Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
What does your point system seek to accomplish? What are it's aims/goals and what does it seek to emphasize?
You say you find it "unsuitable" for the "midfield battles" but then adjust the current system to bring 2nd place closer to 1st.
If I were to design a points system I would immediately throw out the current system because of 3 major factors.
1) It does not incentivize winning enough. As we all know there is 1 winner and the rest are all losers, winning means everything, don't believe me? Look at how happy RIC was in Monaco in 3rd place compared to RAI who was in 2nd, 2nd gives more points but winning means EVERYTHING and RAI was not happy at either himself or the team at losing the opportunity to win. Furthermore, take a situation like the end of 2015 when the last 3 races did not matter for either championship, if you would have asked HAM if he would have preferred to get 3 2nd place finishes(as he did) or 1 win with 2 DNF's I have no doubt he would choose the win+DNF's even though in that current system the 3 2nd's pay more points.
2) It does not give a good view on all the drivers performances, as you say the midfield, but even moreso the tailenders(who sometimes all end up with zero points at the end of the year. Points should be awarded to last place. As a matter of fact points should be awarded to 26th place since hopefully 1 day we will have 13 viable teams on the grid.
3) Mechanical failures weigh too heavily in the drivers standings, this used to be remedied by allowing them to drop their worst races from 1950 until 1991 when all races counted towards the WDC. HAM had 10 wins last season to ROS's 9 but because the current system puts more emphasis on scoring points rather than winning ROS took the championship. Was ROS's 7th place in Monaco more impressive/better than HAM's dominance and then blowup in Malaysia or HAM's 10 wins in the season, if not than why should it determine the championship?
I believe that the driver with the most wins in a season should be champion NO MATTER WHAT.
Why not just use the race-finish rank values as-is (1, 2, 3...) and just average or sum the running tally. The competitor with the smallest number is the leader.
Why not just use the race-finish rank values as-is (1, 2, 3...) and just average or sum the running tally. The competitor with the smallest number is the leader.
Because the risk vs reward of an overtake is getting worse. Passing the front runner would gain you "1 point" while crashing during that overtake would cost you "19 points".
I like your idea Mr GM7, this looks like it would keep championship battles closer and give a points table that is more representative of actual performance at the end of the year.
With this scale of point we can see how Sainz, Perez and Ocon are doing an incredible job matching the Red Bull in the championship, that's why i think it's a good idea.
I think a points system should be simple, pragmatic, and rewarding of wins only. Thus, 1-20 points would be rewarded in inverse order (20 for the win) and given a 20-point ponus for a total of 40. No other position deserves any formula driven points. In this system a win and a last place finish would be a total of 41 while 2 runner-up slots nets only 38. The 20 bonus points being derived from the number of cars on grid...so if the car count increases to 22....the win bonus to 22. Under the same scenario of above, a 22-car grid system would tally 45 for the once winner and 42 for the twice runner-up.
Extrapolation over an entire season (20-races) would yield a winless driver with an average finish of 3rd 340 points. A driver with 5 wins, but finishing an average of 10th otherwise would yield 425. Points recieved actually earned and only winning rewarded with bonus points.
...at least i think my math is correct. No time to do a 2017 run with this, the CGP is coming on and i have lost interest.
I believe that the driver with the most wins in a season should be champion NO MATTER WHAT.
Then in 2009 Button would of been crowned world champion in Istanbul...
Also you would generate a lot of broken carbon fibre as 2nd place would try a suicide manoeuvre since allowing a win is more painful than taking them both out.
I agree the victory must be rewarded, but this would do that with 1-2 points increase each position won, except the 5 points increase from 2nd to 1st. That´s rewarding victory more than anything else
In my opinion there should be an exponentially increasing scale. Something like 20% more points for every position. Therefore it wouldn't matter for which position you are driving, the risk vs reward of equal overtakes would be the same. Of course you wouldn't really get a "nice" and simple point system but that shouldn't really be a concern.
Why not just use the race-finish rank values as-is (1, 2, 3...) and just average or sum the running tally. The competitor with the smallest number is the leader.
Because the risk vs reward of an overtake is getting worse. Passing the front runner would gain you "1 point" while crashing during that overtake would cost you "19 points".
The incentive or risk wouldn't be much different than current. That same 19 position drop from a failed pass will cost you regardless. 18 points if we're talking about from 2nd.
I admit to not giving this idea more than a minute's thought...
Something about awarding all positions with points linearly was momentarily appealing to me.
I don't like 1= 25, then 2= 20 and 3 = 18. No incentive to fight for a win. Everyone will be more inclined to play it safe, and it rewards consistency too much over going balls out for wins.
And I don't like everyone or most cars scoring points. You should score points only when you deserve it.
Dropping worst two results from the drivers championship is a good idea, and F1 had it for a longer time rather than not. The driver should not be robbed of a title only because of inferior reliability or just plain old bad luck. The constructor still suffers from failures tho. It's a good balance. I wonder why they removed that rule.
Education is that which allows a nation free, independent, reputable life, and function as a high society; or it condemns it to captivity and poverty.
-Atatürk
