45 replies to this topic

[Jason]

F1 has relatively few point paying positions compared to other motor racing series. This definitely adds to the challenge of finishing in the points. On the other hand, that doesn't seem to be the case in NASCAR. I actually don't watch much NASCAR, but I did notice the following thread: http://forums.autosp...threadid=100559
The exchange between JPM and his NASCAR crew just highlights what little value his team placed on fighting for position.
How much do you think a racing series' point system influences how a driver races?

[wingwalker]

The usual thing your read on this forum is "give 12 points for winning the race". And I Agree, but I think it would be even better to have points for top 12. That would make mid-pack far more motivated during the GP's.

[kismet]

Surprisingly little.

[Jason]

Originally posted by kismet
Surprisingly little.

Then maybe you can explain to me why JPM's NASCAR crew chief is telling him to give up a spot?

[Orin]

Originally posted by wingwalker
The usual thing your read on this forum is "give 12 points for winning the race". And I Agree, but I think it would be even better to have points for top 12. That would make mid-pack far more motivated during the GP's.

Perhaps 12 is too many, but it would certainly be nice to see the points extended. Nowadays the competition is so close and there are so many finishers that it would make sense. Plus it would be nice cheering the middle pack into the low points positions. Points? I guess something along the lines of:-

1st 20
2nd 16
3rd 12
4th 8
5th 6
6th 5
7th 4
8th 3
9th 2
10th 1

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by Jason

Then maybe you can explain to me why JPM's NASCAR crew chief is telling him to give up a spot?

So he doesn't get his car damaged during the pitstop.

[Craven Morehead]

Given the (general) ultra-reliability of the current cars, I think it would be good to score deeper into the pack. If both Ferraris, Macs, and Beemers finish then Toyota, Red bull, Renault, Williams, Honda, et al are fighting for the last two spots, which seems silly. I'd like to see them score at least to twelfth place (prefer even further) so that the midpack teams final results are representative of their overall form across the season rather than the result of one or two fluke results.

[BlackCat]

starting giving even more points to losers - 7th & 8th - was imho one of the worst ****ups by FIA.

[F1Fanatic.co.uk]

99.9% of the time it doesn't matter.

It only comes into play in the closing stages of a championship when one driver has a decent lead - for example, Alonso versus Raikkonen in 2005.

Even then we're not talking about it changing a driver or team's entire philosophy of approaching a weekend, we're talking about whether a driver risks that fifty-fifty overtaking move on the guy in second place.

In terms of points systems, it would be better to get rid of them entirely and just rank the drivers according to their best finishing positions, which is essentially what Bernie Ecclestone suggested a few weeks ago.

[Torch]

I used to think the prize should be higher for winning, but I'm also now thinking that there should be a bigger points gap between 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. Perhaps this might encourage a few more mid pack battles?

[smartie_f1]

Originally posted by Torch
I used to think the prize should be higher for winning, but I'm also now thinking that there should be a bigger points gap between 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. Perhaps this might encourage a few more mid pack battles?

I would agree with that to an extent. I think th epoints gap needs to be widened between all positions. Drivers in second won't fight for first because they're only losing two points. We seem to be seeing drivers that will settle for second rather than take a risk trying to overtake (ignoring the overtaking deficiencies).

I like the idea of having points further down the field too.

In NASCAR they get points for most laps led and fastest laps too.

[wingwalker]

Originally posted by BlackCat
starting giving even more points to losers - 7th & 8th - was imho one of the worst ****ups by FIA.

So only 1-6 should be in points? I disagree completely.

[BlackCat]

even 6th is kind of compromise, but tolerable. why should 6th place from years 1960 to X be less honorable than 7th place since year X on?

[Atreiu]

The grid should have 26 cars and the top 8 would get points. Rewarding a third or little less of the grid is enough to make each point valuable and worth taking risks.


I'd like this point system in F1:
15
10
7
5
4
3
2
1

[MrAerodynamicist]

Originally posted by BlackCat
even 6th is kind of compromise, but tolerable. why should 6th place from years 1960 to X be less honorable than 7th place since year X on?

They're not/would be. Anyone who says that a 7th under the current system is more honourable than in 1950 is reading something in to nothing. Despite people's propensity to create stats such as "total career points", championship point systems have nothing to say about the comparisons of different seasons. They're only relevant intra-season, when the crucial property is the rules are consistent.

To turn your argument around; why should a 9th place in the 2008 Bahrain Grand Prix be no more honourable than 10th place in the 2008 Bahrain Grand Prix? Did Glock-Toyota not achieve something more than Alonso-Renault?

There are issues with the NASCAR points system, but that it ranks everybody is not one of them (it's that there's not a big enough difference between winning and not winning, and awarding too many trivial bonus points)

[Clatter]

Originally posted by wingwalker
The usual thing your read on this forum is "give 12 points for winning the race". And I Agree, but I think it would be even better to have points for top 12. That would make mid-pack far more motivated during the GP's.

Do you really think the mid-field needs more motivation? I think some of the best battles happen in the mid-field, and I can't say I've ever seen or heard anything to suggest they werent trying just because they wouldnt get any points.

[wingwalker]

Originally posted by Clatter


Do you really think the mid-field needs more motivation? I think some of the best battles happen in the mid-field, and I can't say I've ever seen or heard anything to suggest they werent trying just because they wouldnt get any points.

Actually, I do think they would try even harder if let's say last point-awarded place would be 3 seconds with 25 laps to go, instead of 15 seconds which usually game over, try again at the next GP. But even without it, it would be nice to see them rewarded and have something.. countable, not a general impression of being in "upper midfeld" or whatever. And when I think about, they would definitely push more if their effort would result in going up or down in WCC standings.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by wingwalker


Actually, I do think they would try even harder if let's say last point-awarded place would be 3 seconds with 25 laps to go, instead of 15 seconds which usually game over, try again at the next GP. But even without it, it would be nice to see them rewarded and have something.. countable, not a general impression of being in "upper midfeld" or whatever. And when I think about, they would definitely push more if their effort would result in going up or down in WCC standings.

You could be right, but I think they are trying as hard as they can anyway. I'd say the bigger issue around pushing is the 2 race engine.

[Rinehart]

The only point system that helps racing is the ability to drop worst scores. This makes risk taking a worthwhile gamble.

Otherwise, not in the slightest. A car won't go any quicker with a different point system.

[Jason]

Originally posted by Rinehart
The only point system that helps racing is the ability to drop worst scores. This makes risk taking a worthwhile gamble.

Otherwise, not in the slightest. A car won't go any quicker with a different point system.

An interesting idea. I've actually seen this system employed in an online racing league I raced in. The reason wasn't to encourage aggressive racing, but rather every so often a participate would get disconnected during a race. So, dropping the worst result would balance out that out.

[metz]

I for one would like to see a Heidfeld like driver win the WDC without winning a single race. (I don't think that's ever been done).
It would prove that you don't need the fastest car but rather consistency and racecraft to be a champion.
The WCC should go to the fastest car.
Unfortunately, today, it is hard to distinguish.

[Jason]

Originally posted by metz
I for one would like to see a Heidfeld like driver win the WDC without winning a single race. (I don't think that's ever been done).
It would prove that you don't need the fastest car but rather consistency and racecraft to be a champion.
The WCC should go to the fastest car.
Unfortunately, today, it is hard to distinguish.

Kimi Räikkönen almost won the 2003 WDC with only one win.

[COUGAR508]

Originally posted by Rinehart
The only point system that helps racing is the ability to drop worst scores. This makes risk taking a worthwhile gamble.

I think that sort of system was in vogue in the 1970s, when of course mechanical reliability was not on the same level as today. In 1977, Mario Andretti won more races than anyone else, but scored very few points elsewhere. The greater consistency of Lauda and Scheckter carried the day, even if they had to discard a few of their scores.

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by wingwalker



So only 1-6 should be in points? I disagree completely.

In 1989, 39 cars were showing up for each GP - with only 6 points-paying positions available. I don't remember anyone complaining...

The 10-6-4-3-2-1 system was the best. "Scoring a point" really meant something - a real accomplishment.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by stevewf1
"Scoring a point" really meant something - a real accomplishment.

Blah. The drivers in the middle field do just as good races as top 6 and end up 10th or less...

Those lower positions should be ranked as well. It should not only be about the best car.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by stevewf1
In 1989, 39 cars were showing up for each GP - with only 6 points-paying positions available. I don't remember anyone complaining...

How many drivers finished the races? Hardly 17...

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by micra_k10

Blah. The drivers in the middle field do just as good races as top 6 and end up 10th or less...

Those lower positions should be ranked as well. It should not only be about the best car.

:

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by micra_k10

How many drivers finished the races? Hardly 17...

Then give every driver and team one point before the first race of the season. That way, everyone gets a "valuable" point...

[TickTickBooom]

Originally posted by Jason
How much do you think a racing series' point system influences how a driver races?

In F1, not enough. And I think in MotoGP there's too many points on offer. A balance between the two would work for me.

And you referenced the JPM video in your OP. To be fair, he was being told to give the place to his team mate and not some random other driver, so I don't think the points on offer made much difference to the request.

[Jason]

Originally posted by TickTickBooom

In F1, not enough. And I think in MotoGP there's too many points on offer. A balance between the two would work for me.

And you referenced the JPM video in your OP. To be fair, he was being told to give the place to his team mate and not some random other driver, so I don't think the points on offer made much difference to the request.

Thanks for clearing that up! Like I said in my original post, I don't follow NASCAR so I wasn't sure what that situation was about. Anyhow, I think that in certain instances when a driver is close to a point scoring position it serves as extra motivation.

[Burai]

It really all depends on the series. In NASCAR, where overtaking is commonplace, you could say that drivers can give up running hard in order to take home a safe number of points.

But in F1 where it's hard to follow another car, let alone pass it, I don't think the points really influence much at all. People talk about Alonso's latter half of 2005 like he was taking it easy, but I think it was more a case of McLaren completely getting the jump on Renault and Fernando just being lucky enough that the points system is what it is.

In F1 it seems to be the case that you've either got a winning car or you haven't. No amount of extra work is going to help you leapfrog a clearly superior car. The current points system is more sympathetic of that problem rather than the cause of it.

[KiwiF1]

I have a couple of thoughts on this matter:

First thought I don't think that the points on offer make drivers try less for those midfield points, I think we have seen some great races going on at different levels during the race with close racing over 14th and 15th for example, however I would like to see a bigger points difference between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. and paying down to 10th place, for example 16,13,10,8,6 down to 1 point in 10th place, and then also include 1 point for the fastest lap.

then my second thought was, get rid of all this 2 race for each engine, 4 races for each gearbox, and push the teams to find all the limits, go back to paying points for the top 5 finishes like 15,11,8,6,4 and then 1 point for every car who managed to finish the race. I am not sure that this would make F1 better or not, but I would like to see it a little more like the 80's when the teams tried lots of radical things on the cars, some worked and some didn't, and lots of overtaking and risk taking.

Not thought through heaps, but I think F1 could do with an overhaul in this area.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by stevewf1
Then give every driver and team one point before the first race of the season. That way, everyone gets a "valuable" point...

Why?

Points system exist to rank the accomplishments of drivers and teams. It makes no sense that only handfull of drivers in best cars are ranked in each event... we need a proper ranking system for the drivers at the back of the grid as well.

[Atreiu]

Originally posted by micra_k10

Why?

Points system exist to rank the accomplishments of drivers and teams. It makes no sense that only handfull of drivers in best cars are ranked in each event... we need a proper ranking system for the drivers at the back of the grid as well.

I saw somewhere and sometime a suggestion of a point system in which the last classfied driver of a race was rewarded 1 point. The 2nd last 2 and then 4, 8 and so on... It makes some sense to give them all points, but it would mean that the same result could have different scores. Winning a race in which 15 cars were classified would mean much more than winning one if only 10 were classifed.

Montoya would have got a sh*t load of points for his win at Monza 05 while Raikkonen, though much more spectacular, would have got less for his win at Suzuka the same year.

[KaraLeanne]

Originally posted by Atreiu
I saw somewhere and sometime a suggestion of a point system in which the last classfied driver of a race was rewarded 1 point. The 2nd last 2 and then 4, 8 and so on... It makes some sense to give them all points, but it would mean that the same result could have different scores. Winning a race in which 15 cars were classified would mean much more than winning one if only 10 were classifed.

Montoya would have got a sh*t load of points for his win at Monza 05 while Raikkonen, though much more spectacular, would have got less for his win at Suzuka the same year.

Why should a driver get more points just because more cars finish? The winning driver has no control over other drivers DNFing so why reward that. That is silly and the two races you use as an example illustrate why. Monza 05 was a good win for Montoya but don't forget that his teammate qualified on pole but Montoya inherited the pole position because of Kimi's 10 place engine change penalty. Suzuka 05, the top cars started from the back and the winner came from the second to last row. So why on earth would a points system give more for a win that was aided by the pole sitter being penalized 10 places versus a win from almost the back of the grid? I do think the points system needs to be changed but the system you mention is definitely not a sensible way to go.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by Atreiu
I saw somewhere and sometime a suggestion of a point system in which the last classfied driver of a race was rewarded 1 point. The 2nd last 2 and then 4, 8 and so on... It makes some sense to give them all points, but it would mean that the same result could have different scores. Winning a race in which 15 cars were classified would mean much more than winning one if only 10 were classifed.

Montoya would have got a sh*t load of points for his win at Monza 05 while Raikkonen, though much more spectacular, would have got less for his win at Suzuka the same year.

Nice try, but brainless. Winner get 512 points if 10 drivers finish and 16384 points if 15 drivers finish...

I have thought the idea of winner always getting, say 25 points, and the last finisher one point. The rest would get something between, depending how many finished the race.

But that's not so good either, because number of backmarker retirees really should have no effect on who is declared world champion. And it's not really good idea that people try stay in race with broken cars just to get some point.

[Mauseri]

As things are now, I think it would be okay to reward at least 10, even 12 best finishers...

15-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

or

20-16-13-11-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1

[BMW_F1]

Originally posted by TickTickBooom

In F1, not enough. And I think in MotoGP there's too many points on offer. A balance between the two would work for me.

And you referenced the JPM video in your OP. To be fair, he was being told to give the place to his team mate and not some random other driver, so I don't think the points on offer made much difference to the request.

This is incorrect from what I remember. I am sure JPM wouldn't have had a problem giving up a spot to his teammate. They were asking him to give up his spot to Steve Wallace a young kid which happened to wreck or wreck someone in almost every race . They wanted to play it safe an avoid any racing during pit road. For this JPM said hell no.."I came here to race not to cruise"
It didn't make sense either, what the crew asked him to do, because when the race resumed Montoya would've had to re-pass him during the race, and how could they know this wasn't going to be risky.

[HDonaldCapps]

AIACR/CSI European Championship Points Schedule

[Atreiu]

I didn't like that system myself, it just adressed the possibility of rewarding all finishers.


In such a tight field, awarding 10 or 12 cars is absurd. It should always be more dificult to score than to not score. So you can't possibly gives points to half of them or more.

Ideally, there would be 26 cars in each race and the top 8 would get points.

[Mauseri]

Ideally about 3/4 of the finishing drivers should get points. The question after good race should not be "did you get points" but "how many points did you get"

[Villes Gilleneuve]

Originally posted by Atreiu
The grid should have 26 cars and the top 8 would get points. Rewarding a third or little less of the grid is enough to make each point valuable and worth taking risks.


I'd like this point system in F1:
15
10
7
5
4
3
2
1

how about this:

15
10
7
5
4
-1
-2
-3

THEN you'll see some effort mid-pack.

+1pt for fastest qualifier.

[BMW_F1]

The IRL points system is not that bad..

50, 40, 35, 32, 30, 28, 26, 24, 22, 20, 19, 18, 17, and so on down to 1 point for 29th

[manmower]

Originally posted by Villes Gilleneuve


how about this:

15
10
7
5
4
-1
-2
-3

THEN you'll see some effort mid-pack.

+1pt for fastest qualifier.

Yeah, effort to slip back to ninth.

[djd]

How about points based upon time, Ron Dennis said:

"A Formula 1 car exists to win grand prix. To cover 305 kilometres, or 190 miles, in as short a time as possible. "

so why not make the points reflect that. That would stop any cruising until the end.

Possible scheme is to have the perfect race time based upon the sum of the fastest laps for each lap by a car on the lead lap. Then the race winner gets points equal to the percent of their race time divided by the perfect perfect time. Thus someone in second but 30 seconds behind could raise the pace in the last stint to try & reduce the leader's points or force them to go faster and thus risk going out.

There are two options for other positions:

1) same percent of the perfect race time, thus any cars finishing close together would have almost identical points.

2) percentage of perfect race time but also factored by similar ratios to today's points, e.g.
winner = 100 * (race time / perfect race time)
second = 80 * (race time / perfect race time)
third = 70 * (race time / perfect race time)
etc. for today's 10,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 scheme or other ratios for other schemes posted here could be used.

Hard for humans to calculate but easy for the F1 timing scheme to calculate on the fly on display
at various times during the race.

[Raelene]

the only change I would make is give more for the win - like it used to be. They only changeds the rules because of MS. Make going for a win worth more - instead of cruising for second ;)