49 replies to this topic

[CLX]

Are you happy with it?
If not, what point system do you suggest (considering the size of the grid we have today)?

[DEVO]

a point for pole...

maybe a point for fastest lap...

1st place gets 9...

[MortenF1]

Very unsure about points for pole and fastest lap, but I'd like the first eight to get points.
10-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 or 9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.

[ensign14]

Fine for drivers, but for teams I think there should be some recognition that there are 2 cars. At the moment a constructor can build only 1 decent car and still win the title.

I'd add together the teams' positions in the race, rank these, and award 10-6-4-3-2-1for the first 6. So a team that comes 1st and 5th (total 6) comes below a team coming 2nd and 3rd (total 5) and therefore would be awarded 6 points, with the 2nd/3rd team getting 10 points. If adding the positions does not wortk the time or race laps completed could be added. It would be quite rare to get down to 6th place (at least 12 classified cars needed) so the points could be tinkered with (maybe only for the first 4 teams).

[CLX]

Originally posted by ensign14
Fine for drivers, but for teams I think there should be some recognition that there are 2 cars. At the moment a constructor can build only 1 decent car and still win the title.

I'd add together the teams' positions in the race, rank these, and award 10-6-4-3-2-1for the first 6. So a team that comes 1st and 5th (total 6) comes below a team coming 2nd and 3rd (total 5) and therefore would be awarded 6 points, with the 2nd/3rd team getting 10 points. If adding the positions does not wortk the time or race laps completed could be added. It would be quite rare to get down to 6th place (at least 12 classified cars needed) so the points could be tinkered with (maybe only for the first 4 teams).

What if one team had a 2nd and 20th (DNF) while another had a 7th and 8th. Should the sedond team receive more points than the first one?

[orange]

Hasn't this been discussed a zillion times
Anyway I like the top8 to get into points

[Strangely there has been no concern over this from f1-teams !!]

[Bjorn]

How about the team only scoring points for their first car? Car #2 (and/or #3, if that's where we're going) scores point for the driver as usual, but merely prevents the other teams from scoring points. Thus 'penalizing' those that come behind rather than scoring points for the team.

[CLX]

Originally posted by Bjorn
How about the team only scoring points for their first car? Car #2 (and/or #3, if that's where we're going) scores point for the driver as usual, but merely prevents the other teams from scoring points. Thus 'penalizing' those that come behind rather than scoring points for the team.

The penalty for not comming in front of the othr drivers is that you don't win and don't get the 10 points. Why make up this new thing?

[taran]

I have recently run a season of GP3 with a changed scoring system for the first 8 placed drivers:
12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1.

All 22 drivers scored points during the season and all teams. Although there were a few freak "points hauls" during high attrition races, the final standings quite accurately depicted the pecking order.

No longer would 1 or 2 results elevate 1 team above several others who were faster in general but not fast enough to get in the top 6.

So, yes, I would say that points for the first 8 teams give the rest a better method of ranking themselves. They still won't be scoring podiums or many points but it will enable them show their relative speed in the midfield and below.

Now we have Toyota, Arrows and Minardi at 2 points each, while there are serious differences in their actual speed and performances.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by CLX


The penalty for not comming in front of the othr drivers is that you don't win and don't get the 10 points. Why make up this new thing?

1st place will still be important, but 1-2s will have less of an effect than they do now. Never mind 1-2-3s if that's ever the case. I think that would be the main difference. Just an idea.. :

[formula chick.com]

I think CART has quite a good points system and could work. Points go for pole sitter and the fastest lap during the race
15pts-1st
12pts-2nd
10pts-3rd
8pts-4th
6pts-5th
5pts-6th
4pts-7th
3pts-8th
2pts-9th
1pts-10th

[Dulcisima]

I know little about F1 but my suggestions are:

Award extra points to the six top drivers in the qualifying session: 5 for pole, 3 for second, 2 for third, 1 for fourth, fifth and sixth but run the grid in reverse order of qualifying. There would be 2 qualifying days: First day 45 min. Second day 1 hr divided in two sessions 30 min. All drivers must set at least a time at each session. The best times must be computed to define the pole man.

Award 2 extra points to the drivers with the fastest lap and with more overtaking moves but in the last quarter of the race.

The scoring system would award 9 points to race winner instead of 10; 6 to second, 4 to third, 3 to fourth, 2 to fifth ,1 sixth.

The teams would race each weekend with one of their boys in the drivers line-up and one driver of another team by lot. I'll explain further this driver's swap idea:

Each team has two drivers in its driver-line up

Half of the races must be raced by driver No. 1 and half of the races by the driver No. 2
The teams can choose the driver for each weekend according to race conditions, drivers' abilities and whatever they consider important in selection and can race the last race of the year with the driver with more points in the championship

The drivers that were not selected by the teams for the weekend must drive for another team. The selection of the team-driver pair would be made by lot.

The points in the driver's championship would be assigned according to the driver's position in each race.

The points in the constructor's championship would be assigned according to the car's position in each race.

In this system, Schumy would drive the ferrarri at least half of the races but no more. And it's the same for every driver.

I know it's a bit contrived but i believe my idea could be rigth.

What do you think about this idea?

[CLX]

I was thinking of:

1st - 11 points
2nd - 7 points
3rd - 5 points
4th - 4 points
5th - 3 points
6th - 2 points
7th - 1 point

1 point for the pole

What do you guys think of this?

[ensign14]

Originally posted by CLX


What if one team had a 2nd and 20th (DNF) while another had a 7th and 8th. Should the sedond team receive more points than the first one?

Yes. The second TEAM has had a better performance by getting both cars to the finish rather than a team which can only get one car there.

My main concern with this sort of thing is that it can reward mediocre teams who finish 15th and 16th, but then again would they be classified under this putative system? If 2 cars from the same team completed 100% of the distance, and the 2 slowcoaches were each 6% short of race distance, cumulatively the team would be 12% behind and so not classified...more to the point, if rewards only went to the first 3 or 4 teams maybe that would ease it a little.

[John B]

I like the current setup, especially since they made a win worth 10 points. Giving only to the top 6 shuts some out, but it makes you earn your reward - remember some of the celebrations by little teams after they've pulled out a point?

[Pioneer]

With few changes, the points system has worked for 50 years. I don't see a good reason to change it now. If some drastic changes occured like doubling the or halving the number of cars on the grid then I could see a change might be needed to make for less tie breaking. However, expanding the number of cars receiving points just so that can feel better about themselves because they have more points in a season is silly.

That said, I would like to see a point awarded for fastest lap. The pole has its on reward and doesn't need a point, but much importance is attached to fastest lap and there is zero reward for it currently. I see it as a reward to the tire manufacturers. Since fuel weight is so crucial to performance, fastest laps nearly always occur at the end of a stint. Giving a point for fastest lap would reward the tire manufacturer who produced the best race tire while pole rewards that with the best qualifying tire.

Am I making any sense?

[John B]

It could make for an interesting scenario in a close title fight; the contenders would be trying to beat each other in the race and at the same time set the fastest time for the extra point. You'd probably get situations where a driver with no chance of points would strap on fresh tires with an empty tank and go for a flier (didn't this happen with a Japanese driver with qualifying tires in a 1970s GP?)

[TAB666]

This is my system:
Give the winner 10 points and give the other drivers less points but let the time diference determin the amount of points 2:nd 3:rd and so on should get. And if you where 107% of the totalrace time you get 0 points. Then it realy matter if you push ... hence no more slowmo driving in the last laps.

What do you think about that ?

[ensign14]

Qualifying is its own reward, so I don't see there needs to be a point for that.

Fastest lap is a lottery (the Japan 76 one may have been misattributed) and is only a by-product of the economic and safety reasons behind having short circuits rather than the 50+milers of pre-war days or even the town to towners. Don't think that's as worth having as a 6th place.

[BlackCat]

point system is there not just to make running year's standings more interesting. it gives some base to compare different drivers and different years (decades). there have been changes, of course. now the 6th place gets a point, but the fastest lap does not count; 1st gets 10, not 9; all GPs count, not just 5 best of the first half of the year or whatever. those changes are a bit confusing, statistics-wise. i dont think m.sch is better than fangio - even if he has gathered more points. but it would be much more confusing if there'll be, say 243 points for the winner etc. F1 has some traditions. let's keep 'em.

[Don Capps]

Why not just let the guy with the most wins be the champion and cut all this points nonsense out? Or failing that, try it this way:

1st -- 10 points
2nd -- 5 points
3rd -- 4 points
4th -- 3 points
5th -- 2 points
Fastest lap -- 1 point

All races count, but only have, say, 12 races...and draw ballots for the grid positions...

Or:

1st -- 1 point
2nd -- 2 points
3rd -- 3 points
4th -- 4 points
completing 3/4's distance -- 4 points
completing 1/2 distance, but less than 3/4's distance -- 5 points
completing 1/4 distance, but less than 1/2 distance -- 6 points
completing less than 1/4 distance -- 7 points
not starting a race -- 8 points (for each race)

Low score wins....

And definitely kill the Constructors Cup or whatever they call it these days....

[luisfelipetrigo]

First define how many cars "FINISH"
... "FINISH" means that they are running at the end and have completed at least 85% of the race laps - always rounding up to next full lap.
Then asign one point to the last car, two to the next one, three to the next one ... and so on until first place .
Pole gets one extra point.
Fastest lap gets one extra point.

Here is Japan under this system:
Race distance = 53 laps, so 85% is 40 laps (rounded up)
These are the points:

[FONT=courier new]

1	 M.Schumacher	 12 points (10 points + fastes lap + pole)

2	 R.Barrichello	 9 points

3	 Kimi Raikkonen	8 points

4	 J.P.Montoya	   7 points

5	 Takuma Sato	   6 points

6	 Jenson Button	 5 points

7	 Nick Heidfeld	 4 points

8	 Mika Salo		 3 points

9	 Eddie Irvine	  2 points

10	Mark Webber	   1 point

11	Ralf Schumacher   no points, covered the distance but was not running at end

[/FONT]

I did the whole year and ended with this ...

Driver OZ  Mal  Bra  Sma  Spa  Aus  Mon  Can  Eur   GB  Fra  Ger  Hun  Bel  Ita  USA  Jap   TOT

MSCH	8   12   13   12   11   12   11   14   16   11   10   11   16   13   12   16   12   210

RBAR	1	-	-   11	-   11	7   12   16   11	-	6   17   10   14   17	9   142

JPMO	7   13   11	8	8	9	1	2	1   10	8	8	6	9	1   13	7   122

DCOU	-	-   11	6	7	6   12   13	-	2	9	5   12	8	7   14	-   112

RSCH	-   13   12	9	-	8   10	8   13	4	6	7   14	7	-	1	-   112

NHEI	-	9	-	2	6	-	5	3   10	6	4	4	8	2	4	8	4	75

JBUT	-   10   10	7	-	5	-	-   12	-	5	-	-	-	9	9	5	72

KRAI	7	-	-	-	-	-	-   11   14	-	9	-   13	-	-	-	8	62

JTRU	-	-	-	3	-	-	9	9	9	-	-	-	9	-   10   12	-	61

GFISI	-   1	-	-	-	7	8   10	-	5	-	-   11	-	6   10	-	58

FMAS	-	8	-	4	5	-	-	6   11	3	-	3   10	-	-	-	-	50

KVIL	-	6	-	5	3	-	-	-	5	8	-	-	-	4	5   11	-	47

EIRV	5	-	7	-	-	-	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	6   11	7	2	42

TSAT	-	5	5	-	-	-	-	5	1	-	-	2	7	1	2	6	6	40

OPAN	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	7	8	7	-	-	5	-	8	5	-	40

MASL	3	2	8	-	1	4	-	-	-	-	-	1	2	5	3	3	3	35

PROS	1	4	6	-	-	-	3	-	6	1	2	-	4	-	-	-	-	27

HHFR	-	3	-	-	4	2	7	2	4	-	-	-	-	-	-	4	-	26

AMCN	-	7	-	-	2	3	-	-	3	-	-	-	3	3	-	2	-	23

MWEB	4	-	2	1	-	1	2	4	2	-	3	-	1	-	-	-	1	21

EBER	-	-	-	-	-	-	1	-	7	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	 8

AYOO	2	-	1	-	-	-	-	1	-	-	1	-	-	-	1	-	-	 6

Compared with the actual results we do not see much difference ...

DRVR   MY   Actual  Finishes

MSCH   210   144	 17

RBAR   142	77	 13

JPMO   122	50	 13

DCOU   112	41	 13

RSCH   112	42	 13

NHEI	75	 7	 14

JBUT	72	14	  9

KRAI	62	24	  6

JTRU	61	 9	  7

GFIS	58	 7	  8

FMAS	50	 4	  8

KVIL	47	 4	  8

EIRV	42	 8	  7

TSAT	40	 2	 10

OPAN	40	 3	  6

MASL	35	 2	 11

PROS	27	 0	  8

HHFR	26	 2	  7

AMCN	23	 0	  7

MWEB	21	 2	 10

EBER	 8	 0	  2

AYOO	 6	 0	  5

Coulthard and Ralf end up tied in my system
Nick ends up quite better as biggest improvement while Eddie is the biggest decrease.

So, for last year this makes not much difference ... but if adopted for next year WHO KNOWS !!!
Here some comments:
This system rewards finishing, but also completing most of the race.
Because of this some "abandons" of today might be looked in a different light and teams will try to keep their cars running longer.
No matter where in the race you are, passing a car gives you TWO points (the one you gain plus the one the other driver looses) towards the championship (at least versus that driver)
Qualifying and Fastest Lap give you something in return for your effort.
The number of points awarded at each race is not known, declaring a winner in the middle of the championship will have to wait longer.
A whole new world of tactics and strategies opens up.
etc, etc, .... YOUR THOUGHTS ...

[Dmitriy_Guller]

The problem with F1 scoring system is that it badly ranks the backmarker teams. One fluke result would make the bad team leapfrog the faster, but not consistent point scoring teams. For example, Jaguar stunk the whole year, but due to high attrition at one race where they were actually competetive, they leaprogged teams like Arrows and Toyota, who were both consistently faster than the green ****-box. It gets even worse if there is a rain race with lots of attrition, the fluke result is even more pronounced. It wasn't as much of a problem when the cars were not so reliable, in some years the champion failed to finish half the races, but these days, the top teams are almost bullet-proof, leaving next to nothing for the teams below the Big Three.

[luisfelipetrigo]

Originally posted by Dulcisima
...
The teams would race each weekend with one of their boys in the drivers line-up and one driver of another team by lot. I'll explain further this driver's swap idea:
...

My take on swapping drivers is ... Where are the loyalties?
And by this I mean ... If I am a 'regular' Sauber driver, why would I fight my team mate when driving a Renault ? !

[luisfelipetrigo]

Originally posted by BlackCat
point system is there not just to make running year's standings more interesting. it gives some base to compare different drivers and different years (decades). there have been changes, of course. now the 6th place gets a point, but the fastest lap does not count; 1st gets 10, not 9; all GPs count, not just 5 best of the first half of the year or whatever. those changes are a bit confusing, statistics-wise. i dont think m.sch is better than fangio - even if he has gathered more points. but it would be much more confusing if there'll be, say 243 points for the winner etc. F1 has some traditions. let's keep 'em.

Comparing different eras from the "points" point of view would be good...
However, the changes that have taken place create enough difference that make this quite impracitcal. At times not all results counted, one extra point to the winner exists today which was not there, 17 races in 2002 versus a handful in the fifties, etc.
Plus the fact that no matter what point systems (or any other variable for that matter) is used you will always feel that MSCH is not better than Fangio just like I feel Jackie was better than Jim.

[luisfelipetrigo]

Originally posted by TAB666
This is my system:
Give the winner 10 points and give the other drivers less points but let the time diference determin the amount of points 2:nd 3:rd and so on should get. And if you where 107% of the totalrace time you get 0 points. Then it realy matter if you push ... hence no more slowmo driving in the last laps.

What do you think about that ?

This would make it like the Giro/Tour/Vuelta in the cycling world.
Each rider has a 'cumulative' time where all the stages are added, and the one with the lesser time wins. A sprinter can win several stages but by mere fractions and then loose it all in the mountains.
-
Something like this will allow someone to erase a big disadvantage accumulated in several races with a great win lapping most of the field.

[CLX]

Originally posted by Pioneer
With few changes, the points system has worked for 50 years. I don't see a good reason to change it now. If some drastic changes occured like doubling the or halving the number of cars on the grid then I could see a change might be needed to make for less tie breaking. However, expanding the number of cars receiving points just so that can feel better about themselves because they have more points in a season is silly.

That said, I would like to see a point awarded for fastest lap. The pole has its on reward and doesn't need a point, but much importance is attached to fastest lap and there is zero reward for it currently. I see it as a reward to the tire manufacturers. Since fuel weight is so crucial to performance, fastest laps nearly always occur at the end of a stint. Giving a point for fastest lap would reward the tire manufacturer who produced the best race tire while pole rewards that with the best qualifying tire.

Am I making any sense?

Fastest lap means nothing. Schumacher had only 2 fastest laps in 2000, and he won 9 races and was the champion.

[Estwald]

No need for a change

[Mr_White]

Hi, guys and gals.

I've been a regular reader here for two years now and love this site. I usually don't have much to say, as other people express my views much more eloquently, but here's an idea that a friend of mine suggested that might make for more exciting racing. He's picked up interest in the sport recently (my sister too -- so these are my two contributions to the fan base this year, Bira ;) ) and I thought that the idea wasn't that bad. Apologies for my absentmindedness, if somebody had already come up with this solution. So here it goes:

Start the pole sitter last, second placed qulifier second to last and so forth in reversed order. To motivate drivers to go for the pole award points to the top six or top ten qualifiers (what the point system will be is open to discussion), as well as award points to the top finishers in the race (I don't mind the current system of top six getting points). What do you guys and gals think? Is this ridiculous or could it actually work?

Best regards!

MrW

[Estwald]

First define how many cars "FINISH"
... "FINISH" means that they are running at the end and have completed at least 85% of the race laps - always rounding up to next full lap.
Then asign one point to the last car, two to the next one, three to the next one ... and so on until first place .
Pole gets one extra point.
Fastest lap gets one extra point.

Under a system like this, a driver who comes in second but started on pole will get the same points as the race winner, provided neither has the fastest lap. If the 2nd place driver has fastest lap, he will actually score more than the race winner. Ridiculous!

Pole is already reward enough, it doesn't need points attached to it. Fastest lap is often a pointless stat as it doesn't take into account the situation under which it was set. The current point system is the way it should be: wins are rewarded more, and with only six points positions, scoring points is a sizable achievement. If you want to change so more midfielders score points, I think CLX's system is the best(only, no points for pole) :

1st - 11 points
2nd-7 points
3rd-5 points
4th-4 points
5th-3 points
6th-2 points
7th-1 point

This would preserve the value of a win and allow one more driver to score points each race.

[Henri Greuter]

Personally I would be in favor of more point scoring positions.
For example. Michele Alboreto scored 2 5th and one 6th place in 1993, thus had only 5 points. he didn't get a single point for 10 (!) seventh places!

You can say : "well he was close but just not really there...."

But hey, such a score would indicate a good season nowadays.

But does a driver who does something similar to Alboreto need to be ranked below a driver who scored a second place in a freak race like Monaco, just by pure luck alone and had about nothing else but retirements elsewhere?

And remember how in 1989 RIAL scoreed one fluke 4th place in I believe Detroit and as a result avoided prequalifying while in the second half of the season they hardly qualified for races anymore wit large margins, effectively keeping a more promising team in the prequalifying sessions?

A few more point scoring positions below 6th (up to 8th or 9th) would be OK with me. Just a few, not the nonsense of point scores we see in NASCAR and IRL.


to luisfelipetrigo: nice job on stats and an interesting view of the situation.


Henri Greuter

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
Personally I would be in favor of more point scoring positions.
For example. Michele Alboreto scored 2 5th and one 6th place in 1993, thus had only 5 points. he didn't get a single point for 10 (!) seventh places!

Got to agree with you, Henri...

Even though I personally have a very hard time accepting that any system can be better than the old 9-6-4-3-2-1 of the sixties, seventies and eighties.

Just as long as we don't have to go back to the low-end scoring of the late thirties, and particularly not the 'guess who will get it if the war doesn't start' predicament of 1939!

For those who'd like to know more about this, check this thread...

http://www.atlasf1.c...=&threadid=8247

And this one... ignore the arguments, please...

http://www.atlasf1.c...&threadid=49148

[100cc]

A point for fastest lap is not good imo, since it would punish anyone that chose a single stop strategy over a two-stop strategy. Or 2 stop over 3 stop.


Then we'd also see some drivers in fast cars who lost their chances for any points in the finishing order come into the pits when they have little fuel, put on new tyres and just go for a point from fastest lap.

[Flying Panda]

cant get much better than C.A.R.T.'s points system

[Carsten]

Originally posted by DEVO
a point for pole...

maybe a point for fastest lap...

1st place gets 9...

Well, I agree with 9 for a win - and trailing down to maybe 1 for 9th. But pole has its own reward in getting to start first and should not be otherwise rewarded. Similarly for fastest lap - I don't think we should see a reward for something that is only incidental to the race and not directly related to winning or placing well.

If both cases were rewarded, theoretically someone could set up a car to do a blinding lap in qualifying and maybe do the same on lap 2, before blowing up on lap 3 and garanteeing themselves a couple of points. Then you'd get even more calls about artificial manipulation of the points system.

I fear there will be calls for a point for best haircut next.................

[Nasty McBastard]

if it aint broke, dont fix it

in the million and one threads about the points a few things have become clear.

mainly

A> points for pole/fastest lap would make championships even duller
and
B> f1, cart, nascar, bikes, whatver...doesnt matter whos points system you use, the only championship thats come out different was that one of prosts where he got robbed by the 'best 11' thing.
even when it comes to the midfield teams, theres no big shake up... a sauber might finish 2 spots lower, and a jordan might be a spot better off, or something, but nothing really changes.

so basically all it comes down to is what percentage of the grid should get points?

100% like nascar? thats a little daft
55% (ish) like cart...kinda daft too
80% (ish) like bikes? ditto.....



back in the days where f1 had full grids id probably of thought a swap to top-8 would of been ok.

these days were lucky if we have 20 on the grid, and a top 8 or more..well.. i dont see the point.

as for the 9-6-4 system...i like(d) it, but i think i like the 10-6-4 system for one reason.

from a constructors view it rewards a win.

even if team B come 2nd and 3rd, they wont score more than team A with a 1st.

using the old system team b would be better off

[Henri Greuter]

Nasty McBastard wrote:

doesnt matter whos points system you use, the only championship thats come out different was that one of prosts where he got robbed by the 'best 11' thing.



----

Nasty,

If not held already:
Would be a great topic for another thread: Did Senna deserve the 1988 title over Prost because of
soring one more victory the Alain or should the title have gone to the man who did score the most points.
Pointless discussion perhaps since the rule was for 11 best scores. But then, who was the true champion that year?



Henri Greuter

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Don Capps
1st -- 1 point
2nd -- 2 points
3rd -- 3 points
4th -- 4 points
completing 3/4's distance -- 4 points
completing 1/2 distance, but less than 3/4's distance -- 5 points
completing 1/4 distance, but less than 1/2 distance -- 6 points
completing less than 1/4 distance -- 7 points
not starting a race -- 8 points (for each race)

Low score wins....

Shyeah, like anyone in their right mind would adopt such a system...;)

for 1 for a win and zero for anything else.

[mikedeering]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
Nasty McBastard wrote:

doesnt matter whos points system you use, the only championship thats come out different was that one of prosts where he got robbed by the 'best 11' thing.



----

Nasty,

If not held already:
Would be a great topic for another thread: Did Senna deserve the 1988 title over Prost because of
soring one more victory the Alain or should the title have gone to the man who did score the most points.
Pointless discussion perhaps since the rule was for 11 best scores. But then, who was the true champion that year?



Henri Greuter

Didn't John Surtees "rob" Graham Hill of the 1964 title due to the "Best of" number of races - only in 1964 and 1988 did this occur.

Although IIRC Prost would also have been 1984 Champion too if 10 points were given for a win since he scored 2 wins more than Niki Lauda - Prost score would increase by 6.5 points, Lauda's by 5 - Prost would win by 1 point.

As for 1988 - that has been debated many times before - you can't really answer it because both drivers knew in advance how the points system worked. If all results counted, would Senna have driven differently etc? Would Prost have "quit" at Silverstone etc? Had the FIA (FISA back then)suddenly announced the Best 11 rule after the last race, then Prost could justifiably feel robbed, but since he knew as well as anyone the rules I don't think you can claim the 1988 title was robbed. That said, I never understood the Best of rule...

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by ensign14
Shyeah, like anyone in their right mind would adopt such a system.....

You're right... you'd need a computer to keep track of the scores.

You might even end up with someone at the top giving up and just deciding whoever he liked was the champion!

[Wouter]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
Personally I would be in favor of more point scoring positions.
For example. Michele Alboreto scored 2 5th and one 6th place in 1993, thus had only 5 points. he didn't get a single point for 10 (!) seventh places!

You can say : "well he was close but just not really there...."

But hey, such a score would indicate a good season nowadays.

But does a driver who does something similar to Alboreto need to be ranked below a driver who scored a second place in a freak race like Monaco, just by pure luck alone and had about nothing else but retirements elsewhere?

And remember how in 1989 RIAL scoreed one fluke 4th place in I believe Detroit and as a result avoided prequalifying while in the second half of the season they hardly qualified for races anymore wit large margins, effectively keeping a more promising team in the prequalifying sessions?

A few more point scoring positions below 6th (up to 8th or 9th) would be OK with me. Just a few, not the nonsense of point scores we see in NASCAR and IRL.


to luisfelipetrigo: nice job on stats and an interesting view of the situation.


Henri Greuter

Agreed. The current system IS broken IMO when the lower ranking teams are involved. Let the first 8 or the first 10 score points (make room for this by increasing the number of points for a victory).

[mikedeering]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


You're right... you'd need a computer to keep track of the scores.

You might even end up with someone at the top giving up and just deciding whoever he liked was the champion!

Yes! Deciding a WDC on the "most-likable" driver will always result in Fisichella having the #1 on his car!

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by mikedeering
Yes! Deciding a WDC on the "most-likable" driver will always result in Fisichella having the #1 on his car!

Check the links I posted on the previous page...

It's not so far fetched when you look at them.

[holiday]

Originally posted by Dmitriy_Guller
The problem with F1 scoring system is that it badly ranks the backmarker teams. One fluke result would make the bad team leapfrog the faster, but not consistent point scoring teams. For example, Jaguar stunk the whole year, but due to high attrition at one race where they were actually competetive, they leaprogged teams like Arrows and Toyota, who were both consistently faster than the green ****-box. It gets even worse if there is a rain race with lots of attrition, the fluke result is even more pronounced. It wasn't as much of a problem when the cars were not so reliable, in some years the champion failed to finish half the races, but these days, the top teams are almost bullet-proof, leaving next to nothing for the teams below the Big Three.

Clear & logical reasoning. Keep it up.

[TAB666]

Originally posted by luisfelipetrigo


This would make it like the Giro/Tour/Vuelta in the cycling world.
Each rider has a 'cumulative' time where all the stages are added, and the one with the lesser time wins. A sprinter can win several stages but by mere fractions and then loose it all in the mountains.
-
Something like this will allow someone to erase a big disadvantage accumulated in several races with a great win lapping most of the field.

well you wouldnt get more then 10 points. The only downside to this is that it doesnt matter if you pass a driver or not. So maybe we should ad something that gives bonus for better position ... or substract more for drivers futher down the the result sheet

[CLX]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
Nasty McBastard wrote:

doesnt matter whos points system you use, the only championship thats come out different was that one of prosts where he got robbed by the 'best 11' thing.

Under my point system, Mansell would have won in 86 and Senna in 88 and 89.

[mikedeering]

Originally posted by CLX


Under my point system, Mansell would have won in 86 and Senna in 88 and 89.

Any points system that fails to recognise Prost as the 1986 WDC is not worth anything IMHO.

[Peeko]

Since the Drivers and Contsructors are seperate championships, maybe they should have seperate point systems. Say keep the drivers point system as it is, but the first 8 cars score points in the constructors championship (9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1). Perhaps having a tight scoring system may reward teams that consistently get both cars to the finish? This could also push the teams to emphasize more on reliability, as what good as a car if it doesn't finish?

Or maybe they should just leave it alone.

[Dulcisima]

Originally posted by luisfelipetrigo


My take on swapping drivers is ... Where are the loyalties?
And by this I mean ... If I am a 'regular' Sauber driver, why would I fight my team mate when driving a Renault ? !

Driver's position in the race would give the points in the driver's championship and car's position would give the points in the constructor's championship.

If you don't fight your team mate, at worst you won't have points in the driver's championship in that race. Personally i think my loyalties would be with myself. Don't you think so?

Do you think Schumy wouldn't race Rubens when driving a williams?

[Formula-1]

1st - 20 points
2nd - 19 points
3rd - 18 points
4th - 17 points
5th - 16 points
6th -15 points
7th - 14 points
8th - 13 points
9th - 12 points
10th - 11 points
11th - 10 points
12th - 9 points
13th - 8 points
14th - 7 points
15th - 6 points
16th - 5 points
17th - 4 points
18th - 3 points
19th - 2 points
20th - 1 point