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.
7 races and one driver finishes all of them in either first or second place....
While another wins more often but retires twice thus has only 5 point scores.
Even in your mathematical example after 10 races: he still has that two `zero points` scores.
I don't know for sure if the point system is OK with me (Definitely not the double point score in the last race!!!!) but currently, with two retirements vs 0, Nico's point lead is acceptable and defendable to me.
I have more difficulties with the point scores for 11th and lower. Marussuoa now had that fluke score in Monaco. But even if in every race that has yet to follow they cant get a single car in front of a Caterham (or Sauber ....) anymore and any of these two still pointless teams teams will occupy 11th and 12th in all the upcoming races, beating Marusia every time, does that make Marusia deserving to be ranked above the team that takes every 11th and 12th place for the remainer of the season?
With the current rules that would be the case but if it is fair?