262 replies to this topic

[1player]

Just found this article: https://www.motorspo...cture/10601483/

 

 

One item that has been given prominence on the F1 Commission agenda, which has been distributed ahead of the meeting, is a potential change to F1’s points structure.

 

The idea that has been proposed is for points to be distributed to the top 12 drivers, rather than the top 10, as has been the case since 2010.

 

To ensure minimal impact on the fight for overall championship glory, the proposal is not to shake up the points on offer at the front of the field.

 

Instead, if the plan gets support, then the top seven race finishing positions will remain unchanged, with only the points being offered from 8th and below being altered as can be seen in the table below.

 

 

Here is the proposed structure:

• P1: 25 points (unchanged)
• P2: 18 points (unchanged)
• P3: 15 points (unchanged)
• P4: 12 points (unchanged)
• P5: 10 points (unchanged)
• P6: 8 points (unchanged)
• P7: 6 points (unchanged)
• P8: 5 points (+1)
• P9: 4 points (+2)
• P10: 3 points (+2)
• P11: 2 points (+2)
• P12: 1 point (+1)

Thoughts?

Edited by 1player, 21 April 2024 - 09:39.

[P123]

Only if they had a larger grid than 20 cars...

[SenorSjon]

- Look at MotoGP.
- FL lap point for the fastest lap of a top10 finisher (so it is always given).
- give points to half the field, so we need 24 cars.

[PayasYouRace]

It would improve the accuracy of the lower championship positions. I’m all for it.

[TomNokoe]

No, points are hard earned.

However, I've no doubt it will be approved, as F1 continues its race to the bottom.

The whole DTS ethos is about creating a family atmosphere throughout the grid, and encouraging fans to support midfield and backmarkers drivers. This is a step in the wrong direction but keeps the Albon and Ricciardo contingents engaged because suddenly you get a point for a mediocre 12th place finish.

[DW46]

I’d support a return to the;

1st - 10pts
2nd - 6pts
3rd - 4pts
4th - 3Pts
5th - 2pts
6th - 1 pt
FL - Nice stat

[Henri Greuter]

Given the current rates of reliability of the top teams: I'm OK with this suggestion.

If the top5 teams leave nothing on the table anymore due to their reliability and their advantage on the mid teams and lower teams, then the table needs to be enlarged.

[pdac]

It would improve the accuracy of the lower championship positions. I’m all for it.

 

If you want accuracy (I do), then 1st=26, 2nd=25, 3rd=24, 4th=23 ... 18th=9, 19th=8, 20th=7. Then, of course, 21st=6 .. 26th=1.

[PayasYouRace]

No, points are hard earned.

However, I've no doubt it will be approved, as F1 continues its race to the bottom.

The whole DTS ethos is about creating a family atmosphere throughout the grid, and encouraging fans to support midfield and backmarkers drivers. This is a step in the wrong direction but keeps the Albon and Ricciardo contingents engaged because suddenly you get a point for a mediocre 12th place finish.

It’s very disappointing to read posts like this, especially the way the F1 paddock did have a family atmosphere in the old days. When you’d see the likes of Jim Clark, Graham Hill, et al just hanging out and being friends away from the track. F1 has far too much of an adversarial atmosphere at times and when these drivers are out there risking injury or death for our entertainment, that doesn’t feel right.

 

Then there’s the dismissal of anyone who isn’t racing at the sharp end as if they didn’t matter. No, everyone on the grid matters and nowadays we have one of the highest standards of grid ever in the history of the sport. Even the relatively useless guys we dump on every weekend are very good drivers on a world standard. It’s a shame that people see caring about that as a “race to the bottom”.

 

To bring this back to the topic of points. They’re meant to form a calculation for deciding the championship positions. Traditionally, on average 2/3rds of finishers would score points. Since reliability got so good in the 21st century, that fraction became ridiculously low, so we had to expand the points system. Even now, it’s harder to score points than it ever was in the days of top 6. So expanding the points system to better reflect the rankings of different teams can only be a good thing. It’s unfair for one random fluke result to be the deciding factor in the lower team’s ranking.

[PayasYouRace]

If you want accuracy (I do), then 1st=26, 2nd=25, 3rd=24, 4th=23 ... 18th=9, 19th=8, 20th=7. Then, of course, 21st=6 .. 26th=1.

Put that on an arithmetic curve to reward the winners more and you have the right idea.

[Stephane]

i still want the medals system. 

[pdac]

Put that on an arithmetic curve to reward the winners more and you have the right idea.

 

Nah, winners don't need more reward than the beautiful trophy (and a bottle of champers) that they receive

[PayasYouRace]

Nah, winners don't need more reward than the beautiful trophy (and a bottle of champers) that they receive

In my ideal system, a win is worth the same as two seconds, three thirds, four fourths, etc.

[Ruusperi]

I'd rather have more cars than more points.

[uzsjgb]

It would improve the accuracy of the lower championship positions. I’m all for it.

Indeed. As the points are now a team just has to luck into one good result outside the points. The rest of the season they can finish dead last and still finish ahead of their competitors in the standings. That is not fair. Giving points out to 12th place does not fully solve that problem, to make it completely fair every position should earn points.

[Laster]

I'm happy for it to extend to 12 just because those top 5 teams now are really locking out the points positions (minus Stroll). A gap has opened up between these teams where once there were only 3 dominant teams and others behind were more interchangable. So Hulk who delivered today, still only managed 1 point, and that's the norm. A strong weekend from a midfield driver is likely to only net them a point, and might not even earn them that.

So yeah extending it to twelve to give the midfield something to consistently fight over is a good move in my opinion. They can't always be reliant on one of the top cars not finishing or Stroll being Stroll.

[NotAPineapple]

I've always proposed giving points to all finishers, that way its possible to rank the whole grid in a more meaningful way.

As it is now, the bottom half of the grid are ranked in a way that can be severley swung by single chaotic race result where typical non-scorers luck into a few points and jump several places in the classification which obviously makes no sense.

[ANF]

I'd just like to make the point that the current points system is used not only in F1 but in F2, F3, F4...

[pdac]

In my ideal system, a win is worth the same as two seconds, three thirds, four fourths, etc.

 

That would work for me - as long as every finisher scored some points.

 

Edit: 

This would be the scoring for a 26-car grid:

1 33554432

2 16777216

3 8388608

4 4194304

5 2097152

6 1048576

7 524288

8 262144

9 131072

10 65536

11 32768

12 16384

13 8192

14 4096

15 2048

16 1024

17 512

18 256

19 128

20 64

21 32

22 16

23 8

24 4

25 2

26 1

 

It will make it fun trying to figure out what positions drivers have to achieve to win the championships towards the end of the season 

 

(this does not include the 1 point for fastest lap)

Edited by pdac, 21 April 2024 - 11:52.

[Counterbalance]

Participation medals.

Edited by Counterbalance, 21 April 2024 - 11:53.

[Anderis]

I’d support a return to the;

1st - 10pts
2nd - 6pts
3rd - 4pts
4th - 3Pts
5th - 2pts
6th - 1 pt
FL - Nice stat

Oh yeah, 5 out of 10 teams without a single point several races into the season, what a fantastic point system for modern F1.

 

In my ideal system, a win is worth the same as two seconds, three thirds, four fourths, etc.

I don't like that system because it means a race win + DNF beats 2nd+3rd for WCC.
 

[Yamamoto]

I'd prefer to see points handed out on time relative to the winner of the Grand Prix, just to listen to the commentators try to do the arithmetic as we go. I also think it's quite optimistic to fear than any shake-up to the points system is likely to 'impact the fight for championship glory'.

 

But if one believes the principle behind the mooted change is good, then it would make more sense to extend it down to about 15th like they do in top level motorcycle racing.

[PayasYouRace]

 

 

I don't like that system because it means a race win + DNF beats 2nd+3rd for WCC.
 

 

Seems about right to me.

[Ali623]

I’d support a return to the;

1st - 10pts
2nd - 6pts
3rd - 4pts
4th - 3Pts
5th - 2pts
6th - 1 pt
FL - Nice stat

 

This system simply wouldn't work in modern F1, the cars are too reliable and the teams are too efficient. It only worked back then because you would have way more retirements and you could hold much faster cars behind you if you found yourself higher up the order.

 

Example, if you applied this points system to last year's championship, the bottom four teams would have had zero points and only the top 12 drivers in the championship would have points.

 

If you applied it to this season, you're probably going to finish with only half the grid getting points...

Edited by Ali623, 21 April 2024 - 11:57.

[NotAPineapple]

I’d support a return to the;

1st - 10pts
2nd - 6pts
3rd - 4pts
4th - 3Pts
5th - 2pts
6th - 1 pt
FL - Nice stat

Why?

[DW46]

Why?

Cause points down to tenth allow teams who aren’t competitive to never need to improve. It allows mediocre drivers to achieve points tally’s that dwarf there predecessors giving the false impression that someone like Alex Albon is a remotely competent F1 driver when he’s basically Adrian Sutil.

[Yamamoto]

 

That would work for me - as long as every finisher scored some points.

 

Edit: 

This would be the scoring for a 26-car grid:

1 33554432

2 16777216

3 8388608

4 4194304

5 2097152

6 1048576

7 524288

8 262144

9 131072

10 65536

11 32768

12 16384

13 8192

14 4096

15 2048

16 1024

17 512

18 256

19 128

20 64

21 32

22 16

23 8

24 4

25 2

26 1

 

It will make it fun trying to figure out what positions drivers have to achieve to win the championships towards the end of the season 

 

(this does not include the 1 point for fastest lap)

 

 

No, that's too straightforward, you need a number that factorises from first to last, so that for example 20 20th places gets you the same number as 1 first:

 

1st 232,792,560

2nd 116,396,280

3rd 77,597,520

4th 58,198,140

5th 46,558,512

6th 38,798,760

7th 33,256,080

8th 29,099,070

9th 25,865,840

10th 23,279,256

11th 21,162,960

12th 19,399,380

13th 17,907,120

14th 16,628,040

15th 15,519,504

16th 14,549,535

17th 13,693,680

18th 12,932920

19th 12,252,240

20th 11,639,628

 

Suddenly I'm in favour of 20-car grids.

 

"Stroll and Sargeant are locked in a duel for a precious extra 612,612 points".

[PayasYouRace]

Cause points down to tenth allow teams who aren’t competitive to never need to improve. It allows mediocre drivers to achieve points tally’s that dwarf there predecessors giving the false impression that someone like Alex Albon is a remotely competent F1 driver when he’s basically Adrian Sutil.

 

It doesn't work like that. The promise of points for the top six was never some extra magic to make teams quicker. If it was, why is it that the closest fields ever have been since points were extended to more positions?

 

Personally, I don't understand this view that the entire field doesn't deserve a fair championship ranking. As if counting points for the lower positions rewards mediocrity.

[1player]

That would work for me - as long as every finisher scored some points.

Edit:
This would be the scoring for a 26-car grid:
1 33554432
2 16777216
3 8388608
4 4194304
5 2097152
6 1048576
7 524288
8 262144
9 131072
10 65536
11 32768
12 16384
13 8192
14 4096
15 2048
16 1024
17 512
18 256
19 128
20 64
21 32
22 16
23 8
24 4
25 2
26 1

It will make it fun trying to figure out what positions drivers have to achieve to win the championships towards the end of the season

(this does not include the 1 point for fastest lap)

It doesn't have to be quadratic (n^2), it could be n^1.1 or something, with rounding and adjustments so there is at least a point difference between positions.

But I agree all positions should count for something, and top positions should give exponentially more points.

[JimmyClark]

It doesn't work like that. The promise of points for the top six was never some extra magic to make teams quicker. If it was, why is it that the closest fields ever have been since points were extended to more positions?

 

Personally, I don't understand this view that the entire field doesn't deserve a fair championship ranking. As if counting points for the lower positions rewards mediocrity.

 

Personally, I like the act of giantkilling when a backmarker team hooks up a wet/chaotic race perfectly and vaults themselves 2-3 places up the Constructors' rankings. Unfair maybe, but we remember those moments precisely because they were so rare and special (e.g. Webber Melbourne 2002, Gene Nurburgring 1999 after Badoer was so cruelly denied an even bigger haul, etc). 

 

If it's made too easy to get points then they really don't mean much, and when following teams which have no hope of competing for wins, it adds so much more to it. 

Edited by JimmyClark, 21 April 2024 - 12:46.

[DW46]

It doesn't work like that. The promise of points for the top six was never some extra magic to make teams quicker. If it was, why is it that the closest fields ever have been since points were extended to more positions?

Personally, I don't understand this view that the entire field doesn't deserve a fair championship ranking. As if counting points for the lower positions rewards mediocrity.

You’re entitled to your view buddy, it’s not a hill I’m willing to die on. 👍

[AlexPrime]

Give them NASCAR points, so we can have a champion with thousands of points and pundits will laud the record 

[mdaclarke]

I like the new proposal. 

 

I would also add a point for Pole Position. 

[Heyli]

Apart from tradition, what would be the reason against having more point scores? Points are still worth more the higher up you finish, but it also gives more racing for meaningful spots. That's a good thing, no? 

[Secretariat]

I prefer points for only the top third of finishers but seems that ship has sailed. Points should not be awarded if you finish outside the top half of the field. If they can guarantee 24 starters, sure expand the points to 12. 

Edited by Secretariat, 21 April 2024 - 13:14.

[Myrvold]

Good to see the focus is on the important bits.

Giving points to more than half of the field... sheesh.

[Yamamoto]

Apart from tradition, what would be the reason against having more point scores? Points are still worth more the higher up you finish, but it also gives more racing for meaningful spots. That's a good thing, no? 

 

I think it's legitimate to prefer a ranking system that favours peak performances over consistency. Akin to how a couple of fantastic performances in major tennis tournaments on one surface could put a player ahead of someone who consistently wins a couple of rounds on Hard Court. I don't believe it would necessarily reflect that in modern Formula One. The mostly static nature of the competitive order from circuit to circuit, and the heavy reliance on luck from the bottom half teams to get anywhere near the top six would be a major obstacle to such a system working as intended. But it doesn't have to be about tradition.

[tyker]

On the way to participation points and away from scoring points being a special achievement. 

[Stephane]

Points shifts theinterst towards the championdhip instead of the races. People will settle for sure points instead of trying to get more.

[ANF]

Apart from tradition, what would be the reason against having more point scores? Points are still worth more the higher up you finish, but it also gives more racing for meaningful spots. That's a good thing, no?

I don't know... You sometimes get more entertaining battles between drivers who know they will finish outside the points (like Stroll vs Magnussen today) because they don't really care if they finish P13 or P20.

[LolaB0860]

No thanks.

 

26 car grid instead of cartel, and then they can come and talk about it again.

 

But in few years time I'm sure they'll adopt the infamous Indycar points system where you get points even after crashing in the first corner of the first lap.

Edited by LolaB0860, 21 April 2024 - 13:51.

[noikeee]

Since we're picking up great ideas from MotoGP of giving points to lots of people, we could also pick up ideas from more other series. What about the WRC and what they're doing this season. Extra points for who crosses the line first at the end of the first half of the race, and for who is the fastest through the second half of the race. We could also introduce the concept of a "power lap", extra points for who's the fastest in some random designated lap, say lap 35.

Formula E tells us it's great to give DRS boosts or extra points to whomever wins driver of the day. Meanwhile NASCAR has that great concept which is the Chase. Throw all of Max's points away and reset the championship from September onwards.

Edited by noikeee, 21 April 2024 - 14:42.

[Gyan]

FOM, do something to end these spells of domination, not fiddle around with points systems for gods sake. I genuinely don't understand the inaction over it.

[TomNokoe]

What surprises me is that this fundamental change seems to have been suggested because, five races into the new season, there is a clear divide between the top five and bottom five teams.

The short-termism is off the charts.

[Jellyfishcake]

I think it's been an issue for a while, it's just highlighed more so far this season.

 

I'm all for this change, I think it's better to give the midfielders more of a way to organise themselves to where they should be.

 

I felt the change from 10 for a win to 25 for a bad change at the time, just because it changed the points standings so massively, however once that door was opened expanding a top 10 to top 12 isn't a problem.

 

Also, this scoring system would work well in F2, F3 and FRECA so that's a bonus 

[NotAPineapple]

Cause points down to tenth allow teams who aren’t competitive to never need to improve. It allows mediocre drivers to achieve points tally’s that dwarf there predecessors giving the false impression that someone like Alex Albon is a remotely competent F1 driver when he’s basically Adrian Sutil.

 

Some really flawed logic there which doesn't hold at all. 

 

'Points dow to tenth' doesn't allow teams to never need to improve. Quite clearly the oppposite is actually the case: reducing the number of points paying positions, actually removes the need to improve and has been seen dozens of times now. 

 

Career points tallys have always been meaningless since the points system and the number of races have changed so much. Otherwise we should switch back to the 8-6-4-3-2 system from 1950. 

[TomNokoe]

I felt the change from 10 for a win to 25 for a bad change at the time

I still think this is a bad change. It really annoys me that the gap between 1st and 2nd is so vast compared to the gap between 2nd and 3rd, 3rd and 4th, etc.

It also bothers me that a win is worth so much. In previous eras, 1pt was 10% of a win, now it's 4%.

I'd prefer 15-12-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.

[PayasYouRace]

I still think this is a bad change. It really annoys me that the gap between 1st and 2nd is so vast compared to the gap between 2nd and 3rd, 3rd and 4th, etc.

It also bothers me that a win is worth so much. In previous eras, 1pt was 10% of a win, now it's 4%.

I'd prefer 15-12-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.

 

That was worst with 10-6-4-3-2-1.

[tyker]

I still think this is a bad change. It really annoys me that the gap between 1st and 2nd is so vast compared to the gap between 2nd and 3rd, 3rd and 4th, etc.

It also bothers me that a win is worth so much. In previous eras, 1pt was 10% of a win, now it's 4%.

I'd prefer 15-12-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.

However that one point was for finishing 8th, today 8th scores you 4 points which is 16% of a win so the lower points finishers actually benefit more.

[Jops14]

Oh yeah, 5 out of 10 teams without a single point several races into the season, what a fantastic point system for modern F1.

I don't like that system because it means a race win + DNF beats 2nd+3rd for WCC.

Interestingly if you go back over the last few years its remarkable how little top 6 would have changed things, a surprising nunber of teams still grabs 6ths/3rds. It looks fairly similar to the 90s results.

Id rather return to top 6. But if we’re doing this just go for all 20 indycar style