Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 4 votes

Which point scoring system is/was or would be the best?


  • Please log in to reply
199 replies to this topic

Poll: Best point scoring system (178 member(s) have cast votes)

Which point scoring system is the best?

  1. F1 since 2010 (25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1) (62 votes [34.83%])

    Percentage of vote: 34.83%

  2. F1 2003-2009 (10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1) (22 votes [12.36%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.36%

  3. F1 1991-2002 (10-6-4-3-2-1) (37 votes [20.79%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.79%

  4. F1 1961-1990 (9-6-4-3-2-1) (20 votes [11.24%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.24%

  5. F1 1960 (8-6-4-3-2-1) (1 votes [0.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.56%

  6. F1 1950-1959 (8-6-4-3-2) (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  7. Indy Car (50-40-35-32-30-28-26-24-22-20-19-18-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-5..) (7 votes [3.93%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.93%

  8. NASCAR (46-42-41-40-39-38-37-36-35-34-33-32-31-30.....) (1 votes [0.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.56%

  9. BTCC (20-17-15-13-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1) (1 votes [0.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.56%

  10. Moto GP (25-20-16-13-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1) (12 votes [6.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.74%

  11. Medal system (1 votes [0.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.56%

  12. Other (14 votes [7.87%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.87%

Should just the race result be awarded with points?

  1. Yes (130 votes [73.03%])

    Percentage of vote: 73.03%

  2. No (48 votes [26.97%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.97%

In case you answered Question 2 with No: What should also be taken into consideration for the championship points?

  1. Pole position (42 votes [18.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.67%

  2. Fastest lap (40 votes [17.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.78%

  3. Leading at least one lap (4 votes [1.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.78%

  4. Leading most laps of the race (6 votes [2.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.67%

  5. Qualifying result (5 votes [2.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.22%

  6. Double points for "special" races (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  7. Dropped result (7 votes [3.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.11%

  8. Other (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  9. None of the above (answered question 2 with yes) (121 votes [53.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 53.78%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 14 July 2015 - 11:03

Didn't find anything about that, so I'm starting this topic.

I recently compared the last years F1 results with some old point systems and I was quit surprised by the outcome. In some cases the championship would have been decided quite early in Hamiltons favour and in some cases Rosberg would have been going into the final race as the championship leader. Furthermore some championship battles would have had an different outcome with the current or an other point system.

Until 1959 in F1 also the fastest lap was awarded with an extra point. This is stil the case in some racing series. As well as for pole positions. And in the Indy Car series and Nascar the driver with the most leading laps is getting extra points and even leading one lap is awarded with an extra point. But in IndyCar and Nascar the leading is also often changing I have to admit.

Until 1990 we had in F1 dropped result which causes for example that Senna won his first championship 1988 without having scored the most points in that season. But this is no longer an real issue because of the great reliability these days. Eventhought in some feeder formula series it was until some years ago stil the case.

The 24 hour of Le Mans and the Indy 500 are awarded with double points because of their status and because the race is longer than a usual race. The F1 season final 2014 had also double points.

Currently we have in F1 and in many other series the 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1 or an slightly different point system which caused that the current generation is not comparable anymore to the past because until 2009 not more than 10 points were awarded for the victory.

This leads into the question which point scoring system, whether a current one, one of the past or a completely different is the best point scoring system? Should just the pure race result be awarded with points? And if not: what should also be taking into consideration regarding the championship points?

Edited by Marklar, 14 July 2015 - 11:29.


Advertisement

#2 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,465 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 14 July 2015 - 11:22

Because you have to cast your vote for all questions of the poll to get it registered, maybe you should add "None of the above" (which is different from "Other") as a possible answer to the third question for those who vote "Yes" to the second question.



#3 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 14 July 2015 - 11:27

Because you have to cast your vote for all questions of the poll to get it registered, maybe you should add "None of the above" (which is different from "Other") as a possible answer to the third question for those who vote "Yes" to the second question.

Totally forgot that :lol: Thanks :up:

#4 Fatgadget

Fatgadget
  • Member

  • 6,966 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 14 July 2015 - 11:28

Winner takes all.Everything else is artificial in my view. Come to think of it I'm beginning to warm to Ecclestones gold medal proposition....I also propose a wooden spoon medal and the Hollywood equivalent of the Raspberry's lol..It is showbiz after all!  :lol:


Edited by Fatgadget, 14 July 2015 - 11:34.


#5 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 23,842 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 14 July 2015 - 12:10

Is that Kimi voting for fastest lap?



#6 Spillage

Spillage
  • Member

  • 10,251 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 14 July 2015 - 12:12

I like the current F1 system. It doesn't quite have the pleasing simplicity of the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system (at least for a simpleton like myself :p ), but I think it's the best balance between a representative championship table and Indycar-style complication.

 

I don't like the idea of points for fastest lap. In the Formula E finale it added a layer of complication that the race didn't need.



#7 pacificquay

pacificquay
  • Member

  • 6,227 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 14 July 2015 - 12:19

1 for a win, nothing for anything else



#8 Kristian

Kristian
  • Member

  • 4,365 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 14 July 2015 - 12:26

I would have 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1 with 1 point for pole, 1 point for fastest lap, and if the driver achieves a 'grand chelem' (race win, pole, fastest lap) then he gets a bonus point, taking the max available to 15. That means the Championship rewards all the necessary skills of a grand prix driver, but still the most massive emphasis is on the race.

 

And in this no-refuelling era, it will mean drivers pushing for fastest lap right to the end of the race. It would eradicate the problems of them turning down the wick for the end of the race.

 

I don't like the current system of having so many points finishes - it skews history too much, and 50% of the field will get points every weekend - F1 should be a bit more exclusive in terms of its points paying positions.  



#9 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 1,841 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 14 July 2015 - 12:39

I think there are two viewpoints on the purpose of points. 

 

1.)  Points should try to fairly rank the drivers/teams.

2.)  Points are an award for exceptional achievement. 

 

People who think 1 are probably more likely to prefer the current system, MotoGP's system or others that reward points deep into the field with small gaps between points.  People who think 2 are more likely to prefer the old systems with 5-6 drivers getting points, or the medal system.  I'm a 2, but I do think that Constructors points should be scored separately from drivers points so that 6 drivers score points, and 6 teams score points (even if only 3 teams have drivers in the points) 



#10 milestone 11

milestone 11
  • Member

  • 17,317 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 14 July 2015 - 13:03

Still don't believe that there is sufficient bonus for a win. There should be eight scoring with no other points awarded. Points should be 25,15,10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1.

#11 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,699 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 July 2015 - 13:21

I'm happy as long as it's on a scale with a reasonable "curve" from winner to about 2/3rds of finishers on average scoring points. That 2/3rds of finishers is roughly how F1 has always been, so it's always been about as difficult for the tail end teams to score.

My ideal distribution would be one where a win is worth roughly 2 seconds, 3 thirds, 4 fourths, 5 fifths, etc. So for example, 24-12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 for the top 9. I'm neutral on the subject of dropped scores and I quite like having a bonus point for a pole or fastest lap.

#12 Jerem

Jerem
  • Member

  • 2,164 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 14 July 2015 - 13:23

1 for a win, nothing for anything else

A gold medal rather than a point, then, Bernie!



#13 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,546 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 14 July 2015 - 13:27

I'd prefer a system that awards points right down the field, or at least to twentieth due to fluctuating grid sizes, but one that rewards the winner more than the American systems in the poll. So "other".

#14 Ruusperi

Ruusperi
  • Member

  • 2,773 posts
  • Joined: July 15

Posted 14 July 2015 - 13:48

The system used 2003-2009 (10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1) was fine because:

-it was simple enough for mental calculations

-points for a victory were somewhat comparable with previous seasons

-it compensated the lack of retirements, as there wasn't enough variability in top-6 like in the 1990's.

Maybe the 2nd place should be 7 points to increase the value of victory, but in the end I think all driver prefer to be first than second, so the incentive is automatic.

 

The 25 point-system ruined statistics comparisons completely and made calculations difficult (I still don't remember how many points 6th place is worth of). Besides, I don't feel drivers that finish 9,10,11, 12...etc "need" points for the sake pity. They should fight to earn the points, whether that means being in top-6 or to-8. Being slow is punished by not having points unlike in Indycar.



#15 FerrariV12

FerrariV12
  • Member

  • 934 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 14 July 2015 - 14:15

For me there are three main criteria for a good points system:

 

1. Disproportionately rewards winning

2. Memorable (for in-race mental calculations and the like)

3. A single point must be realistically attainable for the entire field, but at the same time must be worked for and not a gimme

 

10-6-4-3-2-1, for most of the time it was used, hit all 3 criteria perfectly. However, as reliability continued to increase, it lost out on point 3, and realistically had to change, IMO.

 

There's no real right answer on this one, and F1's current system, it's not perfect and not one I'd come up with if you wiped my memory of all the existing ones used and asked me to come up with one from scratch, but it's nowhere near the top of the list of things wrong with the sport I think.



#16 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 61,701 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 14 July 2015 - 14:16

I've long been a heretic on this.  There is absolutely no need for a world championship.  Other than as a marketing gimmick.  Just run the races, tie the teams into a deal forcing them to turn up for all of them, and everyone can work out for themselves that the best driver is Hamilton.

 

If one really needs a ranking system, then do what tennis and golf do, and have a continually updating thing.



#17 HuddersfieldTerrier1986

HuddersfieldTerrier1986
  • Member

  • 2,712 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 14 July 2015 - 14:34

Which system you vote for may well depend entirely on if it'd have previously benefitted your favourite driver in the past. However, I think the system as it is now is ok, it's not perfect obviously (eg for example if you retire in R1 with someone else winning, you could (theoretically) require 4 races just to get level with them, which maybe seems a little excessive as it puts massive emphasis on not retiring from any races.

 

Anyway, the only change I'd make that I can think of for definite is 1 point for fastest lap, though that has a flaw in that the TV guys might announce the winner of the title as they cross the line, then find that someone else behind them set a new fastest lap on the last lap and so they lost the title that way by losing that extra point. I wouldn't want to do dropped results as it'd just be too confusing for me. As for points for getting pole position (or qualifying in general) I'd say absolutely no points for that as I want the title decided on the Sunday, not the Saturday.



#18 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 29,055 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 14 July 2015 - 14:40

Part of me wants to go back to the early 90s and the challenge to get into the top 6 to score a single point (with 26-car grids!). The other part realizes that today, when cars rarely break down or get stuck in the gravel, it's probably a good idea to have 10 cars score points.



#19 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 17,497 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 14 July 2015 - 14:51

For me there are three main criteria for a good points system:

 

1. Disproportionately rewards winning

2. Memorable (for in-race mental calculations and the like)

3. A single point must be realistically attainable for the entire field, but at the same time must be worked for and not a gimme

 

10-6-4-3-2-1, for most of the time it was used, hit all 3 criteria perfectly. However, as reliability continued to increase, it lost out on point 3, and realistically had to change, IMO.

 

There's no real right answer on this one, and F1's current system, it's not perfect and not one I'd come up with if you wiped my memory of all the existing ones used and asked me to come up with one from scratch, but it's nowhere near the top of the list of things wrong with the sport I think.

 

I voted for the 9-6-4-3-2-1 one, but the 10 points for the winner is a close second. ;) It worked for 29+11 years, so there must be some virtue to it. It benefits the winner and needs a 2nd and 3rd place to overcome one victory and DNF (9 vs 10 pts). The current system is quite skewed with a victory & DNF are covercome with a 2nd and 6th place (25 vs 26 pts). It promotes reliability again and not racing. 

 

Current system devaluates points and performances. A point in F1 really ment something, but not anymore. I even can't seem to remember the current system. I'm completely clueless between position 2 and 9 what the scores are. Your point 3: People used to cheer for Minardi to get a point in the odd race. Now we have bulletproof cars due to parc ferme, everlasting runoffs and other rules, so points are hard to reach. 



Advertisement

#20 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 14 July 2015 - 14:55

I think all classified finishers should score points. For simplicity, I have voted for the Indycar system, although I would also be perfectly happy with a modified version of this that increased the ratio of points for the top positions against points for the lower positions.

 

In other words, I don't think finishing 17th should be rewarded especially handsomely, and certainly should only carry a tiny fraction of the points value of a win or a podium finish, but I do think finishing 17th is better than finishing 18th and I think the points should reflect that, otherwise the championship positions of the small teams won't reflect their relative performance over the season. As far as the contenders for the championships are concerned, this change wouldn't affect them much, other than it would incentivise them to press on in races where they can't currently score points because, for example, they've hit technical trouble and find themselves way down the order. Consistently finishing in the minor places would continue, as now, to be no good to you if you want to win the title.



#21 KingTiger

KingTiger
  • Member

  • 1,895 posts
  • Joined: September 13

Posted 14 July 2015 - 15:07

2010 system is good, but I'd like to see some of the results be dropped, as it was in the 1990 system. A DNF due to reliability could cost someone the title, without them being at fault. 



#22 ToxicEnviroment

ToxicEnviroment
  • Member

  • 141 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 14 July 2015 - 15:32

9-6-4-3-2-1 was the best

Although 10-6-4-3-2-1

Was mathematically perfect.

4+6=10 (podium)

1+2=3 (outside podium)

10+6+4+3+2+1 = 26 (total number of starters)

#23 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 14 July 2015 - 15:44

Why is 9 points for a win better than 10, with all the other results being the same?

 

I loathe the idea of paying pole points in road racing, especially in F1. Like starting first with the fastest car needs some kind of consolation prize...



#24 Pingguest

Pingguest
  • Member

  • 942 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 14 July 2015 - 15:48

I would like to see only 75% results counting for the championship table, as it would stimulate drivers and teams to take risks.

#25 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 14 July 2015 - 15:52

Why is 9 points for a win better than 10, with all the other results being the same?

I loathe the idea of paying pole points in road racing, especially in F1. Like starting first with the fastest car needs some kind of consolation prize...

The 1991-2002 system was often critizise because the championship was often decided quite early. The gap between the 1st and 2nd was perhaps a bit too big.

Edited by Marklar, 14 July 2015 - 15:53.


#26 ToxicEnviroment

ToxicEnviroment
  • Member

  • 141 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 14 July 2015 - 16:25

Why is 9 points for a win better than 10, with all the other results being the same?

I loathe the idea of paying pole points in road racing, especially in F1. Like starting first with the fastest car needs some kind of consolation prize...

Because historicly it produced better championship outcomes. During 10-6-4-3-2-1 system there was never wdc who scored less wins than non wdc. In other words who scored wdc on consistency

But during 9-6-4-3-2-1 system there was

From the top of my head without googling

1967
1982
1983
1986
1987
1989

Edited by ToxicEnviroment, 14 July 2015 - 16:26.


#27 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 14 July 2015 - 16:29

Did any of those years have dropped scores?



#28 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 14 July 2015 - 16:31

I would like to see only 75% results counting for the championship table, as it would stimulate drivers and teams to take risks.

 

It would probably lead to the clear best team and driver combination over the season losing.



#29 DutchQuicksilver

DutchQuicksilver
  • Member

  • 6,304 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 14 July 2015 - 16:44

With reliability as it is these days, the current points system is best without a doubt. If we still had the 10-6-4-2-1 scoring, even teams like Sauber and Toro Rosso would never score points anymore. Scoriing points means earning money, so the current points system is the best.



#30 travbrad

travbrad
  • Member

  • 1,058 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 14 July 2015 - 16:58

I think the ideal points scoring system would be something like 30-20-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1.  It would reward a win more and also create a bigger gap between 2nd and 3rd.  Since the whole point of a race is to win it I think the winner should get significantly more more points than the car who finishes 2nd.

 

The 2003-2009 points system was the worst system F1 ever had because it didn't reward winning nearly enough.  Likewise for the current NASCAR/BTCC/MotoGP points scoring systems.  The NASCAR one especially is pretty ridiculous, obviously done to keep championships artificially close.

 

 

With reliability as it is these days, the current points system is best without a doubt. If we still had the 10-6-4-2-1 scoring, even teams like Sauber and Toro Rosso would never score points anymore. Scoriing points means earning money, so the current points system is the best.

 

 

Mclaren also  :p


Edited by travbrad, 15 July 2015 - 00:26.


#31 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 14 July 2015 - 17:06

Did any of those years have dropped scores?

I wrote it in the OP ;)

Answer is Yes, until 1990

Edited by Marklar, 14 July 2015 - 17:06.


#32 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 16,465 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 14 July 2015 - 17:06

I don't think the current system is bad but proportionally I liked the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system more. As others have said the downside of that format is that it's too restrictive in a era where it has become common that 15 or more cars finish. A 30-18-12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1 system could a nice combination.



#33 ToxicEnviroment

ToxicEnviroment
  • Member

  • 141 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 14 July 2015 - 17:12

With reliability as it is these days, the current points system is best without a doubt. If we still had the 10-6-4-2-1 scoring, even teams like Sauber and Toro Rosso would never score points anymore. Scoriing points means earning money, so the current points system is the best.

Have you not considered the possibility that it's the points system who created good reliability

This points system rewards finishing. So teams construct cars that will finish.

If points system was to reward top 6 only. Than we would have faster but much more unreliable cars.

Because 7th would mean nothing anymore.

Mind you that 1/2 of the field scores these days.

In 1995 only 6/26 which is almost 1/5 of the field scores points

That's huuuuge difference. And only because only 1/5 of the field scored points in 1995ish days cars were not constructed to be durable

Edited by ToxicEnviroment, 14 July 2015 - 17:13.


#34 ToxicEnviroment

ToxicEnviroment
  • Member

  • 141 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 14 July 2015 - 17:15

Did any of those years have dropped scores?


Irrelevant. The outcome would be the same.

Only 1988 is the exception.

But then again it would go onto my previous list as a wdc won on consistency

#35 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,699 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 July 2015 - 17:24

Have you not considered the possibility that it's the points system who created good reliability

This points system rewards finishing. So teams construct cars that will finish.

If points system was to reward top 6 only. Than we would have faster but much more unreliable cars.

Because 7th would mean nothing anymore.

Mind you that 1/2 of the field scores these days.

In 1995 only 6/26 which is almost 1/5 of the field scores points

That's huuuuge difference. And only because only 1/5 of the field scored points in 1995ish days cars were not constructed to be durable

 

We can consider it, but it wouldn't be the case. The reliability was improving in the late 90s and early 2000s and it reached a point in 2002 when it was very difficult to score if you were not in a Ferrari, McLaren, Williams or Renault. The points were adjusted to the top 8 accordingly.

 

But I remember looking at the stats, and generally, it has always been about 2/3rd of finishers who score. That went down in the few years before each time the points positions were extended.



#36 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 70,106 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 14 July 2015 - 17:26

Irrelevant. The outcome would be the same.

Only 1988 is the exception.

But then again it would go onto my previous list as a wdc won on consistency


The outcome isn't the same. You have or don't have dropped scores, you change the points calculations people race differently. Strategies are run differently. Points systems aren't fungible.

#37 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 14 July 2015 - 17:31

I think the ideal points scoring system would be something like 30-20-15-12-10-8-6-4[/size]-2-1.  [/size]It would reward a win more and also create a bigger gap between 2nd and 3rd.  Since the whole point of a race is to win it I think the winner should significantly more more points than the car who finishes 2nd.
 
The 2003-2009 points system was the worst system F1 ever had because it didn't reward winning nearly enough.  Likewise for the current NASCAR/BTCC/MotoGP points scoring systems.  The NASCAR one especially is pretty ridiculous, obviously done to keep championships artificially close.
 
 



 
Mclaren also  :p

Nascar is a special case. They have the chase where the points of all drivers who are qualified for it are resetted, so this point system is almost irrelevant.

#38 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Racing Sims Forum Host

  • 45,699 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 July 2015 - 17:31

I've got an idea. We have 3 optional points systems. So maybe the current one, the old 9-6-... one with dropped scores, and one other. Before the first race, each driver votes in secret on which to use, and all the votes are sealed until after the final race.

 

Then at the end of the season, the system with the most votes is used to determine the standings. Now nobody can play the system. It's already been decided, but you won't find out until the end.

 

This isn't a serious suggestion by the way.



#39 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,546 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 14 July 2015 - 17:34

Reliability improved in the 90s because team and engine manufacturer budgets were increasing and they were able to spend more towards reliability, rather than just performance. That is never going to be undone.



Advertisement

#40 Peter Perfect

Peter Perfect
  • Member

  • 5,618 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 14 July 2015 - 17:35

Personally I like the idea of every finisher getting points. It already effectively happens as WCC places are decided on points first, then finishing positions. But formal recognition of that would help the teams further back show their true form relative to their competitors.



#41 RubalSher

RubalSher
  • Member

  • 3,944 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 14 July 2015 - 19:33

10-5-3-2-1

 

One race win equals a 2nd + 3rd + 4th

 

One 2nd place equals a 3rd + 4th

 

One 3rd place equals 4th + 5th

 

But since you need to reward 10 drivers for the show and the naive public, we could go....

 

100-50-35-20-15-10-5-3-2-1



#42 Collombin

Collombin
  • Member

  • 8,589 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 14 July 2015 - 20:15

Senna won his first championship 1988 without having scored the most points in that season. But this is no longer an real issue


It wasn't a real issue then either. Or in 1964, when it first happened.

Haven't voted, because 9-6-4-3-2-1 isn't directly comparable with 10-6-4-3-2-1, as the former had dropped scores and the latter didn't. So if we assume all scores count, I would have to go with 10 for a win even though in reality I probably preferred the previous system.

#43 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 44,257 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 14 July 2015 - 20:21

It wasn't a real issue then either. Or in 1964, when it first happened.Haven't voted, because 9-6-4-3-2-1 isn't directly comparable with 10-6-4-3-2-1, as the former had dropped scores and the latter didn't. So if we assume all scores count, I would have to go with 10 for a win even though in reality I probably preferred the previous system.

I was more refering to that reliability is no issue anymore and thats the reason why the dropped result is not used anymore that much  ;)

#44 JAW97

JAW97
  • Member

  • 219 posts
  • Joined: July 14

Posted 14 July 2015 - 20:25

10-5-3-2-1

 

One race win equals a 2nd + 3rd + 4th

 

One 2nd place equals a 3rd + 4th

 

One 3rd place equals 4th + 5th

 

But since you need to reward 10 drivers for the show and the naive public, we could go....

 

100-50-35-20-15-10-5-3-2-1

No way we could reward just 5 drivers imo. Apart from the Red Bulls at Monaco, would anyone outside of the top 3 teams even have any points?

 

Anyway, I think the current system is fine. Maybe the gap from 1st-2nd and 2nd-3rd should be a little larger, but consistency should still be rewarded.


Edited by JAW97, 14 July 2015 - 20:31.


#45 ToxicEnviroment

ToxicEnviroment
  • Member

  • 141 posts
  • Joined: February 15

Posted 14 July 2015 - 20:28

The outcome isn't the same. You have or don't have dropped scores, you change the points calculations people race differently. Strategies are run differently. Points systems aren't fungible.


Prove it. Prove that the outcome would be different.

You cannot do that because it is pure speculation.

I only stated pure mathematics.

And you can't beat that. Nobody and nothing can beat pure mathematics.

#46 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,546 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 14 July 2015 - 20:29

Personally I like the idea of every finisher getting points. It already effectively happens as WCC places are decided on points first, then finishing positions. But formal recognition of that would help the teams further back show their true form relative to their competitors.

 

That my reasoning as well. Not awarding points to all finishers results in examples such as HRT finishing above both Virgin and Caterham, thanks to one lucky Monaco GP, when they were clearly outperformed by the other teams over the course of a season.



#47 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,546 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 14 July 2015 - 20:31

The system used 2003-2009 (10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1) was fine because:

-it was simple enough for mental calculations

-points for a victory were somewhat comparable with previous seasons

-it compensated the lack of retirements, as there wasn't enough variability in top-6 like in the 1990's.

Maybe the 2nd place should be 7 points to increase the value of victory, but in the end I think all driver prefer to be first than second, so the incentive is automatic.

 

The 25 point-system ruined statistics comparisons completely and made calculations difficult (I still don't remember how many points 6th place is worth of). Besides, I don't feel drivers that finish 9,10,11, 12...etc "need" points for the sake pity. They should fight to earn the points, whether that means being in top-6 or to-8. Being slow is punished by not having points unlike in Indycar.

 

That's a good thing. If you can't compare drivers from different eras without resulting to out of context statistics, you shouldn't be doing it.



#48 ninetyzero

ninetyzero
  • Member

  • 706 posts
  • Joined: November 14

Posted 14 July 2015 - 20:42

10-5-3-2-1

 

One race win equals a 2nd + 3rd + 4th

 

One 2nd place equals a 3rd + 4th

 

One 3rd place equals 4th + 5th

 

But since you need to reward 10 drivers for the show and the naive public, we could go....

 

100-50-35-20-15-10-5-3-2-1

 

It's nothing to do with 'the show' or 'the naive public', points are awarded for the top ten finishers because under your systems only about five drivers and three teams would have scored points this season.



#49 Collombin

Collombin
  • Member

  • 8,589 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 14 July 2015 - 20:44

Prove it. Prove that the outcome would be different.

You cannot do that because it is pure speculation.

I only stated pure mathematics.

And you can't beat that. Nobody and nothing can beat pure mathematics.


Chuck Norris can.

Ross's point is a very valid one - the crap people come out with when saying who would have been the medals system WDC in various seasons beggars belief sometimes.

#50 sabjit

sabjit
  • Member

  • 2,992 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 14 July 2015 - 21:00

Like the qualifying format, the points system is one thing that is not a problem in F1.