# F1 Points System Unfair?

322 replies to this topic

### #101 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
• Member

• 5,410 posts
• Joined: June 02

Posted 10 June 2014 - 10:47

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?

Henri

### #102 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
• Member

• 8,257 posts
• Joined: January 10

Posted 10 June 2014 - 10:52

Me, because it's me.

More seriously, six times I beat everyone.  It's like me winning the Open and coming 3rd at the Masters and the PGA, and you coming 2nd in all three.  Neither of us get the green jacket, but I get the claret jug.

Obviously I'd feel a bit put out seeing as I'd beaten you more often than you beat me.

But let's make it more extreme. You didn't finish the other 12 races due to your own mistakes. So 6 times you beat everyone, but 12 times everyone beat you. Now should you still be the champion?

Edited by PayasYouRace, 10 June 2014 - 10:52.

### #103 E.B.

E.B.
• Member

• 2,214 posts
• Joined: March 05

Posted 10 June 2014 - 10:54

I like PayasYouRace's idea so much I am now sat working out all the lowest common multiples that allow for a points system to cover the top 6, 7, 8 etc with just whole numbers for each of the positions.

### #104 Buttoneer

Buttoneer

• 17,482 posts
• Joined: May 04

Posted 10 June 2014 - 10:57

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...

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.

We do have a thread around these parts somewhere in which people tried to come up with an alternative points system which would rob Button of his 2009 WDC because that was absolutely definitely The Wrong Result.

edit; Here it is; "The "Jenson Doesn't deserve it" points system thread"

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?

F1 is a team sport and as much aboiut the engineering as the drivers, even if that's not how or why you, specifically, are watching.  If you want a sport which is less balanced towards the machine, then you need a spec series.  No, I'm not telling you to go watch something else, I'm saying that sometimes the point is forgotten.

That being the case, with man and machine in imperfect harmony to the point where they don't finish, the zero scores will weight heavily against them and this is as it should be.  Consistency is important, and it should be important to a championship comprising a number of separate events.  We have engines and gearboxes which are supposed to last for multiple events, so clearly consistency and reliability are there built in to the formula so I have no difficulty at all with the way the points system punishes a DNF, or the differential between first and second.  Again, a different series which relies less on unique prototypes and advanced technology might not score the same way.

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.

Bernie, is that you?

### #105 skc

skc
• Member

• 1,526 posts
• Joined: April 13

Posted 10 June 2014 - 11:01

How about a tennis rankings style of points rewards?

The number of points you get on a specific race day will vary based on the ranking of the people you finish ahead of.

So, Ricciardo today would have had a massive points haul having finished ahead of Rosberg who based on his points haul is the prize scalp.

It would even encourage overtaking and more aggressive driving because the permutations would change corner to corner.

It would also mean that winning the race wouldn't necessarily guarantee you the most points on that day. In other words, if Max Chilton somehow finished second at Montreal, his race day points haul would eclipse that of the actual race winner.

Crazy?

### #106 Jon83

Jon83
• Member

• 2,627 posts
• Joined: November 11

Posted 10 June 2014 - 11:06

How about a tennis rankings style of points rewards?

The number of points you get on a specific race day will vary based on the ranking of the people you finish ahead of.

So, Ricciardo today would have had a massive points haul having finished ahead of Rosberg who based on his points haul is the prize scalp.

It would even encourage overtaking and more aggressive driving because the permutations would change corner to corner.

It would also mean that winning the race wouldn't necessarily guarantee you the most points on that day. In other words, if Max Chilton somehow finished second at Montreal, his race day points haul would eclipse that of the actual race winner.

Crazy?

IMO, absolutely.

### #107 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
• Member

• 5,410 posts
• Joined: June 02

Posted 10 June 2014 - 11:06

Thanks! I did not know that. By the way: didn't Bobby Rahal or somebody win the Indy Cart or Champ Car title with no victories at all?

1958 Tony Bettenhausen tooc the USAC cahmpcar title without a single victory, Tom Sneva did the same in 1978.

Henri

### #108 Massa

Massa
• Member

• 5,118 posts
• Joined: February 10

Posted 10 June 2014 - 11:11

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.

Absolutly agree with you.

### #109 RubalSher

RubalSher
• Member

• 3,221 posts
• Joined: March 13

Posted 10 June 2014 - 11:22

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

How about going back to the mid 80s formula of only counting the best 15 finishes for the WDC? You get some room to wipe out reliability failures.

### #110 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
• Member

• 5,410 posts
• Joined: June 02

Posted 10 June 2014 - 11:23

How about a tennis rankings style of points rewards?

The number of points you get on a specific race day will vary based on the ranking of the people you finish ahead of.

So, Ricciardo today would have had a massive points haul having finished ahead of Rosberg who based on his points haul is the prize scalp.

It would even encourage overtaking and more aggressive driving because the permutations would change corner to corner.

It would also mean that winning the race wouldn't necessarily guarantee you the most points on that day. In other words, if Max Chilton somehow finished second at Montreal, his race day points haul would eclipse that of the actual race winner.

Crazy?

Tennis!!!!

I have done the maths on a theoretical game in which the winner wins with 3-2 in sets with set results 6-0, 6-0, 6-7(Tiebreak 5-7), 6-7(Tiebreak 5-7) and 5-7 and in which he lost all his games on love (0-4) and wins his games with 4-2. in other words, maximum losing, minimal victory in games and sets.

The loser had scored 164 points, the winner 90 !!!! despite scoring 1.82 times as many point, the other player looses the game.

Reminds me a bit about Alain Prost loosing the 1988 title because of the best 11 of 16 races and had to drop 18 points while Senna had to drop only 4. Had all results counted then Prost had a 11 point margin on Senna.

11 points difference in margin, and still loose the title.

There were only 10 drivers in the end results, (including Prost and Senna) who had scored more than 11 points over the entire season.....

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 10 June 2014 - 11:24.

### #111 Buttoneer

Buttoneer

• 17,482 posts
• Joined: May 04

Posted 10 June 2014 - 11:25

But reliability is an important part of the formula, evidenced by the multi-race nature of many components.  If you removed the requirement to finish all races, then they will just build cars which will finish fewer times.

### #112 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
• Member

• 5,410 posts
• Joined: June 02

Posted 10 June 2014 - 11:45

kapow, on 10 Jun 2014 - 08:48, said:

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.

Talk about a truly interesting title decider.

Within Speed skating there had been a rule for a long time that was most interesting.

There were the allround championships for men and woman (men 500, 1500, 5000 and 10000 meters, Women did 500, 1500 3000 and 500 meters) and the Sprint championship (both men and women 2 times 500 and two times 1000 meter)

Now the rule was that anyone who won 3 of the 4 events in the tournament was automaticly declared champion, na matter the result of his/her fourth distance)

Up till 1983 there had been several occasions in which the champion had won three distances but also had the best point score of all participants so would have been champion anyway, even without the threetime-winner-is-champion rule.

But in 1983, Norwegian skater Rolf Falk-Larsen won the first three distances and was thus the champion before the last distance (10000 meters) begun. He did that last distance as a tourist, without putting any efforts in finish in in a decent time. It eventually lead to the result that swedish skater Tommy Gustafson had a better point score over all 4 distances combined, yet was classified second behind Falk-Larsen. (interestingly, that happened on a norwegian ice ring and even the home crowd booed Falk-Larsen for his behaviour)

If my memory serves me well, during a ladies sprint world championship it happened that an East German participant (given the doping culture of East Germany I wonder if she was actually 100% female) fell at the first 500 meters yet won the remaining one as well as both 1000 meters. Because of that, and despite a point score that was rediculous, the East German participant was declared World champion.

Shortly after that, the rules were changed and 3-out-of-4 didn't make you champion anymore but only the best pointy score did.

maybe something for F1? Win 3/4th of all races and automatically be declared champion?

henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 10 June 2014 - 11:49.

• Member

• 7,381 posts
• Joined: May 08

Posted 10 June 2014 - 11:48

I would like the system to be the same for each race

### #114 ensign14

ensign14
• Member

• 38,875 posts
• Joined: December 01

Posted 10 June 2014 - 11:55

Obviously I'd feel a bit put out seeing as I'd beaten you more often than you beat me.

But let's make it more extreme. You didn't finish the other 12 races due to your own mistakes. So 6 times you beat everyone, but 12 times everyone beat you. Now should you still be the champion?

Yes.  Winning a third of the races?  Championship form to me.  Especially with everyone else racing under the same win-or-bust mentality.

### #115 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
• Member

• 8,257 posts
• Joined: January 10

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:02

Yes.  Winning a third of the races?  Championship form to me.  Especially with everyone else racing under the same win-or-bust mentality.

So even in a system where you could be beaten more often than you win, you'd still give a championship. That's fundamentally unfair.

### #116 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
• Member

• 3,415 posts
• Joined: October 12

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:06

I tried for the 2013 season using Wikipedia, and I got this:
Vettel - 50
Alonso - 95
Hamilton - 113
Webber - 133
Rosberg - 141
Raikonnen - 159 (I gave him 23 points for the two races he didn't participate in)

After that, there're few switches here and there, and two notable results with Grosjean losing two places and Vergne losing three. Chilton is still last with 345 points, but only by 1 point (not counting Kovalainen, of course).
Unsurprisingly, this system penalise DNFs (and DNSs) heavily: all places losses compared to the regular classification were to drivers with more DNFs than the ones who took their places.

Wow, thanks! Very interesting.

### #117 RubalSher

RubalSher
• Member

• 3,221 posts
• Joined: March 13

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:06

How about winner of maximum races over a season gets 50 points? Maximum poles is 25 points. Maximum fastest laps is 25 points.

These numbers are arbitrary but essentially start scoring wins, poles and FLs too in some form, but only for the guy who has them most over a season.

Edited by RubalSher, 10 June 2014 - 12:07.

### #118 HuddersfieldTerrier1986

HuddersfieldTerrier1986
• Member

• 2,104 posts
• Joined: May 11

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:11

There's no perfect points system. There never has been, there never will be. Whatever system you use, someone will say it's not fair in some way, shape or form.

### #119 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
• Member

• 8,257 posts
• Joined: January 10

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:15

I tried for the 2013 season using Wikipedia, and I got this:
Vettel - 50
Alonso - 95
Hamilton - 113
Webber - 133
Rosberg - 141
Raikonnen - 159 (I gave him 23 points for the two races he didn't participate in)

After that, there're few switches here and there, and two notable results with Grosjean losing two places and Vergne losing three. Chilton is still last with 345 points, but only by 1 point (not counting Kovalainen, of course).
Unsurprisingly, this system penalise DNFs (and DNSs) heavily: all places losses compared to the regular classification were to drivers with more DNFs than the ones who took their places.

This is why placing point systems usually have discarded scores, because sometimes circumstances could keep a front runner from taking part and it would do disproportionate damage to his chances.

### #120 velgajski1

velgajski1
• Member

• 3,721 posts
• Joined: August 09

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:20

For me, best system is 9-6-4-3-2-1 with 10-20% of worst results discounted. F1 historically had discounting worst results, last 2 decades removed that for some reason.

Also, current system awards 3rd place and lower too much. 1st/2nd ratio is fine for me now.

Bernie's medals are on the opposing end of the spectrum, as rewarding wins too much. Classic 9-6-4-3-2-1 with 10-20% of worst results discounted is a middle path between those two extremes (all results being counted vs wins counted only)

Edited by velgajski1, 10 June 2014 - 12:40.

### #121 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
• Member

• 3,415 posts
• Joined: October 12

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:28

You know what would be a solution for regarding the points system as more fair than now? By reinstating winning a Grand Prix as bloody WINNING A GRAND PRIX!

Then you've got TWO ways to measure a good season in F1. One: your position in the championship. Two. How many Grand Prix this or that driver won... and which one.

I have an idea: we base the price-money of every Grand Prix not evenly, but accordingly to the sold tv-advertisements per Grand Prix.

Biggest Grand Prix (wild guess):

1. Monaco

2. Abu Dhabi

3. Austin

4. Japan

Then fans can say after 2014: 'Well, Lewis beat Nico... but Nico won Monaco. So there!'

### #122 kapow

kapow
• Member

• 247 posts
• Joined: May 14

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:29

But reliability is an important part of the formula, evidenced by the multi-race nature of many components. If you removed the requirement to finish all races, then they will just build cars which will finish fewer times.

No sane person denies that reliability is important but should it seemingly be MORE important than winning, to a point of where a driver could win 70% of the first ten races and have a second place but not be leading the championship?

The points should be a reflection of the balance between winning and finishing. Those two things together make being consistently better than anyone else.

Potentially in 3 races time Lewis could have 7 wins to 2 - that is being consistently good.

This isn't a 2008 where it was very tight on wins... Lewis could win 70% of the first 10.

### #123 Imateria

Imateria
• Member

• 1,087 posts
• Joined: January 14

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:32

In a year like this where only 2 drivers are realistically fighting for the wins at every race, reliability will become even more important, that's just how it's going to be regardless of the points system unless someone comes up with something bloody ridiculous that only rewards wins. Personally I prefer a system that rewards wins as well as consistency and we've pretty much got that now. The old top 6 scoring systems are no longer remotely viable because of the performance and reliability of the whole field these days, it's considerably stronger than at any time up to about the late 90's when budgets started to sky rocket. I also don't like dropped scores at all, it's like saying to a team "you've done a shit job but we're going to give you a helping hand over others that have done better than you".

I'm also surprised over the complaints of the countback rule. It's there to differentiate between teams/drivers that have scored the same number of points (an important requirement when you consider the money involved) and it doesn't matter if it's 100 points or 0 that they are tied on, it's the best scored result or, if that is equal, the team/driver that has scored that result the most times. I've seen a championship in the mid 2000's that was decided on countback to the number of 5th places (seriously, 2 drivers had the same number of wins, 2nd's, 3rd's and 4th's!).

EDIT: It's also a 19 race season, that's enough races for a consistent scorer to overcome the freak results, weather that be a couple of DNF's or for the lower teams some one getting a surprise podium (look at how far ahead Hulk is compared to Perez, who has had only 1 good race that got him the teams only podium).

Edited by Imateria, 10 June 2014 - 12:38.

### #124 kapow

kapow
• Member

• 247 posts
• Joined: May 14

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:34

Those claiming that having 2 DNFs should count for more than 7 wins to 2 in ten races... you'll all go for a 10.9.8... points system then?

### #125 kapow

kapow
• Member

• 247 posts
• Joined: May 14

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:42

In a year like this where only 2 drivers are realistically fighting for the wins at every race, reliability will become even more important, that's just how it's going to be regardless of the points system unless someone comes up with something bloody ridiculous that only rewards wins. Personally I prefer a system that rewards wins as well as consistency and we've pretty much got that now. The old top 6 scoring systems are no longer remotely viable because of the performance and reliability of the whole field these days, it's considerably stronger than at any time up to about the late 90's when budgets started to sky rocket. I also don't like dropped scores at all, it's like saying to a team "you've done a shit job but we're going to give you a helping hand over others that have done better than you".

I'm also surprised over the complaints of the countback rule. It's there to differentiate between teams/drivers that have scored the same number of points (an important requirement when you consider the money involved) and it doesn't matter if it's 100 points or 0 that they are tied on, it's the best scored result or, if that is equal, the team/driver that has scored that result the most times. I've seen a championship in the mid 2000's that was decided on countback to the number of 5th places (seriously, 2 drivers had the same number of wins, 2nd's, 3rd's and 4th's!).

Bloody ridiculous system?

Well the 9,6,4 and 10,6,4 systems that were used for 40 years did just such a thing as rewarding wins more than the current system.

2nd place is worth 3 times as much now as in the 10,6 system but 1st is only worth 2.5 times as much. Why isn't 1st worth 30 points? A win used to be worth 20% more than it is now when compared to 2nd.

The fact is that a win is worth less now than it was for 40 years of F1, even more so considering that there are more races.

### #126 velgajski1

velgajski1
• Member

• 3,721 posts
• Joined: August 09

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:49

It's not that much about points awarded, its about fact that all results are counted as opposed to before 90's when 10-25% of worst results were discounted to make it less about reliability and to encourage aggressive driving.

### #127 Imateria

Imateria
• Member

• 1,087 posts
• Joined: January 14

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:51

Bloody ridiculous system?

Well the 9,6,4 and 10,6,4 systems that were used for 40 years did just such a thing as rewarding wins more than the current system.

2nd place is worth 3 times as much now as in the 10,6 system but 1st is only worth 2.5 times as much. Why isn't 1st worth 30 points? A win used to be worth 20% more than it is now when compared to 2nd.

The fact is that a win is worth less now than it was for 40 years of F1, even more so considering that there are more races.

And as people have already told you, repeatedly, under the old system Rosberg would still be ahead. Given that we're talking about 1st's and 2nd's here and not a collection of top 6 finishes,  I think 10 scores should be worth more than 8.

### #128 Imateria

Imateria
• Member

• 1,087 posts
• Joined: January 14

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:55

It's not that much about points awarded, its about fact that all results are counted as opposed to before 90's when 10-25% of worst results were discounted to make it less about reliability and to encourage aggressive driving.

I think Perez and Maldonado provide enough "aggression" as it is. Do you know what stands out the most for me about the 2009 British GP? It's Hamilton and Alonso fighting tooth and nail against each other for 13th, it was worth nothing but bragging rights, yet they fought like it was for the win. The idea that a change in points system is going to encourage drivers to fight harder is idiotic IMO.

### #129 velgajski1

velgajski1
• Member

• 3,721 posts
• Joined: August 09

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:56

Ah, I guess that F1 had that worst result discounting for 40 years because they were idiotic. Fighting for 13th is a weak (or as you would say 'idiotic') argument because at that point you don't risk anything anyway.

Edited by velgajski1, 10 June 2014 - 12:59.

### #130 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
• Member

• 1,016 posts
• Joined: August 01

Posted 10 June 2014 - 12:57

Tennis!!!!

I have done the maths on a theoretical game in which the winner wins with 3-2 in sets with set results 6-0, 6-0, 6-7(Tiebreak 5-7), 6-7(Tiebreak 5-7) and 5-7 and in which he lost all his games on love (0-4) and wins his games with 4-2. in other words, maximum losing, minimal victory in games and sets.

The loser had scored 164 points, the winner 90 !!!! despite scoring 1.82 times as many point, the other player looses the game.

Reminds me a bit about Alain Prost loosing the 1988 title because of the best 11 of 16 races and had to drop 18 points while Senna had to drop only 4. Had all results counted then Prost had a 11 point margin on Senna.

11 points difference in margin, and still loose the title.

There were only 10 drivers in the end results, (including Prost and Senna) who had scored more than 11 points over the entire season.....

Henri

To me, that says that Senna did a better job racing to the rules.  With a dominant car, and being able to drop your 5 worst scores for the year, the 1988 drivers championship was only ever going to be about which of them had the most wins.  Once you had 3 second place finishes, a DNF was no worse than a second place, so there was no reason to every settle for a second place.  It was better to try to get first, even if it meant crashing in the process.

### #131 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
• Member

• 8,257 posts
• Joined: January 10

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:01

Ah, I guess that F1 had that worst result discounting for 40 years because they were idiotic. Fighting for 13th is a weak (or as you would say 'idiotic') argument because at that point you don't risk anything anyway.

Dropped scores weren't about making drivers fight harder, but to remove the factor of unreliability/injury (the latter more so in early days).

### #132 Buttoneer

Buttoneer

• 17,482 posts
• Joined: May 04

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:05

Those claiming that having 2 DNFs should count for more than 7 wins to 2 in ten races... you'll all go for a 10.9.8... points system then?

You have presented a false dichotomy based on the very specific facts of this current point in the current season and a guessed future.

The technical regulations give due importance to reliability and consistency.  The system gives the second placed car 72% of the winners points. Both of these seem reasonably well balanced to me.  The substance of your argument apears to be that winning is so much more of an achievement than coming second, that the reward needs to be substantially higher.  I don't think you have really demonstrated that it is.

### #133 RubalSher

RubalSher
• Member

• 3,221 posts
• Joined: March 13

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:08

Here is a new thought by me on how the WDC could be decided.

### #134 kapow

kapow
• Member

• 247 posts
• Joined: May 14

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:11

And as people have already told you, repeatedly, under the old system Rosberg would still be ahead. Given that we're talking about 1st's and 2nd's here and not a collection of top 6 finishes, I think 10 scores should be worth more than 8.

Nice condescending tone there...

I've repeatedly said that I have no problem with Rosberg currently leading the championship.

### #135 redreni

redreni
• Member

• 3,360 posts
• Joined: August 09

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:11

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.

I can't think of a culture that values competing and winning more than the Australians, yet look at the V8SC points system. The way I look at it, the World Champion should not only be able to win, he should be capable of limiting the damage when he can't win. Every driver who is involved in a battle for the WDC will have a bad weekend, and I want the points system to differentiate between bad weekends based on how bad they actually are. And I want the positions to matter all the way down the field. And I want the WCC order of the backmarker teams to depend on their performances over the season, not just one result in whichever race has the most retirements. So I favour the V8SC system for F1, with points going all the way down to 20th.

### #136 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
• Member

• 1,016 posts
• Joined: August 01

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:18

Those claiming that having 2 DNFs should count for more than 7 wins to 2 in ten races... you'll all go for a 10.9.8... points system then?

There seem to be two questions which are getting blurred together.  Are you asking whether we like the current points system, or whether it is fair?  To me, no one can leave a race weekend with more points than a driver that finished ahead of them in the race, so (apart from Abu Dhabi double points) there is nothing unfair about it.  10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 would also be a perfectly fair system to me, as would 100-99-98-97-...-80-79-78-77, as would 100-10-1-0-0-0....  The teams and drivers know the points structure ahead of time, and the points distribution is such that a driver who finishes behind can't get more points than you.  Sounds perfectly fair to me.  At that point it is only a matter of whether the FIA wants a system that rewards consistency, wins, podiums, finishes, or some combination thereof.

So back to the question which you actually seem to be asking: Do I like the current points system?  I'll just say that if I could set up the points any way I wanted, I wouldn't choose the current system.  And I wouldn't change the points distribution for the driver's championship at all.  I think it is fine as is.  I would change the Constructors such that the team gets a single score for how they collectively did relative to the other teams rather than just a sum of the individual driver's scores.  The points distribution would be the same as for the drivers, but 10 teams would score points at most races based on the relative order of their highest placed finisher.  The one thing would be that in order to score points, you'd have to have at least one driver be classified at the end of the race.  So the constructors points for Canada would have been: Red Bull - 25, Mercedes - 18, McLaren - 15, Force India - 12, Ferrari - 10, Williams - 8, Toro Rosso - 6, Sauber - 4, and since neither of their drivers were classified, Lotus, Caterham and Marussia would each get 0 points.

### #137 kapow

kapow
• Member

• 247 posts
• Joined: May 14

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:20

I'm not saying that finishing second is meaningless, but you really think that beating everybody and being the fastest is that much more of an achievement then finishing second?

You must have hated F1 for 40 years when winning was worth more than it is now, especially in the late 80s with the dropped scores.

### #138 Buttoneer

Buttoneer

• 17,482 posts
• Joined: May 04

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:23

I've repeatedly said that I have no problem with Rosberg currently leading the championship.

You have also repeatedly said that you do have a problem with him leading it in three races time. So the discussion is dancing around the percentage difference between 1st and 2nd, but not really saying why it should be more than the current level.  In circumstances like we had last year or 2011, the championship would have wrapped up earlier in the season, making even more races irrelevant to those who consider the championshp standings to be crucial.  That is a solid mark against making the difference bigger.

We might instead be looking at triple points for the last race.

The current level has a good balance.  It allows the championship to stay close this year, but a truly dominant driver/car combination will still run away with it as we have seen very recently.

### #139 ensign14

ensign14
• Member

• 38,875 posts
• Joined: December 01

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:40

So even in a system where you could be beaten more often than you win, you'd still give a championship. That's fundamentally unfair.

In which case we could never have a champion unless someone wins 50%+1 of the races.

### #140 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
• Member

• 8,257 posts
• Joined: January 10

Posted 10 June 2014 - 13:49

In which case we could never have a champion unless someone wins 50%+1 of the races.

Go back to the question in my example. One driver had won more races, but was beaten by another in more races.

Expanding on my example: The 4 win driver (4W) beat the 6 win driver (6W) 10-8. He is ahead of the other drivers (3W, 2W, 1WA, 1WB, 1WC) on wins, and probably on results over the season. So 4W has been beaten by someone more often than not, but they've beaten everyone more often than not.

As I've seen posted "Don't tell me what you won, tell me who you beat". Well if I beat the guy with the most wins more than he beat me, that has more merit.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 10 June 2014 - 13:56.

### #141 Lazy

Lazy
• Member

• 5,991 posts
• Joined: June 10

Posted 10 June 2014 - 14:01

Reliability is very important, it's about who builds the best car.

A fast car that implodes half the time is not a good car.

I don't really care if a driver is a little short changed.

### #142 Imateria

Imateria
• Member

• 1,087 posts
• Joined: January 14

Posted 10 June 2014 - 14:09

I'm not saying that finishing second is meaningless, but you really think that beating everybody and being the fastest is that much more of an achievement then finishing second?

You must have hated F1 for 40 years when winning was worth more than it is now, especially in the late 80s with the dropped scores.

Should I refer you to Spa 2008. Massa was probably the least impressive driver out of everybody that finished in the top 10, and some that didn't, but will forever be recorded as the winner. He didn't beat everybody and he wasn't the fastest yet he's the winner and nothing will ever change that, regardless of where anyone stands on Hamiltons penalty. The same could be said of Hungary that year, or even Japan.

Your second sentence proves how useless extremes are when applied in such a way.

### #143 sopa

sopa
• Member

• 4,557 posts
• Joined: April 07

Posted 10 June 2014 - 14:13

As mentioned, we are having this discussion, because the situation this season is a bit unique. Two cars are so far at the front that P2 is almost guaranteed unless you have issues. And that's why reliability matters more in the battle between the two of them. In more normal seasons other teams and drivers would be taking points off from the championship contenders and any kind of underperformance would backfire more seriously. But we can't adjust point system to try to "avoid" some unique situations, which happen from time-to-time. Point system has to be a compromised solution for all kinds of championship battle scenarios, which might emerge.

For me the ratio of second place getting about 70% of winners' points is about right. As someone mentioned, perhaps positions behind them are overvalued. Currently P3 has 60% of winner's points, but what about 50-55%? Even if P3 isn't even under discussion right now, because Rosberg never finished 3rd. So something like a 10-7-5-4-3-2-1 ratio in points awarding. But I'd prefer top10 to get points in modern era.

Imagine this current title scenario carries on till the end with Rosberg winning only half of Hamilton's races, but... Rosberg DNFing 0 or merely once, but Hamilton DNFing 6 or 7 times and thus losing the WDC. Would Hamilton deserve WDC? Or not? Because if the car of one title contender DNFs so much more than the other, does he really deserve it, as the team did a bad job in preparing the car for races and had lots of issues? Remember, you win and lose as a team. It may be a Drivers World Championship, but it is only a name of it - overall it is still a team effort.

Recall the discussion in 2005. Did McLaren deserve titles just because they were fastest? Or not, because they could not fix reliability unlike Renault. Reliability can come at the expense of something - like pushing to the limits. You made the car (too) fast, but at the cost of reliability issues. Making a car very fast has always risks, like is pushing to the limit. If you DNF too much, you would be penalized in the championship competition even if you win races. You have to find a balance between speed and reliability. This is what makes F1 exciting. Have to take everything into account and there is no single criteria around which the universe should circle, i.e speed.

Edited by sopa, 10 June 2014 - 14:29.

### #144 kapow

kapow
• Member

• 247 posts
• Joined: May 14

Posted 10 June 2014 - 14:14

Should I refer you to Spa 2008. Massa was probably the least impressive driver out of everybody that finished in the top 10, and some that didn't, but will forever be recorded as the winner. He didn't beat everybody and he wasn't the fastest yet he's the winner and nothing will ever change that, regardless of where anyone stands on Hamiltons penalty. The same could be said of Hungary that year, or even Japan.

Your second sentence proves how useless extremes are when applied in such a way.

A meaningless argument. The points system cannot ever be designed to pick up nuances of who deserved to win a particular race, only that they did.

Did Massa finish the race quicker than anyone else, declared the winner and not disqualified? Yes. That's it, end of discussion on that.

Also, that was over 100 races ago. Freak results happen, the best don't always win. I'm very comfortable with that.

My argument has nothing to do with who deserved to win which races.

### #145 Buttoneer

Buttoneer

• 17,482 posts
• Joined: May 04

Posted 10 June 2014 - 14:23

An argument based on 'it's not fair' doesn't really have a lot going for it.

Why is 70% unfair?  If second gets 50% are you happy that the championship might be over two or three races earlier in the season?  Would you be happy that the championship could not be fought for the last few races?  Two DNF's will be a problem for any driver, in a season as closely fought as this.

### #146 ensign14

ensign14
• Member

• 38,875 posts
• Joined: December 01

Posted 10 June 2014 - 14:25

As I've seen posted "Don't tell me what you won, tell me who you beat". Well if I beat the guy with the most wins more than he beat me, that has more merit.

No, because the one with the most wins has beaten everybody most times.  If races were done on a drag racing pattern, then that's different; but they're not.  A head-to-head ranking is illogical in an environment which is not judged on head-to-head but on an all-in basis.

### #147 redreni

redreni
• Member

• 3,360 posts
• Joined: August 09

Posted 10 June 2014 - 14:25

For me, best system is 9-6-4-3-2-1 with 10-20% of worst results discounted. F1 historically had discounting worst results, last 2 decades removed that for some reason.

Well, one reason for that is the manufacturers want to use F1 to promote their brand, and they don't want their brand associated with a car that breaks down one out of any five races. That's less than 1000 miles between breakdowns, which would be appalling if it occurred on a modern road car. So they prefer to have a formula that showcases reliable cars. But if the points system principally rewarded speed and gave unreliable cars a leg up the teams, being competitive, would start pushing the envelope a bit more in search of perormance and would become less reliable as a result, and the manufacterers' wishes would be thwarted.

### #148 kapow

kapow
• Member

• 247 posts
• Joined: May 14

Posted 10 June 2014 - 14:28

Well, one reason for that is the manufacturers want to use F1 to promote their brand, and they don't want their brand associated with a car that breaks down one out of any five races. That's less than 1000 miles between breakdowns, which would be appalling if it occurred on a modern road car. So they prefer to have a formula that showcases reliable cars. But if the points system principally rewarded speed and gave unreliable cars a leg up the teams, being competitive, would start pushing the envelope a bit more in search of perormance and would become less reliable as a result, and the manufacterers' wishes would be thwarted.

With the upside that F1 might become a little more interesting.

### #149 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
• Member

• 8,257 posts
• Joined: January 10

Posted 10 June 2014 - 14:39

No, because the one with the most wins has beaten everybody most times.  If races were done on a drag racing pattern, then that's different; but they're not.  A head-to-head ranking is illogical in an environment which is not judged on head-to-head but on an all-in basis.

If you think about it for a second, you'll see that you can beat everybody most times without winning the most races.

Also what I'm trying to get out there is that wins can't be the only factor in deciding who did the best job over a season (and be called champion). Not that a championship should be decided on a head to head basis. It's just that a points system actually takes into account what happens when you don't win.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 10 June 2014 - 14:46.

### #150 BillBald

BillBald
• Member

• 4,278 posts
• Joined: April 09

Posted 10 June 2014 - 14:45

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

Hey, that was my idea!! I suggested it as a way of always making it worthwhile for a driver to attempt an overtake.

http://forums.autosp...s/#entry5638581

Damn, forgot to patent it.

Seriously, it's really a bit too extreme. And what about a 'lucky' win? It would count for as much as 2 hard-fought 2nd places, or 4 third places. There's really no such thing as a fair system.

Edited by BillBald, 10 June 2014 - 15:03.