322 replies to this topic

[sopa]

As mentioned, even with 10-6 system Rosberg would be leading. So the problem isn't the point system. I mean if you want to win a championship, you need to finish races too and lots of them! Not win and DNF intermittently. Why should ability to finish races be devalued, so that you can win half of the races and crash out from the rest of them, thus showing your inconsistency? Or that team isn't able to build a reliable car, which DNFs regularly - why should they be awarded with championship, just because the car was fast? "To finish first, first you need to finish" as the old saying goes... F1 isn't about who posts the fastest lap-time, but who can get to the finish first...

 

I think what we could discuss here is perhaps the old "best X races count" system can be used, so you can afford a few DNFs per season without it influencing your championship.

Edited by sopa, 10 June 2014 - 07:52.

[ANF]

It is unfair and I quite like it that way. A fair system would be 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1.

[kapow]

sopa, on 10 Jun 2014 - 07:49, said:

As mentioned, even with 10-6 system Rosberg would be leading. So the problem isn't the point system. I mean if you want to win a championship, you need to finish races too and lots of them! Not win and DNF intermittently. Why should ability to finish races be devalued, so that you can win half of the races and crash out from the rest of them, thus showing your inconsistency? Or that team isn't able to build a reliable car, which DNFs regularly - why should they be awarded with championship, just because the car was fast? "To finish first, first you need to finish" as the old saying goes...

I think what we could discuss here is perhaps the old "best X races count" system can be used, so you can afford a few DNFs per season without it influencing your championship.

I have no problem with Rosberg leading the championship NOW. I would have a problem with him still leading if the next 3 races finish 1-2 to Hamilton. Under 10-6 Hamilton would be winning by 8, under 25-18 he'll be losing by 1.

Not finishing SHOULD matter, it just matters too much.

[sopa]

ensign14, on 10 Jun 2014 - 07:14, said:

Someone trundling home 3rd in every race gets more reward than someone who wins half the other races and has the misfortune to try to lap Perez or Maldonado in the other half?

 

Motor racing is about winning.  List me as many Indy 500 winners as you can remember.  Now list me the runners-up.  I can guarantee that, unless you are Donald Davidson (at one extreme) or ignorant of non-F1 (at the other), you will get more of the first.  

 

1 point for a win, 0 for anything else.  If people really are that venal that they need a world championship, then that's all that matters.

 

Well, there are certainly fans, who like to concentrate only on the winner and don't care about anything else. But I like to get a good view of how the whole field does in relation to each other and point system gives a better reflection on that front. I can appreciate an underdog team punching above their weight and regularly finish in 5th positions, even if it "is nothing because they are not winning".

 

Each to their own I guess. Only caring about the winner is boring for me.

[Nustang70]

kapow, on 10 Jun 2014 - 07:47, said:

A bit extreme!! I'd more be in favour of a 2:3 ration. 2 wins are the same as 3 seconds, etc...

That wouldn't differ much from what we have now.  Instead of 18 pts for 2nd, it would be 16.67 pts for 2nd.  

[kapow]

Nustang70, on 10 Jun 2014 - 07:56, said:

That wouldn't differ much from what we have now. Instead of 18 pts for 2nd, it would be 16.67 pts for 2nd.

It would differ hugely in that in my hypothetical scenario Hamilton would be leading.

Just to add... this is NOT about Hamilton. It's about the balance of wins v finishing.

2 wins being worth the same as 3 seconds "feels" right (and was indeed the system for the first 40 years of the World Drivers Championship).

Edited by kapow, 10 June 2014 - 08:05.

[ensign14]

Lazy, on 10 Jun 2014 - 07:49, said:

So 1 guy gets 3 wins but spends the rest of the time crashing into people or his car imploding.

 

The rest of the drivers don't get more than 2 wins each, it's a great season, lots of different winners but the muppet wins.

 

Yep.  He won the races.  He got the job done. 

 

Although your scenario points out the uselessness of a world championship.  Does anyone really deserve the title in those circumstances?  1982 refers.

[Nustang70]

kapow, on 10 Jun 2014 - 08:01, said:

It would differ hugely in that in my hypothetical scenario Hamilton would be leading.

Just to add... this is NOT about Hamilton. It's about the balance of wins v finishing.

2 wins being worth the same as 3 seconds "feels" right (and was indeed the system for the first 40 years of the World Drivers Championship).

He wouldn't.  Rosberg would have 133.4 pts, Hamilton would have 116.7.  

Edited by Nustang70, 10 June 2014 - 08:12.

[Nemo1965]

The fairest system, in my mind, would be a system where the lowest amount of points would decide.

 

Eh?

 

I mean: suppose you finish 1st. You get 1 point. Second you get 2 points. And soforth. So Hamilton would get 18 points from Montreal.

 

At the end of the year, the driver with the least points wins the title. In my system a win would be worth twice as much as second place, second 1,5 much as third, and the rates and advantages decline going down the last place. Which, in my opinion, is fair.

 

Of course this system will never be implemented (because people would find it stupid, yeah) but also because almost every point system has the knack to be 'fair' about non-results.

[kapow]

Nustang70, on 10 Jun 2014 - 08:11, said:

He wouldn't. Rosberg would have 133.4 pts, Hamilton would have 116.7.

Are you being deliberately difficult? As I said - in my hypothetical scenario that after 10 races, Hamilton has 7 wins, 1 second and Rosberg 2 wins and 8 seconds... a 2:3 ratio would put Hamilton in front.

For the benefit of the hard of hearing: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ROSBERG CURRENTLY LEADING THE CHAMPIONSHIP

[Collombin]

kapow, on 10 Jun 2014 - 08:01, said:

2 wins being worth the same as 3 seconds "feels" right (and was indeed the system for the first 40 years of the World Drivers Championship).

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but you might need to check your maths.

[kapow]

E.B., on 10 Jun 2014 - 08:21, said:

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but you might need to check your maths.

9 points for 1st, 6 for 2nd. 3:2

Ok it wasn't this was for the 1st ten years, but it was for 30 years after that.

Why have we now decided to reward winning less? Madness.

Edited by kapow, 10 June 2014 - 08:24.

[MSC98]

Current system is ridiculous.

Best system was 10-6-4-3-2-1. Both drivers and constructors were appropriately rewarded  for wining a race.

 

Yes, Rosberg would still be leading with that system, however if Hamilton manages to win in Austria he would be able to regain lead no matter where Rosberg finishes, unlike with the current system.

[byrkus]

kapow, on 09 Jun 2014 - 22:04, said:

Is the current F1 points system unfair and too biased towards reliability?

 

It's been unfair at least since 1958. The best 6 scores (from the 11 races) were retained; Stirling Moss 4 wins, Mike Hawthorn 1 win. Hawthorn becomes WDC...

[ensign14]

Nemo1965, on 10 Jun 2014 - 08:15, said:

The fairest system, in my mind, would be a system where the lowest amount of points would decide.

 

 

Of course this system will never be implemented (because people would find it stupid, yeah) but also because almost every point system has the knack to be 'fair' about non-results.

 

Something similar was used in the 1930s championship.  With the result that Nando Minoia, who never won a Grand Prix in a 24 year career, took the title in 1931.  Ber-ILLIANT.

[Collombin]

I thought 10-6-4-3-2-1 was great but am starting to think that reintroducing a best x results system would be good too, even though it can result in permutations way too complicated for the casual fan to grasp.

In principle I love what the medals idea is trying to do, but grudgingly concede that it's just a little bit too extreme.

[Zoetrope]

I think the system is fair. If you finish second, alight you didn't win, but you beat 20 other drivers. It's a solid achievement and should be rewarded accordingly.

The problem is that motorsport is unfair per se for the drivers. It's not their fault the car retired. But perhaps problem is a bad word for this occasion. It's more of a nature of the sport. Not a problem that should be addressed.

[kapow]

I'd be much more in favour of:

50,33,22,15,10,7,5,3,2,1

[Collombin]

How about the Swiss method based on % of time slower than the race winner?

Michael Ferner ran the numbers for 1970 and it put Rindt about 12th!!!!!

Edited by E.B., 10 June 2014 - 08:43.

[Nustang70]

kapow, on 10 Jun 2014 - 08:19, said:

Are you being deliberately difficult? As I said - in my hypothetical scenario that after 10 races, Hamilton has 7 wins, 1 second and Rosberg 2 wins and 8 seconds... a 2:3 ratio would put Hamilton in front.

For the benefit of the hard of hearing: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ROSBERG CURRENTLY LEADING THE CHAMPIONSHIP

My apologies--I didn't realize yours was the opening post, so I didn't connect your 3:2 ratio to that scenario.  

[sibakruom]

Designing a system to favor more wins over consistency (or the opposite) tends to have little effect on the end results.
The scoring system that favored most the wins was arguably in the 80s, yet this is the scoring system with the most champions who have won less races than a challenger. With the new scoring system introduced in 1991 that rewarded consistency a bit more than the previous, all champions had stricly more wins than their challengers.

 

On top of that, statistical anomalies can happen no matter the scoring system used, and this is what we're seeing right now. If at the end of a 20 races long season someone who has finished all races on the podium beat someone who has won twice the number of races but retired 6 times, I wouldn't be shocked. This is roughly the current situation between Rosberg and Hamilton.

[Nustang70]

sibakruom, on 10 Jun 2014 - 08:41, said:

Designing a system to favor more wins over consistency (or the opposite) tends to have little effect on the end results.
The scoring system that favored most the wins was arguably in the 80s, yet this is the scoring system with the most champions who have won less races than a challenger. With the new scoring system introduced in 1991 that rewarded consistency a bit more than the previous, all champions had stricly more wins than their challengers.

 

On top of that, statistical anomalies can happen no matter the scoring system used, and this is what we're seeing right now. If at the end of a 20 races long season someone who has finished all races on the podium beat someone who has won twice the number of races but retired 6 times, I wouldn't be shocked. This is roughly the current situation between Rosberg and Hamilton.

Except 2008. 

[SenorSjon]

E.B., on 10 Jun 2014 - 08:37, said:

How about the Swiss method based on % of time slower than the race winner?

Michael Ferner ran the numbers for 1970 and it put Rindt about 12th!!!!!

 

So you can be screwed by the SC in the final laps?

[Collombin]

It was the ultimate system for the reliability camp. They would have loved it.

[ensign14]

E.B., on 10 Jun 2014 - 08:46, said:

It was the ultimate system for the reliability camp. They would have loved it.

 

Just keep going until there's only one car left.  All hail reigning champion Max Chilton.

[sibakruom]

Nustang70, on 10 Jun 2014 - 08:44, said:

Except 2008. 

 

It wasn't the same system anymore, they replaced 10 - 6 - 4... with 10 - 8 - 6...

Massa would have been champion with the former, but isn't with the latter.

[AvranaKern]

Nustang70, on 10 Jun 2014 - 07:33, said:

I've taken a look at some of the recent championships, and for the most part, it looks like the winner would still be the same (although Massa would've won in 2008).

This is shaping up to be one of the most hilarious parallel universe catch phrases.

 

Aah if I were rich... although Massa would have won in 2008!

 

Oh Massa, you unlucky bastard.

[Seanspeed]

Nemo1965, on 10 Jun 2014 - 08:15, said:

The fairest system, in my mind, would be a system where the lowest amount of points would decide.
 
Eh?
 
I mean: suppose you finish 1st. You get 1 point. Second you get 2 points. And soforth. So Hamilton would get 18 points from Montreal.
 
At the end of the year, the driver with the least points wins the title. In my system a win would be worth twice as much as second place, second 1,5 much as third, and the rates and advantages decline going down the last place. Which, in my opinion, is fair.
 
Of course this system will never be implemented (because people would find it stupid, yeah) but also because almost every point system has the knack to be 'fair' about non-results.

Interesting system. Actually took me a bit of time to think of something wrong with it.

Which is that 1 point for finishing first isn't worth twice as much as finishing 2nd at all. Its only worth one point more. In a system where a single retirement is likely to earn you upwards of 18 points, that single point less than a 2nd place finish doesn't mean much at all. In fact, the difference between finishing 16th and 17th is the same as the difference between finishing 1st and 2nd.

[peteringram]

I don't think the Point system is unfair. and there is nothing fair or unfair in Formula 1.

[Nemo1965]

ensign14, on 10 Jun 2014 - 08:28, said:

Something similar was used in the 1930s championship.  With the result that Nando Minoia, who never won a Grand Prix in a 24 year career, took the title in 1931.  Ber-ILLIANT.

 

Thanks! I did not know that. By the way: didn't Bobby Rahal or somebody win the Indy Cart or Champ Car title with no victories at all? 

[sopa]

Zoetrope, on 10 Jun 2014 - 08:34, said:

The problem is that motorsport is unfair per se for the drivers. It's not their fault the car retired. But perhaps problem is a bad word for this occasion. It's more of a nature of the sport. Not a problem that should be addressed.

 

I agree. Hence people should stop complaining about "unfair champions". Such thing doesn't exist unless it is outright cheating. People always try to think about methods to make competition "fair" - whatever that means - but it is never ultimately possible. As the saying goes, you win and lose as a team. The whole team might do a brilliant job, but if one guy makes a miscalculation, the whole winning formula goes down the toilet and you DNF. That's part of the game.

[Nemo1965]

Seanspeed, on 10 Jun 2014 - 09:12, said:

Interesting system. Actually took me a bit of time to think of something wrong with it.

Which is that 1 point for finishing first isn't worth twice as much as finishing 2nd at all. Its only worth one point more. In a system where a single retirement is likely to earn you upwards of 18 points, that single point less than a 2nd place finish doesn't mean much at all. In fact, the difference between finishing 16th and 17th is the same as the difference between finishing 1st and 2nd.

 

To be honest: I don't know if it would work, it is just something that keeps coming back in my mind. If I could find, somewhere, somehow, a site where they have the FULL season results of 2014 or so, I could put the tables in Excel and calculate what would happen. Alas, the old tables (standard in every Grand Prix yearbook) with ALL the results (including the 18th place classifications because of retirements) are obselete. Or so it seems. If someone can point a place where it is to be found, I am willing to make some excel files with different points systems for this year.

Edited by Nemo1965, 10 June 2014 - 09:21.

[Collombin]

Nemo1965, on 10 Jun 2014 - 09:18, said:

Thanks! I did not know that. By the way: didn't Bobby Rahal or somebody win the Indy Cart or Champ Car title with no victories at all?

Sneva did. In 1958 neither of the top 2 in the championship won a race.

[Nemo1965]

E.B., on 10 Jun 2014 - 09:28, said:

Sneva did. In 1958 neither of the top 2 in the championship won a race.

 

Oooh, thanks. Yeah, Tom Sneva, right? I could see his face in my head but the name just did not want to pop up!

Edited by Nemo1965, 10 June 2014 - 09:37.

[Rinehart]

Its the DNF's not the value of 2nd place finishes that is making this an issue. 

[kraduk]

Dont worry everyone, ill have a word with my friend crashanado and he will rebalance things in the final race 

[PayasYouRace]

Nustang70, on 10 Jun 2014 - 07:33, said:

I'd prefer a system in which each points-scoring position is worth twice as much as the one below it:

 

1st: 512 pts

2nd: 256 pts

3rd: 128 pts

4th: 64pts

5th: 32pts

6th: 16 pts

7th: 8 pts

8th: 4pts

9th: 2 pts

10th: 1 pt

 

I've taken a look at some of the recent championships, and for the most part, it looks like the winner would still be the same (although Massa would've won in 2008).  

 

Personally I would try for a system where 1st is worth 2 2nds, and worth 3 3rds, and worth 4 4ths, etc. So for example,

 

1st: 24

2nd: 12

3rd: 8

4th: 6

5th: 5 (rounded)

6th: 4

7th: 3

8th: 2

9th: 1 (Last ones just filled in in sequence to avoid many decimals.)

 

But that leads me on to the inverse:

 

Nemo1965, on 10 Jun 2014 - 08:15, said:

The fairest system, in my mind, would be a system where the lowest amount of points would decide.

 

Eh?

 

I mean: suppose you finish 1st. You get 1 point. Second you get 2 points. And soforth. So Hamilton would get 18 points from Montreal.

 

At the end of the year, the driver with the least points wins the title. In my system a win would be worth twice as much as second place, second 1,5 much as third, and the rates and advantages decline going down the last place. Which, in my opinion, is fair.

 

Of course this system will never be implemented (because people would find it stupid, yeah) but also because almost every point system has the knack to be 'fair' about non-results.

 

I like placing point systems because I'm used to it from sailing. But it also works well with dropped scores. For example in standard 4 race series that I compete in, it's a placing point system like you describe, with one result discarded. Then for the overall cup for the year, you add all the scores of the series but you get one additional discard.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 10 June 2014 - 09:47.

[Nustang70]

sibakruom, on 10 Jun 2014 - 08:59, said:

It wasn't the same system anymore, they replaced 10 - 6 - 4... with 10 - 8 - 6...

Massa would have been champion with the former, but isn't with the latter.

Sorry, I was addressing the specific bit about all champions since '91 having strictly more wins.  I meant that Massa had more wins than the champion, Hamilton (6 to 5).  

[ensign14]

Nemo1965, on 10 Jun 2014 - 09:18, said:

Thanks! I did not know that. By the way: didn't Bobby Rahal or somebody win the Indy Cart or Champ Car title with no victories at all? 

 

Three did.  Ted Horn in the 40s (although he had a couple of more legit titles), Tony Bettenhausen in 1958 and Tom Sneva in 1978.  The points system used to be weighted, so 2nd at Indy was worth more than a win at any other race. 

 

Then you have the NASCAR idiocy, Curtis Turner winning 22 out of 40 races in the convertibles and still not being champ, but let's not go there.

[Collombin]

Ski racing used to use the dropped scores method a lot, but they went too far with it and some outcomes were beyond ludicrous.

For F1, given the current number of races and reliability levels, maybe best 12 results is about where I would pitch it.

[PayasYouRace]

ensign14, on 10 Jun 2014 - 07:14, said:

Someone trundling home 3rd in every race gets more reward than someone who wins half the other races and has the misfortune to try to lap Perez or Maldonado in the other half?

 

Motor racing is about winning.  List me as many Indy 500 winners as you can remember.  Now list me the runners-up.  I can guarantee that, unless you are Donald Davidson (at one extreme) or ignorant of non-F1 (at the other), you will get more of the first.  

 

1 point for a win, 0 for anything else.  If people really are that venal that they need a world championship, then that's all that matters.

 

Question for you:

 

We're competing for a championship, along with everyone else in the thread. You win about a 3rd of the races yourself, but because it's a very competitive series, you've won the most races of anyone. However, I beat you in more races than you beat me. Which one of us should be the champion?

 

(Let's say you have 6 wins, I have 4, and the remaining 8 are won by 5 others, winning 1,2 or 3 each. In the races that neither of us won, I beat you 6 times, making our head-head score 10-8. A very plausible result.)

[Collombin]

ensign14, on 10 Jun 2014 - 09:55, said:

Ted Horn in the 40s

Disagree, I buy the arguments that it was a 77 race season and therefore that Horn did win races.

[Nustang70]

PayasYouRace, on 10 Jun 2014 - 09:47, said:

Personally I would try for a system where 1st is worth 2 2nds, and worth 3 3rds, and worth 4 4ths, etc. So for example,

 

1st: 24

2nd: 12

3rd: 8

4th: 6

5th: 5 (rounded)

6th: 4

7th: 3

8th: 2

9th: 1 (Last ones just filled in in sequence to avoid many decimals.)

 

 

My only problem with this (and really, this is my problem with the most points systems) is that there isn't much of an emphasized reward for finishing order.  For example, should one 3rd place be worth less than two 5ths?  Still, I quite like your idea.  I'd prefer it to the one we have now.  I found it utterly baffling that, in order to increase the value of a win for the new system, they devalued 2nd place (from 20 pts to 18), rather than increasing the points for 1st.  This meant that only the percentage gap between 1st and 2nd changed.  Gaps to 3rd, 4th, and 5th remained essentially the same as the 10-8-6-5-4 model.

[PayasYouRace]

Nustang70, on 10 Jun 2014 - 10:07, said:

My only problem with this (and really, this is my problem with the most points systems) is that there isn't much of an emphasized reward for finishing order.  For example, should one 3rd place be worth less than two 5ths?  Still, I quite like your idea.  I'd prefer it to the one we have now.  I found it utterly baffling that, in order to increase the value of a win for the new system, they devalued 2nd place (from 20 pts to 18), rather than increasing the points for 1st.  This meant that only the percentage gap between 1st and 2nd changed.  Gaps to 3rd, 4th, and 5th remained essentially the same as the 10-8-6-5-4 model.

 

Well I guess because in my mind, five 5ths should be worth the same as three 3rds.

 

You're right about the change to 2nd in the new system. The points should be the best fit on a curve, with the slope at each point being greater than the last.

[Nustang70]

PayasYouRace, on 10 Jun 2014 - 10:13, said:

Well I guess because in my mind, five 5ths should be worth the same as three 3rds.

 

When you put it that way, it does have an appealing elegance (although it gets a little messy after 6th place since you'll mostly be dealing with non-integers).  

Edited by Nustang70, 10 June 2014 - 10:25.

[Collombin]

Not if you give the winner 9! points.

Think what that would do to the all time points stats!

[kraduk]

just use a mutliplie then, 10 or 100 should do. The only downside of that is people like pastor will be way higher than Stewart or fangio on the all time points list

[Jon83]

Cyanide, on 09 Jun 2014 - 22:58, said:

Thread should be titled: "My favorite driver isn't winning the championship now, should we change the points system to help him?"

 

And the answer is still no. 

 

This is what is exactly what it boils down to.

 

As always, its all about Lewis!

[sibakruom]

Nemo1965, on 10 Jun 2014 - 09:21, said:

To be honest: I don't know if it would work, it is just something that keeps coming back in my mind. If I could find, somewhere, somehow, a site where they have the FULL season results of 2014 or so, I could put the tables in Excel and calculate what would happen. Alas, the old tables (standard in every Grand Prix yearbook) with ALL the results (including the 18th place classifications because of retirements) are obselete. Or so it seems. If someone can point a place where it is to be found, I am willing to make some excel files with different points systems for this year.

 

I tried for the 2013 season using Wikipedia, and I got this:
Vettel - 50
Alonso - 95
Hamilton - 113
Webber - 133
Rosberg - 141
Raikonnen - 159 (I gave him 23 points for the two races he didn't participate in)

After that, there're few switches here and there, and two notable results with Grosjean losing two places and Vergne losing three. Chilton is still last with 345 points, but only by 1 point (not counting Kovalainen, of course).
Unsurprisingly, this system penalise DNFs (and DNSs) heavily: all places losses compared to the regular classification were to drivers with more DNFs than the ones who took their places.

[ensign14]

PayasYouRace, on 10 Jun 2014 - 10:01, said:

 

We're competing for a championship, along with everyone else in the thread. You win about a 3rd of the races yourself, but because it's a very competitive series, you've won the most races of anyone. However, I beat you in more races than you beat me. Which one of us should be the champion?

 

(Let's say you have 6 wins, I have 4, and the remaining 8 are won by 5 others, winning 1,2 or 3 each. In the races that neither of us won, I beat you 6 times, making our head-head score 10-8. A very plausible result.)

 

Me, because it's me.

 

More seriously, six times I beat everyone.  It's like me winning the Open and coming 3rd at the Masters and the PGA, and you coming 2nd in all three.  Neither of us get the green jacket, but I get the claret jug.