Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 8 votes

F1 Points System Unfair?


  • Please log in to reply
322 replies to this topic

#201 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 4,937 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 11 June 2014 - 09:39

An X Factor system does sound great, but phone lines will not open until ALL drivers have crossed the line. Please don't call in now because your vote will not register, but you may still be charged.

 

 

Are you an ally of Bernie E.? This suggestion is something he could come up with to drain money from the TV spectators  he can't milk out for cash otherwise.....

 

 

Henri



Advertisement

#202 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 1,966 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 11 June 2014 - 09:42

As long as he r€m€mber$ who gave him the idea.

#203 kapow

kapow
  • Member

  • 108 posts
  • Joined: May 14

Posted 11 June 2014 - 13:44

Yep....... Let's change the scoring system just because Lewis is behind.

Great thread, well thought out.

As stated numerous times: My comments have nothing to do with it being Hamilton. I'm not even a Hamilton fan!

And I have thought it out... I'd prefer wins to be worth what they were for 40 years of F1. ie 2 wins = minimum 3 seconds

Edited by kapow, 11 June 2014 - 13:47.


#204 D28

D28
  • Member

  • 165 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 11 June 2014 - 15:40

What is important for me, is to set the points system and leave it alone; it should not be amended because individual drivers are advantaged or not. That was the beauty of the 30 years of the 9 6 4 podium; by luck or design, FIA got the  values about right.

A 34% devaluation to 2nd, with a 56% drop for 3rd, intuitively is about what the placings are worth. Looking at Olympic medals, that is how many people see their worth, though some would devalue a Bronze medal to almost nothing.

 

The 7 years of the 10 8 6 podium overvalued 2nd with just a 20% devaluation. The current 25 18 15 gives a 28% drop to 2nd not high enough, it should be 17 to be comparable, with 3rd worth  11. For the sake of consistency, I would have preferred the new system to be proportional to 9 6 4, or if you really value 1st higher, to 10 6 4.  Actually I would have kept the 10 6 4 system, as the smaller numbers are easier to calculate mentally, but I put rather more value on tradition than the FIA does.

 

This whole discussion seems rather mundane when one considers that the last race of the season counts for double points, thus effectively  devaluing the results of the previous 18 races.



#205 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,470 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 11 June 2014 - 15:47

What is important for me, is to set the points system and leave it alone; it should not be amended because individual drivers are advantaged or not. That was the beauty of the 30 years of the 9 6 4 podium; by luck or design, FIA got the  values about right.

A 34% devaluation to 2nd, with a 56% drop for 3rd, intuitively is about what the placings are worth. Looking at Olympic medals, that is how many people see their worth, though some would devalue a Bronze medal to almost nothing.

 

The 7 years of the 10 8 6 podium overvalued 2nd with just a 20% devaluation. The current 25 18 15 gives a 28% drop to 2nd not high enough, it should be 17 to be comparable, with 3rd worth  11. For the sake of consistency, I would have preferred the new system to be proportional to 9 6 4, or if you really value 1st higher, to 10 6 4.  Actually I would have kept the 10 6 4 system, as the smaller numbers are easier to calculate mentally, but I put rather more value on tradition than the FIA does.

 

This whole discussion seems rather mundane when one considers that the last race of the season counts for double points, thus effectively  devaluing the results of the previous 18 races.

 

What makes you think those values are intuitive?

 

As I mentioned in this thread already, for me, the intuitive thing would be for 2nd to be worth half a first, a 3rd to be worth a third of a first,a 4th to be worth a quarter of a first, etc.



#206 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 932 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 11 June 2014 - 15:47

As stated numerous times: My comments have nothing to do with it being Hamilton. I'm not even a Hamilton fan!

And I have thought it out... I'd prefer wins to be worth what they were for 40 years of F1. ie 2 wins = minimum 3 seconds

 

But you haven't explained how the current points are "unfair", just that you'd prefer it was something different.  Can you explain why P2 being worth 0.666 of P1 is fair, but being worth 0.7 is unfair?  If 0.666 is fair, does that mean 0.65 is unfair to P2?  It it fair that P1 scores 1.5 times P2, but P10 scores infinitely more than P11.  Surely the gap from P1 to P2 should be more significant that the gap between P10 and P11. 

 

Of course this is because Championship structures are arbitrary.  There is no inherent reason that one points system should or shouldn't be used.  It is a man made construct to award a prize to the person who scored the most points under an arbitrary system.  In football, why is a goal worth the same no matter where it is shot from.  You could easily make an argument that a more difficult shot on goal should be worth more points.  Instead, football uses the arbitrary system that the only thing that matters is whether the ball goes in the goal or not.  Basketball decided to choose the other way.  Far away shots (3-point line) are worth more, and shots taken without defenders (free-throws) are worth less.  Neither system has an inherent fairness or absolute correctness in the universe, they are just two different, but completely arbitrary systems.   


Edited by Frank Tuesday, 11 June 2014 - 15:57.


#207 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 1,966 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 11 June 2014 - 15:51

What makes you think those values are intuitive?

As I mentioned in this thread already, for me, the intuitive thing would be for 2nd to be worth half a first, a 3rd to be worth a third of a first,a 4th to be worth a quarter of a first, etc.


My nerdy 5 minutes of calculations yesterday came up with 60 being the lowest winner's points that neatly divides down to 6th place ie workable.

Alas, to award points down to 10th with everything neatly divisible the winner would need to get 2520 points!

#208 Briz

Briz
  • Member

  • 351 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 11 June 2014 - 16:16

Setting the points system no matter what it is and leaving it alone is "fair" but it is not always optimal in representing who's the best driver. A balance should be found so that variance doesn't increase too much as to let luck decide the title and on the other hand make it more than a "who finishes more races" contest.

 

The WIN in the race is actually not so special mathematically and as an achievement compared to second place. It is just one position higher than second just like 6th is one position higher than 7th, that is all it is. Doesn't even carry any information by what margin you were in front of second. The reason we want to reward first a bit more is because  we want to make competitors risk and fight for it a bit more and that is because the mass of uninformed spectators don't realise the first thing I said about a win not being important with all the other factors involved in racing. By the way if you pretend to understand racing a lot (like ensign14 seems to often imply and he has all that information in his head), claiming that first is all that should matter points wise just puzzles me, because everyone knows drivers have differing equipment at their disposal and not always does the best equipment end up in the best hands.

 

So why not let the points system reward a driver who manages to get his 3rd and 2nd places with the second or third best car almost every time but instead give the title to someone who wins some races and is nowhere in the rest because he is just a less skilled risk taking or lucky driver? The current system and similar systems to it punish such drivers and I am completely ok with that.

 

Imagine a situation where we have two teams with great cars, but the 4 drivers in those teams are complete idiots and win 5 races each, crash in 15 races each... should a driver of another, weaker team who capitalised on their mistakes reaching the podium every race with a car good for 5th not be the champion? Of course that is an extreme example, but showing the extreme lets you see why a balance should be found. If the current system is the best, dunno, I too think it can take a bit more reward for top finishes, forcing drivers to risk just that little bit much without it becoming a complete crapshoot.



#209 D28

D28
  • Member

  • 165 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 11 June 2014 - 16:30

What makes you think those values are intuitive?

 

As I mentioned in this thread already, for me, the intuitive thing would be for 2nd to be worth half a first, a 3rd to be worth a third of a first,a 4th to be worth a quarter of a first, etc.

Personal intuition of course, plus particular comparison to Olympic medals. I seems to me to be about right (9 6 4 or 10 6 4)

Also the fact the system was in place over 30 years with little sustained complaint.



#210 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 932 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 11 June 2014 - 16:33

Setting the points system no matter what it is and leaving it alone is "fair" but it is not always optimal in representing who's the best driver.

 

Points can never tell you who is the best driver.  It can only tell you who scored the most points based on the system in use. 



#211 f1RacingForever

f1RacingForever
  • Member

  • 975 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 11 June 2014 - 16:49

Hamilton might have more wins but Rosberg has been right on his ass in pretty much all those races. Considering this and that Hamilton has also had 2 dnf's to Rosberg's 0, i think it's more than fair that Hamilton is only 22 points down.



#212 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Writer of 2013's Best Opening Post

  • 7,070 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 11 June 2014 - 16:53

I don't know why people have this weird beleif wins = championships. The whole reason there's a points system at all is to reward consistently good finishes over flash-in-the-pain successes. If HAM wins 8 races and DNFs out of most of the rest, while ROS wins 4 and is on the podium every race he doesn't win, Rosberg is the champion and I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that.



#213 f1RacingForever

f1RacingForever
  • Member

  • 975 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 11 June 2014 - 16:56

I don't know why people have this weird beleif wins = championships. The whole reason there's a points system at all is to reward consistently good finishes over flash-in-the-pain successes. If HAM wins 8 races and DNFs out of most of the rest, while ROS wins 4 and is on the podium every race he doesn't win, Rosberg is the champion and I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that.

They call it being biased.



#214 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Writer of 2013's Best Opening Post

  • 7,070 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 11 June 2014 - 17:14

Biased towards what? The people who do a better job at having good races?



#215 kapow

kapow
  • Member

  • 108 posts
  • Joined: May 14

Posted 11 June 2014 - 17:16

They call it being biased.


I've said many many many times, I'm not a Hamilton fan.

#216 kapow

kapow
  • Member

  • 108 posts
  • Joined: May 14

Posted 11 June 2014 - 17:18

What is important for me, is to set the points system and leave it alone; it should not be amended because individual drivers are advantaged or not. That was the beauty of the 30 years of the 9 6 4 podium; by luck or design, FIA got the values about right.
A 34% devaluation to 2nd, with a 56% drop for 3rd, intuitively is about what the placings are worth. Looking at Olympic medals, that is how many people see their worth, though some would devalue a Bronze medal to almost nothing.

The 7 years of the 10 8 6 podium overvalued 2nd with just a 20% devaluation. The current 25 18 15 gives a 28% drop to 2nd not high enough, it should be 17 to be comparable, with 3rd worth 11. For the sake of consistency, I would have preferred the new system to be proportional to 9 6 4, or if you really value 1st higher, to 10 6 4. Actually I would have kept the 10 6 4 system, as the smaller numbers are easier to calculate mentally, but I put rather more value on tradition than the FIA does.

This whole discussion seems rather mundane when one considers that the last race of the season counts for double points, thus effectively devaluing the results of the previous 18 races.


I'd be against going back to 10-6 but the proportions seemed right. Back then cars retired, you'd have 10 runners at the end of race, so getting into the top 6 meant beating possibly 4 cars. Now regularly 18 cars finish which would mean beating 12 cars to get a point - provided you finish at all of course which I accept is part of it.

#217 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,868 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 11 June 2014 - 17:22

Because the sport has changed significantly since then?  Because the drivers now have engineers sitting at computers, running simulations, and telling the drivers how to go fast instead of the drivers figuring out themselves.  Because the computers prevent drivers from making mistakes.  Because the drivers don't have to take their hand off the steering wheel mid-turn to change gears, or heel-toe in the braking zone.  Because if the drivers go off track, they just get to keep going.  Shall I continue? 

 

That's a good point. Maybe there should be no WDC as these guys are, increasingly, executives rather than drivers.



#218 f1RacingForever

f1RacingForever
  • Member

  • 975 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 11 June 2014 - 17:30

I've said many many many times, I'm not a Hamilton fan.

Could have fooled me



#219 f1RacingForever

f1RacingForever
  • Member

  • 975 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 11 June 2014 - 17:32

Biased towards what? The people who do a better job at having good races?

Do you really think Rosberg has done the better job this year? hmmm



Advertisement

#220 kapow

kapow
  • Member

  • 108 posts
  • Joined: May 14

Posted 11 June 2014 - 17:40

Could have fooled me


Show me any post anywhere I've made on this forum that says I'm a Hamilton fan?

How dare you accuse me of lying.

Not everyone who has an opinion that disagrees with you is saying it because they're biased. What a horrible view of the world you have.

#221 f1RacingForever

f1RacingForever
  • Member

  • 975 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 11 June 2014 - 17:49

Show me any post anywhere I've made on this forum that says I'm a Hamilton fan?

How dare you accuse me of lying.

Not everyone who has an opinion that disagrees with you is saying it because they're biased. What a horrible view of the world you have.

I am only saying that you seem to be a Hamilton fan. I'm not accusing you of anything. Try to calm down.



#222 velgajski1

velgajski1
  • Member

  • 3,655 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 11 June 2014 - 17:54

What's most ridiculous about this system is how much 3rd and lower are rewarded as opposed to 2nd and 1st. 



#223 D28

D28
  • Member

  • 165 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 11 June 2014 - 18:22

I'd be against going back to 10-6 but the proportions seemed right. Back then cars retired, you'd have 10 runners at the end of race, so getting into the top 6 meant beating possibly 4 cars. Now regularly 18 cars finish which would mean beating 12 cars to get a point - provided you finish at all of course which I accept is part of it.

 

It is the proportions for the podium that are all important; they will decide the titles in most years, I am not an enthusiast of awarding points much past 6th, certainly not down to 10th, but I can live with to 8th. It makes teams feel good to score a point, but finishing 10 today is not quite the same as finishing 6th in earlier years, again consistency and historical comparability is what I deem to be important. 



#224 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 848 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 11 June 2014 - 18:44

Just for kicks, for a full grid of 26 cars:

 

482
232
149
107
82
65
53
45
38
32
27
24
20
18
15
13
11
10
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
 



#225 f1RacingForever

f1RacingForever
  • Member

  • 975 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 11 June 2014 - 18:48

:lol: Might need a Mathematics degree to tally the points at the end of the season. Whoever wins Abu Dhabi could become the all time record holder for points. :rotfl:


Edited by f1RacingForever, 11 June 2014 - 18:51.


#226 garagetinkerer

garagetinkerer
  • Member

  • 2,731 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 11 June 2014 - 18:59

I think what people also need to remember is that points meant money, and still do. So the money could be better distributed amongst the teams who usually are around middle of the happenings, i think this new system was brought upon. It may not be fair to the winner as 10-6-4-3-2-1 was... but is much more fair to the teams participating.



#227 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,483 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 11 June 2014 - 19:37

I think what people also need to remember is that points meant money, and still do. So the money could be better distributed amongst the teams who usually are around middle of the happenings, i think this new system was brought upon. It may not be fair to the winner as 10-6-4-3-2-1 was... but is much more fair to the teams participating.

 

There's nothing stopping anyone coming up with a points system that awards points right down the grid, while increasing the gap between first and second, if that is what people want.



#228 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,745 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 11 June 2014 - 20:45

I don't know why people have this weird beleif wins = championships. The whole reason there's a points system at all is to reward consistently good finishes over flash-in-the-pain successes. If HAM wins 8 races and DNFs out of most of the rest, while ROS wins 4 and is on the podium every race he doesn't win, Rosberg is the champion and I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with that.

 

No, the whole reason there's a points system is to lure in the Great Unwashed into thinking there's something exciting going on, and to force the teams to turn up to every race even when they have no hope of winning. 

 

The simple reason for having a problem with Driver A winning twice as much as Driver B but losing the title to Driver B for faults that are not his is, I would have thought, so blatantly axiomatic as not to require explanation.  Driver A is better.  It's back to comprehensive schools again - nobody is allowed to excel, we've all got to be anonymous clones.



#229 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 3,020 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 11 June 2014 - 21:19

No, the whole reason there's a points system is to lure in the Great Unwashed into thinking there's something exciting going on, and to force the teams to turn up to every race even when they have no hope of winning. 

 

The simple reason for having a problem with Driver A winning twice as much as Driver B but losing the title to Driver B for faults that are not his is, I would have thought, so blatantly axiomatic as not to require explanation.  Driver A is better.  It's back to comprehensive schools again - nobody is allowed to excel, we've all got to be anonymous clones.

 

But you're conflating the issue of the way wins are valued vs other competitive finishes vs DNFs, with the question of problems outside the driver's control.

 

Rosberg lost a win on Sunday because of a car problem that wasn't his fault. He wouldn't have been beaten by Ricciardo otherwise. He also lost the race lead to Hamilton because of something that wasn't his fault (the slow left front tyre change). Things happen all the time that aren't the driver's fault and cost him wins. So even if you have a system that only counts wins and ignores everything else, drivers will continue to lose wins through no fault of their own and, when that happens, another driver will reap the benefit and rack up a win which he wouldn't otherwise have got.

 

So although we happen to have a situation at the moment, the way the F1 results have gone so far this season, where the driver who has performed best (EDIT: out of the two WDC contenders) isn't leading the championship, and he has won the most races, that doesn't mean that only counting wins would make everything fair in all circumstances. There will still be lucky wins and unlucky failures to win. And it's only lucky or unlucky from a driver-centric perspective. If you view it as a team sport, which is what it is, in the end it's the team's and the driver's joint responsibility to make sure they're there at the end.

 

Plus, drivers do of course fail to finish and fail to win because they've binned it. A traditional points system punishes that to one degree or another whether the driver crashes out of the lead or out of fifth or tenth place. The winner takes all system only punishes mistakes if you crash out of the lead. Many people feel that would amount to an unwarranted failure to attach appropriate value to consistency.

 

Plus, if nothing except winning counted, would Rosberg have been willing to settle for second in Bahrain? Or would he have adopted more of a "let me by or we crash" attitude? We might have had different results in that case.


Edited by redreni, 11 June 2014 - 22:17.


#230 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 3,433 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 11 June 2014 - 21:31

Do you really think Rosberg has done the better job this year? hmmm

 

Did Piquet do a better job than Mansell in 1987? Did Prost do a better job than Senna in 1989?

 

Yet they both won titles by having a better reliability than their team-mates.

 

And this was with the old point system, which awarded wins more!

 

As said, point system or championship competition is not about "being fair" or even showing who is the best driver or best team. It is about who could get the best results on average over a series of events.

 

As long as we keep discussing about this very basic principle, people will be dissatisfied with champions and keep debating about "perfect" point system. There doesn't exist perfect point system. The best driver (even in the same team with an identical car to his team-mate) doesn't always win. As someone said, it is an arbitrary method used to calculate an overall results over a series of events. There is no "inherent fairness" in 2nd place getting 60%, 80% or whatever % of winner's points. It is all about taste and opinion, how you set the bar.

 

If Rosberg wins the WDC with half the amount of Hamilton's wins, it is not the point system that is "at fault". The ones at fault is the Hamilton's side of garage, who couldn't prepare a reliable enough car. Or maybe at fault is just blind luck or unluck - sometimes it happens, is supposed to happen and that's how life is! No arbitrarily awarded numbers are supposed to correct pure luck. If Rosberg is lucky to win WDC, then be it so. It's part of life, luck is part of life. You can't eliminate that.


Edited by sopa, 11 June 2014 - 21:39.


#231 frozzie

frozzie
  • New Member

  • 12 posts
  • Joined: May 14

Posted 11 June 2014 - 21:40

Your second paragraph contradicts the first.



Yes, my argument was that points scoring system was okay for all but the last race, which I think should be equally tested as all others. It operates on it's own system

#232 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,745 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 11 June 2014 - 21:40

Plus, if nothing except winning counted, would Rosberg have been willing to settle for second in Bahrain? Of would he have adopted more of a "let me by or we crash" attitude? We might have had different results in that case.

 

I'd rather have a sport where drivers put everything on the line to win races rather than have them concentrate on totting up points like a ****ing accountant.



#233 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 3,433 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 11 June 2014 - 21:45

All those that talk about "fairness" and how wins reflect the driver's season in the best way.

 

I just realized that with a "winner takes it all" system Olivier Panis would have finished 4th in the 1996 Drivers Championship. Does that fairly reflect the performance that year? :p Apart from the Monaco win, Panis was nowhere to be seen all season and barely got any more points. Did Panis deserve to finish the season above, say, Alesi, who finished on the podium on lots of occasions and lost Monaco win (the one Panis eventually won) due to car failure.

 

Same applies to Fisichella in 2003.

 

All I see is that "position-based" championship creates more unfairness in the championship than we currently have without a proper overview how well each driver really did during the year as a couple of freak results stand out and mix up the order.


Edited by sopa, 11 June 2014 - 21:46.


#234 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 3,433 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 11 June 2014 - 21:53

I'd rather have a sport where drivers put everything on the line to win races rather than have them concentrate on totting up points like a ****ing accountant.

 

Maybe that would be good for another topic - do we need a World Championship or are individual Grands Prix enough?

 

However, the world has been moving in the direction that wherever in sports competition there is a series of events during a season, something will be calculated to put those competitors into ranking. It is a way of systemizing what is actually going on in the grand scheme of things.



#235 Mascalzone

Mascalzone
  • New Member

  • 9 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 11 June 2014 - 21:58

'90s WRC points system is the best imo:

 

  1. 20
  2. 15
  3. 12
  4. 10
  5. 8
  6. 6
  7. 4
  8. 3
  9. 2
  10. 1

maybe plus 1pt for the pole, 1 for the fastest lap, 1 for the driver who led the most laps, that become 3 if the driver led all laps, got the pole and the fastest lap (hat trick = 22 pts, grand chelem = 25pts)


Edited by Mascalzone, 11 June 2014 - 22:06.


#236 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,745 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 11 June 2014 - 22:07

Maybe that would be good for another topic - do we need a World Championship or are individual Grands Prix enough?

 

However, the world has been moving in the direction that wherever in sports competition there is a series of events during a season, something will be calculated to put those competitors into ranking. It is a way of systemizing what is actually going on in the grand scheme of things.

 

Golf and tennis do not need an overall world champion.  The events themselves count as sufficient.  Similar with athletics in which the league is very much second fiddle to the one-off World and Olympics.  Cycling is based around the great events as well.

 

There is no need at all for a world championship, other than to stuff Bernie's mates' pockets.  About the only merit it can have is to lend a narrative over a season, with the downside that that narrative overrides the races themselves.  People remember thrilling championship battles that amount to shadow boxing - two drivers duelling for points when they never overtake each other on track.



#237 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 3,433 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 11 June 2014 - 22:15

Golf and tennis do not need an overall world champion.  The events themselves count as sufficient.  Similar with athletics in which the league is very much second fiddle to the one-off World and Olympics.  Cycling is based around the great events as well.

 

There is no need at all for a world championship, other than to stuff Bernie's mates' pockets.  About the only merit it can have is to lend a narrative over a season, with the downside that that narrative overrides the races themselves.  People remember thrilling championship battles that amount to shadow boxing - two drivers duelling for points when they never overtake each other on track.

 

However, in golf and tennis there are overall point rankings, which try to analyze, how good each player has been during the past year. It is an important achievement to be a "#1 player" for some period in your career, which saw you having the biggest point-score over a series of events during the past year.

 

So, point systems exist. Just that in F1 they are effectively used for a World Championship, while in many other sports World Championship is a single event during a season and points are used for other purposes - for example how to seed players/teams for competitions, etc. But in F1 or in wider motorsports World Championship is not concentrated on a single event, because luck factor would be too big.



#238 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 3,020 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 11 June 2014 - 22:30

However, in golf and tennis there are overall point rankings, which try to analyze, how good each player has been during the past year. It is an important achievement to be a "#1 player" for some period in your career, which saw you having the biggest point-score over a series of events during the past year.

 

So, point systems exist. Just that in F1 they are effectively used for a World Championship, while in many other sports World Championship is a single event during a season and points are used for other purposes - for example how to seed players/teams for competitions, etc. But in F1 or in wider motorsports World Championship is not concentrated on a single event, because luck factor would be too big.

 

Don't the golf tours just tot up the prize money and rank the players on earnings? I didn't realise they had a points-based ranking system as well. As you can probably tell, I don't follow golf that closely...

 

But you're right, of course, there is invariably some system of ranking the competitors in any sport, for the obvious and very good reason that people want to be able to differentiate between the better and the worse losers. That's how up-and-coming sportsmen and women can gague their progress and make their mark on their chosen sport - they won't win immediately, but they might get eye-catching, non-winning results. The talent-spotters will not assume that everybody who doesn't win is a waste of space. They're looking for potential. And a young, inexperienced driver who is new in a particular championship and regularly scores strong points finishes and beats more experienced rivals, may well have winning potential, and there's no reason at all why that shouldn't be tracked and recognised by the scoring system.



#239 CatharticF1

CatharticF1
  • Member

  • 259 posts
  • Joined: February 03

Posted 12 June 2014 - 02:12

No it's not a fair system.

 

The best system F1 ever had was awarding 10,6,4,3,2,1 to the first 6 places.

 

It's been changed with the deliberate intent of a closer points spread: specifically that a dominant driver won't have as big a margin as I would argue they deserve.



Advertisement

#240 D28

D28
  • Member

  • 165 posts
  • Joined: April 14

Posted 12 June 2014 - 14:02

No it's not a fair system.

 

The best system F1 ever had was awarding 10,6,4,3,2,1 to the first 6 places.

 

It's been changed with the deliberate intent of a closer points spread: specifically that a dominant driver won't have as big a margin as I would argue they deserve.

 I agree with you, If points must be awarded down to 8th or 10th, simply doubling the numbers for the podium 20 12  8 would have kept the same historical proportions; the other points could have been filled in from 7 on down. This would have been a simple acceptable solution.



#241 MikeV1987

MikeV1987
  • Member

  • 1,716 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 12 June 2014 - 15:29

It rewards consistency, so that seems pretty fair in my books. The only thing that might put a taint on the championship is the double points at the end,I wouldn't want my favorite driver taking the title due to that.



#242 Lights

Lights
  • Member

  • 9,883 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 12 June 2014 - 15:48

It rewards consistency, so that seems pretty fair in my books. The only thing that might put a taint on the championship is the double points at the end,I wouldn't want my favorite driver taking the title due to that.

 

That's why it's such a horrible rule. Win or lose through it, there are no winners.



#243 Jon83

Jon83
  • Member

  • 1,956 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 12 June 2014 - 16:37

No it's not a fair system.

 

The best system F1 ever had was awarding 10,6,4,3,2,1 to the first 6 places.

 

It's been changed with the deliberate intent of a closer points spread: specifically that a dominant driver won't have as big a margin as I would argue they deserve.

 

2011 and 2013 ended with pretty big margins.

 

I understand your point and kind of agree about the system you touched on but to be honest, considering P8,9 and 10 get points, I think the current system is fine.
 



#244 Wes350

Wes350
  • Member

  • 83 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 13 June 2014 - 01:15

15 10 7 5 4 3 2 1  with Drivers being able to drop their worst result in each half of the season. Constructors count everything.

 

Would be my preferred system.

 

But for me most any system could work if there is a little something extra between podium finishers and the rest of the field - and the winner from second place.

 

So even a spread like 16 12 9 7 6 5 4 3 2 1  while not hitting any ideal ratios, would be fine with me if applied consistently year to year.

 

But within the current system with the top ten getting points - and the FOM money payout tied to constructor points...

 

Would the teams agree to any system that didn't award points to at least the tenth place??


Edited by Wes350, 13 June 2014 - 02:03.


#245 27gilles27

27gilles27
  • Member

  • 103 posts
  • Joined: May 14

Posted 13 June 2014 - 03:55

The points system has been debated and changed several times since f1 began, but most agree it should reward both race winners and consistency. The argument that whoever wins most races should be champion is flawed because it should be about the best driver (in the case of the wdc) and that should be whoever gets the best out of what may not be the best car. Like Lauda in 77, Scheckter in 79, Rosberg in 82, Prost in 86. Also, Lauda was clever enough to beat the faster Prost in the same car in 84, thats the kind of skill f1 needs to showcase. In 88 the scoring system favoured the driver with most wins so Senna won although he had 14 points less than Prost. There will never be a points system that pleases everyone but double points at one round, the most absurd thing I've ever heard. The only way it will work is if the most dominant driver of the season somehow fails to win, thereby not extending his champioship lead and giving someone else a look in. What chance?

#246 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,470 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 June 2014 - 07:08

The more I think about it, the more I think dropped scores should be re-introduced and that it was ideal for 1988, and would be ideal for this year.

 

It doesn't change anything in a season of dominance by one driver (no points season can). In a very competitive season, it won't have much effect either, as getting near the maximum score is very difficult. Also, in a competitive season, the best guys will be regularly finishing in different spots, and it still takes into account the consistency.

 

But in a season dominated by a couple of drivers - especially teammates in a car much faster than the opposition - it then becomes a head to head for wins.

 

I've never bought the excuse that it's difficult to understand. Many sports have the option of discarding your worst score(s).



#247 Sash1

Sash1
  • Member

  • 216 posts
  • Joined: March 14

Posted 13 June 2014 - 07:36

In a championship where you get penalized for using to many engines, gearboxes and whatever it would be rather strange if you could drop those worst scores. Makes it worthwile to use that extra engine and turn up the wick = cost more money = apperently not what the teams want. And the organizers run a bigger risk that the championship is decided before the last few races. So Abu Dabi would not pay the cash they do now to host the last race.



#248 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 1,966 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 13 June 2014 - 07:37

The dropped scores system can result in a driver finishing behind a rival in the race, yet overtaking him in the championship! It can also mean a driver lying 5th in the championship going into the final round can still be champion but the driver lying 3rd can't!

I can see why the casual fan might struggle with that, even though it actually DOES make sense and is by far my favourite system. To be honest, I quite like those little quirks! It isn't a flaw in the system, it's actually the fairest one I can think of in terms of ensuring the most deserving champions are produced.

#249 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 13 June 2014 - 07:40

I still think the X-Factor solution would be better today. In the end the popular drivers are the reasons people watch the race, so that should be rewarded.



#250 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,470 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 June 2014 - 08:27

In a championship where you get penalized for using to many engines, gearboxes and whatever it would be rather strange if you could drop those worst scores. Makes it worthwile to use that extra engine and turn up the wick = cost more money = apperently not what the teams want. And the organizers run a bigger risk that the championship is decided before the last few races. So Abu Dabi would not pay the cash they do now to host the last race.

 

I don't agree that there's such a "first order" relationship between allowing dropped scores and encouraging reliability through limited engines and gearboxes. You can have the latter while the former still pushes you to have as many good results as you can.

 

I don't think discards result in earlier won championships either. If anything it keeps the leader in range by only allowing him a certain number of scores. One you start dropping scores, it's easier to catch up with a few good results, but you can't defend by racking up a lot of low points finishes.