92 replies to this topic

[Roscoe]

I know most responses will just be 'The rules are the rules', but it is something I have been thinking about for a while.

 

Basically, with Marussia currently ahead of Caterham due to only a single 13th place, I went over the results of the season so far (Taking both drivers from each team into the equation) and calculated it in two ways.

 

Firstly, by calculating without taking DNFs into equation, Marussia's average finishing place is 17.53, whereas Caterham's is 16.74.  Secondly, I did the same but any DNFs I counted as a 22nd place finish as reliability should be a factor.  With those calculations, it is closer, but Marussia's average finish becomes 18.06, but Caterham would still be ahead with an average finish of 17.82.

 

So is it fair for a team to be ahead just because they were running at nearer the front when the most cars retired, or should it be more rewarding to consistency?

[redreni]

I would make both WDC and WCC points go down to 20th place. Points system similar to V8 Supercars. Problem solved.

[quaint]

Yes, they are fair enough to all teams. 19 races is a plenty to score enough top ten finishes to sort things out.

[Andrew Hope]

As long as things are the same for every team, it's fair.

[Gorma]

I would make both WDC and WCC points go down to 20th place. Points system similar to V8 Supercars. Problem solved.

I'm with you. 

[ensign14]

We had this last year. The problem is not whether the points system is fair - the problem is the points system itself. In that a 10th place is infinitely better than an infinite amount of 11ths, yet a 9th is beaten by three 10ths. How come? Why is there such a ludicrous difference between the way two anonymous midfield positions are assessed?

As it is, I would also argue that the constructors' system is unfair for the top teams as well. Red Bull can run a one car team and earn more points than most.

The only fair way for the constructors' title is to have both cars taken into account for point purposes. I've already come up with a simple and easy solution; give 10-6-4-3-2-1 in order where the second car finishes. So if Team A only gets 1 car to the end every time, they get no points. Which is fair enough; they can't be that good as constructors if they fail with 50% of their entries. The benefit of this is it's easy to work out.

The other way is to add the times of the two cars together and rank the teams that way.

Having such a system would also have the advantage that Team A would be less inclined to have someone numptious in Car 2, given that that car would be of paramount importance for the WCC.

[Henrik B]

The aim of a points system is to differentiate teams and drivers. Currently it does a poor job of that in the lower positions - today there was one retirement and that is the norm nowadays. There is really no harm at all in extending the points system down to the very last car if need be - as long as they're classified. Driving in P16 there's very little incentive to try and better your position.

 

And while we're at it, why not change the way money is distributed as well - there's no reason why it's such a big gap between 10 and 11 in the WCC. It's pretty arbitrary and ensures small teams can never catch up.

[ensign14]

Why is there a differential distribution at all? If everyone bar Ferrari and Red Bull withdrew from F1, it would kill the sport. Therefore every team ought to get the same - they're all as dependent on each other.

[Clatter]

I agree with others. It's time the points went all the way through the grid. 

[muramasa]

at least this big difference b/w being 10th and 11th and below should be fixed. 11th team still has to pay for cargo while top 10 teams get it for free, right? FOM should give all teams free cargo and distribute more % of commercial revenue to all teams esp small teams.

[sharo]

Every participant should get a share. Points or not they are part of the show that makes the money for Bernie and CVC (especially).

Current rules are not fair.

[Kalmake]

It's not unfair, but it's too random in rewarding performance.

 

There would be more incentive to hire skilled drivers if all their drives counted and not just the one out of twenty.

[dau]

As long as things are the same for every team, it's fair.

They aren't the same.

[Andrew Hope]

They aren't the same.

So spit it out then. What's the problem now, Dau?

[lustigson]

Perhaps we should go back to a system in which only a contructor's higher-finishing car scores points. This way — bar freak results — all constructors will score points during any season.

[Risil]

Fair perhaps, but not consistent with the rest of the points system. Once you get down to 11ths and so on, it works just like the medals system that was being debated a few years ago. Nth place trumps any number of (n+1)th places which in turn trumps any number of (n+2)th places.

 

It's hard to get worked up about, though. At least for me.

 

The bigger question is about how the prize/TV money should be handed out. This has a big impact on a team's future. As Joe Saward and co point out (endlessly), it's good to have a difference between last and next-last, to prevent teams from doing the F1 equivalent of starting and parking, making the bare minimum investment/effort and still picking up the cheques. But if that incentive's going to work you've got to make sure it's based on real performance, and not a lucky 13th place during a crashy/rainy race.

Edited by Risil, 03 November 2013 - 17:07.

[dau]

So spit it out then. What's the problem now, Dau?

It's in the OP, isn't it? The problem is that the WDC position for non-points-scoring teams is primarily determined by luck in single races, not performance over the year.

 

Just imagine the first race of the season is massively chaotic. Cars crashing everyhwere, Albers driving into the wrong pitlane, Takuma Sato winning, you name it. And somehow, a Caterham manages to snatch an 11th place - Marussia could basically start and park for the rest of the year. Because even if they'd lap every Caterham twice for every race from now on, they won't get that spot back unless they'd score at least an 11th place as well. Which is just not going to happen with chaos races being so rare. What's just a single race out of 20 for pointscoring teams is deciding the whole season for the backmarkers. And with that, funding for next season as well. 

 

Too theoretical? Not going to happen? At the moment, Marussia is ahead of Caterham in the championship because of a single 13th place in the second race of the season, even though they're getting smashed by the Caterhams on track. Last year, Marussia almost finished ahead due to a lucky 12th at Singapore, even though they were slower for most of the year. 2011, we had HRT finishing in front of Marussia because of a single 13th place. And it was the same the year before that. That's a lottery, not a competition.

Edited by dau, 03 November 2013 - 17:11.

[Fastcake]

Points for all finishers. I've been calling for that for years.

[Andrew Hope]

But surely the chances are just as good that Caterham will luck into 11th as Marussia will. If you and I flip a coin, you pick heads and I pick tails and it's heads, it wasn't unfair to me. We both had the same chance. I agree it's a silly way to determine the points for backmarker teams, but it's no sillier than a Sauber getting 6th instead of 9th if there's a 3-car crash in front of him, and no one starts threads about that, even if the points difference from 9th to 6th is enough to steal one more place in the WCC at the end of the year.

 

In 2011, Marussia, HRT and Caterham all knew before the green flag in Australia that their battle would likely be determined by who had the highest single finish. It's a dumb system, but it's not inherently unfair to any particular team if the rules are the same for all of them, which they are. It just sucks that smaller teams get burned more often.

[BenettonB192]

I would prefer a point system that goes down to the last spot both for teams and drivers. I honestly don't pay much attention what the backmarker teams and drivers do but i probably would if it was more visible to me what they are fighting for against each other.

[Lights]

I also think all classified drivers should be rewarded with points, it's just more consistent and you can actually see the fights among those teams better.

[Risil]

It would make sense for a team like Marussia to target one unusual track, like Monza or Monaco, and design the whole car around performance for that circuit. If they could pick up a 10th or 11th they'd probably finish above the other team-that's-too-slow-to-score-real-points, even if they were scraping 107% everywhere else.

[Pothead4Philosopher]

All they need to do is to add nominal additional points for the WCC. 11th place = 0,9p; 12th = 0,8; etc., ... 21st is 0,05 and 22nd = 0p

 

Done. It is simply to sort out some order down the line, right?

[Risil]

I would prefer a point system that goes down to the last spot both for teams and drivers. I honestly don't pay much attention what the backmarker teams and drivers do but i probably would if it was more visible to me what they are fighting for against each other.

 

You mean which car's running ahead of the other isn't visible enough?

[dau]

But surely the chances are just as good that Caterham will luck into 11th as Marussia will. If you and I flip a coin, you pick heads and I pick tails and it's heads, it wasn't unfair to me. We both had the same chance. I agree it's a silly way to determine the points for backmarker teams, but it's no sillier than a Sauber getting 6th instead of 9th if there's a 3-car crash in front of him, and no one starts threads about that, even if the points difference from 9th to 6th is enough to steal one more place in the WCC at the end of the year.

 

In 2011, Marussia, HRT and Caterham all knew before the green flag in Australia that their battle would likely be determined by who had the highest single finish. It's a dumb system, but it's not inherently unfair to any particular team if the rules are the same for all of them, which they are. It just sucks that smaller teams get burned more often.

Well, yes, flipping coins is a fair way to determine the winner of the coins flipping championship. But we're talking about F1 here, Sure, there's always an element of luck involved - but that's why we have more than one races per season. Ok, that's not really the reason for that, but a nice side-effect nevertheless. If a Sauber gains three places because of crashes, that's only one result out of many. Finishing 6th instead of 9th once won't elevate them over the teams that consistently finish 7th. You can't get the lottery factor out of the sport completely, but you can try to minimise it. That's what you do with points over multiple races.

 

Like you said, it's a dumb system. Unlikely to be changed though.

Edited by dau, 03 November 2013 - 17:27.

[BenettonB192]

You mean which car's running ahead of the other isn't visible enough?

 

Exactly that. Why should i care when neither get points anyway and a context is missing to me for a story arch that unfolds over the course of a season like it does with the teams/drivers upfront?

Edited by BenettonB192, 03 November 2013 - 17:28.

[Risil]

I don't know. When Hamilton was racing Raikkonen for the lead at Spa in 2008 the first thing on my mind wasn't "what will this mean for the championship battle?"

[dau]

I don't know. When Hamilton was racing Raikkonen for the lead at Spa in 2008 the first thing on my mind wasn't "what will this mean for the championship battle?"

This isn't about anyone who could fight for the lead.

[Risil]

True enough. But plenty of series in America award points down to very low places and those battles don't magically become more cared-for than they are in F1. For me it's a bit irritating, because championship battles can be fought by drivers who are nowhere near each other on the track. Will Driver X pick up the 14th place he needs to clinch the title, or will Driver Y's dominating victory be enough?

Edited by Risil, 03 November 2013 - 17:37.

[BenettonB192]

I don't know. When Hamilton was racing Raikkonen for the lead at Spa in 2008 the first thing on my mind wasn't "what will this mean for the championship battle?"

 

They were fighting for something tangible tho. That makes a big difference to get excited about it. When deep down in the pack it makes no difference who's ahead then why should i care about it?

[Risil]

It makes a difference because you know the drivers have a fear of anyone finishing in front of them that in ordinary society would verge on the pathological.

[Shambolic]

The current points system already rewards mediocrity far too much - Points for the top 10, in a field of 22 is ridiculous. It used to be the top 6, for a grid of 26 (or more, including cars that didn't make it through pre-qually). So no, instead of extending the points all the way down (which really would be turning F1 into "Everyone's a winner"), they should go back to givin g points to only the very best handful.

 

However, what I personally think they should also do, but for different reasons, is give points for re-use of engines and gearboxes. At the same time, remove the penalties for changing said parts. In other words, each subsequent race on a gearbox or engine after its first, would result in a point. A carrot of points, instead of a stick of penalties. It's not an idea that addresses the insidious creep of "Constantly being average is better than sometimes being great), but it would be a measure that even the teams right at the back could play with and maybe use to their advantage.

[dau]

True enough. But plenty of series in America award points down to very low places and those battles don't magically become more cared-for than they are in F1. For me it's a bit irritating, because championship battles can be fought by drivers who are nowhere near each other on the track. Will Driver X pick up the 14th place he needs to clinch the title, or will Driver Y's dominating victory be enough?

For me it's about WDC position more accurately representing team performance over the year. I don't think much would change regarding the action on track. Never liked the argument that we needed those positions not rewarded with points because drivers should be encouraged to fight for that final point. They're racing drivers, they're going to fight for every position they can anyway.

[BenettonB192]

It makes a difference because you know the drivers have a fear of anyone finishing in front of them that in ordinary society would verge on the pathological.

 

It makes a difference to them but not to me as the viewer. Don't get me wrong a fight for p20 will never be as exciting as a fight for p1. But such point system would give some context to whats happening and make streak of decent drives by a backmarker more visible to anyone who doesn't have a photographic memory about all finishing positions ever.

[BenettonB192]

The current points system already rewards mediocrity far too much - Points for the top 10, in a field of 22 is ridiculous. It used to be the top 6, for a grid of 26 (or more, including cars that didn't make it through pre-qually). So no, instead of extending the points all the way down (which really would be turning F1 into "Everyone's a winner"), they should go back to givin g points to only the very best handful.

 

I have seen this argument before and it is a fallacy. Statistically it is harder for a backmarker team to win points today then it was 20 years ago despite points being rewarded further down the grid. That is due to increased reliability and tracks with huge tarmac run offs. Races where two thirds of the field has dnf's and a backmarker lucks into good points just don't happen anymore.

[dau]

The current points system already rewards mediocrity far too much - Points for the top 10, in a field of 22 is ridiculous. It used to be the top 6, for a grid of 26 (or more, including cars that didn't make it through pre-qually). So no, instead of extending the points all the way down (which really would be turning F1 into "Everyone's a winner"), they should go back to givin g points to only the very best handful.

[...]

"Everyone's a winner"? Rewards mediocrity? How so? Because 25 10th places equal one win and 24 non-scoring races?

 

So, if we only want to reward excellence, how about we only give points - or how about gold medals? - for the win? Hmm, let's see that championship table...

 

1. VET 11

2. ALO 2

3. ROS 2

4. RAI 1

5. HAM 1

6. WEB 0

7. GRO 0

8. MAS 0

9. HUL 0

10. DIR 0

 

Awesome. Finally not rewarding mediocrity anymore. 

Edited by dau, 03 November 2013 - 17:54.

[Gorma]

I have seen this argument before and it is a fallacy. Statistically it is harder for a backmarker team to win points today then it was 20 years ago despite points being rewarded further down the grid. That is due to increased reliability and tracks with huge tarmac run offs. Races where two thirds of the field has dnf's and a backmarker lucks into good points just don't happen anymore.

That's right. Even Minardi which was comparably slower than HRT could get a top 6 finish every now and then.

[Bloggsworth]

No - Constructers points should go down to 22nd place, this would reward teams that produce reliable cars, like Marussia - No finish, no points; under that system Chilton would have racked up a bundle of points for his team!

[muramasa]

They might not be able to change points system right away but can easily make it that for non-scoring teams the order is decided based on average finishing position rather than highest finished position. Also free cargo for all teams.

[ensign14]

But surely the chances are just as good that Caterham will luck into 11th as Marussia will. If you and I flip a coin, you pick heads and I pick tails and it's heads, it wasn't unfair to me.

 

In which case you are agreeing it is a game of chance rather than a test of ability.

 

[Fastcake]

It would make sense for a team like Marussia to target one unusual track, like Monza or Monaco, and design the whole car around performance for that circuit. If they could pick up a 10th or 11th they'd probably finish above the other team-that's-too-slow-to-score-real-points, even if they were scraping 107% everywhere else.

 

A lot of people have put out that idea before. I've seen it said that there just isn't any large differences to be gained any more for specialising on one track, a good car tends to be good everywhere. Not to mention you'll be putting the entire season on one race - or possibly one corner if both cars get tangled up.

[Andrew Hope]

In which case you are agreeing it is a game of chance rather than a test of ability.

 

Yes. But it's the same chance for everyone, and therefore not unfair to the team that loses. Being a stupid system doesn't automatically equal an unfair one.

[pdac]

Scoring only the top so many made sense when only so many cars finished the race. Now cars are so reliable I fail to see the logic in not awarding points for all finishers.

Edited by pdac, 03 November 2013 - 18:36.

[Anderis]

I don't think giving points to all finishers is good solution. That would promote reliability over performance too much. Backmarkers should be encouraged to gain performance, not to just finish as many races as possible in order to beat other backmarkers. Finishing below certain position shouldn't be rewarded with points.

 

There is nothing unfair that one 10th place beats any number of 11th places. Rules are the same for everyone. Try to finish in top10 or make sure you beat your opponent head-to-head in that race what matters.

[dweller23]

I would make both WDC and WCC points go down to 20th place. Points system similar to V8 Supercars. Problem solved.

I'd love F1 to go back to rewarding top 6 only. 10 scoring positions is far too much.

[pdac]

I don't think giving points to all finishers is good solution. That would promote reliability over performance too much. Backmarkers should be encouraged to gain performance, not to just finish as many races as possible in order to beat other backmarkers. Finishing below certain position shouldn't be rewarded with points.

 

There is nothing unfair that one 10th place beats any number of 11th places. Rules are the same for everyone. Try to finish in top10 or make sure you beat your opponent head-to-head in that race what matters.

But lots of 10ths beats one 9th and a bunch of lower results.

[Fastcake]

I don't think giving points to all finishers is good solution. That would promote reliability over performance too much. Backmarkers should be encouraged to gain performance, not to just finish as many races as possible in order to beat other backmarkers. Finishing below certain position shouldn't be rewarded with points.

 

There is nothing unfair that one 10th place beats any number of 11th places. Rules are the same for everyone. Try to finish in top10 or make sure you beat your opponent head-to-head in that race what matters.

 

No it wouldn't. You may still earn points for nursing a car home in 15th, but it would be a pittance compared to the amount available for going faster and finishing 5th. The better cars will still earn the most points.

 

A driver that finishes once in 10th place but last in every other race has not outperformed someone that finishes every race in 11th. The championship table should reflect this by awarding points for all finishers.

 

I'd love F1 to go back to rewarding top 6 only. 10 scoring positions is far too much.

 

I'd love to finally see a rational reason for handing out points for only the top six. It seems to be nostalgia, pure and simple.

[Anderis]

No it wouldn't. You may still earn points for nursing a car home in 15th, but it would be a pittance compared to the amount available for going faster and finishing 5th. The better cars will still earn the most points.

Yes, I'm not talking about that. Those who regularly finish 5th are not fighting in WCC with those who regularly finish 15th anyway.

 

But I'm talking about those who finish around 15th all the time. If we are giving points for all positions, every single DNF becomes very painful for WCC. Therefore, Marussia and Caterham may focus on nursering the car home in order to beat each other in WCC instead of trying to take a bit more risk and beat other teams to finish inside top10. It's not the thing I would like to see. To finish 14th or 15th on a regular basis shouldn't be aim for anybody.

 

Unless we change the point system to what rewards 10th much more than 12th, 12th much more than 14th etc. But then a winner would have to get 1000 of points or something like that.

[Risil]

I'd love to finally see a rational reason for handing out points for only the top six. It seems to be nostalgia, pure and simple.

 

I like the idea that the championship should be contested from the front. Too much watching of Indycar and Helio's "amazing run of 6-10th place finishes". If you're running outside the top six, you're not burnishing your credentials as the best of the best, so you shouldn't be receiving any in the form of points.

Edited by Risil, 03 November 2013 - 19:49.

[dau]

I like the idea that the championship should be contested from the front. Too much watching of Indycar and Helio's "amazing run of 6-10th place finishes". If you're running outside the top six, you're not burnishing your credentials as the best of the best, so you shouldn't be receiving any in the form of points.

So how many championships has Gelio won with his amazing runs of 6-10th place finishes?