322 replies to this topic

[kapow]

Is the current F1 points system unfair and too biased towards reliability?

Rosberg has won 2 races with 5 second places. 140pts
Hamilton has won 4 races with 1 second place. 118pts

Those extra 4 second places not only cancel out Hamilton's 2 extra wins, they put Rosberg 22 points in front - almost another race win.

Say Hamilton and Rosberg finish 1-2 for the next 3 races, the record will be:
Rosberg 2 race wins with 8 second places. 194pts
Hamilton has won 7 races with 1 second place. 193pts

How can it possibly be fair that a driver can win 7 out of 10, finish second in another and still not lead the championship?

If the same trend comtinues as per the first 7 races, Hamilton could potentially have one of the top 5 most dominant seasons ever and not be World Champion.

Edited by kapow, 09 June 2014 - 22:05.

[P123]

You will never get a consensus on a perfect points system.

[NoSanityClause]

No, it's not.

[Gridfire]

Is the current F1 points system unfair and too biased towards reliability?

Rosberg has won 2 races with 5 second places. 140pts
Hamilton has won 4 races with 1 second place. 118pts

Those extra 4 second places not only cancel out Hamilton's 2 extra wins, they put Rosberg 22 points in front - almost another race win.

Say Hamilton and Rosberg finish 1-2 for the next 3 races, the record will be:
Rosberg 2 race wins with 8 second places. 194pts
Hamilton has won 7 races with 1 second place. 193pts

How can it possibly be fair that a driver can win 7 out of 10, finish second in another and still not lead the championship?

If the same trend comtinues as per the first 7 races, Hamilton could potentially have one of the top 5 most dominant seasons ever and not be World Champion.

The funky points system they introduced in 2010  was designed to make podiums more worth while - so that a last minute victory could turn around a championship.

 

But second place now awards 72% of the points of a win, as opposed to 80% prior to 2010, so arguably the Lewis/Rosberg situation is actually less of a problem for Lewis than it could have been with the old system. If Nico's 5 second places all awarded him 20 points instead of 18 (so 80% of 25 points), he'd be another 8 points ahead. Go ahead and work out a 2009 score for both drivers.

[PayasYouRace]

As the post above me says, it's better than the previous system in that regard.

 

I've said it before. It's not the winning that makes the champion, but what he does on the days he doesn't win.

[Gareth]

Even under the most win rewarding system we had (10-6-etc), Hamilton would be behind Rosberg.  The gap would be narrower (92% of Rosberg's points vs 84%) but it's hardly egregious.

 

The points are the points, and everyone knows what they are before the season starts.  I agree with P123.

[Fastcake]

The only thing that I find to be unfair is points not being awarded past tenth place. It does not seem right to me that one eleventh place is worth more than an infinite number of twelve's, and as such decides the championship order and the prize money. The next change should award points down to at least twentieth.

[scheivlak]

Even with the 10-6-4-3-2-1 distribution Nico would be ahead (50-46). 

 

The only system that would give Lewis the advantage is good old AQUA (Atlas Quite Unlikely Alternative) championship giving preference to wins above anything else - ironically that would have given the 2008 title to Felipe Massa http://forums.autosp...ative/?hl=+aqua! And I don't consider Felipe the real WDC or the best driver of 2008 even though he won the most races.

 

I guess everybody knows the points system as it is beforehand and we should take it as it is - though I don't like the double points thingy at the end of course exactly because it doesn't take things as they are at very other GP.....

Edited by scheivlak, 09 June 2014 - 22:32.

[redreni]

Is the current F1 points system unfair and too biased towards reliability?

Rosberg has won 2 races with 5 second places. 140pts
Hamilton has won 4 races with 1 second place. 118pts

Those extra 4 second places not only cancel out Hamilton's 2 extra wins, they put Rosberg 22 points in front - almost another race win.

Say Hamilton and Rosberg finish 1-2 for the next 3 races, the record will be:
Rosberg 2 race wins with 8 second places. 194pts
Hamilton has won 7 races with 1 second place. 193pts

How can it possibly be fair that a driver can win 7 out of 10, finish second in another and still not lead the championship?

If the same trend comtinues as per the first 7 races, Hamilton could potentially have one of the top 5 most dominant seasons ever and not be World Champion.

 

Maybe the fans of each top driver should wait until the end of the season then decide their favourite points system. So if your favourite driver finished every race at the sharp end but didn't win many races, you could pick a system that rewards consistency, and if your driver had a good number of wins and a few DNFs, you could opt for a gold medal system. Then all the fans could declare their favourite driver World Champion. And we could have a "rate your 2014 world champions" thread where they could all argue about which one is best...

[Zava]

the points system is out there to get Lewis.

[redreni]

Even with the 10-6-4-3-2-1 distribution Nico would be ahead (50-46). 

 

The only system that would give Lewis the advantage is good old AQUA (Atlas Quite Unlikely Alternative) championship giving preference to wins above anything else - ironically that would have given the 2008 title to Felipe Massa http://forums.autosp...ative/?hl=+aqua! And I don't consider Felipe the real WDC or the best driver of 2008 even though he won the most races.

 

I guess everybody knows the points system as it is beforehand and we should take it as it is - though I don't like the double points thingy at the end of course exactly because it doesn't take things as they are at very other GP.....

 

Amen to that. Winning vs consistency is an old chestnut of a debate, and one can respect the view that winning is underrated in the current system, but a points system that rewards finishing fourth in Abu Dhabi more or less equally with winning at Silverstone or Monaco, is absolutely absurd.

[Frank Tuesday]

Maybe the fans of each top driver should wait until the end of the season then decide their favourite points system.

Maybe for practice, we can try to come up with a Driver's Championship system in which Lewis would have won last year. What would be the lowest placed driver for which we could devise a point system that would have them be 2013 Champ.

[Mauseri]

The problem is not points system, the problem is Hamilton not finishing enough. Understanding the situation of driving a dominant car, maybe it would be sometimes better to bring a safe 2nd home, thank risk a DNF while trying to show your teammate who is the boss.

Edited by Mauseri, 09 June 2014 - 22:57.

[Sheepmachine]

Bare in mind Lewis has failed to finish two races whilst Nico has been on the podium in all the races. Whatever the point system was Lewis would be behind.

[Cyanide]

Thread should be titled: "My favorite driver isn't winning the championship now, should we change the points system to help him?"

 

And the answer is still no. 

[Montie]

Thread should be titled: "My favorite driver isn't winning the championship now, should we change the points system to help him?"

 

And the answer is still no. 

 

My thought exactly.

[docronzo]

You forgot DNFs:

HAM-2
ROS-0

This is where Hamilton is losing points, not by winning and Rosberg being seccond!

[mjspeed]

Is the current F1 points system unfair and too biased towards reliability?
 

 

What would the point be of not rewarding reliability?

[Seanspeed]

What would the point be of not rewarding reliability?

Bingo. Consistency is one of the most important parts of being a good driver/team and should be rewarded.

[sennafan24]

I have given my opinions on the points system before (I am not a fan of the current format)

 

However, it is the system the drivers work under, and it would be biased of me to slag it off now as my views are going to be more than biased (I am a Lewis fan). Lewis has been plain unlucky, but the luck was indiscriminate, it could have gone the other way just as easily.

 

I will leave it at that.

[dgsg]

At least the driver with the most points at the end of the season is champion!

[baddog]

2 second places which match against 0 points for dnf is a hell of a lot of points as it should be. hard to call the system unfair based on this year. To never finish worse than 2nd and win 2 is a damned good run. Of course dnfs arent necessarily a drivers fault, but the points system should not reflect that, the entry is driver and car.

[Kingshark]

Going by OP's logic, Lewis was clearly not the deserving champion of 2008. Massa won more races.

 

Nonetheless, the only unfair thing about this point system is Abu Double. Everything else is fine.

[Spillage]

It's as fair as it has ever been. It isn't as pleasingly simple as it was in the days of ten points for a win, but that it goes down to tenth is a good thing and it makes for more representative title standings. It was nice to see Marussia rewarded with two points in Monaco.

 

What IS unfair is this stupid, crappy, unpopular, ****witted double points in the final race. I like the idea of rewarding consistency and this flies in the face of that. It's a gimmick that just isn't needed.

[Collombin]

What would the point be of not rewarding reliability?

Because it's about racing. I know the 1987 championship went to the wrong driver, but even I wouldn't have argued for Pascal Fabre.

[uffen]

Niki Lauda once said, "Tell what the points system is and I'll drive the way I need to to win." (Note: Not an exact quote.)

[George Costanza]

Because it's about racing. I know the 1987 championship went to the wrong driver, but even I wouldn't have argued for Pascal Fabre.

 

no doubt that '87 was Nigel's....

 

and '86 was Nelson's.

Edited by George Costanza, 10 June 2014 - 03:21.

[kapow]

When on earth did I say Hamilton was my favourite driver? Some contributors on here are far too smug and up their own arses.

The points system is the points system eh? But those same contributors are complaining about the double points?? Hypocritical.

I'm a little surprised that no one believes that the hypothetical scenario of 7 wins, 1 second should count for more than 2 wins, 8 seconds. 7 wins in 10 if continued for the whole season would be in the top 5 most dominant ever. A 70% win rate and not the world champion?

And some contributors completely misread what I put... I'm not complaining that Hamilton isn't leading now but might not be even if he wins the next 3 races.

This isn't about Hamilton, it's about the hypothetical situation of a driver winning 13 races against 5 for his main rival and not being the champion. This is no way near comparable with Massa winning 6 and Hamilton 5 in 2008. We're hypothetically looking at an all time dominant season.

[Fortymark]

It may sound unfair to Hamilton now, having two mechanical DNF:s. But lets say he crashed out instead, then it would be really unfair to Rosberg instead. 

[hollowstar]

As some have said, the point system is the same for everyone, and a DNF is always going to hurt. There's no point changing it. 

Except that I would like points being given for poles, like 5 points maybe?   That would be nice. 

Edited by hollowstar, 10 June 2014 - 06:28.

[kapow]

The first post that offers a decent counter argument other than "the points are the points".

I agree, right now that would be unfair to Rosberg. I actually believe that Rosberg SHOULD be leading the championship right now, regardless of the points system.

But, in the hypothetical scenario that Hamilton wins the next 3 - 7 wins, 1 second should be worth more than 2 wins and 8 seconds.

I completely understand that bringing the car home is part of motor racing. I'm happy it is. But the balance is too much in the favour of reliability.

[1Devil1]

When on earth did I say Hamilton was my favourite driver? Some contributors on here are far too smug and up their own arses.

The points system is the points system eh? But those same contributors are complaining about the double points?? Hypocritical.

I'm a little surprised that no one believes that the hypothetical scenario of 7 wins, 1 second should count for more than 2 wins, 8 seconds. 7 wins in 10 if continued for the whole season would be in the top 5 most dominant ever. A 70% win rate and not the world champion?

And some contributors completely misread what I put... I'm not complaining that Hamilton isn't leading now but might not be even if he wins the next 3 races.

This isn't about Hamilton, it's about the hypothetical situation of a driver winning 13 races against 5 for his main rival and not being the champion. This is no way near comparable with Massa winning 6 and Hamilton 5 in 2008. We're hypothetically looking at an all time dominant season.

 

You've called it, it's a hypothetical scenario, could have been the last years too, but it never happened, I do not believe that Rosberg will be champion while Lewis has ten victories more. till now it's only 2:4

[Jackmancer]

What does 'fair' has to do with anything in Formula 1?

[HPT]

Hamilton being behind in points is because he had 2 DNF vs zero for Rosberg. No point system can compensate for unreliability. 

[Lazy]

Those extra 4 second places not only cancel out Hamilton's 2 extra wins, they put Rosberg 22 points in front - almost another race win.
 

So 4 2nd's equals 2.88 wins, sounds about fair.

[kapow]

Hamilton being behind in points is because he had 2 DNF vs zero for Rosberg. No point system can compensate for unreliability.

Well it can... under my hypothetical Hamilton wins the next 3 he'd be on 76pts against 68pts under the old 10,6,4 system, 8pt lead, almost a race win. Under the current system he'd be 1 point behind.

[Lights]

I also noticed lately that some teams are better than others. I'm not entirely sure yet but this might be unfair for some drivers.

[bourbon]

When on earth did I say Hamilton was my favourite driver? Some contributors on here are far too smug and up their own arses.

The points system is the points system eh? But those same contributors are complaining about the double points?? Hypocritical.

I'm a little surprised that no one believes that the hypothetical scenario of 7 wins, 1 second should count for more than 2 wins, 8 seconds. 7 wins in 10 if continued for the whole season would be in the top 5 most dominant ever. A 70% win rate and not the world champion?

And some contributors completely misread what I put... I'm not complaining that Hamilton isn't leading now but might not be even if he wins the next 3 races.

This isn't about Hamilton, it's about the hypothetical situation of a driver winning 13 races against 5 for his main rival and not being the champion. This is no way near comparable with Massa winning 6 and Hamilton 5 in 2008. We're hypothetically looking at an all time dominant season.

 

Well what your scenario does not take into account is incidents or reliability issues that Nico may face where Lewis has none.  It isn't exactly outside of the realm of possibilities in F1 - but you have mysteriously discounted the notion altogether   

[kapow]

So 4 2nd's equals 2.88 wins, sounds about fair.

Really?! Lets round up for ease... Driver A wins 3 out of 4 races. Driver B finishes 2nd 4 times. The two drivers should be equal on points??

It's a funny kind of "fair".

I'm NOT against reliability counting for something. But it's too much.

[kapow]

Well what your scenario does not take into account is incidents or reliability issues that Nico may face where Lewis has none. It isn't exactly outside of the realm of possibilities in F1 - but you have mysteriously discounted the notion altogether

I haven't discounted anything. I'm saying the hypothetical situation above would lead to an unfair table.

[bourbon]

I haven't discounted anything. I'm saying the hypothetical situation above would lead to an unfair table.

 

Has it ever occurred?  What makes you believe it might?  I agree it could, but how likely is it?

[kapow]

Has it ever occurred? What makes you believe it might? I agree it could, but how likely is it?

I'm not saying it is or isn't likely. It's not a prediction, it's a hypothetical scenario.

[Shiroo]

Is the current F1 points system unfair and too biased towards reliability?

Rosberg has won 2 races with 5 second places. 140pts
Hamilton has won 4 races with 1 second place. 118pts

Those extra 4 second places not only cancel out Hamilton's 2 extra wins, they put Rosberg 22 points in front - almost another race win.

Say Hamilton and Rosberg finish 1-2 for the next 3 races, the record will be:
Rosberg 2 race wins with 8 second places. 194pts
Hamilton has won 7 races with 1 second place. 193pts

How can it possibly be fair that a driver can win 7 out of 10, finish second in another and still not lead the championship?

If the same trend comtinues as per the first 7 races, Hamilton could potentially have one of the top 5 most dominant seasons ever and not be World Champion.

******** Hamilton's fan?

Well mate, Bernie proposed such possibility, with "medal winning" when the one claiming WDC would be the one with most wins.

Now let's say that we have such system, then for example: Someone won 8 times at the start of the season, then takes a break and still wins WDC.

 

The 2nd in table is someone with let's say 5 wins and 15 2nd places. Yet he still loses the WDC.

Do you find it fair? Because I do not.

As someone mentioned it doesn't matter how do you win, but it does matter what do you do when you do not win.

 

 

The current system is good. 

[Lazy]

Really?! Lets round up for ease... Driver A wins 3 out of 4 races. Driver B finishes 2nd 4 times. The two drivers should be equal on points??

It's a funny kind of "fair".

I'm NOT against reliability counting for something. But it's too much.

They're not equal, it's 75 to 72.

 

It's a team sport and more to do with the car than the driver. If you DNF it's a big hit in points.

[ensign14]

Bingo. Consistency is one of the most important parts of being a good driver/team and should be rewarded.

 

Someone trundling home 3rd in every race gets more reward than someone who wins half the other races and has the misfortune to try to lap Perez or Maldonado in the other half?

 

Motor racing is about winning.  List me as many Indy 500 winners as you can remember.  Now list me the runners-up.  I can guarantee that, unless you are Donald Davidson (at one extreme) or ignorant of non-F1 (at the other), you will get more of the first.  

 

1 point for a win, 0 for anything else.  If people really are that venal that they need a world championship, then that's all that matters.

[SenorSjon]

I would rather have the 10-6-4-3-2-1 format back. I can't seem to remember the current format very well. I would have to look up what a 3rd place is worth.

[Nustang70]

I'd prefer a system in which each points-scoring position is worth twice as much as the one below it:

 

1st: 512 pts

2nd: 256 pts

3rd: 128 pts

4th: 64pts

5th: 32pts

6th: 16 pts

7th: 8 pts

8th: 4pts

9th: 2 pts

10th: 1 pt

 

This gives primacy to finishing order, rather than consistency, but leaves room so that consistency can still be rewarding.  So the current championship would look like this: 

Hamilton: 2,304 pts

Rosberg: 2,304 pts

Ricciardo: 896 pts

Vettel: 368 pts

Alonso: 354 pts

Magnussen: 261 pts

Button: 254 pts

Hulkenberg: 161 pts

Perez: 133 pts

Bottas: 88 pts

Massa: 24 pts

Raikkonen: 22 pts

Vergne: 8 pts

Grosjean: 8 pts

Kyvat: 4pts

Bianchi: 2 pts

 

 

I've taken a look at some of the recent championships, and for the most part, it looks like the winner would still be the same (although Massa would've won in 2008).  

[kapow]

******** Hamilton's fan?

Well mate, Bernie proposed such possibility, with "medal winning" when the one claiming WDC would be the one with most wins.
Now let's say that we have such system, then for example: Someone won 8 times at the start of the season, then takes a break and still wins WDC.

The 2nd in table is someone with let's say 5 wins and 15 2nd places. Yet he still loses the WDC.
Do you find it fair? Because I do not.
As someone mentioned it doesn't matter how do you win, but it does matter what do you do when you do not win.


The current system is good.

A few points here:

1) "******** Hamilton's fan?" How old are you? 6? Accusing me of being an Hamilton fan because I've queried the fairness of the points systen is insinuating that I'm incapable of bias free thought and childish.

2) Don't call me mate, it's condescending. Have some respect.

3) I'm not against finishing being part of deciding the world championship. Nowhere in my arguments have I stated that I believe wins should be everything.

4) Bernie's plan to rewards only wins was, and is, moronic.

5) You're saying wins don't count, it's finishing races? Max Chilton should be 2013 world champion then. This is as ridiculous a suggestion as you making out I'd be in favour of Bernie's idea.

6) The points system should be a balance of rewarding wins and finishing. My argument is that the current system is too biased towards the finishing aspect.

7) If you like finishing being rewarded then would you be in favour of a 10,9,8... points system? Where 9 wins from 10 could be equalled with 10 second places?

[kapow]

I'd prefer a system in which each points-scoring position is worth twice as much as the one below it:

1st: 512 pts
2nd: 256 pts
3rd: 128 pts
4th: 64pts
5th: 32pts
6th: 16 pts
7th: 8 pts
8th: 4pts
9th: 2 pts
10th: 1 pt

This gives primacy to finishing order, rather than consistency, but leaves room so that consistency can still be rewarding. So the current championship would look like this:
Hamilton: 2,304 pts
Rosberg: 2,304 pts
Ricciardo: 896 pts
Vettel: 368 pts
Alonso: 354 pts
Magnussen: 261 pts
Button: 254 pts
Hulkenberg: 161 pts
Perez: 133 pts
Bottas: 88 pts
Massa: 24 pts
Raikkonen: 22 pts
Vergne: 8 pts
Grosjean: 8 pts
Kyvat: 4pts
Bianchi: 2 pts


I've taken a look at some of the recent championships, and for the most part, it looks like the winner would still be the same (although Massa would've won in 2008).

A bit extreme!! I'd more be in favour of a 2:3 ration. 2 wins are the same as 3 seconds, etc...

[Lazy]

 

1 point for a win, 0 for anything else.  If people really are that venal that they need a world championship, then that's all that matters.

So 1 guy gets 3 wins but spends the rest of the time crashing into people or his car imploding.

 

The rest of the drivers don't get more than 2 wins each, it's a great season, lots of different winners but the muppet wins.