What is the reasoning for the current point system?

[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

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

Why? Why is a two time loser better than a 1 time loser? Because they lost better? Especially when the 1 time loser may have lost not from them doing anything for them to have lost.

But please explain to me why a 2 time loser is better than a 1 time loser, my brain cannot grasp this logic in any way possible

[beelsebob]

Then, I think it's pretty clear that you and I have fundamental disagreements on what should be rewarded, and will not see eye to eye.

I think brining a car home in second or third is admirable, you don't.

[Powershift]

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

Both times looking up at the winner who one of those times was the 1 time loser, also why is there a podium? who's said the first and second losers should get recognized for losing better than the other losers? What makes 3rd place so much better than 4th that it gets to be on the podium but not 4th.

[Powershift]

Then, I think it's pretty clear that you and I have fundamental disagreements on what should be rewarded, and will not see eye to eye.

I think brining a car home in second or third is admirable, you don't.

It is admirable, but not nearly as admirable as winning. I don't even think 3 2nd's should equal 1 win in points.

They asked Hamilton and Kimi(last year I think) about being 2nd in the WDC and both of them basically said they don't give a sh!t, but they both wanted to win races at the end of the year.

But to answer the OP's question, there is no reasoning behind the current point system, its just a bastardization of a silly points system that was introduced in the 50's

[SectorOne]

Someone has been watching way too many Senna documentaries.

They asked Hamilton and Kimi(last year I think) about being 2nd in the WDC and both of them basically said they don't give a sh!t, but they both wanted to win races at the end of the year.

Because they had no chance of winning the title obviously. It´s the championship that counts, not wins.

[hollus]

I almost don't dare to and I fear boing off topic if I do this... but I'll try to answer the question written in teh title of the thread:
"What is the reasoning for the current point system?"

It is resembling a power law, much like what Beelsebob suggested. If we change the current 18 for 19, we get:
25/19 = 1.32
19/15 = 1.27
15/12 = 1.25
12/10 = 1.2
10/8 = 1.25
8/6 = 1.33
6/4 = 1.5
...2...1...0

It breaks down by having to hit integers, and this was not done with this purpose; but it roughyl follows a power law like
P(n-1) = P(n)^1.3
In other words, each position gain brings the same percentage pioints gain. The "low" 18 is there to give this bit of extra reward for passing fo the lead, for the good of the show.
I actually think that Beelsebob's P(n-1) = P(n)^1.41 is beautiful, just about perfect, rewards battles fo 18th position fairly and could be adapted to give 1000 points for the winner. How cool would be to need about 10000 points to win the championship?

[JimClarkFan]

I almost don't dare to and I fear boing off topic if I do this... but I'll try to answer the question written in teh title of the thread:
"What is the reasoning for the current point system?"

It is resembling a power law, much like what Beelsebob suggested. If we change the current 18 for 19, we get:
25/19 = 1.32
19/15 = 1.27
15/12 = 1.25
12/10 = 1.2
10/8 = 1.25
8/6 = 1.33
6/4 = 1.5
...2...1...0

It breaks down by having to hit integers, and this was not done with this purpose; but it roughyl follows a power law like
P(n-1) = P(n)^1.3
In other words, each position gain brings the same percentage pioints gain. The "low" 18 is there to give this bit of extra reward for passing fo the lead, for the good of the show.
I actually think that Beelsebob's P(n-1) = P(n)^1.41 is beautiful, just about perfect, rewards battles fo 18th position fairly and could be adapted to give 1000 points for the winner. How cool would be to need about 10000 points to win the championship?

thanks, good info. And I think rewarding points for lower positions is a good idea.

[Stradivarius]

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.

I don't think it makes sense to claim that retirements are outside the control of the driver, while speed isn't. Both speed and reliability/consistency are affected by both car and driver. The majority of cars in the f1 fields are too slow to win, except for under exceptional (banality intended ) circumstances, no matter what the driver does. When Hamilton repeatedly retired from the lead in 2012 you may well say that it wasn't his fault and that he deserved to win. But you could actually have said the same thing about Alonso, Raikkonen Rosberg or Schumacher in those races where they never had the chance to fight for a win because their car was too slow. They were all held back by their cars in many races, whether the problem was related to car performance or to reliability.

I agree that some of the scenarios you present seem unreasonable (my subjective opinion), for example if a driver becomes world champion without winning a single race, while a multiple race winner looses the title. But equally, I also find it unreasonable if a driver who retires in half of the races becomes world champion because he has 10 victories and 10 races where he f'cked up, while another driver may have 9 victories and 11 second places and still loose it.

So there has to be some sort of balance between how much of the emphasis is put on ultimate performance and how much emphasis is put on consistency. You should be able to win a considerable amount of races, but at the same time, you shouldn't be getting away with to many blunders either. Exactly where to to draw the line will always be a matter of opinion.

I think beelsbob presents an excellent system, at least I like the principle. I am often fond such uncompromising mindset and it would be awesome if it became a reality. Let's say that the points P for position n is defined as: P(n-1) = P(n)*k, then k wouldn't necessarily have to be sqrt(2). If k=2, we could avoid the decimal numbers and at the same time add more motivation for overtaking, although the numbers would get quite large with close to 2.1 million points for a victory. With such a system, k could actually be described as a overtaking-motivation-factor, which could easily be increased if one wanted to further encourage overtaking. Or it could be reduced if one wanted to make sure the championship wasn't decided too soon. (k=1 would mean the championship would never be decided no matter what.) If you set k > i, where i is the number of races during the season, you would end up with Bernie's medal system, which was not that popular. It is actually also the same as the system used to rate drivers today, who don't score any points during a season.

[Powershift]

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.

I don't think it makes sense to claim that retirements are outside the control of the driver, while speed isn't. Both speed and reliability/consistency are affected by both car and driver. The majority of cars in the f1 fields are too slow to win, except for under exceptional (banality intended ) circumstances, no matter what the driver does. When Hamilton repeatedly retired from the lead in 2012 you may well say that it wasn't his fault and that he deserved to win. But you could actually have said the same thing about Alonso, Raikkonen Rosberg or Schumacher in those races where they never had the chance to fight for a win because their car was too slow. They were all held back by their cars in many races, whether the problem was related to car performance or to reliability.

I agree that some of the scenarios you present seem unreasonable (my subjective opinion), for example if a driver becomes world champion without winning a single race, while a multiple race winner looses the title. But equally, I also find it unreasonable if a driver who retires in half of the races becomes world champion because he has 10 victories and 10 races where he f'cked up, while another driver may have 9 victories and 11 second places and still loose it.

So there has to be some sort of balance between how much of the emphasis is put on ultimate performance and how much emphasis is put on consistency. You should be able to win a considerable amount of races, but at the same time, you shouldn't be getting away with to many blunders either. Exactly where to to draw the line will always be a matter of opinion.

Like I said before 15 wins and 5 loses(by DNF) should always beat 5 wins and 15 loses(by 2nd place), but this idiotic points system thinks otherwise so I will disregard it and you can do as you please, your choice.

[Stradivarius]

Like I said before 15 wins and 5 loses(by DNF) should always beat 5 wins and 15 loses(by 2nd place), but this idiotic points system thinks otherwise so I will disregard it and you can do as you please, your choice.

This would be the case for any k > 1.5 with reference to my previous post.

You say that 15 wins and 5 DNF should beat 5 wins and 15 2nd places, but why is this an absolute requirement? There is no objective reason why it has to be like that. It's an opinion based only on subjective feelings. I agree that it is reasonable to give the title to the driver/team who is most capable of winning. But it is equally reasonable to give the title to the driver/team who never makes any big mistakes and always gets on the podium, even in races where they struggle for some reason. A driver who makes 5 big mistakes that results in DNF during one season is perhaps not a worthy champion in the view of many people.

Another aspect of this is that if you put too much emphasis on wins, then many races will suddenly not be any interesting in terms of the championship fight. If the race leader has a comfortable gap, no other battles behind him will have any influence if there is too much emphasis on race wins. The championship was fairly close and the title was decided in the final races in 2007, 2008 and 2010, 2012. In all those races much of the excitement was due to the battles that took place further back in the field. In 2007, Hamilton needed at least 4 points to secure the title. The battle for victory was never interesting, as Massa was helping Raikkonen by moving over. It was Hamiltons position that was interesting. In 2008 it was the same situation, as Massa had a healthy lead through the whole race, but Hamilton again needed 4 points to secure the title, i.e. 5th place finish or better. He was 5th when Vettel overtook him and everything changed. On the final lap Hamilton got passed Glock and everything changed again. All this excitement came from behind the leader. In 2010 it was Alonso and Webber who were running behind trying to score the points they needed. Vettel's victory was quite safe. And in 2012 neither Vettel or Alonso were fighting for the win when the title was decided in the final race.

[raymondu999]

Personally my favourite system would be one where the points scale was exponential. Every place gained doubles your points. The best compromise (IMO) between consistency and banzai racing

[beelsebob]

Personally my favourite system would be one where the points scale was exponential. Every place gained doubles your points. The best compromise (IMO) between consistency and banzai racing

I think every place gaining double points is somewhat too steep, it puts too much weight on wins, but I'm right there with you, I like √2, or 3√2 as an exponent.

[raymondu999]

You mean every 2 places gained doubles your points? Sounds good to me.

[Powershift]

You mean every 2 places gained doubles your points? Sounds good to me.

No it does not, so here we have HAM putting a whooping to ROS backside 2 times in a row and he still is behind him in the points, it is totally asinine.

HAM 2 wins, 1 Loss DNF because a $1 part and he is behind ROS 1 win 2 losses.

So basically the points system is telling us that a failure of a $1 part is more important than HAM defeating ROS on track 2 times out of 2.

It is totally asinine. In my book it is HAM leading the WDC 2 wins over ROS 1 win

[Powershift]

So now here we are 3 straight Hamilton wins, 3 straight Rosberg(and everyone else) losses and Rosberg still leads these idiotic points standings.

And people here still stand by this stupid points system.

Real WDC standings... Wins-Hamilton 3 > Rosberg 1