What is the reasoning for the current point system?

[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"

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.

Nonsense, Its rewards Winning which is first and foremost the most important thing which should be rewarded, even over "consistency" which in actuality means consistently losing, consistency should not matter unless you are consistently WINNING.

If you are not consistently WINNING then you are consistently LOSING and that should never be rewarded.

WINNING 3 out of 4 races is consistently WINNING, winning 1 race and then 3 2nds is consistently LOSING, and should never be rewarded over consistently WINNING.

[JimClarkFan]

Nonsense, Its rewards Winning which is first and foremost the most important thing which should be rewarded, even over "consistency" which in actuality means consistently losing, consistency should not matter unless you are consistently WINNING.

If you are not consistently WINNING then you are consistently LOSING and that should never be rewarded.

WINNING 3 out of 4 races is consistently WINNING, winning 1 race and then 3 2nds is consistently LOSING, and should never be rewarded over consistently WINNING.

Oh I see, we should just award points for first place.

Got you...

[SectorOne]

He wants to solve that with who´s had the best position during the year.
(the same thing he did not like when we discussed 10th place in the current rules, except now he wants that for the whole field)

It´s a bit of a paradox he´s yet to comment on.

[Powershift]

He wants to solve that with who´s had the best position during the year.
(the same thing he did not like when we discussed 10th place in the current rules, except now he wants that for the whole field)

It´s a bit of a paradox he´s yet to comment on.

Since you cannot do simple math I will do it for you

20 5th place finishes > 1 4th place & 19 DNF's As it should be

20 11th place finishes = 0 points < 1 10th place & 19 DNF's Very wrong

So as I said before the current system is flawed in many ways, I never said I wanted to solve it "with who had the best position during the year" those are words you are putting in my mouth... I simply discussed WINNING and that the WDC should be the driver with the most wins... I did not put forward any other system to classify the losers

[SectorOne]

I never said I wanted to solve it "with who had the best position during the year"

But you do because your idea that most wins should give you the title is EXACTLY what the position system does.

[Powershift]

I never said I wanted to solve it "with who had the best position during the year"

But you do because your idea that most wins should give you the title is EXACTLY what the position system does.

No, what I am stating is that the points should be that the winner is given so many points that only the driver with the most wins would have the amount of point necessary to win the WDC. I don't care if you have to give a winner 1 million points for each win , as long as the driver with the most wins takes home the WDC, I don't care how many points you want to give out to determine the position of the consistent losers.

[SectorOne]

"as long as the driver with the most wins takes home the WDC"

Agree, they really need to get rid of this pos system, it´s obviously BS.

2013 - champion most wins
2012 - champion most wins
2011 - champion most wins
2010 - champion equal on wins, 2nd places and 3rd places, champion has one more 4th places.
2009 - champion most wins
2008 - champion one less win (Got a win dsq:d)
2007 - champion most wins
2006 - champion equal on wins, champion has more 2nd places.
2005 - champion most wins
2004 - champion most wins
2003 - champion most wins
2002 - champion most wins
2001 - champion most wins
2000 - champion most wins
1999 - champion most wins
1998 - champion most wins

I can´t even bother going any further then that. So what exactly is the problem with the current system now again?

[beelsebob]

I think it's clear after this thread, what we need is this points system:

1. 1433.6pts
2: 1024pts
3: 716.8pts
4: 512pts
5: 358.4pts
6: 256pts
7: 179.2pts
8: 128pts
9: 89.6pts
10: 64pts
11: 44.8pts
12: 32pts
13: 22.4pts
14: 16pts
15: 11.2pts
16: 8pts
17: 5.6pts
18: 4pts
19: 2.8pts
20: 2pts
21: 1.4pts
22: 1pt

Every position gets √2 more points than the previous one, so you'll always get twice the points of the person who finished 2 positions behind you.

/me runs

[Powershift]

"as long as the driver with the most wins takes home the WDC"

Agree, they really need to get rid of this pos system, it´s obviously BS.

2013 - champion most wins
2012 - champion most wins
2011 - champion most wins
2010 - champion equal on wins, 2nd places and 3rd places, champion has one more 4th places.
2009 - champion most wins
2008 - champion one less win (Got a win dsq:d)
2007 - champion most wins
2006 - champion equal on wins, champion has more 2nd places.
2005 - champion most wins
2004 - champion most wins
2003 - champion most wins
2002 - champion most wins
2001 - champion most wins
2000 - champion most wins
1999 - champion most wins
1998 - champion most wins

I can´t even bother going any further then that. So what exactly is the problem with the current system now again?

1989 Senna 6 wins(7 wins really) Prost 4 wins, Prost "wins" "WDC", if it can happen even once, then it proves the the system is severely flawed.

But you are overlooking what the current "consistent loser" system does to the races at the end of the season, within the last several years we had drivers like Hamilton, Button, Alonso that instead of trying to win the last races were only trying to "consistently lose" to 5th place, WDC caliber drivers(& Button) not pushing to win but tip toeing not to finish below 5th place. The points system is not good for competition

[Powershift]

I think it's clear after this thread, what we need is this points system:

1. 1433.6pts
2: 1024pts
3: 716.8pts
4: 512pts

So a 1st loser and a 2nd loser(1740 pts) is worth more than a Winner and a DNF?

So if ROS DNF's in Malaysia and MAG gets a 3rd you think MAG's 1st loser in AUS and 2nd Loser MAL is better that what ROS has accomplished?

I dont, but I put all my emphasis on winning

[JimClarkFan]

I think it's clear after this thread, what we need is this points system:

1. 1433.6pts
2: 1024pts
3: 716.8pts
4: 512pts

So a 1st loser and a 2nd loser(1740 pts) is worth more than a Winner and a DNF?

So if ROS DNF's in Malaysia and MAG gets a 3rd you think MAG's 1st loser in AUS and 2nd Loser MAL is better that what ROS has accomplished?

I dont, but I put all my emphasis on winning

YES YES YES

Because bringing a car home is a quality that deserves rewarding

Not everyone lives in a one dimensional world such as yours

What is it you don't get, everyone here seems to understand what you mean?

I have taken it on board and considered it and think there is actually good logic behind taking the best say 18 races or something.

The championship is awarded to those who has the most points over a course of a season... despite all your idealogical objections.

[beelsebob]

I think it's clear after this thread, what we need is this points system:

1. 1433.6pts
2: 1024pts
3: 716.8pts
4: 512pts

So a 1st loser and a 2nd loser(1740 pts) is worth more than a Winner and a DNF?

So if ROS DNF's in Malaysia and MAG gets a 3rd you think MAG's 1st loser in AUS and 2nd Loser MAL is better that what ROS has accomplished?

I dont, but I put all my emphasis on winning

I think it's pretty reasonable that a 2nd and a 3rd add up to more than a single win tbh.

[SectorOne]

1989 Senna 6 wins(7 wins really) Prost 4 wins, Prost "wins" "WDC", if it can happen even once, then it proves the the system is severely flawed.

No it doesn´t. It shows that the vast majority already is the way you keep nagging on about.

[Powershift]

I think it's clear after this thread, what we need is this points system:

1. 1433.6pts
2: 1024pts
3: 716.8pts
4: 512pts

So a 1st loser and a 2nd loser(1740 pts) is worth more than a Winner and a DNF?

So if ROS DNF's in Malaysia and MAG gets a 3rd you think MAG's 1st loser in AUS and 2nd Loser MAL is better that what ROS has accomplished?

I dont, but I put all my emphasis on winning

YES YES YES

Because bringing a car home is a quality that deserves rewarding

Not everyone lives in a one dimensional world such as yours

What is it you don't get, everyone here seems to understand what you mean?

I have taken it on board and considered it and think there is actually good logic behind taking the best say 18 races or something.

The championship is awarded to those who do best over a course of a season...

You can't bring a car home that is broken from no fault of the driver, there is nothing to reward the driver for because his car kept running, that is why there are 2 championships, 1 for the constructor and one for the driver.

The 1 Dimensional world that i live in is the same one Senna and Ron Dennis and Ferrari and Hamilton and Even Jim Clark who I am told never finished an F1 race 2nd during his illustrious career, and damn sure would not have raced not to "not finish lower than 5th"

You say

The championship is awarded to those who do best over a course of a season...

best is subjective, I say best is wins the most, you say best is highest average finish, please tell me why a loser (2nd and 3rd) is better than a winner (1st and DNF not of their fault)?

[beelsebob]

please tell me why a loser (2nd and 3rd) is better than a winner (1st and DNF not of their fault)?

Because they've stood on the podium twice, instead of once ;P