Jump to content


Photo

Give the winner 12 points.


  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

#51 F1Fanatic.co.uk

F1Fanatic.co.uk
  • Member

  • 1,725 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 11 July 2007 - 15:58

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM
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?

:cool:

I agree - do away with points.

In the event of a points tie, what you've described is the system that gets used (as in the IRL tie last year).

It makes perfect sense to get rid of points and use this instead.

Not to mention that it's much easier for the casual fan to understand.

Advertisement

#52 carbonfibre

carbonfibre
  • Member

  • 6,292 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 11 July 2007 - 16:02

The only point i have is that this system indeed does not help racing and does not give the winner a clear advantage. It only increases the chance of people just cruising towards to flag because they think "well i only lose 2 points so why take a risk?".

#53 Levike

Levike
  • Member

  • 1,036 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 11 July 2007 - 16:04

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.


False ? Why ? It was a good system, because who wanted to be WC, took more risk. It was a win oriented system, which i prefer. I think the difference between a Win and a second place is like owning a Ferrari instead of a Yaris.

Anyway Prost knew the rules too, it was up to him to score Wins, and not just cruising when Senna was untouchable.

Levente

#54 Levike

Levike
  • Member

  • 1,036 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 11 July 2007 - 16:11

What about a no point system ? The places would be determined from the actual finishing positions.
It would not ruining any logic, but the drivers would be hard pressed to go for it. To push for better finishing positions. The outcome this year after 9 races would be that Kimi is leading, and Alonso's, Massa's, Raikkonen's position would be determined (because they have 2-2 wins) from the count of 3rd places...if equal then 4th places,etcetc.
It think it would be a really good and fair show.

#55 Mauseri

Mauseri
  • Member

  • 7,531 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 11 July 2007 - 16:16

Originally posted by HP
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. [/B]

I dont either think there is much wrong with 10-8-6-5... This ratio seems fairly balanced, although I would like to see the points system extended somehow to P10 at least. For example 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1½-1-½.

One thing why these recommended win rewarding points system are bad, it makes using teamorders much more appealing.

I think ignoring 4 worst results for the championship is better way to achieve the desired goal: reduce the role of luck, forgive a couple car breakages and encourage the top drivers to be more aggressive to certain limit. This would also take care the championship isn't finished too early.

Some might say it's unfair if other driver than champion would have more points overall. Or if other driver would be champion if it was 3 or 5 races forgiven instead. But I dont think so. Everyone knew the rules, and chose the strategy accordingly.

#56 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,337 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 11 July 2007 - 16:16

Originally posted by micra_k10

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

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.


I actually think that it is all about winning, and with my system not driving for the best possible finish every single race will punish you in the Championship.

No I do not think that 10 second place finishes is better than 1 win.

And I obviously completely disagree with it being crap.

:cool:

#57 Levike

Levike
  • Member

  • 1,036 posts
  • Joined: May 03

Posted 11 July 2007 - 16:24

Originally posted by KWSN - DSM


I actually think that it is all about winning, and with my system not driving for the best possible finish every single race will punish you in the Championship.

No I do not think that 10 second place finishes is better than 1 win.

And I obviously completely disagree with it being crap.

:cool:


That's my philosophy too... :)

#58 Andy Donovan

Andy Donovan
  • Member

  • 1,015 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 11 July 2007 - 16:48

Originally posted by carbonfibre
The only point i have is that this system indeed does not help racing and does not give the winner a clear advantage. It only increases the chance of people just cruising towards to flag because they think "well i only lose 2 points so why take a risk?".

That's my main concern too - the majority of points-based systems mooted here don't change the overall championship picture much, but may give drivers the incentive to keep driving hard for the last 15 laps of a race.

#59 scotchman

scotchman
  • Member

  • 100 posts
  • Joined: November 06

Posted 12 July 2007 - 20:46

Could not agree more, this is exactly how the F1 points system should be structured.

Thing is, it's always us fans who know best, is'nt it?

Advertisement

#60 AFCA

AFCA
  • Member

  • 6,661 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 16 March 2008 - 13:57

http://www.mailonsun...in_page_id=1954

#61 KWSN - DSM

KWSN - DSM
  • Member

  • 8,337 posts
  • Joined: January 03

Posted 16 March 2008 - 17:51

Originally posted by AFCA
http://www.mailonsun...in_page_id=1954


"The Wonder System" have life.

:cool:

#62 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,335 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 16 March 2008 - 22:56

I think points should go further down the grid - at least to 10th place and probably increase winning points to 20 then 14, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. This outs the podium points spread closer to what it was (it actually puts the podium points spread exactly half way between 10, 6, 4 and 10, 8, 6 at 10, 7, 5 doubled obviously).

No need to thank me bernie.

#63 Juan Kerr

Juan Kerr
  • Member

  • 2,646 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 17 March 2008 - 00:22

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 ?

mayswell go back to 9,6,4,3,2,1 then.

#64 Luke78

Luke78
  • New Member

  • 16 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 26 March 2008 - 22:51

Firstly I agree the winner should get a higher percentage points difference over second, I don't think it's right the guy winning only get's the same advantage over the guy coming 2nd than the guy coming 2nd gets over 3rd.

The new system was introduced after Schumacher had won the title early in 01 and 02, so they (the FIA, in a typical knee jerk reaction) figured that by reducing the points differential between 1st and 2nd, it would at least prolong the championship should there be a dominant driver winning the majority of the races. If it was about rewarding those down to 8th then surely a 12, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 points system would have made more sense...

The problem for me with awarding more points across the board, i.e. 20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 is that it would reward consistency too much. If you retire from a race with a blown engine say, and your championship rival wins the race, you would then need to win the next 4 in a row (if your rival finishes 2nd each time) to get those points back... Or to put it another way, three 6th's and and 8th would get you the same points as a win...

Personally I’d like to see it go back to the previous system 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1. It's a fair system and worked fine before. Also from a historical perspective, for the great majority of time, only the top 6 have been awarded points (1960 - 2002, before that, 1950 - 59, only the top 5) so this new system creates a statistical anomaly, Scoring a Formula 1 World Championship point should never be easy!

#65 MichaelPM

MichaelPM
  • Member

  • 2,590 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 March 2008 - 23:07

Looking back to previous WDC's and subbing in new points systems bring up a philosophical issue of would the teams and drivers tackled the season in the same way and the most likely answer is no, which renders that arguement void.

Think of it in this way, 2005 and 2006 the championship was controlled by Alonso early on so he built up a points gap, if you used one of these new higher first place points finishs would McLaren or Ferrari bothered to mount a challenge or just moved resources into next year as a good start would be more critical then now.

Also increasing points gains will start some rather stupid arguments about drivers stats throughout different decades.

#66 Bluesmoke

Bluesmoke
  • Member

  • 880 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 27 March 2008 - 01:31

I think
12,9,7,5,4,3,2,1 is the most logical choice. It doesn't increase the point total too much. Think about it, Kimi nearly won the 2003 championship by winning - ONE frikkin race! That shouldn't happen.

Hopefully a bigger point difference from 1st to 2nd gives teams more incentive to go for the win. I'm sick of seeing teams shut it down after the 2nd pit stop. The stupid engine rule is also to blame. Not many will push it with their 2nd race engine.

#67 Mila

Mila
  • Member

  • 5,724 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 27 March 2008 - 01:40

Originally posted by Paul Prost
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.


agreed.

#68 Rubens Hakkamacher

Rubens Hakkamacher
  • Member

  • 1,567 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 27 March 2008 - 02:16

I don't want a bigger difference for 1st>2nd.

I like to see it close, and weighting it *towards* the car/driver that is tending to win simply means a parade. I *like* the idea of rewarding consistency. The guy that "wins the race" gets the *inherent* reward of "winning the race", he doesn't need extra chi by giving him more points - that just exaggerates the hysteresis in the system.

Even if you weighed it towards 1st, you still wouldn't have "better racing" - you'd still have to be conservative running in 2nd, lest you be left even further behind in the points. Particularly given that these days the guy that gets the jump at the start tends to keep it.

Give points for the lower place finishers, make the mid pack more interesting.

#69 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 9,152 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 27 March 2008 - 12:24

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 ?


How would Heidfeld (who came 2nd to Hamilton in Oz) or Kubica (who came 2nd to Kimi in Malaysia) have been able to challenge for the win just because the win had been worth 2 more points?

It would have no effect on the racing, at all.

#70 Dick_Dastardly

Dick_Dastardly
  • Member

  • 262 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 27 March 2008 - 12:54

In addition would it be sacrilege to award points for pole for both WDC and WCC or maybe the first 6 qualifying places?

#71 1george

1george
  • Member

  • 1,408 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 27 March 2008 - 12:58

12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 and 1 extra point for the pole and fastest lap holder would be interesting.

#72 Mila

Mila
  • Member

  • 5,724 posts
  • Joined: December 99

Posted 28 March 2008 - 01:48

Originally posted by Dick_Dastardly
In addition would it be sacrilege to award points for pole for both WDC and WCC or maybe the first 6 qualifying places?


sorry, but would you want to have a WDC or WCC decided on a Saturday?

or, say LH needed one point to clinch the WDC last season at Interlagos, and one point was rewarded for pole. for Q3, McLaren sends him out on fumes. he bags pole, and the WDC, but his race the following day, which has now become a demonstration, either ends after half a lap or is severely compromised by pitting for fuel on the first lap.



anyway, my problem with the present points system is that it is too easy for mid-field teams to tally points. a retirement or two in front of you, and presto. WC points should be coveted, difficult to attain, not handed out like candy. F1 should be about quality, not quantity.

I strongly suspect that the points system was revised--expanded from six to eight scoring places--in order to give the lesser teams something to put on their calling cards for when they go out to attract sponsors.

#73 Perigee

Perigee
  • Member

  • 895 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 28 March 2008 - 02:08

Originally posted by ademm
11 for the winner would do it perfect. 12 is too much.

11 just ain't a winning number though, is it.

#74 gerry nassar

gerry nassar
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,880 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 28 March 2008 - 02:15

Originally posted by Mila


sorry, but would you want to have a WDC or WCC decided on a Saturday?

or, say LH needed one point to clinch the WDC last season at Interlagos, and one point was rewarded for pole. for Q3, McLaren sends him out on fumes. he bags pole, and the WDC, but his race the following day, which has now become a demonstration, either ends after half a lap or is severely compromised by pitting for fuel on the first lap.



anyway, my problem with the present points system is that it is too easy for mid-field teams to tally points. a retirement or two in front of you, and presto. WC points should be coveted, difficult to attain, not handed out like candy. F1 should be about quality, not quantity.

I strongly suspect that the points system was revised--expanded from six to eight scoring places--in order to give the lesser teams something to put on their calling cards for when they go out to attract sponsors.


I totally agree regarding the no points for pole. Especially under the current fuel filled quali system.

Though I think awarding the Top 8 is better than just the top 6 - especially in years where the midfield is as competitive as it is today. I dont think anyone would say that Webber and Alonso were not deserving of the 7th and 8th points positions they ended up last weekend. Some of the best battles occur when a mid grid driver is battling for 1 or 2 points.

So the Top 8 should stay - but the winner should get an extra point or two.

Maybe 10 points for a win + 1 bonus point. Sounds a bit better than 11 points. Then again F1 used to award 9 points for the win and thats hardly more a "winning" number than 11. Its not even good enough for 10!;)

#75 PassWind

PassWind
  • Member

  • 4,892 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 28 March 2008 - 02:34

How about no points, just certificates of participation, everyones a winner.

#76 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 28 March 2008 - 02:35

I think current system is badly flawed. In a way it's trying to protect a driver in P2 from falling behind, but it is also fact, that if you don't classify in the first race (DNF), you must win next six races to overtake (in points) the initial winner, especially if that one systematically places in P2. I think this handicap is excessive just for having one car problem.

#77 Apocalypse

Apocalypse
  • Member

  • 173 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 28 March 2008 - 03:22

Bernie should seriously consider a system where he could always change the rules after the season... I mean, whatever suits best for his favorite boy, Lewis Hamilton. :lol:

Seriously... why not just change back to the old scoring system 10 for win, 6 for the second place, etc. Or just give 12 points for a win and keep all the other points the same?

All reliability issues...like the engine change rule... that punish the driver are absolutely laughable. They should only affect on the WCC points, not WDC... we want to know who's the best driver, not who has the most reliable car...!!


#78 skinnylizard

skinnylizard
  • Member

  • 9,638 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 28 March 2008 - 06:09

i agree with the 12-9 system. its not too far off and it not too close like the present scenario. works for me.

#79 Orrelto

Orrelto
  • Member

  • 148 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 28 March 2008 - 07:50

The problem with the current system is that it rewards reliability too much. To catch one DNF you may need five wins if the leader is always second.

As someone said, the idea behind 10-8-6 was to keep the championship alive longer. Theoretically it does that, but only via DNFs again. It's not any easier to catch up unless the championship leader retires from a race. So, in every respect reliability is the most important factor now, which is not right IMO.

Advertisement

#80 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Nostalgia Forum Moderator

  • 24,362 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 28 March 2008 - 09:04

Originally posted by Apocalypse
Bernie should seriously consider a system where he could always change the rules after the season...

That's what I said last year!

http://forums.autosp...702#post2779702

#81 F1Fanatic.co.uk

F1Fanatic.co.uk
  • Member

  • 1,725 posts
  • Joined: May 05

Posted 28 March 2008 - 09:17

Points systems are always going to be flawed. Ecclestone had the right idea here:

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/65800

#82 CaptnMark

CaptnMark
  • Member

  • 1,015 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 28 March 2008 - 10:08

Give points to 11 people (half the grid)

100-60-40-30-20-10-6-4-3-2-1

AQUA (counting places) is fine too.

#83 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 9,152 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 28 March 2008 - 10:21

Originally posted by F1Fanatic.co.uk
Points systems are always going to be flawed. Ecclestone had the right idea here:

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/65800


I disagree. If you go back through history and apply the rule that the driver with the most victories, wins the championship, on hardly any occassions will you find that we would have had a different World Champion. (And when its a tie, it'd have to go on countback anyway). Meanwhile THE RACING WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME. Points systems do not make cars go faster or more reliable. There would have been one or two more title deciders, but equally there would have been more WDC's decided early. And I certainly don't subscribe to the belief that the driver who wins the most races deserves to be the Champion, because there are scenarios where one driver with a clearly inferior car can win a championship by driving the wheels off the thing, for a bunch of 2nd places, whilst the driver in the superior car might win more races easily, but also make more mistakes. E.g., 2003.

Frankly 6-5-4-3-2-1 would be fine for me, I'd rather concentrate on improving the racing through the regulations.

#84 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 1,828 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 28 March 2008 - 13:11

Originally posted by Rinehart
If you go back through history and apply the rule that the driver with the most victories, wins the championship, on hardly any occassions will you find that we would have had a different World Champion.


"Hardly any" is pushing it a bit! There were 12 occasions that I can think of, 11 if you exclude 1983 on a technicality.

#85 Actuary

Actuary
  • Member

  • 281 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 28 March 2008 - 13:12

Might as well give the WDC to the driver with most wins.

#86 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 9,152 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 28 March 2008 - 14:31

Originally posted by E.B.


"Hardly any" is pushing it a bit! There were 12 occasions that I can think of, 11 if you exclude 1983 on a technicality.


Really? There haven't been any occasions in the last 18 years where the driver without the most wins has won the Championship. Are you sure you are not counting seasons where two drivers have ended up EQUAL on wins, in which case it goes on countback to 2nd places, 3rd places etc, which is then essentially the same thing as the points system we have now, which isn't the same thing as the driver with the most wins winning it.

If there is one points system that ENCOURAGES attacking motor racing it is the old system of dropping the worst scores, since then the gamble to overtake or push a broken car becomes more favorable towards RACING.

#87 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 1,828 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 28 March 2008 - 15:25

Originally posted by Rinehart


Really? There haven't been any occasions in the last 18 years where the driver without the most wins has won the Championship. Are you sure you are not counting seasons where two drivers have ended up EQUAL on wins, in which case it goes on countback to 2nd places, 3rd places etc, which is then essentially the same thing as the points system we have now, which isn't the same thing as the driver with the most wins winning it.


You'd be surprised - I was including countbacks, but in fact on 11 occasions (out of the 12 I mentioned) the champion driver won less races than some other driver!

You are correct that it's all been fine for the last 18 years though!

#88 Psyence

Psyence
  • New Member

  • 1 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 28 March 2008 - 21:36

I think that the current points system that rewards the top eight finishers is a better system than what was used before (top six). This system gives smaller teams like Aguri and FIF1 the occasional chance to score a point or two which can make a difference for them in terms of attracting sponsors and getting commercial money etc... Extending the points further, say down to 10th place would de-value a points finish IMO and diminish the achievements of the team/driver for finishing in the points.

However, the current system definitely rewards reliability/consistency too much although it can be argued that for the constructors championship having good reliability as well as pace should be rewarded. I would like to see the winner receive 12 points and there should be a point for fastest lap! :)

#89 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,197 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 28 March 2008 - 21:51

I want more overtaking. Its more interesting than watching a procession.

So I'll leave the points system as it is. But also give each car that overtakes another on the track, a point. So that Nick Heidfeld overtaking move of DC and FA would have scored him two points then and there. I reckon things would be more interesting that way, and the drivers more tested. And leave the WCC without the overtaking points - just give the team the finishing points only.

Of course, overtaking your team mate wouldn't get you points. And if you blocked for your team mate, you'd be disqualified and the team also I guess. Or maybe not - such politics on the track might also be fun to watch.

#90 stevewf1

stevewf1
  • Member

  • 3,259 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 28 March 2008 - 21:54

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


:up:

#91 gerry nassar

gerry nassar
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,880 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 28 March 2008 - 22:23

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
I want more overtaking. Its more interesting than watching a procession.

So I'll leave the points system as it is. But also give each car that overtakes another on the track, a point. So that Nick Heidfeld overtaking move of DC and FA would have scored him two points then and there. I reckon things would be more interesting that way, and the drivers more tested. And leave the WCC without the overtaking points - just give the team the finishing points only.

Of course, overtaking your team mate wouldn't get you points. And if you blocked for your team mate, you'd be disqualified and the team also I guess. Or maybe not - such politics on the track might also be fun to watch.


Though that would mean a guy who binned it in qualifying and starts last would get 10 points for overtaking 10 cars from the back while the pole sitter who wins from pole and overtakes noone would get 10 points also?? That certainly would cause an uproar ;)

#92 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,743 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 28 March 2008 - 22:27

Originally posted by CaptnMark
Give points to 11 people (half the grid)

100-60-40-30-20-10-6-4-3-2-1


I like it. Best suggestion in this thread so far.

#93 Actuary

Actuary
  • Member

  • 281 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 28 March 2008 - 23:08

Why not give points to everyone apart from the guy that comes in last.

#94 turin

turin
  • Member

  • 3,034 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 28 March 2008 - 23:22

Originally posted by gerry nassar


Though that would mean a guy who binned it in qualifying and starts last would get 10 points for overtaking 10 cars from the back while the pole sitter who wins from pole and overtakes noone would get 10 points also?? That certainly would cause an uproar ;)


and how about two teammates finally passing each other back and forth?

How many points Gilles and Rene would have got with that scheme in Dijon 79?

#95 Melbourne Park

Melbourne Park
  • Member

  • 19,197 posts
  • Joined: October 00

Posted 29 March 2008 - 02:57

Originally posted by turin


and how about two teammates finally passing each other back and forth?

How many points Gilles and Rene would have got with that scheme in Dijon 79?


It was entertaining though. I think if overtaking benefited the players, the teams might just design the cars to overtake.

You might even modify the rules, so that qualifying gave you choice of where you'd start. You might take first place, but then you might instead take 8th, because you'd get more points that way. Kimi had some awesome drives from the back of the field a couple of years ago, and he over took cars doing so. With such a points system, overtaking would become the requirement for success, generated from the teams.

Of course overtaking a team mate may not not be fair - but there is already a rule against team work.

The first lap shouldn't count either IMO. If the drives could choose their grid positions, then I'd have a rolling start lead by the SC car. Then an overtake when the flag drops would score points.

Another benefit might be when a car gets damaged - the teams would fix it, and get it back racing. And if the car overtook cars, then it would get points.

Now what happens, is the cars from 10th backward just go into cruise control, and save their engines for the next race. Or just give up and sit there. If there were overtaking points, they'd be fighting all the race long.

In Melbourne, lots of cars could have finished I reckon - but they retired them and saved their engines. Let them be brought back to the pits, and put back onto the track, and get them driving flat out to overtake other cars that have been put back. Why not - its better than watching 6 cars tooling around in a procession.


Currently, both McLaren and Ferrari appear - depending on the track - to have clearly faster cars. With such a system, the pole setter might say - I am going for 32 points here - with the pole (achieved with empty tanks by a whole hour of pole runs left to make your time) the pole getter would start from the very back of the grid. Even if he got up to 6th place (which is easy for a McLaren that's the fastest car or a Ferrari), then the driver would get 6 points for sixth plus 16 for the overtakings he made, less the pitstop gains which were made off the track. But with this system, the driver might not want to overtake in the pits - he might even plan to overtake a bunch of cars with himself on empty tanks, and then pit and fuel, and then defiantly defend.

Its a lot more interesting than what is going on at the moment. At the moment its mostly the fastest car that wins, and place changes happen via pitstop openings. And we don't know about how the car compare, because its all top secret. The most interesting thing is the cars now, but yet we are not allowed to know what the teams are doing with the cars. So the most interesting thing that going on is now top secret. And if someone from one team talks to another, you could get fined for that. Ask a team member what is going on with their car, and get get a marketing PR bullshit reply that tells you meaningless platitudes. We learn bugger all - its all secret, and none of our bloody business. Christ that's used to be fascinating comparing the cars - now its forbidden to know anything. And its illegal to tell anyone.

Its a bazaar system, and very boring. Its marketing driven to absurdity. Drivers have to spend time talking to the media, and the public is told that the driver is one of the elite, which is why he is reported as earning over 10 million dollars a year.

So the petrol headed think he must be great, because he's getting all that money. He wouldn't know from watching the race though - the guy just sits there, you don't see him overtake, you just rely on the marketing PR. The teams need all that to draw up heros out of their hats, which all fit the PR goals of brand recognition. The teams can't talk about why there cars a different, because that would give away their competitive advantage. Wow that's boring again.

Why not have some driver placed challenge, that pits the racing man against what he thinks he could possibly achieve. Let the drivers with the fastest cars throw down the gauntlet, and go for it. Put their ability on the line, and start further back - and go for it.

The fans now think that driver, he must be terrific, geeh he has a personal trainer, he has a charity, he has a nice smile and he won in carts, he has a personal jet too, because he is so very very busy. He's also a major linch pin in the development of car we're told. Such a driver has been essentially turned by the PR bods into a pop star, based on bulldust PR. Execpt that unlike a '60s popstar, he's actually totally boring - because we never meet the real person. We just get the PR spin and bulldust. And we sure as heck don't see anything worth noting on the track. For almost all the time, they just sit there.

With this changed system, if you've the driver of a slower car, you might just get points for overtaking as well - maybe you'll also gather some team points.

Such a system would pit the driver against what he thought he could achieve. These days the driver just wants a good first corner, and then to stay in touch and hope that he has more fuel than the guys in front. That's no driving challenge at all.








#96 stevewf1

stevewf1
  • Member

  • 3,259 posts
  • Joined: December 05

Posted 29 March 2008 - 15:09

Or how about 1,000 to the winner and then 100 down to 1 for second, third and so on. This will allow everyone to get valuable points, and will more than cover the field when F1 becomes "prosperous" again...

:drunk:

#97 StefanV

StefanV
  • Member

  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 29 March 2008 - 15:19

15
10
7
5
3
2
1

That gives point only to the first 7, which is odd (!), but it gives the #2 a good reason for trying to win and the #3 guy a good reason to try to get second. Maybe they will not turn the revs down and cruise half race.

#98 B747

B747
  • Member

  • 1,315 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 29 March 2008 - 18:02

How about

Winner 3 pts
2nd 2 pts
3rd 1 pt

pole 1 pt
fastest lap 1 pt

rest 0 pts

a bit cruel but,

this would ensure an open championship till the end, and would encourage winning,
going fast and of course making pp, it would be useless just cruising and it would also be easy to catch the leaders of championship.

#99 BMW_F1

BMW_F1
  • Member

  • 7,670 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 29 March 2008 - 18:06

Originally posted by B747
How about

Winner 3 pts
2nd 2 pts
3rd 1 pt

pole 1 pt
fastest lap 1 pt

rest 0 pts

a bit cruel but,

this would ensure an open championship till the end, and would encourage winning,
going fast and of course making pp, it would be useless just cruising and it would also be easy to catch the leaders of championship.


I doubt anyone driving a super agury/force india/toro rosso would have any interest in racing..

Advertisement

#100 B747

B747
  • Member

  • 1,315 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 29 March 2008 - 18:16

BMW_F1 quote:

I doubt anyone driving a super agury/force india/toro rosso would have any interest in racing..




yes, that would be the weakness of such a system. maybe it could be created an alternative system with points usefull only for statistic, a team that can´t be champ, still still will like to know that he beated the one that is at his level.

however with such a system, a midfielder with a little luck could do very valuable points.