119 replies to this topic

[Rediscoveryx]

So... what would F1 history be like if the new point scoring system of 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 had been with us all along?

Well, in the time span that I have done (1979-2002) there are some notable differences:

* In 1982, Keke Rosberg would have been a runaway champion, securing the WDC before Las Vegas

* In 1987, Nelson Piquet would already be confirmed WDC at the time of Mansell's crash at Suzuka.

* In 1988, Alain Prost would beat Ayrton Senna by the deficit of 126-112, ironically clinching the WDC at Suzuka...

* In 1989, Alain Prost would have been 35 points ahead of Senna going into Suzuka, which means that there would have been no need for him to take Senna off t clinch the WDC

* In 1990, Ayrton Senna couldn't have clinched the WDC by crashing into Alain Prost at Suzuka, though he would drastically have improved his chances by doing so, as he was 8 points ahead of Prost at the time.

* In 1994, Damon Hill would have been WDC

* In 1997, Michael Schumacher would have clinched the championship before Jerez. We wouldn't even have knwn what we had missed

* In 1999, Eddie Irvine would have fulfilled Ferrari's dream of once again winning the WDC, 20 years after Jody Scheckters triumph

[Todd]

Leave it to the rule makers to try eliminating dominance without considering that their new rule package would have created a bunch of anticlimatic championships that never happened.

[bira]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx
* In 1994, Damon Hill would have been WDC

* In 1997, Michael Schumacher would have clinched the championship before Jerez. We wouldn't even have knwn what we had missed

* In 1999, Eddie Irvine would have fulfilled Ferrari's dream of once again winning the WDC, 20 years after Jody Scheckters triumph

Those three alone tell me the new system sucks -- no, not because of who won the WC, but how. It means the person who won the most races in that specific year was not the WC. I'd rather this is more a rare case than something that happens every 2 years or so!

To me, a GP win is the most important part of racing. A win is everything.

If I had my way, the WC of any season would be the driver who WON THE MOST RACES. In the 10-6-4-3-2-1 era (ie the last decade or so), that has always been the case. That is how it should be.

[aportinga]

Nice job!

Can't wait for the Senna fans to chime in though....


Frankly I never understood the logic employeed which only incuded the results from the top #? of races during the 80's/90's. It seems drastically unfair - especially if you are Alain Prost. Can anyone enlighten me as to why this was the standard at the time?

[mtl'78]

I believe the reasoning was that reliability was a much bigger problem back then so it would avoid the drivers championship being decided that way. It also encouraged drivers to go for wins more.

BTW I agree the new rules suck. The points table was fine.

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by aportinga
Nice job!

Can't wait for the Senna fans to chime in though....


Frankly I never understood the logic employeed which only incuded the results from the top #? of races during the 80's/90's. It seems drastically unfair - especially if you are Alain Prost. Can anyone enlighten me as to why this was the standard at the time?

The system dates back to the 50's, where most teams didn't compete in all races. So to compensate for the fact that most teams missed two or three races per season, the "races dropped" rule was used.

[aportinga]

Makes sense - thanks!

[CONOSUR]

Originally posted by aportinga
Nice job!

Can't wait for the Senna fans to chime in though....


Frankly I never understood the logic employeed which only incuded the results from the top #? of races during the 80's/90's. It seems drastically unfair - especially if you are Alain Prost. Can anyone enlighten me as to why this was the standard at the time?

Sure.

Some teams, after securing enough wins, would fail to show for some races during the latter half of the season. Therefore, the WDC was divided into two half-seasons. A driver's best 11 finishes (six from the first eight races - five from the second eight) were used to calculate the Championship.

The negative side of this was that a driver could have more points than anyone else, yet lose the title because (if his car were extremely reliable) he had to drop points finishes from his tally of 11, versus an opponent having to drop DNFs from his tally.

Had Prost scored points under the current system (10/6/4/3/2/1 + count all points), he would have been a 7x Champion.

Anyways... I think that's it. If someone else can explain it better, please feel free.

[Jackman]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx
* In 1999, Eddie Irvine would have fulfilled Ferrari's dream of once again winning the WDC, 20 years after Jody Scheckters triumph

And two years after Michael did it.

[CONOSUR]

Originally posted by Jackman
And two years after Michael did it.

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by Jackman
And two years after Michael did it.

Oops

That was a bad mistake on my part

[CONOSUR]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx


Oops

That was a bad mistake on my part

Maybe so, but at least it was funny.

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Todd
Leave it to the rule makers to try eliminating dominance without considering that their new rule package would have created a bunch of anticlimatic championships that never happened.

It also gives intellectually dishonest people means to try to rewrite history.



It's beginning to dawn on me how this new point system really stimulates more conservative approaches. There's really gonna be little point for drivers in 2nd or 3rd to risk their races for better positions. Not only the gain in points is too small, the damage they would have to endure if they came to DNF is way to big to make it worthwhile. Given the ability of the current cars to overtake one another, F1 has just formulated a great recipe for processional races

[Vrba]

Originally posted by bira


Those three alone tell me the new system sucks -- no, not because of who won the WC, but how. It means the person who won the most races in that specific year was not the WC. I'd rather this is more a rare case than something that happens every 2 years or so!

To me, a GP win is the most important part of racing. A win is everything.

If I had my way, the WC of any season would be the driver who WON THE MOST RACES. In the 10-6-4-3-2-1 era (ie the last decade or so), that has always been the case. That is how it should be.

Well, if the win is everything, why don't they simply give 1 point to the winner and no points to other drivers?
Let's then bring only the winner to the podium and forget about everybody else.

Well....that would be a bit stupid, don't you think so? Of course other placings should be validated and of course that wouldn't be fair if the title is awarded on number of wins alone.

Hrvoje

[Earthling]

New system sux.
I say bring back the old system which is 9 points for a win, and give 1 point to the pole position winner.
Surely that must have some importance.
:

[Vrba]

Originally posted by CONOSUR
....
Had Prost scored points under the current system (10/6/4/3/2/1 + count all points), he would have been a 7x Champion.....

No he wouldn't because Piquet would remain 1983 champion (even if Prost would have been awarded 6 points for Brazil, Piquet would have finished 2nd in South Africa, if only he needed it). Prost would have added 1984 and 1988 titles.

Hrvoje

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by Earthling
New system sux.
I say bring back the old system which is 9 points for a win, and give 1 point to the pole position winner.
Surely that must have some importance.
:

The pole position gives the driver an enormous advantage in that he gets to start the race at the front. Many times, a driver earns ten points on saturday rather than on sunday, so I don't think that a point for qualifying should be necessary

[bira]

Originally posted by Vrba


Well, if the win is everything, why don't they simply give 1 point to the winner and no points to other drivers?
Let's then bring only the winner to the podium and forget about everybody else.

Well....that would be a bit stupid, don't you think so? Of course other placings should be validated and of course that wouldn't be fair if the title is awarded on number of wins alone.

Hrvoje

Vrba I fail to think of other important sports where someone who doesn't win is a world champion. The new points system vastly increases the likelyhood of a WC that has not won a single race in a season. It vastly increases the likelyhood of a WC who was not necessarily the person with most wins that season. That is not a sport to me, it's more like a test of patience.

I am racking my brain when we had an athlete with a gold medal that didn't win or won less than his rivals; a tennis player that didn't win or won less grand slams than his rivals; a golfer... etc...

I'm sorry, but a win IS everything - that is how it should be.

[baddog]

Originally posted by Earthling
New system sux.
I say bring back the old system which is 9 points for a win, and give 1 point to the pole position winner.
Surely that must have some importance.
:

pole position is its OWN reward.

points ONLY for finishing position in the race, everything else is just working towards that. Thats the real core of Grand Prix racing.

Shaun

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by Vrba


No he wouldn't because Piquet would remain 1983 champion (even if Prost would have been awarded 6 points for Brazil, Piquet would have finished 2nd in South Africa, if only he needed it). Prost would have added 1984 and 1988 titles.

Hrvoje

That's true, as Piquet would not have dropped back in South Africa. On the other hand, Piquet said that he dropped back to ensure that he finished, so if he hadn't done that he might have had a mechanical failure, which would have given the WDC to Prost

If, if, if...

[Vrba]

Originally posted by Rediscoveryx


That's true, as Piquet would not have dropped back in South Africa. On the other hand, Piquet said that he dropped back to ensure that he finished, so if he hadn't done that he might have had a mechanical failure, which would have given the WDC to Prost

If, if, if...

True, but you forget that it was Piquet's teammate in front of him - Piquet wouldn't need going quicker, Patrese would only have to sacrifice win and let Piquet through.

Hrvoje

[Jackman]

I think it's safe to say that, if the new points system was in place over the previous years, certain drivers would have modified their behaviour with an eye on the championship. Accordingly the retrospective points score means fairly little.

[Vrba]

Originally posted by bira


Vrba I fail to think of other important sports where someone who doesn't win is a world champion. The new points system vastly increases the likelyhood of a WC that has not won a single race in a season. It vastly increases the likelyhood of a WC who was not necessarily the person with most wins that season. That is not a sport to me, it's more like a test of patience.

I am racking my brain when we had an athlete with a gold medal that didn't win or won less than his rivals; a tennis player that didn't win or won less grand slams than his rivals; a golfer... etc...

I'm sorry, but a win IS everything - that is how it should be.

I see nothing wrong that a driver with e.g. 3 wins and 3 second places wins the title over the driver with 4 wins and several minor placings.
As I say, if you're right, why don't we give points only to winners?

Hrvoje

[baddog]

Originally posted by Vrba


I see nothing wrong that a driver with e.g. 3 wins and 3 second places wins the title over the driver with 4 wins and several minor placings.
As I say, if you're right, why don't we give points only to winners?

Hrvoje

yes but in this system, a driver with NO wins and 9 second places will beat a driver with 7 wins and 2 dnfs.

that is just wrong.

Shaun

[bira]

Originally posted by Vrba


I see nothing wrong that a driver with e.g. 3 wins and 3 second places wins the title over the driver with 4 wins and several minor placings.
As I say, if you're right, why don't we give points only to winners?

Hrvoje

I want to see every driver and team do they utmost to clinch the ultimate prize in every sport - and that is to be the best. The best over 1 lap, the best over 1 race, the best over 1 season.

I am not saying winning is everything the rest is nothing (as Senna or Gilles might have said) - no, the rest is not "nothing", but it's far less important than a win. Hence, I believe in a points system that gives much higher weight to a win than to a second place.

Part of the reason the points system was changed from 9-6-4-3-2-1 to 10-6-4-3-2-1 was exactly because of that: to award a winner above all, and more than all others. In the 1980s you had far too many seasons where the driver with most wins did not win the WC, and the sport set out to rectify that. They have succeeded: as I said, since the change, every WC in every year since was also the driver with most wins that season. Hence, that system obtained its goals -- why change it? What does the change bring? You want to award more drivers with points? Fine, then give the winner 12 points, second place 8, third 6, fourth 5, fifth 4, sixth 3, seventh 2, eighths 1. You'd obtain the goal of expanding the award system without losing the objective of encouraging everyone to win.

[Rediscoveryx]

I think that the previous system of 10-6-4-3-2-1 was as close to perfect as you can get. I don't think that the best driver necessarily is the one with the most wins. If driver A scored six wins and driver B scores seven, it's a pretty even situation in my book.

But with the new system, we could quite possibly see driver A win the championship with only two or three wins to his credit, while driver B wins eight races, but has poor reliability and thus looses the title.

[baddog]

bira, it seems their WHOLE aim was in reality to prevent, should cars be as this year, michael schumacher winning next years championship before the italian grand prix or thereabouts.

the bit about giving the extra 2 places points is just a spinoff of increasing the points for 2nd place (neatly guaranteeing the votes of the lower teams for the new system), and the horrible implications for the championship should it actually be close were not considered at all

Shaun

[Todd]

Originally posted by Simioni
It also gives intellectually dishonest people means to try to rewrite history.

It's beginning to dawn on me how this new point system really stimulates more conservative approaches. There's really gonna be little point for drivers in 2nd or 3rd to risk their races for better positions. Not only the gain in points is too small, the damage they would have to endure if they came to DNF is way to big to make it worthwhile. Given the ability of the current cars to overtake one another, F1 has just formulated a great recipe for processional races

I share your concern that races will be conducted in a far too cautious manner now. Ferrari achieved their reliability this year by not racing within their team when they had an advantage on the other competitors. Supposedly, this was not usually practiced by other dominant teams. Now, any team that doesn't do this when they have an advantage will be penalized more than ever by the occasional DNF that can result from RACING.

I don't think anyone was trying to rewrite history. They were just looking at past seasons using the new scoring. Most people know that scoring systems shape behaviors, but that still wouldn't make a fast, unreliable car capable of winning a championship against a plodding, reliable car under the new rules. I suppose designers will have to change their behavior too. Drivers parading around in conservatively designed cars doesn't sound like a viable way to inject more excitement into the series to me, but then I've seen plenty of idiots say that 1997 was an exciting season, and that one only took place on a points table.

[Bart]

I thought when they introduced 10 points for a win that it was too much. I would have thought something like 12-8(or 9)-6-5-4-3-2-1 might be more reasonable to keep the value of a win, but award points lower down the field (which I think is a good idea). But presumably 12 points for a win is not a nice round number...

One of the side effects of the new scoring system may be that teams spend even more money on development during the season because it will take longer for the leader's lead in the championship to grow to a stage where everyone else just gives up. Consider, for example, if Michael wins the first 4 races and JPM gets two third places (behind Rubens) and two second places (because Rubens retires). The gap is only 12 points (basically one win if Michael retires), instead of 20 (two wins).

[bira]

Originally posted by baddog
bira, it seems their WHOLE aim was in reality to prevent, should cars be as this year, michael schumacher winning next years championship before the italian grand prix or thereabouts.

the bit about giving the extra 2 places points is just a spinoff of increasing the points for 2nd place (neatly guaranteeing the votes of the lower teams for the new system), and the horrible implications for the championship should it actually be close were not considered at all

Shaun

Then they didn't do their maths well, did they. Schumacher would have still clinched the WC in July - as it happens in Hockenheim and not in France, but all that was needed for that to have happened this year as well was that the steward would have showen Raikkonen the oil flags... so maybe F1 needs new stewards and not a new points system?;)

[lukywill]

11 for the winner and 8-6-5 etc this would be a good solution

[baddog]

Originally posted by bira


Then they didn't do their maths well, did they. Schumacher would have still clinched the WC in July - as it happens in Hockenheim and not in France, but all that was needed for that to have happened this year as well was that the steward would have showen Raikkonen the oil flags... so maybe F1 needs new stewards and not a new points system?;)

LOL I hadnt actually checked this years result with the new rules. Thats pretty funny

Shaun

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by bira


Then they didn't do their maths well, did they. Schumacher would have still clinched the WC in July - as it happens in Hockenheim and not in France, but all that was needed for that to have happened this year as well was that the steward would have showen Raikkonen the oil flags... so maybe F1 needs new stewards and not a new points system?;)

Good point

[Nikolas Garth]

Originally posted by bira
I am racking my brain when we had an athlete with a gold medal that didn't win or won less than his rivals; a tennis player that didn't win or won less grand slams than his rivals; a golfer... etc...

Greg Norman was the No.1 Golfer in the world during a period where he went 18 months without a tournament victory.

Nonetheless, the new scoring system for F1 sucks.

[wawawa]

Originally posted by bira
...but all that was needed for that to have happened this year as well was that the steward would have showen Raikkonen the oil flags... so maybe F1 needs new stewards and not a new points system?;)

Well, we certainly need new stewards - Malaysia '02

[Dolph]

2002 Standings according to old points:

Driver/ old p./ new p.
MSchumacher 144 156
Barrichello 77 93
Montoya 50 74
RSchumacher 42 63
Coulthard 41 63
Raikkonen 24 36
Button 14 31
Trulli 9 19
Irvine 8 16
Heidfeld 7 22
Fisichella 7 20
Villeneuve 4 14
Massa 4 15
Panis 3 8
Sato 2 5
Webber 2 5
Salo 2 10
Frentzen 2 6
McNish 0 3
Yoong 0 2
de la Rosa 0 2
Bernoldi 0 0
Davidson 0 0


2002 Standings according to new points:

Driver/ new p./ old p.
MSchumacher 156 144
Barrichello 93 77
Montoya 74 50
RSchumacher 63 42
Coulthard 63 41
Raikkonen 36 24
Button 31 14
Heidfeld 22 7
Fisichella 20 7
Trulli 19 9
Irvine 16 8
Massa 15 4
Villeneuve 14 4
Salo 10 2
Panis 8 3
Frentzen 6 2
Sato 5 2
Webber 5 2
McNish 3 0
Yoong 2 0
de la Rosa 2 0
Bernoldi 0 0
Davidson 0 0


Button sure gets 50% more points, Salo 500% more.
DC & Ralf now equal

[chrisj]

Of all the changes that were made, this is the worst one. If you they want to award points down to eight place, fine, no one cares, but if 2nd place is worth 8 points, then surely a win should be worth 12. (I would say 20, but I'll be realistic).

[David Holland]

I'm not happy with the new points distribution. There should be more emphasis on the win. We could have another 1958 season where a conservative second place finisher claims the title over a driver with more wins. Surely this is wrong, and how can this make the championship race last longer - I just don't see it. As for points for 7th and 8th, I don't care who comes 4th 5th or 6th so any lower is totally irrelevant to a racers' mentality. The old system was as good as you get.

BTW forget about a point for pole - imagine if one point was needed for the championship and that was achieved on a Saturday. Bernie would not like the sound of all those TV sets not being switched on the next day! Maybe a point for fastest lap - that makes more sense.

[Bart]

Originally posted by David Holland:
BTW forget about a point for pole - imagine if one point was needed for the championship and that was achieved on a Saturday. Bernie would not like the sound of all those TV sets not being switched on the next day! Maybe a point for fastest lap - that makes more sense.

A point for most laps led might be interesting, since the second-place driver would be less inclined to sit behind the leader in the hope of overtaking him in the pits if they're not going to stop until after halfway (which seems to be the usual situation these days).

[Bart]

Originally posted by David Holland:
I don't care who comes 4th 5th or 6th so any lower is totally irrelevant to a racers' mentality.

Right, so those exciting midfield battles we saw in the second half of the season were of no interest to anybody then? Certainly the guys in the cars seemed to think they were worthwhile, and they'll only be more so if the chances of picking up a point or two increases.

Extending the points system to lower places is a very good idea, IMHO.

[Rediscoveryx]

Originally posted by Bart

A point for most laps led might be interesting, since the second-place driver would be less inclined to sit behind the leader in the hope of overtaking him in the pits if they're not going to stop until after halfway (which seems to be the usual situation these days).

That's a better idea than a point for pole or FL in my opinion

[Viktor]

Nice work Red!

I think the old system was close to perfect. I have always had this idé that if you have more then 2 F1WC points on your CV then you have to be good, points schuld be somthing you earn through hard work, not somthing given to every driver that finish a race. Also the gap to the winner have to be more then the gap between 2'nd and 3'rd, somthing that this new system is missing and I realy dont get how the teams could agree on this new system. A better system woth be with 11 or 12 points for the winner.

/Viktor

[squiggle bob]

why not award the top 10 with points - 1st 20; 2nd 16; 3rd 12; 4th 10; 5th 8; 6th 6; 7th 4; 8th 3; 9th 2; 10th 1'.. the only thing that would change is our perspective on history..

back on topic..

all this talk about 'this' scoring system being used back 'then' is crap.. the scoring system that was used at the time is the only scoring system that matters..

[CLX]

My point system is still the best one.

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

pole - 1 point

[CLX]

Originally posted by squiggle bob
all this talk about 'this' scoring system being used back 'then' is crap.. the scoring system that was used at the time is the only scoring system that matters..

Amen brother!

[MONTOYASPEED]

Originally posted by squiggle bob
why not award the top 10 with points - 1st 20; 2nd 16; 3rd 12; 4th 10; 5th 8; 6th 6; 7th 4; 8th 3; 9th 2; 10th 1'.. the only thing that would change is our perspective on history..

Pfffttt... This is F1, not CART.

[Nikolas Garth]

Originally posted by Nikolas Garth
Greg Norman was the No.1 Golfer in the world during a period where he went 18 months without a tournament victory.

Just an addendum, Norman kept finishing 2nd in so many tournaments(after leading for pretty much the first 3 days), that it spawned the joke:

Why do women love Greg Norman so much?
Because he stays on top for 3 days and then comes second.

[bock16]

Originally posted by bira

Part of the reason the points system was changed from 9-6-4-3-2-1 to 10-6-4-3-2-1 was exactly because of that: to award a winner above all, and more than all others. In the 1980s you had far too many seasons where the driver with most wins did not win the WC, and the sport set out to rectify that. They have succeeded: as I said, since the change, every WC in every year since was also the driver with most wins that season. Hence, that system obtained its goals -- why change it? [/i].

Bira,

This is true and correct but I don't think it tells the whole story. Since the 10 for a win system was introduced in 1991 it has only affected the outcome of one championship: 1994. In all the others the driver with the most wins would have won anyway.

Also, if we look back at the 1980's then in the 6 championships which were won by a driver who didn't have the most wins in the season (82,83,84,86,87,89), only in 1984 would they not have won under this system. Note that 1984 and 1994 are the only seasons where the championship was won by 1 point or less.

So in fact when they introduced the system in 1991 if they had looked back over the previous decade they would have seen that their new system only had a 1 in 6 success rate. However, what they wanted occured anyway.

Maybe although the new system doesn't look like it contributes much now, the FIA will be lucky again

What do you think about the possibility that the change had something more to do with a change in the attitude of the drivers under the new system, rather than the points themselves?

[bock16]

Originally posted by Nikolas Garth
Greg Norman was the No.1 Golfer in the world during a period where he went 18 months without a tournament victory.

Denmark won the European football championship in 1992 and they didn't even qualify

Runs for cover...

[bira]

Originally posted by bock16


Bira,

This is true and correct but I don't think it tells the whole story. Since the 10 for a win system was introduced in 1991 it has only affected the outcome of one championship: 1994. In all the others the driver with the most wins would have won anyway.

Also, if we look back at the 1980's then in the 6 championships which were won by a driver who didn't have the most wins in the season (82,83,84,86,87,89), only in 1984 would they not have won under this system. Note that 1984 and 1994 are the only seasons where the championship was won by 1 point or less.

So in fact when they introduced the system in 1991 if they had looked back over the previous decade they would have seen that their new system only had a 1 in 6 success rate. However, what they wanted occured anyway.

Maybe although the new system doesn't look like it contributes much now, the FIA will be lucky again

What do you think about the possibility that the change had something more to do with a change in the attitude of the drivers under the new system, rather than the points themselves?

Bock16 where you fail, is in the fact that different points system alter the behaviour of drivers. To attempt to reflect the current (2002) points system on an era where worst results were scrapped and a win was awarded 9 points is artificial and immaterial. You cannot know how drivers and teams would have gone about their driving and strategy under different circumstances than actually existed that day.

Hence, I'm afraid your argument is irrelevant.