your post some time back - Why all the hatred? Let's support the drivers we like, and we don't have to be mean to other drivers, etc..
I see that you have come a long way. May be you were never that far away, it was all a bit of hot air.

Wonder what might have been if R28, R29, F10, etc. have not been driven by mediocre drivers!

Edited by SpaMaster, 20 November 2011 - 02:41.

[holiday]

Except that the points system changed during the history (not to mention the number of races, number of cars, reliability), so your point is null and void.

It was only slightly modified over time, not radically altered. For example, the points awarded for a win changed from the days of Fangio and Ascari to those of Prost and Schumacher only from 9 to 10 (ca. 10% increase), whereas they are now at 25 (250% increase).

And back then, you mostly had more than today's 24 cars on the grid (or at least trying to qualify) and still no midfield team bitched about not getting points for a mediocre 10th position...

[HP]

And back then, you mostly had more than today's 24 cars on the grid (or at least trying to qualify) and still no midfield team bitched about not getting points for a mediocre 10th position...

They haven't listened to Ayrton Senna it seems. Instead they hand out money to the teams according to WCC, offer other favours like how long have you been in F1 and even freight taken care of.

I love Bob Parr's line in the move The Incredibles movie: "They invent new ways to celebrate mediocrity these days"

Also having just read PdlR comments on testing, then I think F1 really has lost it's ways.

Let them sit in a room and blast at them Abba's "The winner takes it all", will bring them back to their senses?

Edited by HP, 20 November 2011 - 04:06.

[D.M.N.]

The problem with 25 points for a win is that in the history books drivers' are going to be jumping up the rankings and fast, Vettel will probably be close to number 1 in amount of points scored in the next season or two because of that.

Regardless, I do think the 10 points for a win system makes it much better to see who's had a good season and who's had a bad season, that doesn't stand out particularly well when many drivers' are close to and over the 100 point barrier.

[dau]

It was only slightly modified over time, not radically altered. For example, the points awarded for a win changed from the days of Fangio and Ascari to those of Prost and Schumacher only from 9 to 10 (ca. 10% increase), whereas they are now at 25 (250% increase).

But it's still not comparable. We can't compare results from 2003-2009 to those from 1991-2003. And back then, we couldn't compare those to the results from 1961-1990. Not only because there was one point less for a win, but also because they didn't count all race results, which massively skews the averaged statistics.

And back then, you mostly had more than today's 24 cars on the grid (or at least trying to qualify) and still no midfield team bitched about not getting points for a mediocre 10th position...

Maybe because they could still fund their operation by sponsorship only. I also don't believe there was no "bitching", it probably just wasn't as public as it is today.

I guess there is no Abba song about sustainable economic environment, though.

[cheapracer]

A system with points for the best 6 drivers is pretty useless if you have three top teams. And a reliability of ~100%

So? I'm supposed to cry for the other teams who can't pull themselves to the front or do you think a team deserves a chance at points when they are being lapped with in 10 to 20 laps?

Don't think so, plenty of GP years have had 2 or 3 top teams with shitheaps just making up the numbers..

[TeamSideways]

the new system gives more accurate standings of the midfield teams.

[TheBunk]

Exactly, it is shocking how much the new system distorts the actual balance of powers, the 10-6-4-3-2-1 makes it much clearer to see, as does the 9-6-4-3-2-1, which I grew up with and still prefer:

1. Vettel 130
2. Button 76
3. Alonso 69
4. Hamilton 65
5. Webber 62
6. Massa 15
7. Schumacher 12
8. Rosberg 8
9. Petrov 6
10. Heidfeld 4

Massa is absolutely deplorable, few top 6 classifications, and the two Renault are higher up when top positions were still properly rewarded compared to 7th - 10th places.

Then again, we knew that about Massa already ;)

Indeed, the new system is bullshit.

[The Ragged Edge]

A system with points for the best 6 drivers is pretty useless if you have three top teams. And a reliability of ~100%

True, but the new system also rewards mediocrity. The new system is primarily in place to reward the midfield teams and rank them accordingly in the constructors table and hence the prize money they'll receive from the Concord agreement based on their finishing position in the constructors championship. This also brings the added benefit of racing all the way down the grid. Some of the best on track action of the year has been fights over 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th position. The old points system shows how poorly Massa has driven this year, especially when compared to Alonso.

[Tenmantaylor]

Take out the points for laps led and the top 7 re-sort like this (Schumacher drops to 224 points but maintains position):

1 Vettel 447
2 Alonso 370
3 Webber 366
4 Button 361
5 Hamilton 351
6 Massa 288
7 Rosberg 277

What a battle for 2nd that would be

[PayasYouRace]

Now that we're nearly at the end of the season with one race left, intriguing to see what it would have looked like under 10-6-4-3-2-1:
...
02 - 79 pts - Jenson Button
...
04 - 68 pts - Lewis Hamilton
...

Just for kicks after reading this I took a stab at scoring them like it was NASCAR, and got (barring any errors, of which I am sure there are several):

...
2 Hamilton 501
3 Button 449
...

Take out the points for laps led and the top 7 re-sort like this (Schumacher drops to 224 points but maintains position):
...
4 Button 361
5 Hamilton 351
...

This is a rather curious comparison between the McLaren teammates. The 10-6-4 system is generally considered to reward winners over consistency, yet that is the one where Jenson has the biggest lead (16% lead for Jenson). In the NASCAR system which is supposed to reward consistency, Lewis is closer or even ahead (<1% lead for Lewis, 3% lead for Jenson with/without laps lead respectively).

The majority view seems to be that Lewis has had the less consistent season of the pair, having higher highs and lower lows. Perhaps it just shows how close these two have been this year that not matter what system is used they are close in points.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 20 November 2011 - 11:52.

[SpaceHorseParty]

Championship standings after Malaysia according to alternate pointscoring systems:

1991 F1 system (10-6-4-3-2-1):
WDC

1. Vettel (14)
2. Räikkönen (10)
3. Webber (7)
4. Alonso (6)
5. Hamilton (6)
6. Massa (5)
7. Rosberg (3)
8. Grosjean (1)

WCC

1. Red Bull-Renault (21)
2. Lotus-Renault (11)
3. Ferrari (11)
4. Mercedes (9)

2003 F1 system (10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1):
WDC

1. Vettel (16)
2. Räikkönen (12)
3. Webber (11)
4. Hamilton (10)
5. Massa (9)
6. Alonso (8)
7. Rosberg (5)
8. Grosjean (3)
9. Sutil (2)
10. di Resta (1)
=. Hülkenberg (1)

WCC

1. Red Bull-Renault (27)
2. Ferrari (17)
3. Lotus-Renault (15)
4. Mercedes (15)
5. Force India-Mercedes (3)
6. Sauber-Ferrari (1)

Proposed medal system:
WDC

1. Vettel (1 0 1)
2. Räikkönen (1 0 0)
3. Alonso (0 1 0)
=. Webber (0 1 0)
5. Hamilton (0 0 1)

WCC

1. Red Bull-Renault (1 1 1)
2. Lotus-Renault (1 0 0)
3. Ferrari (0 1 0)
4. Mercedes (0 0 1)

Edited by SpaceHorseParty, 30 March 2013 - 18:38.

[PayasYouRace]

This thread wasn't done last year? Shame.

Bit early to draw any conclusions but keep it up this year. It'll get interesting by mid-season.

[Zava]

I think you have Alonso at 6 / 8 rather than 5 / 7.

[SpaceHorseParty]

I think you have Alonso at 6 / 8 rather than 5 / 7.

Thank you, fixed.

[Wander]

This thread wasn't done last year? Shame.

Bit early to draw any conclusions but keep it up this year. It'll get interesting by mid-season.

I'm pretty sure it was, but in a different thread.

[Nustang70]

This thread wasn't done last year? Shame.

Bit early to draw any conclusions but keep it up this year. It'll get interesting by mid-season.

This website has calculations for every season with all the different points systems: http://f1-facts.com/...comparison/2012

[SpaceHorseParty]

This website has calculations for every season with all the different points systems: http://f1-facts.com/...comparison/2012

Forgot about that. I guess it makes this redundant.

[Bloggsworth]

If you multiply the resuls by √∑ you get another fruitless attempt to change actuality...

[PayasYouRace]

This website has calculations for every season with all the different points systems: http://f1-facts.com/...comparison/2012

But we have a place to talk about it here.

[George Costanza]

This website has calculations for every season with all the different points systems: http://f1-facts.com/...comparison/2012

Eddie Irvine would have been the WDC in 1999 by a good margin if 2003 and 2010 point system was in effect...

[discover23]

2007- Alonso would have beaten Lewis on points with the new points system.

[SpaceHorseParty]

Schumacher would have already won the title in Japan in 1997 with the 2003 points system.
In 1994, however, he would have been 8 points (2003 system) or 16 points (current system) behind Hill before Adelaide.

Edited by SpaceHorseParty, 31 March 2013 - 08:01.

[aditya-now]

This thread wasn't done last year? Shame.

Bit early to draw any conclusions but keep it up this year. It'll get interesting by mid-season.

It is amazing that we both did not notice it somewhat - I was indistinctly missing something in the beginning of the 2012 season, but somehow the year passed so quickly that I cannot even fathom that we didn't have this thread for a whole year!

Thanks to SpaceHorseParty for bringing it back!!