New points system for 2010

[ISLAMATRON]

I agree its annoying that points totals will no longer relate to history... but with an ever increasing number of races, this was hard to do anyway.

Thats why I ignore all the silly points crap and just look at the wins... plus that gives Senna 4 WDC's all in a row, and that allways makes me happy.

[Fil]

Thats why I ignore all the silly points crap and just look at the wins... plus that gives Senna 4 WDC's all in a row, and that allways makes me happy.

that's the beautiful thing about statistics, everyone can find one to suit their sentiments..

[Pandamasque]

The advantage is that it does give the lower teams a chance of establishing some sort of pecking order. How else is Fernandes going to know if he has to retire and kill himself???

Absolutely. F1 needs a new scoring system just for that. Otherwise chances are too high that we'll see all the new teams tied with null points.
Also some extra points for the top 3 is fair (IMO).

that long post over there

Хвала, то је добра порука. Лаку ноћ. (наравно да не говоримо српски, користио сам Гоогле!)

[nipo]

Even before I saw the new proposal from the F1 Commission, I have already started on working out a good points system.
There are many possibilities to explore, actually too many, hence I'll use the convenience of the proposed 25 points for the winner.

Here is an analysis of the old scheme (2009), the proposed scheme (2010), and my proposal (new):
[plc] <year> pts gain gain/loss gain/1st
[10] <2009> 00 0 000.0% 000.0% || <2010> 01 1 100.0% 004.0% || <new> 01 1 100.0% 004.0%
[09] <2009> 00 1 000.0% 010.0% || <2010> 02 1 050.0% 004.0% || <new> 02 1 050.0% 004.0%
[08] <2009> 01 1 100.0% 010.0% || <2010> 03 2 066.7% 008.0% || <new> 03 1 033.3% 004.0%
[07] <2009> 02 1 050.0% 010.0% || <2010> 05 1 020.0% 004.0% || <new> 04 1 025.0% 004.0%

[06] <2009> 03 1 033.3% 010.0% || <2010> 06 2 033.3% 008.0% || <new> 05 2 040.0% 008.0%
[05] <2009> 04 1 025.0% 010.0% || <2010> 08 2 025.0% 008.0% || <new> 07 3 042.9% 012.0%
[04] <2009> 05 1 020.0% 010.0% || <2010> 10 5 050.0% 020.0% || <new> 10 4 040.0% 016.0%

[03] <2009> 06 2 033.3% 020.0% || <2010> 15 5 033.3% 020.0% || <new> 14 5 035.7% 020.0%
[02] <2009> 08 2 025.0% 020.0% || <2010> 20 5 025.0% 020.0% || <new> 19 6 031.6% 024.0%
[01] <2009> 10 0 000.0% 000.0% || <2010> 25 0 000.0% 000.0% || <new> 25 0 000.0% 000.0%
(Apologies for the formatting but trust me I have tried my best to make it look good. On Excel it's much cooler)

I chose to analyze the schemes on two factors: gain vs loss and gain vs 1st
-- Gain vs loss represents the payoff for the risk you take to overtake ("loss" being your current points).
-- Gain vs first represents the effective gains on the maximum score, i.e. the winner.

I would try to find a solution that gives greater passing payoff overall, and also greater effective gains towards the higher positions. I believe this should help promote the fight for higher positions.

Note that the focus is on 6th position onwards, because, for obvious mathematical reasons, it is impossible to care about 7th and 8th given the points now extend to the 10th (unless we wanna explore like 40 points for the winner...).

There are a few problems with the proposed scheme (2010), IMO:
1. There's no reason the gap between 8th and 7th to be 2 while for 7th and 6th it is 1 (already pointed out earlier).
2. Except for the 4th position, the passing payoff is the same as the old scheme.
3. The effective gains for the 5th and 6th positions are lower than the old scheme.

My proposed scheme (new) should explain itself quite clearly, and while it is still not perfect, I believe it is the best you can get under the fixed variable of 25 points for the winner.

I also have an easier-to-remember version: 1,2,3,4,5,7,10,15,20,25. However the gain factors won't look as good, and the ratio among the top 3 will still be the same as the old scheme.

On the issue raised about points not being comparable to historical data, I am not too concerned about it. First thing is that it has happened before when the point system changed, although not so dramatically. Secondly, we can always normalize it to 10-for-the-winner when accumulating points across seasons.

[jon-mullen]

This has still got Hamilton winning '08 by one point decided in Brazil.

And makes Alonso WDC '07 by a 7 pt margin. Now ISLAMATRON really hates it.

[ISLAMATRON]

WORD!

[Shrek]

does anybody know what the points would be for this year if it went into effect this year?

[andartop]

Another twist in the organised effort by the FIA to "dumb" F1 down: the average F1 follower will only do the maths for the first 4 drivers, which will be fairly easy, and then won't even bother for the rest of the grid!


Also, on the same bit of news (F1T): "The F1 Commission agreed that the Brawn team will be allowed to change its chassis name from Brawn to Mercedes. The team will continue to receive payments based on its historical performance. This has been granted on a one-off exceptional basis due to Mercedes-Benz’s long-term involvement and commitment to Formula One."

=D>

More proof for the conspiracy theorists that the Federation of the Illuminati Automobilisti has a secret pact with Ferrari that spans 5 centuries and involves world domination, Michael Schumacher's extra terrestrial genes and Jarno Trulli's vineyards.

[raceman]

=D>

gr8

welcome new points system!


I like this idea. At least there is bigger difference between the podiumers, so that they will think before "settling" for a track position in view of further Championship. So, we will have tough and nail-biting [-o< racing to actually win a race rather than to settle.....!

For non-podiumers, the points system looks okay as it will make less difference on the Championship itself to some extent. So, if those non-podiumer tems want to contest for the Championship, just prepare better next time and go for a podium finish (bigger fight on track for positions and thrilling races for us, F1 fans )


bring it on

[tok-tokkie]

I would prefer if there was a graded numeric & percentage gap between the scores. Like this: Total is 90 points

1st...25................28%
2nd...19...delta 6pts...21%.... delta 7%
3rd...14...delta 5pts...16%.... delta 5%
4th...10...delta 4pts...11%.... delta 5%
5th....7...delta 3pts....8%.... delta 3%
6th....5...delta 2pts....6%.... delta 2%
7th....4...delta 1pt.....4%.... delta 2%
8th....3...delta 1pt.....3%.... delta 1%
9th....2...delta 1pt.....2%.... delta 1%
10th...1...delta 1pt.....1%.... delta 1%

[Vasco]

Hell yeah!! Bring it on. We need some real racing and not this crap of picking up points without taking risks.

[Richard]

=D>
At least there is bigger difference between the podiumers, so that they will think before "settling" for a track position

No. The relative value of each place remains unchanged. All that has happened is that the numbers have had 250% inflation.

Pos - New% - Old %
1st - 26% - 26%
2nd - 21% - 21%
3rd - 16% - 15%

I agree its annoying that points totals will no longer relate to history.

Its easy, just multiply or divide by 2.5.

[Richard]

I really do have an issue with those who want to give all the points to the top 3 and stuff everyone else.

This is a strategic/tactical endurance competition with 17 rounds over varied terrain/circuits. The season champion is based on points just like all other endurance sports fought over many rounds. It recognises all round performance.

What sport does have a system comparible to Bernie's medal system (or Islamatron's 5,000 point for a win)?

What you will get is an apartheid of 2 or 3 winnings teams and then the others.

I guess it comes down to an attitude of "lets have a league and all compete" or "there are a worthy few and the rest are trash".

[axle]

I think the last 4 should be 4,3,2,1 - but on the whole I approve.

It's better to have more points available as it allows teams to seperate themselves, 6 teams on zero points doesn't do them any favours...but if they can win the odd point for reliability etc then that's a good thing.

[mcdenife]

DP sorry