New points system for 2010

[WhiteBlue]

The whole move seems to be purely motivated by marketing considerations for the small teams. This will give them more chances to make points which in turn may help them to get sponsors.

On the fan side it dilutes the efforts of the great drivers of the past and will make it very difficult in the future to use points scoring as means of comparing drivers over different periods.

Considering both points I probably agree with the F1 commission and the WMSC that it may be more important to help new teams commercially.

[raceman]

I do read my fellow forumers (don't need directions), but there is 5-point difference between 1st and 2nd place finish and it is better than previous 2 points! appealing or not appealing is the drivers' problem and point of view to look at races; but for us, it's just good 'coz drivers will take more risks now to overtake and we will see more thrilling races - that's it!

Actually, it was said before in this thread, but 25/20=10/8
So...

agreed

MotoGP also has somewhat same points system: 25-20-16 and so on. whilst watching this year's MotoGP Championship-deciding races, it was thrilling due to the difference in points rewarded for positions and so will be F1 - I hope!

whilst making the change, FIA should have gone like (doesn't mean exactly the same) MotoGP-style points system (changing a bit here the system as 25-20-16-13-10-7-5-3-2-1).

As WB said, it seems purely for commercial reasons - correct, so that low-placed and new teams will get sponsors. but hey, increased points margin will also bring in more racing even in low-placed teams for final positions they will fight themselves at their level and we will watch good racing! adrenaline, isn't it?

[donskar]

[quote="WhiteBlue"]The whole move seems to be purely motivated by marketing considerations for the small teams. This will give them more chances to make points which in turn may help them to get sponsors.

On the fan side it dilutes the efforts of the great drivers of the past and will make it very difficult in the future to use points scoring as means of comparing drivers over different periods.

Considering both points I probably agree with the F1 commission and the WMSC that it may be more important to help new teams commercially.[/quote]

+1. =D>

Much as we might like to deny it, F1 is -- for most of its participants -- a marketing tool. Points -- rightly or not -- can be positioned as a mark of success, thus a tool for gaining sponsors.

On a side note, it's been a while since I had a peripheral role in F1 sponsorship, but for both Digital (Ferrari) and Compaq (Williams) stature or gravitas -- long term success -- was more important than points. This helps explain (IMHO) the use of the Lotus name, even though relevance is somewhat tenuous. As I recall, there were other recent efforts to resurrect the Brabham name. Now we just need BRM (the watch company) to enter as a sponsor.

[NormanBates]

Button joins raceman in the "this gives P1 a bigger advantage over P2" argument:
http://www.f1technical.net/news/13885

disturbing...

[ISLAMATRON]

mathematics... some people will never understand it.

[hasalard]

I am tired of watching almost every year the same story.A driver in a team with an early season performance advantage dominates the first 5 or 6 six races then eases off for regular point finishes not wins.As i understand although a bigger gap between first and second positions, this system doesn't change anything much.
Button's words support me too, only 2 points difference.I have to prepare myself for another year with the same story as we witnessed in 2005,2006 and 2009.

[Ian P.]

As the fellow said in the movie....(no, I don't remember which one...) "Follow the money".
Has there been any comment from the FIA about reducing the cost of a driver's Super License, the cost of which is based on the number of points a driver collects in the previous season.
Under the new points system, I doubt Jenson could afford to race every season if he keeps winning the championship.

[Richard]

On the fan side it dilutes the efforts of the great drivers of the past and will make it very difficult in the future to use points scoring as means of comparing drivers over different periods.

It's very easy, you multiply/divide by 2.5 to get an exact comparison.

The hard bit is that the number of races varies from season to season, as does the number of competitors.

Fangio scored between 30 and 40 points for his four WDC in 8 race sesaons, and 42 points for his WDC in a 9 race season. Then it was 8 points for a win and 1 point for the fastest lap. Only the best 4 or 5 results were counted.

Senna 'only' managed 78 and 96 points in his two WDC (both 16 races), with 9 for a win. In 1988, Prost actually scored more points than Senna but he "best 11" results were weaker so Senna was WDC.

Meanwhile Schumacher ranged from 92 to 148 in seasons ranging from 16 to 18 races. He got 10 points for a win and all races counted toward the WDC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_points

The point is that it is difficult to compare one season to another, and near impossible to compare differing decades. In that context, factoring from 10 to 25 is child's play.

Oh, and an interesting factoid ... In the 1954 British Grand Prix, seven drivers set the same fastest lap time, and each received 0.143 of a point.

[Richard]

I am tired of watching almost every year the same story.A driver in a team with an early season performance advantage dominates the first 5 or 6 six races then eases off for regular point finishes not wins.

It's a sporting league, a tactical game of tortoise and hare. Its just like any other sporting league that I can think of. Live with it.

Whilst a bigger margin for 1st will encourage a win it is more likely to end the championship earlier. A smaller points margin gives slow starers more of a chance of catching up later in the season.

Actually the old fashioned method of best x results would give the best chance of a late starting team being able to catch up. The narrower gap would possibly keep the WDC more dynamic later in the season. For 2010, say best 14 out of 19 races, say 7 from the first half, 7 from the second half?

If 2009 was best 14 out 18 races, then Button would have got 90 points, Vettel unchanged on 84.

If 2009 was best 12 out 18 races, then Button and Vettel would have tied on 83 points. Any fewer races swings the favour back toward Button.

[ISLAMATRON]

points are so absurd...

but I guess it helps keep a certain type busy.

[Richard]

points are so absurd...

Show me a sports league that doesn't use a similar points system.

[ISLAMATRON]

points are so absurd...

Show me a sports league that doesn't use a similar points system.

How bout the NFL, where the only thing that matters is WINS!

Or Maybe the NBA, where the only thing that matters is WINS!

Or MLB, where the only thing that matters is WINS!

Or how about boxing, or MMA, when the only thing that matters are Wins!

And The olympics... I think winning matters there too... there are many more but you are too busy calculating points permutations to have heard of them.

Points are a good way to classify the losers... especially by other losers.

So how many points is a win worth this week? 5? 8? 9? 10? 25? all that bullshit is arbitrary, a win is allways a win,(except for '05 USGP or ,08 Singapore )

There is no thought process behind the system, In F1, the most technical sport on the planet, they refuse to put even the slightest bit of thought into the points system. Really? Is a win only 20% better than 2nd place... well thats what the points tell us. I bet the 1st place trophy is more than 20% heavier than the 2nd place one, but not the points. There is more analysis put into the design of the trophies than into the points system.

[Giblet]

Ball sports aren't a good comparison as the wins matter, but there is a post season where all the regular season wins are mooted. Sort of like the chase to the cup in NASCAR.

In boxing, if no KO, then it is very much a points endeavor. Points often win you a match, and championship.

I can think of no sports that collect points throughout the season, and award the champion up to the last event other than motor racing so it is hard to say for sure if wins will just work. The season could end early or late on points or on wins.

A race to the cup style ending would allow teams that played catchup to steal away the championship. A middle ground would be nice, but I can find nothing to compare to.

[Richard]

Islamatron, its not the same to compare 1-1 knock out tournament events with multi competitor sports with a number of events in a season.

As far as I'm aware the US ball sports you mentioned are arranged in a league. The league champion is the one who collects the most points over a season?

Unfortunately, they do then devalue the whole season by having a play off

As for Olympics, the multi competitor sports have leagues, including sailing, decathlon, equestrian, gymnastics, diving, ice skating, etc.

Interesting that your logic says Lance Armstrong is loser because he never won the most stages in his Tour De France victories?

So, back to my original question, please cite a multi competitor, multi event sport that uses anything vaguely akin to your proposal?

[ISLAMATRON]

Ball sports aren't a good comparison as the wins matter, but there is a post season where all the regular season wins are mooted. Sort of like the chase to the cup in NASCAR.

The regular season wins are not mooted, rather they are rewarded with bye weeks and home field advantage, and of course you have to have a large number of (regular season)wins to be included into the post season in the first place. And Even Nascar awards bonus points in the post season for regular season wins.

In boxing, if no KO, then it is very much a points endeavor. Points often win you a match, and championship.

You are talking about within 1 match, not over a fighter's career... the correct analogy would be 1 round to 1 lap, A fighter can be leading on points and still get knocked out and lose the fight, same with Massa blowing his engine on the last lap in Hungary after leading every lap previous. No fighter can say I only lost that match by 1 point(or by TKO)so I deserve a title shot at the champion. You are looking at it from the wrong point of view.

I can think of no sports that collect points throughout the season, and award the champion up to the last event other than motor racing so it is hard to say for sure if wins will just work. The season could end early or late on points or on wins.
A race to the cup style ending would allow teams that played catchup to steal away the championship. A middle ground would be nice, but I can find nothing to compare to.

So what if the championship is decided early, each race is an event onto itself... Imagine IF Monaco was the last race every year... you think the stands would be empty because the WDC was already decided? Do you think Hamilton or Vettle or even Button wanted to win Abu Dhabi any less because the WDC was already decided?