What is the reasoning for the current point system?

[Aesto]

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

22 posts across this thread, all saying the same thing: you think wins are the only thing that matters. I think you've successfully conveyed your opinion by now

In regard to the OP: I agree in so far that I think that the battle of the backmarkers is based way too much on luck because only the first 10 positions are rewarded with points. Theoretically I like the system where every position gained is one point gained since it rewards consistency, but it just punishes DNFs (which often aren't the driver's fault) way too much. Plus, wins and podiums should be worth a bit more.

The system that beelsebob posted on page 3 is perfect in terms of distribution, but with the half points and high numbers it would probably be too complicated for the casual viewers (who, as we know, are Bernie's main target group).

So, personally I'd only alter the current system a bit, as following:

01: 50
02: 33
03: 28
04: 23
05: 20
06: 17
07: 14
08: 12
09: 10
10: 8
11: 6
12: 5
13: 4
14: 3
15: 2
16: 1

This means that all the Q2 positions are rewarded with points. From P16 to P11, it's one point increase per position, P10 to P7 (current points system) 2 points increase, P6 to P4 (1990s points system) 3 points increase, podium 5 points increase, and winner takes a bit more than before.

This way the value of winning is increased, but not too drastically. Furthermore, in the fight of Marussia vs. Caterham, one 12th place doesn't decide the entire season anymore.

[JimClarkFan]

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

I actually turned out to agree with you, in that the you should drop the lowest 2 scores over the course of the season as a means to shade out the luck element.

I don't want to get on this circus ride again though, I think my position is clear.

So, personally I'd only alter the current system a bit, as following:

01: 50
02: 33
03: 28
04: 23
05: 20
06: 17
07: 14
08: 12
09: 10
10: 8
11: 6
12: 5
13: 4
14: 3
15: 2
16: 1

Something like that is in the correct direction, I think Beelsebob has been the best suggestion so far however, but I think the 2 of the lowest scores should be removed.

[Richard]

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.

The points system is saying that a numpty car that has 25% failure rate due to a trivial $1 part shouldn't be leading the championship. That seems fair to me, there's no way we should excuse a 25% failure rate.

Anyway, its a very long season and there will be highs and lows along the way, it usually averages out and the best driver-car-team combination wins.

[flynfrog]

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

why not just award people named Lewis all the points possible at the beginning of the season. Then you wont have anything to bitch about. The drivers championship rewards consistency not win it or wear it and always has.

The failure of a one dollar part could be the same as beaching your car on the entrance to pit road in china for example.

[beelsebob]

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

why not just award people named Lewis all the points possible at the beginning of the season. Then you wont have anything to bitch about. The drivers championship rewards consistency not win it or wear it and always has.

I think the argument is though that Lewis has been consistently the best driver. The championship is not rewarding consistency, it's rewarding Nico having slightly less bad luck.

[flynfrog]

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

why not just award people named Lewis all the points possible at the beginning of the season. Then you wont have anything to bitch about. The drivers championship rewards consistency not win it or wear it and always has.

I think the argument is though that Lewis has been consistently the best driver. The championship is not rewarding consistency, it's rewarding Nico having slightly less bad luck.

so what if Lewis had had an off instead of a car issue does that change it. Wins are not everything. Drivers don't race simulators. They race cars that have failures its part of the game. Last I checked all drivers race on the same point scale. I actually wouldn't mind a more top weighted point system but wanting to change it because someone's favorite driver is still behind his teammate who has finished 30% more races doesn't seem like a very good reason.

[Lycoming]

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

Do you not realize the reason why that one DNF has such a disproportionately large penalty in terms of championship standing is because we're only 4 races into the season? The current championship standing is meaningless anyways because it's not advanced enough to mathematically eliminate anybody from the championship. So what if Hamilton is behind Rosberg now? He has ample opportunity to overhaul his points total.

This has little to do with the points system.

[beelsebob]

so what if Lewis had had an off instead of a car issue does that change it. Wins are not everything. Drivers don't race simulators. They race cars that have failures its part of the game. Last I checked all drivers race on the same point scale. I actually wouldn't mind a more top weighted point system but wanting to change it because someone's favorite driver is still behind his teammate who has finished 30% more races doesn't seem like a very good reason.

Then perhaps you should check when this thread started. Hint, it was before the season even started, let alone before anyone's favourite driver was behind. The fact that the driver who has won 75% of all the races so far this year is not leading the championship is just being held up as further evidence, not as the sole reasoning behind any thought of change.

You're right, wins aren't everything, but the idea that someone could win 14 of the 19 races, and still not win the championship is to me wrong.

[Pieoter]

I do not agree, it should be the most consistently good driver that should win the championship.

If driver 1 wins 14 from 19 round but comes last in the other 5 I do not agree that he should be champion when driver 2 has won 5 races and come second in the other 14.

I think a scoring system more like the decathlon could be a good thing as it would show that being second by 0.002seconds is "better" than being second by 30 seconds+.

[Richard]

Any system taken to extremes will have quirky outcomes. For instance if we went to a medal system then a driver with 11th gold medals would win the WDC halfway through the season. The current system seems about right to me as it avoids extremes in either direction and the right driver seems to win the championship each year.

No system will be perfect, for me the key is to maintain a tight battle for as long as possible.

[turbof1]

Any system taken to extremes will have quirky outcomes. For instance if we went to a medal system then a driver with 11th gold medals would win the WDC halfway through the season. The current system seems about right to me as it avoids extremes in either direction and the right driver seems to win the championship each year.

No system will be perfect, for me the key is to maintain a tight battle for as long as possible.

Agreed. For instance this moment Lewis had to win 3 races in a row to make up for engine failure in the first race, and he's still 4 points behind. It does keep the WDC very interesting, with one driver crawling his way back, the other struggling but otherwise putting up a fair fight to keep the lead, and with tension above it that none of the 2 can afford a mistake or bad luck.

[Powershift]

Any system taken to extremes will have quirky outcomes. For instance if we went to a medal system then a driver with 11th gold medals would win the WDC halfway through the season. The current system seems about right to me as it avoids extremes in either direction and the right driver seems to win the championship each year.

No system will be perfect, for me the key is to maintain a tight battle for as long as possible.

Yes because the drivers starve themselves, train endlessly, spend thousands of hours with their engineers and PUT THEIR LIVES ON THE LINE for your point counting entertainment and not for the glory of being the BEST(champion). It is not about you, it is about what is most fair for the drivers, and for Hamilton to be behind on points right now is a sham.

Hamilton has destroyed Rosberg this year yet is behind because of what happened in 1 race which was out of his control.

Maintaining a "tight battle" should have no basis on the point system, it should be about reflecting what has gone on through the season, If Driver A has been better than Driver B than Driver A should have more points, plain and simple, AND NOTHING IS BETTER THAN WINNING. If a driver won the first 11 races then they flat-out deserve the WDC even halfway through the season, even if they want to kick up their feet and cool their balls the rest of the year, your points counting entertainment should not override their on track achievements.

[Powershift]

I do not agree, it should be the most consistently good driver that should win the championship.

If driver 1 wins 14 from 19 round but comes last in the other 5 I do not agree that he should be champion when driver 2 has won 5 races and come second in the other 14.

I think a scoring system more like the decathlon could be a good thing as it would show that being second by 0.002seconds is "better" than being second by 30 seconds+.

14 wins out of 19 is not WDC worthy huh? More proof that counting points may be harmful to your mental health.

[zeph]

[soapbox] For years I have been clamoring for the following point system:

12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 [/soapbox]

[raymondu999]

I've constantly championed an exponential scale - where P1 was worth, say... 1.6x the points of P2, P2 1.6x of P3 etc.