Jump to content


Photo

Points systems


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

#1 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,295 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 31 March 2012 - 10:25

Just interesting to keep track of... (and yes I know there's been other variations too)

10-6-4-3-2-1

Australia


Button 10
Vettel 6
Hamilton 4
Webber 3
Alonso 2
Kobayashi 1

McLaren 14
RBR 9
Ferrari 2
Sauber 1

Malaysia

Alonso 12
Button 10
Hamilton 8
Perez 6
Vettel 6
Webber 6
Raikkonen 2
Senna 1
Kobayashi 1

McLaren 18
Ferrari 12
RBR 12
Sauber 7
Lotus 2
Williams 1

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

Australia


Button 10
Vettel 8
Hamilton 6
Webber 5
Alonso 4
Kobayashi 3
Raikkonen 2
Perez 1

McLaren 16
RBR 13
Ferrari 4
Sauber 4
Lotus 2

Malaysia

Alonso 14
Hamilton 12
Button 10
Webber 10
Perez 9
Vettel 8
Raikkonen 6
Senna 3
Kobayashi 3
Di Resta 2
Vergne 1

McLaren 22
RBR 18
Ferrari 14
Sauber 12
Lotus 6
Williams 3
Force India 2
STR 1

25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1

Australia

Button 25
Vettel 18
Hamilton 15
Webber 12
Alonso 10
Kobayashi 8
Raikkonen 6
Perez 4
Ricciardo 2
Di Resta 1

McLaren 40
RBR 30
Sauber 12
Ferrari 10
Lotus 6
STR 2
Force India 1

Malaysia

Alonso 35
Hamilton 30
Button 25
Webber 24
Perez 22
Vettel 18
Raikkonen 16
Senna 8
Kobayashi 8
Di Resta 7
Vergne 4
Ricciardo 2
Hulkenberg 2
Schumacher 1

McLaren 55
RBR 42
Ferrari 35
Sauber 32
Lotus 16
Force India 9
Williams 8
STR 6
Mercedes 1


Malaysia
Driver / System 1 / 2 / 3


Alonso 1 / 1 / 1
Button 2 / 3 / 3
Hamilton 3 / 2 / 2
Perez 4 / 5 / 5
Vettel 5 / 6 / 6
Webber 6 / 4 / 4
Raikkonen 7 / 7 / 7
Senna 8 / 8 / 8
Kobayashi 9 / 9 / 9
Di Resta - / 10 / 10
Vergne - / 11 / 11
Ricciardo - / - / 12
Hulkenberg - / - / 13
Schumacher - / - / 14

Australia

McLaren 1 / 1 / 1
RBR 2 / 2 / 2
Ferrari 3 / 3 / 4
Sauber 4 / 4 / 3
Lotus - / 5 / 5
STR - / - / 6
Force India - / - / 7

Malaysia

McLaren 1 / 1 / 1
Ferrari 2 / 3 / 3
RBR 3 / 2 / 2
Sauber 4 / 4 / 4
Lotus 5 / 5 / 5
Williams 6 / 6 / 7
Force India - / 7 / 6
STR - / 8 / 8
Mercedes - / - / 9

I still like the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 the best

Advertisement

#2 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 31 March 2012 - 11:05

I like these comparisons. Thanks for starting.

#3 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,285 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 31 March 2012 - 12:18

I still like the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 the best


I don't. The problem with the old system is that these days the cars are too reliable and more than 15 cars are consistently finishing races. The 9/10-6-4-3-2-1 system was good and very fitting at a time when it was normal for less than half the cars to reach the chequered flag. Back in the day, if you were driving for a small team like today's Caterham, HRT and Marussia, you could have scored some points at particular races every season by simply cruising to the finish, while today even a perfect race is unlikely to result in even a top 10 finish. The current system also encourages racing in the mid-pack and I can't see any fault in that. Giving points to the top 15 has always worked well in motorbikes due to the high finish rates so I don't see why a similar system (points to top 10) should not be used in F1 now that the finish rates are similarly very high. Winning championships still requires race wins anyway, so I can't really see any serious detrimental side-effects in the renewed system.

Edited by Wander, 31 March 2012 - 12:23.


#4 Donkey

Donkey
  • Member

  • 242 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 31 March 2012 - 13:23

I don't. The problem with the old system is that these days the cars are too reliable and more than 15 cars are consistently finishing races. The 9/10-6-4-3-2-1 system was good and very fitting at a time when it was normal for less than half the cars to reach the chequered flag. Back in the day, if you were driving for a small team like today's Caterham, HRT and Marussia, you could have scored some points at particular races every season by simply cruising to the finish, while today even a perfect race is unlikely to result in even a top 10 finish. The current system also encourages racing in the mid-pack and I can't see any fault in that. Giving points to the top 15 has always worked well in motorbikes due to the high finish rates so I don't see why a similar system (points to top 10) should not be used in F1 now that the finish rates are similarly very high. Winning championships still requires race wins anyway, so I can't really see any serious detrimental side-effects in the renewed system.

Exactly, back then you expected someone's engine to blow up pretty much every race and all sorts of other mechanical failures. Now the reliability is amazing, wasn't there a race last year where all 24 finished?

And I also think the drivers are much more cautious around each other now - they know that there are points on offer down to 10th and they can overtake so are less likely to attempt a kamikaze lunge taking out several cars at the first corner. Maybe I'm just being nostalgic but I'm sure there used to be far more serious first corner incidents with cars getting airborne and flipping - now it seems very rare, they lose a few front wings and maybe the odd car spins but the drivers are much more civilised at the start of a race.

I think the current system is fair, none of the 'new' teams have scored a point yet so it still a considerable challenge to get a point (although the number of 13th/14th places they get is still a bit of a lottery).




#5 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 1,226 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 31 March 2012 - 13:44

Exactly, back then you expected someone's engine to blow up pretty much every race and all sorts of other mechanical failures. Now the reliability is amazing, wasn't there a race last year where all 24 finished?

And I also think the drivers are much more cautious around each other now - they know that there are points on offer down to 10th and they can overtake so are less likely to attempt a kamikaze lunge taking out several cars at the first corner. Maybe I'm just being nostalgic but I'm sure there used to be far more serious first corner incidents with cars getting airborne and flipping - now it seems very rare, they lose a few front wings and maybe the odd car spins but the drivers are much more civilised at the start of a race.

I think the current system is fair, none of the 'new' teams have scored a point yet so it still a considerable challenge to get a point (although the number of 13th/14th places they get is still a bit of a lottery).

I'd prefer to see a points system that attributed points for all 24 cars. This would reward reliability even more so, which I think should be (and probably is) the focus nowadays.

#6 joshb

joshb
  • Member

  • 3,336 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 31 March 2012 - 13:51

I like the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system but agree with the point that reliability is so high now, even top 10 is out of reach for Caterham and co, whereas 10 years ago, 10-12 finishers was about par.
But neither should points be given out, they should be hard earned. The bikes have their way and F1 has its way. It would devalue points if you gave them out like confetti for the sake of it.

I have a championship editor for my rFactor racing game, so I just have 1 point for 20th, then 2, then 4, then 8 etc and keep doubling until you have 2^20 (1,048,576) points for the winner, so each extra place gets double, making drivers go for passes.
It encourages racing down the field whilst still heavily rewarding the winner.
It'll never happen but I like using that online.



#7 SirRacer

SirRacer
  • Member

  • 1,162 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 31 March 2012 - 14:03

Exactly, back then you expected someone's engine to blow up pretty much every race and all sorts of other mechanical failures. Now the reliability is amazing, wasn't there a race last year where all 24 finished?

And I also think the drivers are much more cautious around each other now - they know that there are points on offer down to 10th and they can overtake so are less likely to attempt a kamikaze lunge taking out several cars at the first corner. Maybe I'm just being nostalgic but I'm sure there used to be far more serious first corner incidents with cars getting airborne and flipping - now it seems very rare, they lose a few front wings and maybe the odd car spins but the drivers are much more civilised at the start of a race.

I think the current system is fair, none of the 'new' teams have scored a point yet so it still a considerable challenge to get a point (although the number of 13th/14th places they get is still a bit of a lottery).

What about a system like this:

01. 25
02. 15
03. 14
04. 13
05. 12
06. 11
07. 10
08. 9
09. 8
10. 6

This would encourage the drivers to fight for #1 and #10

#8 Jaybools

Jaybools
  • Member

  • 260 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 31 March 2012 - 14:23

I'm confused by the points system. It's not fair at all. I believe the podium positions should have a percentage boost above the prior positions, and the point go until last place. Points should be given to the lowest reasonable level of performance (finishing a race) and the highest (winning). No points are given to people who do not classify at the end. The points division is linear from last until 4th, and then a percentage increase for second and third, then further again for first place. It's much more logical because it ranks the whole field PROPERLY!!! and drivers in the lower teams can be seen by how consistent they are as well, which is important, not just a flash of pace from a freak race, as the result is generally not very fair. Good example is Marussia. They outclassed HRT by a mile last year but HRT beat them because of one freak race where a lot of people crashed. There's no averaging of performances.

It would be something like this (note the points given out would be greater than today for obvious reasons):

1st - 50pts
2nd - 38pts
3rd - 34pts
4th - 28pts
5th - 25pts
6th - 23pts
7th - 20pts
8th - 18pts
9th - 16pts
10th - 15pts
11th - 13pts
12th - 11pts
13th - 10pts
14th - 9pts
15th - 8pts
16th - 7pts
17th - 6pts
18th - 5pts
19th - 4pts
20th - 3pts
21st - 2pts
22nd - 1pt

Note the way that first steps down to second, third steps down to fourth, 6th steps down to seventh, and 10th steps down to 11th, relative to the rest of the % difference of points given. It's so a "top 10" result still has some form of merit. There really is no drawback to this system at all, its just simpler to rank the lower teams, as explained above.

23rd and 24th dont exist because i spent 5 minutes on this and havent divied up the points correctly yet and cant be bothered figuring it out.

#9 choyothe

choyothe
  • Member

  • 2,312 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 31 March 2012 - 14:42

I think the current system works fine, as it suits with the close-to-no technical DNF races we see nowadays. I would maybe like to see a slightly more deviated drop from 2nd onwards to reward the higher places, such as changing

25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1

to

25-18-14-11-8-6-4-3-2-1

10-6-4.... worked well with the numerous retirements, whereas 10-8-6.. was terrible in itself (gotta have difference between getting from 3rd to 2nd and 2nd to 1st) as well as making 2005 a nightmare for me. :mad:

#10 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,285 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 31 March 2012 - 15:12

I think the current system is a pretty good compromise, but I'd be more inclined to add to the number of drivers who gain points than decrease it, like Jaybools is suggesting. The only small drawback, if you will, is that the cost of a non-finish becomes a bit larger. There really is no need to talk about the devaluation of points, cause the new points system has already screwed up any records you could have about points collecting anyway. The point of the points system is to determine the order of drivers/teams over the season and surely, with current high reliability standard, it would be beneficial in determining the difference between the slowest cars if they granted more points, not less.

SirRacer's idea doesn't make much sense, cause suddenly fighting for 10th position is very worthwhile, but then it doesn't make much difference whether you are 10th or 8th. that's inconsistent.

There have been numerous changes to the system over the last 20 years so I wouldn't be surprised if more are on the way in the next 5 years. I'm not gonna speculate though, and I'm really quite fine with the current system. I wish I could remember right away how many points each place is worth, but that's not really an important matter.

Edited by Wander, 31 March 2012 - 15:17.


#11 CaptnMark

CaptnMark
  • Member

  • 1,016 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 31 March 2012 - 15:38

100/60/40/30/20/10/6/4/3/2/1 FTW

#12 windtravels

windtravels
  • Member

  • 901 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 31 March 2012 - 16:54

Im a big fan of 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. Keeps things really tight and interesting.



#13 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 11,975 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 31 March 2012 - 17:01

Im a big fan of 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. Keeps things really tight and interesting.

The difference between a win and 2nd place is far too small.

#14 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,885 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 31 March 2012 - 17:09

In my opinion, a proper point system should always increase the point difference percentage compared to the previous position, until this is no longer possible (1 point difference). This ensures there is always a relative gain.

Edited by Lights, 31 March 2012 - 17:10.


#15 Gyan

Gyan
  • Member

  • 851 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 31 March 2012 - 17:47

I do not understand why a 15-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 points system is not discussed at all or seriously in F1 circles and by F1 fans. It isn't a massive increase in the points being distributed since the winner gets 5 points more rather than 15 which just seems out of place in Formula 1. There is a good distance between the winner and 2nd place and you get 10 drivers earning points. IMO, it's the best system for this generation of high reliability cars.

Edited by Gyan, 31 March 2012 - 17:47.


#16 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,885 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 31 March 2012 - 18:09

I do not understand why a 15-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 points system is not discussed at all or seriously in F1 circles and by F1 fans. It isn't a massive increase in the points being distributed since the winner gets 5 points more rather than 15 which just seems out of place in Formula 1. There is a good distance between the winner and 2nd place and you get 10 drivers earning points. IMO, it's the best system for this generation of high reliability cars.

It's better than most systems mentioned here. Actually I don't see a better one.

#17 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,285 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 31 March 2012 - 18:41

^That's hardly a change at all over the current one tbh. Except in making the places around 7th-10th more valuable.

Edited by Wander, 31 March 2012 - 18:42.


#18 KmR

KmR
  • Member

  • 38 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 31 March 2012 - 19:28

Im a big fan of 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. Keeps things really tight and interesting.


I like that, too. Sure, as already pointed out, the difference between P1 and P2 is comparatively small. But that's not a problem for me.

#19 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 1,226 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 31 March 2012 - 19:54

How about:

1st 1 point
every other position 0 points

I think there would be no question about drivers challenging for the race win then. It seems quite logical given that no one cares about who comes second in the WDC or even the WCC.

Advertisement

#20 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,885 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:01

How about:

1st 1 point
every other position 0 points

I think there would be no question about drivers challenging for the race win then. It seems quite logical given that no one cares about who comes second in the WDC or even the WCC.

Great idea! Right now I'm really getting annoyed by all those drivers who rather finish 2nd. This would spice things up nicely.

#21 Kerch

Kerch
  • Member

  • 1,110 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:03

How about:

1st 1 point
every other position 0 points

I think there would be no question about drivers challenging for the race win then. It seems quite logical given that no one cares about who comes second in the WDC or even the WCC.


Hi Bernie.

#22 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,864 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:04

I do not understand why a 15-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 points system is not discussed at all or seriously in F1 circles and by F1 fans. It isn't a massive increase in the points being distributed since the winner gets 5 points more rather than 15 which just seems out of place in Formula 1. There is a good distance between the winner and 2nd place and you get 10 drivers earning points. IMO, it's the best system for this generation of high reliability cars.


So someone who is running 5th would only get 2 extra points if he can get onto the podium? Hardly worth the effort you might think.

To encourage overtaking, you need a situation where every position gained gives a decent increase in points.

Maybe double the points for each position gained:
512
256
128
64
32
16
8
4
2
1




#23 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,885 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:11

So someone who is running 5th would only get 2 extra points if he can get onto the podium? Hardly worth the effort you might think.

To encourage overtaking, you need a situation where every position gained gives a decent increase in points.

Maybe double the points for each position gained:
512
256
128
64
32
16
8
4
2
1

A win isn't worth 16 5th places.

It doesn't have to be just a decent increase in points. It's about a relative value.

#24 le chat noir

le chat noir
  • Member

  • 4,295 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:16

Don't forget every non point finish has the place recorded, as indeed does every tied points position. That's why I like 10-6-4 or 100-60-40-etc if needs be. Interesting to compare nonetheless.

#25 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,864 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:26

A win isn't worth 16 5th places.

It doesn't have to be just a decent increase in points. It's about a relative value.


I was just throwing it out there, not really thinking it's a practical system.

Best suggestion I've seen here is 25-18-14-11-8-6-4-3-2-1, at least it's consistent unlike the current system.





#26 choyothe

choyothe
  • Member

  • 2,312 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:27

So someone who is running 5th would only get 2 extra points if he can get onto the podium? Hardly worth the effort you might think.

To encourage overtaking, you need a situation where every position gained gives a decent increase in points.

Maybe double the points for each position gained:
512
256
128
64
32
16
8
4
2
1


Hmmm, interesting. How about 2/3 points? Something like this:

100
67
44
30
20
13
9
6
4
3


#27 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,885 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:33

I was just throwing it out there, not really thinking it's a practical system.

Best suggestion I've seen here is 25-18-14-11-8-6-4-3-2-1, at least it's consistent unlike the current system.

14-11-8 and 8-6-4 isn't really consistent. The worth of a 3rd place over a 4th place should be bigger than the worth of a 4th place over a 5th place, no?

#28 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,885 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:43

100-70-50-36-26-19-14-11-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1

This makes sense. But I wouldn't like F1 adapting to a win system of 100 points.

25-17-12-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1

#29 Wander

Wander
  • Member

  • 2,285 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:45

Don't forget every non point finish has the place recorded, as indeed does every tied points position. That's why I like 10-6-4 or 100-60-40-etc if needs be. Interesting to compare nonetheless.


Yes, but as said, it favours luck when it comes to determining the order of the backmarkers at the end of the season. It's not really fair there and giving points to more people really does not change the nature of the fight at the top either, so I don't see why you should prefer the old system to giving points to more people..

#30 choyothe

choyothe
  • Member

  • 2,312 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:54

25-17-12-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1



Isn't there the same problem you showed? 5th to 6th .... 9th to 10th worth the same? :p

#31 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:54

I find it difficult to understand comparisons such as these. Drivers and teams don't race being blind to the kind of point system in place. If it is a 10-6-4-3-2-1 system, you can design a car that even if it is a bit unreliable and won't finish some races, but would compensate more than enough by winning by incorporating extra pace. If it is a 10-8-6-4-3-2-1, you can keep finishing P2 and can still be in the title fight all the way. Reliability and finishing races is more important here. When they used to count best 11 races etc., shot at winning was more important than just being reliable and finishing every race. So, drivers and teams race for the system in hand. It is not that straightforward to compare different systems or different seasons.

Anyway, when someone puts in so much work into a post, it can never be bad. Kudos to that! :)

#32 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,885 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 31 March 2012 - 21:15

Isn't there the same problem you showed? 5th to 6th .... 9th to 10th worth the same? :p

Lol. Obviously with 1 point difference this is unavoidable. But up to that point the ratios are fine. :)

#33 choyothe

choyothe
  • Member

  • 2,312 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 31 March 2012 - 21:23

Lol. Obviously with 1 point difference this is unavoidable. But up to that point the ratios are fine. :)


Yes that's true. I still prefer mine though. :p

#34 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 3,864 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 31 March 2012 - 23:38

14-11-8 and 8-6-4 isn't really consistent. The worth of a 3rd place over a 4th place should be bigger than the worth of a 4th place over a 5th place, no?


It can't be perfect without giving a lot more points for a win, and so on down. But it's better than the current system. Only 3 points difference between 2nd and 3rd places really makes no sense.



#35 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 856 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 01 April 2012 - 02:44

It would be something like this (note the points given out would be greater than today for obvious reasons):

1st - 50pts
2nd - 38pts
3rd - 34pts
4th - 28pts
5th - 25pts
6th - 23pts
7th - 20pts
8th - 18pts
9th - 16pts
10th - 15pts
11th - 13pts
12th - 11pts
13th - 10pts
14th - 9pts
15th - 8pts
16th - 7pts
17th - 6pts
18th - 5pts
19th - 4pts
20th - 3pts
21st - 2pts
22nd - 1pt

Note the way that first steps down to second, third steps down to fourth, 6th steps down to seventh, and 10th steps down to 11th, relative to the rest of the % difference of points given. It's so a "top 10" result still has some form of merit. There really is no drawback to this system at all, its just simpler to rank the lower teams, as explained above.

23rd and 24th dont exist because i spent 5 minutes on this and havent divied up the points correctly yet and cant be bothered figuring it out.


My favorite system would be something similar to this.

1- it would better rank the lower teams
2- it would incentive drivers to keep racing even if the car had some minor problems
3- more midfield fight for positions


A completely different system, but still valid would be the best position system. You're classified by the best position you achieve (similar with Bernie trophies).

1- we would see some crazy strategies and epic races with it since the risk-reward curve would be much better
2- more fights for top positions but far less for lowers
3- luck would be even more significant in the final results



#36 Gyan

Gyan
  • Member

  • 851 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 01 April 2012 - 09:40

^That's hardly a change at all over the current one tbh. Except in making the places around 7th-10th more valuable.


The current points system isn't "traditional" while 15-10-8 is. It's more along the lines of the 10-6-4 system, it'll be easier to calculate as well. It's just me being a stickler for tradition, which isn't a bad thing necessarily.

#37 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 1,226 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 April 2012 - 12:16

Hi Bernie.

Hmm, just thought further - points are so uninteresting. I think people would prefer something more tangible. Instead of 1 point for the winner how about they get a medal instead. The one with the most medals at the end of the seasons is champion.

#38 SkorbiF1

SkorbiF1
  • Member

  • 1,208 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 01 April 2012 - 14:36

100
70
48
32
20
12
7
4
2
1

reasoning:
Posted Image
*the current point system is divided by 2,5 and optimal points divided by 10 for the graph.

#39 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:58

Season is almost over - here are the standings under the 91-2002 system (the positions in brackets indicate the actual positions):

1. Vettel 90
2. Alonso 80
3. Hamilton 59 (4th)
4. Räikkönen 51 (3rd)
5. Button 49 (6th)
6. Webber 46 (5th)
7. Massa 22
8. Rosberg 22 (9th)
9. Grosjean 19 (8th)
10.Perez 17
11.Maldonado 12 (14th)
12.Kobayashi 11 (11th)
13.Hülkenberg 6 (12th)
14.Schumacher 5 (15th)
15.Di Resta 4 (13th)
16.Senna 1


1.Red Bull 136
2.Mclaren 108 (3rd)
3.Ferrari 102 (2nd)
4.Lotus 70
5.Sauber 28 (6th)
6.Mercedes 27 (5th)
7.Williams 13 (8th)
8.Force I. 10 (7th)
9.Torro R. 0
10.Caterh. 0
11.Maruss. 0
12.HRT 0

So unsuprisingly the biggest differences occur in the midfield as there were no points for 7th-10th - and Vettel would´ve celebrated his third WDC yesterday.