What is the reasoning for the current point system?

[beelsebob]

To back up the extreme example. If a driver won 18 of the 20 races, came second once, and then had an engine failure in the last race. The person who came second in 19, and won 1 would beat them.

Having a large increase in points for the top few positions is important to the points system, as it weights the system towards people winning lots, rather than just being consistent. I think most people would agree that that's a good thing.

[Powershift]

To back up the extreme example. If a driver won 18 of the 20 races, came second once, and then had an engine failure in the last race. The person who came second in 19, and won 1 would beat them.

Having a large increase in points for the top few positions is important to the points system, as it weights the system towards people winning lots, rather than just being consistent. I think most people would agree that that's a good thing.

And this extreme example is far more likely than SECTORONE'S example.

Take for example last season, what if the RB9 was even more dominant than it was...

VET 15 wins & 5 DNF = 375 points
WEB 5 win & 15 2nds = 395 pts & WDC

3 times as many wins but still not worthy of the WDC? complete nonsense

[JimClarkFan]

To back up the extreme example. If a driver won 18 of the 20 races, came second once, and then had an engine failure in the last race. The person who came second in 19, and won 1 would beat them.

Having a large increase in points for the top few positions is important to the points system, as it weights the system towards people winning lots, rather than just being consistent. I think most people would agree that that's a good thing.

And this extreme example is far more likely than SECTORONE'S example.

Take for example last season, what if the RB9 was even more dominant than it was...

VET 15 wins & 5 DNF = 375 points
WEB 5 win & 15 2nds = 395 pts & WDC

3 times as many wins but still not worthy of the WDC? complete nonsense

Yeh but you have to remember, it isn't just about the winning, sometimes it is about getting the car home in the first place. And it isn't just the driver out there.

[Powershift]

To back up the extreme example. If a driver won 18 of the 20 races, came second once, and then had an engine failure in the last race. The person who came second in 19, and won 1 would beat them.

Having a large increase in points for the top few positions is important to the points system, as it weights the system towards people winning lots, rather than just being consistent. I think most people would agree that that's a good thing.

And this extreme example is far more likely than SECTORONE'S example.

Take for example last season, what if the RB9 was even more dominant than it was...

VET 15 wins & 5 DNF = 375 points
WEB 5 win & 15 2nds = 395 pts & WDC

3 times as many wins but still not worthy of the WDC? complete nonsense

Yeh but you have to remember, it isn't just about the winning, sometimes it is about getting the car home in the first place. And it isn't just the driver out there.

It is all about winning, 2nd place is only the first loser, and as Ricky Bobby so eloquently put it, "If you aint first than you are last!"

And I can assure you Jim Clark only cared about winning.

[JimClarkFan]

It is all about winning, 2nd place is only the first loser, and as Ricky Bobby so eloquently put it, "If you aint first than you are last!"

And I can assure you Jim Clark only cared about winning.

Yeh but you don't win by chucking it in the barrier 25% of the time. Also the championships is not one race long, keeping it out of the barrier is just as important over the course of a season.

[SectorOne]

It is all about winning,

(the championship not races)

VET 15 wins & 5 DNF = 375 points
WEB 5 win & 15 2nds = 395 pts & WDC

3 times as many wins but still not worthy of the WDC? complete nonsense

3 times the wins but 5 times the DNF´s.

Basically Webber has been on the podium in every single race that season and never finished a race lower then 2nd

[Powershift]

It is all about winning,

(the championship not races)

VET 15 wins & 5 DNF = 375 points
WEB 5 win & 15 2nds = 395 pts & WDC

3 times as many wins but still not worthy of the WDC? complete nonsense

3 times the wins but 5 times the DNF´s.

Basically Webber has been on the podium in every single race that season and never finished a race lower then 2nd

And so what if it is 5 times the DNF's, especially if VET was leading WEB those 5 times and had a mechanical failure, so then you have WEB with 5 inherited wins and somehow because he lost only to VET in the other 15 races he deserves the WDC. Once again complete nonsense. Complete nonsense that was brought upon F1 with that asshat Balastre who realized that Prost could not beat Senna on track so they would get it done in the back offices. When they stopped dropping races in '89(6 wins Senna/4 wins Prost(most of them inherited) it gifted an undeserved WDC to Prost, not to mention the travesty at Japan that year(so really 7 wins for Senna). So now we have a ridiculous points system that puts way too much bias towards "consistency" that awards the consistent LOSER more than a slightly less consistent WINNER. 15 wins to 5??? no matter what the outlying circumstances the championship should go to the 15 times winner every time.

[SectorOne]

And so what if it is 5 times the DNF's, especially if VET was leading WEB those 5 times and had a mechanical failure,

That´s the nature of the sport unfortunately.

And how do you plan to set the rest of the field?

Two guys in the front mid field, one has taken every single 5th position of the year, the other took one 4th place and the rest is 10th places.

Should he be classified higher because he had one race he did better then the guy who banked in 20 5th places?

[Powershift]

And so what if it is 5 times the DNF's, especially if VET was leading WEB those 5 times and had a mechanical failure,

That´s the nature of the sport unfortunately.

And how do you plan to set the rest of the field?

Two guys in the front mid field, one has taken every single 5th position of the year, the other took one 4th place and the rest is 10th places.

Should he be classified higher because he had one race he did better then the guy who banked in 20 5th places?

That is the NOT nature of the sport, that is the nature of the Points system, and as we have seen the points system has been changed arbitrarily since '88 to fit random criteria.

The points system should be changed to give a more true representation of what actually occurred throughout the season and throughout the field.

In your example of the front mid-field drivers, one taking every 5th place, the other taking one 4th place, you seem to favor the consistent 5th place finisher, as do I, as does the Current points system, but if you move that to the extreme back of the field, in the Current points system it would have a driver that finished 10th once with 19 DNFs over a driver who finished 11th every race... is that "fair"?

Basically the points system sucks, and it has for a long time, and it needs to be fixed, and the #1 priority needs to be Winning, if someone else wants to come up with a good system for classifying the losers(2nd place and below) then more power to them, as long as it does not devalue winning.

[SectorOne]

That is the NOT nature of the sport, that is the nature of the Points system, and as we have seen the points system has been changed arbitrarily since '88 to fit random criteria.

DNF´s is the nature of the sport...

The points system should be changed to give a more true representation of what actually occurred throughout the season and throughout the field.

It already gives a true representation of what actually occurred.
One guy got the most points over 20 races and went home with the trophy.

you seem to favor the consistent 5th place finisher, as do I, as does the Current points system,

Job done then. Not only does every season tend to give the championship to the guy with the most wins but it also uses a brilliant point system to set the order of things.

but if you move that to the extreme back of the field, in the Current points system it would have a driver finished 10th once with 19 over DNFs over a driver who finished 11th every race... is that "fair"?

?

The result would be identical in both systems. And if by you saying "is that fair?" meaning it´s really not then you just shot down your own theory

[Powershift]

That is the NOT nature of the sport, that is the nature of the Points system, and as we have seen the points system has been changed arbitrarily since '88 to fit random criteria.

DNF´s is the nature of the sport...

The points system should be changed to give a more true representation of what actually occurred throughout the season and throughout the field.

It already gives a true representation of what actually occurred.
One guy got the most points over 20 races and went home with the trophy.

you seem to favor the consistent 5th place finisher, as do I, as does the Current points system,

Job done then. Not only does every season tend to give the championship to the guy with the most wins but it also uses a brilliant point system to set the order of things.

but if you move that to the extreme back of the field, in the Current points system it would have a driver finished 10th once with 19 over DNFs over a driver who finished 11th every race... is that "fair"?

?

The result would be identical in both systems. And if by you saying "is that fair?" meaning it´s really not then you just shot down your own theory

Yes DNF's are in the nature of the sport, but in '88 you could throw some of them out, but now they weigh against you so much more, too much more, but whatever, you like to prop up losers thats up to you, have at it, I'm done

[SectorOne]

I see the last part of my post just shut down the operation full stop.

[Powershift]

I see the last part of my post just shut down the operation full stop.

nope, just not interested in explaining simple arithmatics to you

[Powershift]

So now we are back into an '88 type scenario with 2 top drivers with vastly superior cars to the field, but without the best 11 out of 16 rule.

So HAM could now WIN the next 3 races with ROS LOSING in 2nd and the points would be
HAM 75 with 3 WINS
ROS 79 with 1 WIN

all because of Balastre and his evil WDC fixing machinations

As Ron Dennis reminded us this weekend, 2nd is the first LOSER

except since '89(because of this idiotic points system) F1 is no longer about "who dares WIN" it is "who dares lose but finish consistently while doing so"

[JimClarkFan]

So now we are back into an '88 type scenario with 2 top drivers with vastly superior cars to the field, but without the best 11 out of 16 rule.

So HAM could now WIN the next 3 races with ROS LOSING in 2nd and the points would be
HAM 75 with 3 WINS
ROS 79 with 1 WIN

all because of Balastre and his evil WDC fixing machinations

As Ron Dennis reminded us this weekend, 2nd is the first LOSER

except since '89(because of this idiotic points system) F1 is no longer about "who dares WIN" it is "who dares lose but finish consistently while doing so"

There is one thing that is good about the 80s method of point scoring, it does take out the element of bad luck. However it doesn't reward consistency and it can also reward bad driving.