Points systems
#1
Posted 31 March 2012 - 10:25
10-6-4-3-2-1
Australia
Button 10
Vettel 6
Hamilton 4
Webber 3
Alonso 2
Kobayashi 1
McLaren 14
RBR 9
Ferrari 2
Sauber 1
Malaysia
Alonso 12
Button 10
Hamilton 8
Perez 6
Vettel 6
Webber 6
Raikkonen 2
Senna 1
Kobayashi 1
McLaren 18
Ferrari 12
RBR 12
Sauber 7
Lotus 2
Williams 1
10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1
Australia
Button 10
Vettel 8
Hamilton 6
Webber 5
Alonso 4
Kobayashi 3
Raikkonen 2
Perez 1
McLaren 16
RBR 13
Ferrari 4
Sauber 4
Lotus 2
Malaysia
Alonso 14
Hamilton 12
Button 10
Webber 10
Perez 9
Vettel 8
Raikkonen 6
Senna 3
Kobayashi 3
Di Resta 2
Vergne 1
McLaren 22
RBR 18
Ferrari 14
Sauber 12
Lotus 6
Williams 3
Force India 2
STR 1
25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1
Australia
Button 25
Vettel 18
Hamilton 15
Webber 12
Alonso 10
Kobayashi 8
Raikkonen 6
Perez 4
Ricciardo 2
Di Resta 1
McLaren 40
RBR 30
Sauber 12
Ferrari 10
Lotus 6
STR 2
Force India 1
Malaysia
Alonso 35
Hamilton 30
Button 25
Webber 24
Perez 22
Vettel 18
Raikkonen 16
Senna 8
Kobayashi 8
Di Resta 7
Vergne 4
Ricciardo 2
Hulkenberg 2
Schumacher 1
McLaren 55
RBR 42
Ferrari 35
Sauber 32
Lotus 16
Force India 9
Williams 8
STR 6
Mercedes 1
Malaysia
Driver / System 1 / 2 / 3
Alonso 1 / 1 / 1
Button 2 / 3 / 3
Hamilton 3 / 2 / 2
Perez 4 / 5 / 5
Vettel 5 / 6 / 6
Webber 6 / 4 / 4
Raikkonen 7 / 7 / 7
Senna 8 / 8 / 8
Kobayashi 9 / 9 / 9
Di Resta - / 10 / 10
Vergne - / 11 / 11
Ricciardo - / - / 12
Hulkenberg - / - / 13
Schumacher - / - / 14
Australia
McLaren 1 / 1 / 1
RBR 2 / 2 / 2
Ferrari 3 / 3 / 4
Sauber 4 / 4 / 3
Lotus - / 5 / 5
STR - / - / 6
Force India - / - / 7
Malaysia
McLaren 1 / 1 / 1
Ferrari 2 / 3 / 3
RBR 3 / 2 / 2
Sauber 4 / 4 / 4
Lotus 5 / 5 / 5
Williams 6 / 6 / 7
Force India - / 7 / 6
STR - / 8 / 8
Mercedes - / - / 9
I still like the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 the best
#3
Posted 31 March 2012 - 12:18
I still like the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 the best
I don't. The problem with the old system is that these days the cars are too reliable and more than 15 cars are consistently finishing races. The 9/10-6-4-3-2-1 system was good and very fitting at a time when it was normal for less than half the cars to reach the chequered flag. Back in the day, if you were driving for a small team like today's Caterham, HRT and Marussia, you could have scored some points at particular races every season by simply cruising to the finish, while today even a perfect race is unlikely to result in even a top 10 finish. The current system also encourages racing in the mid-pack and I can't see any fault in that. Giving points to the top 15 has always worked well in motorbikes due to the high finish rates so I don't see why a similar system (points to top 10) should not be used in F1 now that the finish rates are similarly very high. Winning championships still requires race wins anyway, so I can't really see any serious detrimental side-effects in the renewed system.
Edited by Wander, 31 March 2012 - 12:23.
#4
Posted 31 March 2012 - 13:23
Exactly, back then you expected someone's engine to blow up pretty much every race and all sorts of other mechanical failures. Now the reliability is amazing, wasn't there a race last year where all 24 finished?I don't. The problem with the old system is that these days the cars are too reliable and more than 15 cars are consistently finishing races. The 9/10-6-4-3-2-1 system was good and very fitting at a time when it was normal for less than half the cars to reach the chequered flag. Back in the day, if you were driving for a small team like today's Caterham, HRT and Marussia, you could have scored some points at particular races every season by simply cruising to the finish, while today even a perfect race is unlikely to result in even a top 10 finish. The current system also encourages racing in the mid-pack and I can't see any fault in that. Giving points to the top 15 has always worked well in motorbikes due to the high finish rates so I don't see why a similar system (points to top 10) should not be used in F1 now that the finish rates are similarly very high. Winning championships still requires race wins anyway, so I can't really see any serious detrimental side-effects in the renewed system.
And I also think the drivers are much more cautious around each other now - they know that there are points on offer down to 10th and they can overtake so are less likely to attempt a kamikaze lunge taking out several cars at the first corner. Maybe I'm just being nostalgic but I'm sure there used to be far more serious first corner incidents with cars getting airborne and flipping - now it seems very rare, they lose a few front wings and maybe the odd car spins but the drivers are much more civilised at the start of a race.
I think the current system is fair, none of the 'new' teams have scored a point yet so it still a considerable challenge to get a point (although the number of 13th/14th places they get is still a bit of a lottery).
#5
Posted 31 March 2012 - 13:44
I'd prefer to see a points system that attributed points for all 24 cars. This would reward reliability even more so, which I think should be (and probably is) the focus nowadays.Exactly, back then you expected someone's engine to blow up pretty much every race and all sorts of other mechanical failures. Now the reliability is amazing, wasn't there a race last year where all 24 finished?
And I also think the drivers are much more cautious around each other now - they know that there are points on offer down to 10th and they can overtake so are less likely to attempt a kamikaze lunge taking out several cars at the first corner. Maybe I'm just being nostalgic but I'm sure there used to be far more serious first corner incidents with cars getting airborne and flipping - now it seems very rare, they lose a few front wings and maybe the odd car spins but the drivers are much more civilised at the start of a race.
I think the current system is fair, none of the 'new' teams have scored a point yet so it still a considerable challenge to get a point (although the number of 13th/14th places they get is still a bit of a lottery).
#6
Posted 31 March 2012 - 13:51
But neither should points be given out, they should be hard earned. The bikes have their way and F1 has its way. It would devalue points if you gave them out like confetti for the sake of it.
I have a championship editor for my rFactor racing game, so I just have 1 point for 20th, then 2, then 4, then 8 etc and keep doubling until you have 2^20 (1,048,576) points for the winner, so each extra place gets double, making drivers go for passes.
It encourages racing down the field whilst still heavily rewarding the winner.
It'll never happen but I like using that online.
#7
Posted 31 March 2012 - 14:03
What about a system like this:Exactly, back then you expected someone's engine to blow up pretty much every race and all sorts of other mechanical failures. Now the reliability is amazing, wasn't there a race last year where all 24 finished?
And I also think the drivers are much more cautious around each other now - they know that there are points on offer down to 10th and they can overtake so are less likely to attempt a kamikaze lunge taking out several cars at the first corner. Maybe I'm just being nostalgic but I'm sure there used to be far more serious first corner incidents with cars getting airborne and flipping - now it seems very rare, they lose a few front wings and maybe the odd car spins but the drivers are much more civilised at the start of a race.
I think the current system is fair, none of the 'new' teams have scored a point yet so it still a considerable challenge to get a point (although the number of 13th/14th places they get is still a bit of a lottery).
01. 25
02. 15
03. 14
04. 13
05. 12
06. 11
07. 10
08. 9
09. 8
10. 6
This would encourage the drivers to fight for #1 and #10
#8
Posted 31 March 2012 - 14:23
It would be something like this (note the points given out would be greater than today for obvious reasons):
1st - 50pts
2nd - 38pts
3rd - 34pts
4th - 28pts
5th - 25pts
6th - 23pts
7th - 20pts
8th - 18pts
9th - 16pts
10th - 15pts
11th - 13pts
12th - 11pts
13th - 10pts
14th - 9pts
15th - 8pts
16th - 7pts
17th - 6pts
18th - 5pts
19th - 4pts
20th - 3pts
21st - 2pts
22nd - 1pt
Note the way that first steps down to second, third steps down to fourth, 6th steps down to seventh, and 10th steps down to 11th, relative to the rest of the % difference of points given. It's so a "top 10" result still has some form of merit. There really is no drawback to this system at all, its just simpler to rank the lower teams, as explained above.
23rd and 24th dont exist because i spent 5 minutes on this and havent divied up the points correctly yet and cant be bothered figuring it out.
#9
Posted 31 March 2012 - 14:42
25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1
to
25-18-14-11-8-6-4-3-2-1
10-6-4.... worked well with the numerous retirements, whereas 10-8-6.. was terrible in itself (gotta have difference between getting from 3rd to 2nd and 2nd to 1st) as well as making 2005 a nightmare for me.
#10
Posted 31 March 2012 - 15:12
SirRacer's idea doesn't make much sense, cause suddenly fighting for 10th position is very worthwhile, but then it doesn't make much difference whether you are 10th or 8th. that's inconsistent.
There have been numerous changes to the system over the last 20 years so I wouldn't be surprised if more are on the way in the next 5 years. I'm not gonna speculate though, and I'm really quite fine with the current system. I wish I could remember right away how many points each place is worth, but that's not really an important matter.
Edited by Wander, 31 March 2012 - 15:17.
#11
Posted 31 March 2012 - 15:38
#12
Posted 31 March 2012 - 16:54
#13
Posted 31 March 2012 - 17:01
The difference between a win and 2nd place is far too small.Im a big fan of 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. Keeps things really tight and interesting.
#14
Posted 31 March 2012 - 17:09
Edited by Lights, 31 March 2012 - 17:10.
#15
Posted 31 March 2012 - 17:47
Edited by Gyan, 31 March 2012 - 17:47.
#16
Posted 31 March 2012 - 18:09
It's better than most systems mentioned here. Actually I don't see a better one.I do not understand why a 15-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 points system is not discussed at all or seriously in F1 circles and by F1 fans. It isn't a massive increase in the points being distributed since the winner gets 5 points more rather than 15 which just seems out of place in Formula 1. There is a good distance between the winner and 2nd place and you get 10 drivers earning points. IMO, it's the best system for this generation of high reliability cars.
#17
Posted 31 March 2012 - 18:41
Edited by Wander, 31 March 2012 - 18:42.
#18
Posted 31 March 2012 - 19:28
Im a big fan of 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. Keeps things really tight and interesting.
I like that, too. Sure, as already pointed out, the difference between P1 and P2 is comparatively small. But that's not a problem for me.
#19
Posted 31 March 2012 - 19:54
1st 1 point
every other position 0 points
I think there would be no question about drivers challenging for the race win then. It seems quite logical given that no one cares about who comes second in the WDC or even the WCC.
Advertisement
#20
Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:01
Great idea! Right now I'm really getting annoyed by all those drivers who rather finish 2nd. This would spice things up nicely.How about:
1st 1 point
every other position 0 points
I think there would be no question about drivers challenging for the race win then. It seems quite logical given that no one cares about who comes second in the WDC or even the WCC.
#21
Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:03
How about:
1st 1 point
every other position 0 points
I think there would be no question about drivers challenging for the race win then. It seems quite logical given that no one cares about who comes second in the WDC or even the WCC.
Hi Bernie.
#22
Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:04
I do not understand why a 15-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 points system is not discussed at all or seriously in F1 circles and by F1 fans. It isn't a massive increase in the points being distributed since the winner gets 5 points more rather than 15 which just seems out of place in Formula 1. There is a good distance between the winner and 2nd place and you get 10 drivers earning points. IMO, it's the best system for this generation of high reliability cars.
So someone who is running 5th would only get 2 extra points if he can get onto the podium? Hardly worth the effort you might think.
To encourage overtaking, you need a situation where every position gained gives a decent increase in points.
Maybe double the points for each position gained:
512
256
128
64
32
16
8
4
2
1
#23
Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:11
A win isn't worth 16 5th places.So someone who is running 5th would only get 2 extra points if he can get onto the podium? Hardly worth the effort you might think.
To encourage overtaking, you need a situation where every position gained gives a decent increase in points.
Maybe double the points for each position gained:
512
256
128
64
32
16
8
4
2
1
It doesn't have to be just a decent increase in points. It's about a relative value.
#24
Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:16
#25
Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:26
A win isn't worth 16 5th places.
It doesn't have to be just a decent increase in points. It's about a relative value.
I was just throwing it out there, not really thinking it's a practical system.
Best suggestion I've seen here is 25-18-14-11-8-6-4-3-2-1, at least it's consistent unlike the current system.
#26
Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:27
So someone who is running 5th would only get 2 extra points if he can get onto the podium? Hardly worth the effort you might think.
To encourage overtaking, you need a situation where every position gained gives a decent increase in points.
Maybe double the points for each position gained:
512
256
128
64
32
16
8
4
2
1
Hmmm, interesting. How about 2/3 points? Something like this:
100
67
44
30
20
13
9
6
4
3
#27
Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:33
14-11-8 and 8-6-4 isn't really consistent. The worth of a 3rd place over a 4th place should be bigger than the worth of a 4th place over a 5th place, no?I was just throwing it out there, not really thinking it's a practical system.
Best suggestion I've seen here is 25-18-14-11-8-6-4-3-2-1, at least it's consistent unlike the current system.
#28
Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:43
This makes sense. But I wouldn't like F1 adapting to a win system of 100 points.
25-17-12-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1
#29
Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:45
Don't forget every non point finish has the place recorded, as indeed does every tied points position. That's why I like 10-6-4 or 100-60-40-etc if needs be. Interesting to compare nonetheless.
Yes, but as said, it favours luck when it comes to determining the order of the backmarkers at the end of the season. It's not really fair there and giving points to more people really does not change the nature of the fight at the top either, so I don't see why you should prefer the old system to giving points to more people..
#30
Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:54
25-17-12-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1
Isn't there the same problem you showed? 5th to 6th .... 9th to 10th worth the same?
#31
Posted 31 March 2012 - 20:54
Anyway, when someone puts in so much work into a post, it can never be bad. Kudos to that!
#32
Posted 31 March 2012 - 21:15
Lol. Obviously with 1 point difference this is unavoidable. But up to that point the ratios are fine.Isn't there the same problem you showed? 5th to 6th .... 9th to 10th worth the same?
#33
Posted 31 March 2012 - 21:23
Lol. Obviously with 1 point difference this is unavoidable. But up to that point the ratios are fine.
Yes that's true. I still prefer mine though.
#34
Posted 31 March 2012 - 23:38
14-11-8 and 8-6-4 isn't really consistent. The worth of a 3rd place over a 4th place should be bigger than the worth of a 4th place over a 5th place, no?
It can't be perfect without giving a lot more points for a win, and so on down. But it's better than the current system. Only 3 points difference between 2nd and 3rd places really makes no sense.
#35
Posted 01 April 2012 - 02:44
It would be something like this (note the points given out would be greater than today for obvious reasons):
1st - 50pts
2nd - 38pts
3rd - 34pts
4th - 28pts
5th - 25pts
6th - 23pts
7th - 20pts
8th - 18pts
9th - 16pts
10th - 15pts
11th - 13pts
12th - 11pts
13th - 10pts
14th - 9pts
15th - 8pts
16th - 7pts
17th - 6pts
18th - 5pts
19th - 4pts
20th - 3pts
21st - 2pts
22nd - 1pt
Note the way that first steps down to second, third steps down to fourth, 6th steps down to seventh, and 10th steps down to 11th, relative to the rest of the % difference of points given. It's so a "top 10" result still has some form of merit. There really is no drawback to this system at all, its just simpler to rank the lower teams, as explained above.
23rd and 24th dont exist because i spent 5 minutes on this and havent divied up the points correctly yet and cant be bothered figuring it out.
My favorite system would be something similar to this.
1- it would better rank the lower teams
2- it would incentive drivers to keep racing even if the car had some minor problems
3- more midfield fight for positions
A completely different system, but still valid would be the best position system. You're classified by the best position you achieve (similar with Bernie trophies).
1- we would see some crazy strategies and epic races with it since the risk-reward curve would be much better
2- more fights for top positions but far less for lowers
3- luck would be even more significant in the final results
#36
Posted 01 April 2012 - 09:40
^That's hardly a change at all over the current one tbh. Except in making the places around 7th-10th more valuable.
The current points system isn't "traditional" while 15-10-8 is. It's more along the lines of the 10-6-4 system, it'll be easier to calculate as well. It's just me being a stickler for tradition, which isn't a bad thing necessarily.
#37
Posted 01 April 2012 - 12:16
Hmm, just thought further - points are so uninteresting. I think people would prefer something more tangible. Instead of 1 point for the winner how about they get a medal instead. The one with the most medals at the end of the seasons is champion.Hi Bernie.
#38
Posted 01 April 2012 - 14:36
70
48
32
20
12
7
4
2
1
reasoning:
*the current point system is divided by 2,5 and optimal points divided by 10 for the graph.
#39
Posted 19 November 2012 - 17:58
1. Vettel 90
2. Alonso 80
3. Hamilton 59 (4th)
4. Räikkönen 51 (3rd)
5. Button 49 (6th)
6. Webber 46 (5th)
7. Massa 22
8. Rosberg 22 (9th)
9. Grosjean 19 (8th)
10.Perez 17
11.Maldonado 12 (14th)
12.Kobayashi 11 (11th)
13.Hülkenberg 6 (12th)
14.Schumacher 5 (15th)
15.Di Resta 4 (13th)
16.Senna 1
1.Red Bull 136
2.Mclaren 108 (3rd)
3.Ferrari 102 (2nd)
4.Lotus 70
5.Sauber 28 (6th)
6.Mercedes 27 (5th)
7.Williams 13 (8th)
8.Force I. 10 (7th)
9.Torro R. 0
10.Caterh. 0
11.Maruss. 0
12.HRT 0
So unsuprisingly the biggest differences occur in the midfield as there were no points for 7th-10th - and Vettel would´ve celebrated his third WDC yesterday.