121 replies to this topic

[Collombin]

As you have highlighted, 1983 shows that principle quite clearly. Piquet relinquished the lead of the last race to his team-mate once Prost was out and he no longer needed to win the race.

At least 1983 is an easy one to adjust because it is obvious what would have happened. Something like 1977 is somewhat trickier.

I once fell into this trap myself when trying to work out who would have been 1956 champ if car hopping wasn't allowed. I soon gave up. Way too many guesses and assumptions had to be made, it was a total waste of time.

[PayasYouRace]

Yes The whole point of racing is to WIN!

And over the course of a season to win the most.

Being the second best car, even if you can be the first loser often, shouldn't be a part of it.

I think the champion should be the one who has beaten his opponents most often, not just when he wins. A champion is not just the one who wins races, but also maximises his opportunites when he can't win. To reduce it down to simply the number of wins takes out far too much of the story.

[PayasYouRace]

imagine this - lap 17 completly random driver has just made fastest lap and then it suddenly starts to rain, he crashes out and because of the rain, no-one can do it better anymore - would you give that driver a point who actually DNF'd from race even when he didn't drove half of the race

So? If the rules are to give the driver with the fastest lap a bonus point, then he's deserving of that bonus point for setting the fastest lap. If the point is for the fastest lap, it's for the fastest lap and it doesn't matter if he does finish.

[Kalmake]

Best competitor wins only sometimes. Spreading the wealth lets the best get some even when they are not lucky enough to win. In a universe where we can't run infinite championship rounds in a season we should use a scoring system that compensates for the randomness of it.

[JimboJones]

It's a stupid idea, for one simple reason. No-one wants a championship decided before race day, end of.

What you mean like seasons whan the championship has been won with races to spare?

no, I meant if you gave a point for pole at a championship finale, that could decide the title, before you even have the race.

[Collombin]

But that could just as easily work the other way too. A pole point could bring someone within the grasp of the title who would otherwise have been out of it.

[MikeV1987]

Yes The whole point of racing is to WIN!

And over the course of a season to win the most.

Being the second best car, even if you can be the first loser often, shouldn't be a part of it.

[Outsider]

So? If the rules are to give the driver with the fastest lap a bonus point, then he's deserving of that bonus point for setting the fastest lap. If the point is for the fastest lap, it's for the fastest lap and it doesn't matter if he does finish.

when race is cancelled before 75% is completed, then drivers who manage to score points will get only half, maybe this bonus point should also be like that. it's more or less what i thought while raising the question

[PayasYouRace]

when race is cancelled before 75% is completed, then drivers who manage to score points will get only half, maybe this bonus point should also be like that. it's more or less what i thought while raising the question

That could be considered fair. If you don't complete 75% but you set the fastest lap you get half a point.

[velgajski1]

Terrible idea

I'd prefer 10(or 9)-6-4-3-2-1. Back in the days winning a point was a big deal for most teams on grid, now points are kind of 'cheap' for all but weakest teams.

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

Last year's WDC was decided by the tiniest of margins. Points for pole and fastest lap would certainly help and make championship battles closer.

Lewis and Nico would have more points and therefore bigger fighting chances etc.

[Anderis]

I'd prefer 10(or 9)-6-4-3-2-1. Back in the days winning a point was a big deal for most teams on grid, now points are kind of 'cheap' for all but weakest teams.

Back in the days you could score a point or two being lapped twice. With 10-6-4-3-2-1 we would have only 8 drivers with more than 3 or 4 points scored so far this season. That would be ridiculous IMO. Point-scoring system should match the circumstances and this day's circumstances in F1 don't make only 6 scoring places a good solution. Midfield battle should also be about points and consistency, not about one odd result.

[Fastcake]

Terrible idea

I'd prefer 10(or 9)-6-4-3-2-1. Back in the days winning a point was a big deal for most teams on grid, now points are kind of 'cheap' for all but weakest teams.

Points are meant to settle the championship order, they're not a prize in itself for finishing above an arbitrary place.

Back in the very early years of the championship it made some sense to limit points, as only a handful of drivers would enter the bulk of the championship races. After that, we should of switched to points for all, but chronic unreliablity at least meant half the cars would retire anyway. Nowadays, where its possible for all cars to finish, there should be points for all.

If there's ever been a rational reason why sixth place is so deserving, I'd love to hear it.

[PayasYouRace]

Terrible idea

I'd prefer 10(or 9)-6-4-3-2-1. Back in the days winning a point was a big deal for most teams on grid, now points are kind of 'cheap' for all but weakest teams.

Given current finishing rates, it's actually just as hard if not harder to score points at the moment. Sure it was a massive deal when Minardi scored a point or two in the 1996-2005 period, but it's even harder for Marussia and Caterham to do that now because retiring from a race is rarer. Points are now more "expensive".

There's a thread where I did an analysis of this, and it's generally been about 2/3rds of finishers score points, with the current system maintaining that rough ratio.

[Amphicar]

Actually that was a bit rude, sorry. Had just come off an phone call argument and wasn't in the best of moods!

The point I was making is that, as I said a couple of days ago, you can't just retrospectively apply alternative point systems because the drivers would have driven differently as a result.

Apology accepted - and you are, of course, correct that a different points system would likely have affected outcomes. Particularly in recent years, when cars have become more reliable and race strategy has become more sophisticated than during the first 30 years of Formula 1.

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

imagine this - lap 17 completly random driver has just made fastest lap and then it suddenly starts to rain, he crashes out and because of the rain, no-one can do it better anymore - would you give that driver a point who actually DNF'd from race even when he didn't drove half of the race

Why not?

He was on the same track as everybody else at the same time.

[Kalmake]

Giving a point with a roulette wheel would also be same for everyone.

For the sake of sport it would be better to avoid handing out points for luck.

[PayasYouRace]

Nobody has suggested giving out points for luck though.

[Anderis]

If something is written in rules, it's becoming a part of the game. If there are points for fastest laps, teams know about it and they may and should chose a strategy what gives the best chance of scoring maximum amount of points. The one who can adapt the best- wins, as it is everywhere.

And it's not like it is going to be 20 points for fastest lap. Just 1 or 2 points so it's not a big deal someone will get one or two unpredictable points because it's started to rain at the right time. F1 is the kind of competition where fortune has quite a lot of impact on the final result anyway.

[Kalmake]

They do give points for luck since it's a factor in every result. But it should be avoided as much as possible.

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001 suggested that a random driver given a point is fine, since it could have gone to anyone. It's not. It's not sport when winning chances don't correlate with performance. Best competitor should be the most likely to win.

[PayasYouRace]

They do give points for luck since it's a factor in every result. But it should be avoided as much as possible.

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001 suggested that a random driver given a point is fine, since it could have gone to anyone. It's not. It's not sport when winning chances don't correlate with performance. Best competitor should be the most likely to win.

But it wasn't a random driver, it was the driver who set the fastest lap, and that would be worth a bonus point under the system we're discussing.

[Kalmake]

I just wanted to correct the common "it's fine because it's same for everyone"-fallacy.

Outsider said "completely random" and nobody was disputing that so I assumed it was more or less agreed. The proper attempts would be made near the end with light fuel loads. If you are going for fastest possible lap time in the early stages you are ruining your tyres for no reason.

Anyway, sudden rain or red flag is a luck a factor regardless of fastest lap scoring. There are much better arguments against it.