# Give the winner 12 points.

110 replies to this topic

### #1 Mohican

Mohican
• Member

• 1,036 posts
• Joined: May 01

Posted 09 July 2007 - 11:49

Have said this before, but am convinced that regulations need to change in order to give more benefit to actually winning a race. Ditto for being on the podium.

Suggest 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1 for the first 8 places.

Have not gót the stats so cannot recalculate the current standing; can anyone help ?

### #2 Mauseri

Mauseri
• Member

• 7,561 posts
• Joined: March 05

Posted 09 July 2007 - 12:07

Originally posted by Mohican
Have said this before, but am convinced that regulations need to change in order to give more benefit to actually winning a race. Ditto for being on the podium.

Suggest 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1 for the first 8 places.

Have not gót the stats so cannot recalculate the current standing; can anyone help ?

No, but I'm sure the difference would only be cosmetic.

I think much more efficient way to achieve the desired goal is to forgive 4 worst races from each driver like in the good old times.

### #3 man from martinlaakso

man from martinlaakso
• Member

• 2,773 posts
• Joined: May 99

Posted 09 July 2007 - 12:17

With a quick calculation I got the following results with this system, which you were proposing :

LH 81 pts
FA 65 pts
KR 60 pts
FM 58 pts

So the order would be the same, but LH's lead would increase slightly with this points system. However if LH would drop outside the top three in the races to come, this new system would work against him.

### #4 TT6

TT6
• Member

• 3,571 posts
• Joined: September 01

Posted 09 July 2007 - 12:18

Originally posted by micra_k10
I think much more efficient way to achieve the desired goal is to forgive 4 worst races from each driver like in the good old times.

Hmm... desired goal... what that would be? I heard that Ecclestone has proposed a system where the WDC is decided by the number of wins and points come into play just after that.

Edit: the situation in good ole times would be
1. Hamilton and Alonso 44 points dead even
3. Räikkönen 42 points
4. Massa 40 points

I guess the desired goal is not achieved that way. Furthermore Still Hamilton hasn't used bad race option so his future dnf's might turn out to be quite meaningless. Ecclestone is right here, I guess.

### #5 Paul Prost

Paul Prost
• Member

• 769 posts
• Joined: February 06

Posted 09 July 2007 - 12:44

I still think the 80's point system was the best. Either 9-6-4-3-2-1, or 10-6-4-3-2-1.

What would the current table look like with these scoring systems?

### #6 Gareth

Gareth
• RC Forum Host

• 11,721 posts
• Joined: March 01

Posted 09 July 2007 - 12:48

Current WDC positions seem a fair reflection to me of the season to date. So I don't think there's a need for change based on current position.

The feeling that overhauling a person with a lead and a reliable car will be very difficult under the current system is, I think, the "problem" that people perceive with the current system.

### #7 tkulla

tkulla
• Member

• 3,465 posts
• Joined: October 03

Posted 09 July 2007 - 12:50

I liked the gap between 1st and 2nd with the old system, but I really think you need to give points for the top 8 drivers, otherwise most teams would have no hope of scoring. F1 is much more competitive in the midfield these days, so I wouldn't even oppose giving points to the top ten (especially with 24 cars on the grid next year).

• Member

• 646 posts
• Joined: August 05

Posted 09 July 2007 - 12:55

11 for the winner would do it perfect. 12 is too much.

### #9 lukywill

lukywill
• Member

• 6,660 posts
• Joined: March 01

Posted 09 July 2007 - 13:02

drop out 2 gp´s each half season seems to me great - like 1979. it would cover the odd mechanical problem and would decrease the fear of risking moves.

that would give:

lewis -12, 58 (2 3rds out)
alonso -4, 54 (2 7ths out)
kimi -1, 51 (a 8th and a dnf out)
massa -5, 47 (a dqf and a 5th out)

and another half season with 8 races, 6 counting.

### #10 united

united
• Member

• 814 posts
• Joined: March 05

Posted 09 July 2007 - 13:08

Sounds like Eurovision.

### #11 Hacklerf

Hacklerf
• Member

• 2,337 posts
• Joined: March 07

Posted 09 July 2007 - 13:11

10-6-4-3-2-1 is the best

### #12 Alapan

Alapan
• Member

• 6,243 posts
• Joined: October 00

Posted 09 July 2007 - 13:31

Originally posted by Hacklerf
10-6-4-3-2-1 is the best

That, or points for the entire result .. .like some motorsport series. Consistency is over rated.

### #13 clampett

clampett
• Member

• 1,748 posts
• Joined: June 06

Posted 09 July 2007 - 13:33

Originally posted by united
Sounds like Eurovision.

### #14 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
• Member

• 7,074 posts
• Joined: June 06

Posted 09 July 2007 - 14:02

For the most part you will find different points system, even the NASCAR one would only provide a +- 1 position championship result for 85% of the drivers and +- 5 position maximum difference for the other 15% of drivers who are more anomalous. Of course 25.6789 % of statistics are made up.

### #15 Andy Donovan

Andy Donovan
• Member

• 1,015 posts
• Joined: January 06

Posted 09 July 2007 - 17:03

F1 Racing have a bit on this in the current issue. I forget the details, but basically they worked out how the last few years would have panned out for different scoring systems (including one where the championship was decided on number of wins rather than points) and they all came out with very similar final championship standings, except for slightly smaller/larger gaps.

That said, I agree that the points difference between 1st and 2nd should be bigger. McLaren admitted they turned Alonso's engine down pretty well straight after the 2nd stops, which is hardly conducive to a great finish. Anything that might make drivers race to the flag rather than to the last stop is probably worth trying.

### #16 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
• Member

• 9,769 posts
• Joined: January 03

Posted 09 July 2007 - 17:21

Only count the wins, he who wins the most races is the champion, in case of a tie in number of wins, the number of second place finishes count, if tied there, number of 3rd.

This mean that a driver should never settle for a position.

He should always race on to score as high as possible.

And the one who does win the most, is the champion.

### #17 turin

turin
• Member

• 3,084 posts
• Joined: February 01

Posted 09 July 2007 - 17:21

Yawn, here we go again :

Originally posted by TT6

Hmm... desired goal... what that would be?

That your favorite driver wins the thingy.

### #18 WHITE

WHITE
• Member

• 1,485 posts
• Joined: July 05

Posted 09 July 2007 - 17:22

Originally posted by micra_k10

I think much more efficient way to achieve the desired goal is to forgive 4 worst races from each driver like in the good old times.

### #19 Collective

Collective
• Member

• 1,197 posts
• Joined: June 05

Posted 09 July 2007 - 17:28

Forgiving bad results is like rewarding incompetence (manufacturer's, team's or driver's).

I think a bigger gap between winner and second place would be healthy.

### #20 CWeil

CWeil
• Member

• 1,051 posts
• Joined: March 06

Posted 09 July 2007 - 17:31

Originally posted by lukywill
drop out 2 gp´s each half season seems to me great - like 1979. it would cover the odd mechanical problem and would decrease the fear of risking moves.

Yes but then you also have the chance to get "false" championship winners, like 88 where Prost scored more points than Senna over the season but the dropped races caused Senna to have more points.

### #21 Gareth

Gareth
• RC Forum Host

• 11,721 posts
• Joined: March 01

Posted 09 July 2007 - 17:42

Originally posted by Collective
Forgiving bad results is like rewarding incompetence (manufacturer's, team's or driver's).

I don't mind a bit of incompetence every now and then. A car that fails in the dieing laps because the manufacturer have pushed the envelope on speed, a driver that chucks it off the race track trying desperately to overtake for a couple of points gain - they're fun, at least IMHO.

The dropping poor results rule seemed to encourage people to push more and conserve less. Not a bad thing, IMO.

It has its dowsides, no doubt, but what you see as one of them I actually see as positive.

### #22 robnyc

robnyc
• Member

• 5,350 posts
• Joined: November 06

Posted 09 July 2007 - 17:47

Originally posted by CWeil

Yes but then you also have the chance to get "false" championship winners, like 88 where Prost scored more points than Senna over the season but the dropped races caused Senna to have more points.

Senna in 88 was not a false championship winner. Those were the rules of that year which meant that the driver with the best performances won as Senna did. He also had one more win than Prost.

### #23 WHITE

WHITE
• Member

• 1,485 posts
• Joined: July 05

Posted 09 July 2007 - 17:48

Originally posted by CWeil

Yes but then you also have the chance to get "false" championship winners, like 88 where Prost scored more points than Senna over the season but the dropped races caused Senna to have more points.

One can like or dislike any given point system, but the champion is always the driver who does what the system demands. In 88 the system stablished that the only valid points would be the ones achieved at the best 11 races. Senna got more points than Prost in their 11 best races and this is exactly what they were supposed to do.
What else was supposed to be done ?

You may not like that system and I deeply respect your opinion but it was quite good for me.

### #24 CWeil

CWeil
• Member

• 1,051 posts
• Joined: March 06

Posted 09 July 2007 - 17:58

I knew because it was Senna people were going to say all that junk. But I'm not discussing the merits of whether or not Senna deserved his championship or not- I'm discussing a scenario where a specific points system may cause "odd" results that go against having a real points system. In that case, the points really weren't even necessary. It could have been better decided by number of wins.

In either case, I think dropped races is a stupid idea because it rewards incompetence and erros from anyone involved.

Besides, people would be bitching a LOT about false championships if, say, in 2006 they used the 88 point system and Michael took the crown over Alonso. People would still be complaining about it.

### #25 Gareth

Gareth
• RC Forum Host

• 11,721 posts
• Joined: March 01

Posted 09 July 2007 - 18:02

Originally posted by CWeil
I'm discussing a scenario where a specific points system may cause "odd" results that go against having a real points system.

In what way is any points system "real"? Why is 10 for a win, 8 for second etc all races count more real than 9 for a win, 6 for second, drop your four worst results?

Provided a points system is known to all participants in advance, isn't changed and applies equally to all participants it is, IMO, "real" and it's result is not "false" nor "odd".

### #26 robnyc

robnyc
• Member

• 5,350 posts
• Joined: November 06

Posted 09 July 2007 - 18:37

Cweil, you are way off base..

### #27 Risil

Risil
• Member

• 17,160 posts
• Joined: February 07

Posted 09 July 2007 - 19:12

Any system of honours which does not acknowledge Moss, Villeneuve, Gurney or Peterson is fundamentally flawed, in my opinion.

And so long as 1993 is remembered for Senna's brilliance, and 2005 for Raikkonen's unreliability, you get the feeling that the purpose of the World Drivers' Championship is just a precursor to these invented and fabricated discussions.

### #28 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
• Nostalgia Forum Moderator

• 26,625 posts
• Joined: April 01

Posted 09 July 2007 - 19:20

Okay, here's an idea: change the scoring system every year, but don't tell the teams what it is until the season's over.

Not knowing how many points you're going to get for third place would tend to make drivers fight for second and so on ....

(Those who are familiar with the 1939 European Championship will realise there's a precedent for this!)

### #29 robnyc

robnyc
• Member

• 5,350 posts
• Joined: November 06

Posted 09 July 2007 - 19:23

Originally posted by Vitesse2

(Those who are familiar with the 1939 European Championship will realise there's a precedent for this!)

1939 ?? My grandmother was 2 years old..

### #30 lukywill

lukywill
• Member

• 6,660 posts
• Joined: March 01

Posted 09 July 2007 - 19:27

at least she was alive!

great idea vitesse. also skip the fast lap and give the grid a bernie concept. (all due to luck).

### #31 SkorbiF1

SkorbiF1
• Member

• 1,208 posts
• Joined: December 04

Posted 09 July 2007 - 19:29

I'd vote for AQUA ;)

### #32 Mauseri

Mauseri
• Member

• 7,561 posts
• Joined: March 05

Posted 09 July 2007 - 19:33

Originally posted by TT6
Hmm... desired goal... what that would be?

Desired goal is that your best performances are more important for the championship than your worst performances.

### #33 Atreiu

Atreiu
• Member

• 11,455 posts
• Joined: May 07

Posted 09 July 2007 - 19:41

15
11
8
6
4
3
2
1

### #34 Birelman

Birelman
• Member

• 2,537 posts
• Joined: May 07

Posted 09 July 2007 - 19:42

I don't know how much eliminating bad results would help so much in this system with modern day reliability the end result might be somewhat (Fake?).

I would give the winner 15 points as in karting European championship, it was 15, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Top 12 rewards, I'm not sure that's still being used.

How would today's championship look in this system?, I'm really not feeling like calculating this.

### #35 VresiBerba

VresiBerba
• Member

• 8,951 posts
• Joined: April 02

Posted 09 July 2007 - 20:03

Originally posted by turin
Yawn, here we go again :

Yep, every so now and then we get these pointless (pun intended) discussions over the point system.

I don't see anyone complain about MotoGP's point system, despite the fact that the points given for the podium is nearly identical to F1. How come that is?

### #36 Birelman

Birelman
• Member

• 2,537 posts
• Joined: May 07

Posted 09 July 2007 - 20:13

Well, with the Karting system at 15, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. the current championship would look like this:

Hamilton 108
Alonso 96
Raikkonen 87
Massa 85

I guess not much different than the real one as actual points difference, but, a much smaller overhaulable gap when taken into account 15 points for 1st place. Alonso would be sitting at 1 win away from the lead, and Raikkonen's situation would look a lot more reallistic.

### #37 mdecarle

mdecarle
• Member

• 109 posts
• Joined: April 01

Posted 09 July 2007 - 21:35

Or, another possibility:
34 - 21 - 13 - 8 - 5 - 3 - 2 - 1

You'ld really be pressed to win!

### #38 Gareth

Gareth
• RC Forum Host

• 11,721 posts
• Joined: March 01

Posted 09 July 2007 - 21:38

On ething I liked about 10-6-4 was the idea that in the WCC getting 1 car to finish first was better than 2 cars to finish second and third. But that's just me.

### #39 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
• Member

• 9,769 posts
• Joined: January 03

Posted 09 July 2007 - 21:38

The "Wonder system"

KR - 3, 0, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1
LH - 2, 4, 6, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
FA - 2, 3, 1, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0
FM - 2, 1, 2, 0, 2, 1, 0, 0

Meaning that as soon as LH takes one more win, he is in a strong lead. He is the best placed in all the tiebreakers giving him credit for finishing high.

And with 9 races to go any of the drivers on the grid could still win the WDC.

So why is this not a a good system?

• Member

• 20,269 posts
• Joined: June 01

Posted 09 July 2007 - 21:46

Originally posted by Mohican

Suggest 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1 for the first 8 places.

Yeah, that or as it is but the winner gets 11 points. It seems an un-written rule that the winner has to be awarded even numbers/points.

### #41 le chat noir

le chat noir
• Member

• 4,303 posts
• Joined: June 05

Posted 09 July 2007 - 23:27

Originally posted by Mohican
Have said this before, but am convinced that regulations need to change in order to give more benefit to actually winning a race. Ditto for being on the podium.

Suggest 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1 for the first 8 places.

Have not gót the stats so cannot recalculate the current standing; can anyone help ?

I can help - if you find my thread (click my name and search threads started by, or scroll thru the pages and find 'average finishing position) all positions are shown there, together with their current points, and the points that would have been scored were it the old points system in place prior to 2003. work it out and make a post!

also shown there, obviously, is their average finishing position. the contrast between pre-03 and now is that LH would still have a 12 point lead, but FA would be only 1 ahead of KR, who is 1 or 2 or so ahead of FM. While FM and KR have both finished on average in 4th. Thus, FA is still doing best with this system, it might be said - he after all was the first to take advantage of these points to defeat MS (even if KR managed that in the same year, it was not to FA's extent or enough to win outright).

### #42 WHITE

WHITE
• Member

• 1,485 posts
• Joined: July 05

Posted 10 July 2007 - 07:37

Originally posted by Birelman
I don't know how much eliminating bad results would help so much in this system with modern day reliability the end result might be somewhat (Fake?).

Neither do me, however one may think that present reliability is a consequence of having to finish all races.
Lets see whether I am able to explain myself : in a system where all results count, reliability is of paramount importance since a failure may deprive a given driver of the title, but in a system where a given number of races can be discarded, engineers may take more risks ( and drivers too ).
It can even be that certain teams, having cars that were more suitable to certain tracks than others, decided to concentrate in developing their cars even more having in mind those tracks.
Present system has promoted a conservative behaviour which, coupled with pit stops, has literally killed the action at the track.
IMHO, present system leads to questions like " Why taking any risk if it is impossible to recover from a mistake or failure ? "
Reliability and conformity has been the answer that engineers and drivers have found to this question.
So... give them all the possibility of recovering from some bad races and reliability would no longer be their main goal.
If reliability were still high due to modern technology, then it would be up to the drivers to achieve the best possible results, having in mind that not even a second place might be enough ( as it was not enough for Prost in 88 ).

### #43 F1Fanatic.co.uk

F1Fanatic.co.uk
• Member

• 1,725 posts
• Joined: May 05

Posted 10 July 2007 - 09:24

You could mess around with the points forever and you'd never get a satisfactory system.

Some times people want to reward wins more. Other times people want to reward consistency more. Right now people want to reward wins more, because they're under-valued by the current points system.

I think they should consider what is going to produce the most exciting racing. If they just gave the championship to the driver who won the most races, it would be clearer, fairer and would produce more intense battles for the lead.

Of course, that could create a tie situation if, at the end of a season, two drivers have the same number of wins. In which case, as is already done today in the event of a points tie, favour the driver who has the most second places, etc...

### #44 Andy Donovan

Andy Donovan
• Member

• 1,015 posts
• Joined: January 06

Posted 10 July 2007 - 13:20

Originally posted by Vitesse2
Okay, here's an idea: change the scoring system every year, but don't tell the teams what it is until the season's over.

Not knowing how many points you're going to get for third place would tend to make drivers fight for second and so on ....

(Those who are familiar with the 1939 European Championship will realise there's a precedent for this!)

Looking at the scoring system given on Wikipedia, if you get 8 points for not participating doesn't that mean that everyone else in the world who was alive in 1939 is joint 31st in the championship with 32 points?

### #45 Arska

Arska
• Member

• 768 posts
• Joined: April 02

Posted 10 July 2007 - 13:59

Originally posted by F1Fanatic.co.uk
I think they should consider what is going to produce the most exciting racing. If they just gave the championship to the driver who won the most races, it would be clearer, fairer and would produce more int

And what does this do to the standings positions behind the champion? Make them ridiculous, that's what it does. Just consider where Fisichella would have finished in 2003 with his one win, for example. How is one win more valuable than 10 second places (yes, this is a hypothetical example)? And why do you think your system would produce any more exciting racing for lower positions, or in fact no worse racing, if the driver racing realized that he already has a much better position attained in a previous race?

### #46 Mauseri

Mauseri
• Member

• 7,561 posts
• Joined: March 05

Posted 10 July 2007 - 22:49

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
So why is this not a a good system?

Simply because it's utter crap (for the reasons Arska mentioned)

It might be satisfying way to determine the championship, but for other positions it doesnt really work. Heck, even current points system doesnt work for the back markers.

### #47 Drifter

Drifter
• Member

• 445 posts
• Joined: October 00

Posted 11 July 2007 - 01:47

More points for the win.
Point(s) for pole.
Point(s) for fastest lap.

### #48 V8 Fireworks

V8 Fireworks
• Member

• 7,074 posts
• Joined: June 06

Posted 11 July 2007 - 13:52

Originally posted by Birelman
How would today's championship look in this system?, I'm really not feeling like calculating this.

Again different point systems make bugger all difference. So first may drop to third at the worst, or first may stay in first ... who cares !

Just because it's for first, the change in positions is more important than 9th moving up to 7th also with the revised calculated points ? Seems a bit silly.

### #49 HP

HP
• Member

• 14,946 posts
• Joined: October 99

Posted 11 July 2007 - 15:15

Originally posted by mdecarle
Or, another possibility:
34 - 21 - 13 - 8 - 5 - 3 - 2 - 1

You'ld really be pressed to win!

Consider why the previous system was dropped. It was because MS wrapped up the championship in France. If you have a particular driver winning so much, then the season is over midway.

Most of the points system work best if there is a bigger rate of car failures. So maybe having more races, and cut testing entirely during the season would probably achieve much more than any change to the points system.

As to other posts suggesting 12 or 11 points for the winner. This season, all we'd got so far (till Silverstone) is that Kimi and Ferrari had 1 or 2 points more up their tally. Not worth the whisker IMO.

### #50 ExxonValdez

ExxonValdez
• Member

• 497 posts
• Joined: November 06

Posted 11 July 2007 - 15:34

It would be good too that any driver could score points by overtaking cars. Lapped cars wouldn't be forced to leave the leading car to pass them with the blue flags, and lapping cars could be another way of scoring points for leading drivers, so all the cars in the race would be fighting to win the race, to get a position and to overtake as many cars as possible. But I don't know how many points would fit for that.