Points system to be scrapped for 2009

[Spencifer_Murphy]

I'll die laughing when some slow ass driver wins the title win only 1 or 2 wins while another driver has 5 or 6 and some mechanical DNF's.

Why? To finish first, first you have to finish. If mechanical DNF's bugger it up for you tough. Mansell had to deal with it in F1 in the final race of 1986, Carlos Sainz had to deal with it in the final stage in the WRC in 1999.

F1 is a SEASON, you have to consistently perform well.

I agree that you should strive to win, hence award 12 points for a win, easy.

To aim for a podium finish when the race winner has a commading lead due to your car just not being upto scratch is not "being content with mediocricy", its just intelligent. Why risk an engine blow up when the chances are you won't catch the leader anyway?! Finishing 3rd is better than not finishing at all.

You see it in football, we have a variety of formations, but none of them are 1-1-8, because you have to play the percentages sometimes. In cricket a team has to decide whether or not to declare, when a glory obsessed fool might say "To hell with it, lets score more runs and look good!". Because, SOMETIMES, you have to play the percentages.

[ISLAMATRON]

I'll die laughing when some slow ass driver wins the title win only 1 or 2 wins while another driver has 5 or 6 and some mechanical DNF's.

Why? To finish first, first you have to finish. If mechanical DNF's bugger it up for you tough. Mansell had to deal with it in F1 in the final race of 1986, Carlos Sainz had to deal with it in the final stage in the WRC in 1999.

F1 is a SEASON, you have to consistently perform well.

I agree that you should strive to win, hence award 12 points for a win, easy.

To aim for a podium finish when the race winner has a commading lead due to your car just not being upto scratch is not "being content with mediocricy", its just intelligent. Why risk an engine blow up when the chances are you won't catch the leader anyway?! Finishing 3rd is better than not finishing at all.

You see it in football, we have a variety of formations, but none of them are 1-1-8, because you have to play the percentages sometimes. In cricket a team has to decide whether or not to declare, when a glory obsessed fool might say "To hell with it, lets score more runs and look good!". Because, SOMETIMES, you have to play the percentages.

Yes finishing is good, but to be honest when I race I could not care less if I finish 2nd or 32nd, If I dont win I am furious.

I also believe in the season concept of F1 but mechanical DNF's should not have more effect on the championship than Wins. 12 points for a win would be an improvement from the current system but I think it should be 1000... that way the driver with the most wins also has the most points hands down. I also think they should award points all the way to last place, just so we as fans can have a clear view of how the backmarkers perform vs their teammates.

In the situation you speak of, being content with 3rd, is absolutely correct, the problem lies when the 2nd place driver makes little effort for the win because the risk far outweighs the reward. The reward for winning should far outweigh the risk so that we can see these fantastic drivers going 100% balls to the wall. Bringing it home, when you dont have a great car is understandable but not attacking when you have the faster car is totally unacceptable.

Take the case of AMA supercross this year, anyone watching knows Bubba with 8 wins is dominating Chad Reed(2 wins), but because of the silly points system Reed leads the championship.

2003 when Schumacher barely won 93-91 with 6 wins to KIMI's 1 was completely absurd(there is the example for the person who said it never happened)... regardless how how bad MS's finishing record was 1 win should never be close to 6. Consistancy over the year should come into effect when we are walking about a 1 0r 2 race win differential, not a 6 to 1 race win ratio.

My points sytem:
1=>1000
2=>250
3=>75
4=>30
5=>23
6=>20
7=>18
8=>16
9=>14
10=>12
11=>10
12=>9
13=>8
14=>7
15=>6
16=>5
17=>4
18=>3
19=>2
20=>1

Less arbitrary than 12 points for winner and such & such... I believe that a win is at least worth 4 times more than a second, unlike many on here who only say 1.5 times.

[donskar]

I'll die laughing when some slow ass driver wins the title win only 1 or 2 wins while another driver has 5 or 6 and some mechanical DNF's.

AHAHAHAHHA!

Now who is talking of extreme cases?

Remember, as you said earlier on this thread, THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

Sometimes, the hypocricy knows no bounds...

Good call, conceptual. Seems we have a couple FIA mouthpieces in this forum. Does that mean we're really important?

[donskar]

I'll die laughing when some slow ass driver wins the title win only 1 or 2 wins while another driver has 5 or 6 and some mechanical DNF's.

Why? To finish first, first you have to finish. If mechanical DNF's bugger it up for you tough. Mansell had to deal with it in F1 in the final race of 1986, Carlos Sainz had to deal with it in the final stage in the WRC in 1999.

F1 is a SEASON, you have to consistently perform well.

I agree that you should strive to win, hence award 12 points for a win, easy.

To aim for a podium finish when the race winner has a commading lead due to your car just not being upto scratch is not "being content with mediocricy", its just intelligent. Why risk an engine blow up when the chances are you won't catch the leader anyway?! Finishing 3rd is better than not finishing at all.

You see it in football, we have a variety of formations, but none of them are 1-1-8, because you have to play the percentages sometimes. In cricket a team has to decide whether or not to declare, when a glory obsessed fool might say "To hell with it, lets score more runs and look good!". Because, SOMETIMES, you have to play the percentages.

Yes finishing is good, but to be honest when I race I could not care less if I finish 2nd or 32nd, If I dont win I am furious.

I also believe in the season concept of F1 but mechanical DNF's should not have more effect on the championship than Wins. 12 points for a win would be an improvement from the current system but I think it should be 1000... that way the driver with the most wins also has the most points hands down. I also think they should award points all the way to last place, just so we as fans can have a clear view of how the backmarkers perform vs their teammates.

In the situation you speak of, being content with 3rd, is absolutely correct, the problem lies when the 2nd place driver makes little effort for the win because the risk far outweighs the reward. The reward for winning should far outweigh the risk so that we can see these fantastic drivers going 100% balls to the wall. Bringing it home, when you dont have a great car is understandable but not attacking when you have the faster car is totally unacceptable.

Take the case of AMA supercross this year, anyone watching knows Bubba with 8 wins is dominating Chad Reed(2 wins), but because of the silly points system Reed leads the championship.

2003 when Schumacher barely won 93-91 with 6 wins to KIMI's 1 was completely absurd(there is the example for the person who said it never happened)... regardless how how bad MS's finishing record was 1 win should never be close to 6. Consistancy over the year should come into effect when we are walking about a 1 0r 2 race win differential, not a 6 to 1 race win ratio.

My points sytem:
1=>1000
2=>250
3=>75
4=>30
5=>23
6=>20
7=>18
8=>16
9=>14
10=>12
11=>10
12=>9
13=>8
14=>7
15=>6
16=>5
17=>4
18=>3
19=>2
20=>1

Less arbitrary than 12 points for winner and such & such... I believe that a win is at least worth 4 times more than a second, unlike many on here who only say 1.5 times.

[alelanza]

I'm just immensely happy that this got rectified. I also had typed up a longer string of comments, but no matter how i tried they all seemed inappropriate for someone as new to the forum I am.

[Conceptual]

I'll die laughing when some slow ass driver wins the title win only 1 or 2 wins while another driver has 5 or 6 and some mechanical DNF's.

AHAHAHAHHA!

Now who is talking of extreme cases?

Remember, as you said earlier on this thread, THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!

Sometimes, the hypocricy knows no bounds...

Good call, conceptual. Seems we have a couple FIA mouthpieces in this forum. Does that mean we're really important?

I think calling them FIA mouthpieces would be giving them too much credit.

More like the vocal minority to change F1 to what THEY think it should be, nothing more.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Yes finishing is good, but to be honest when I race I could not care less if I finish 2nd or 32nd, If I dont win I am furious.

I also believe in the season concept of F1 but mechanical DNF's should not have more effect on the championship than Wins. 12 points for a win would be an improvement from the current system but I think it should be 1000... that way the driver with the most wins also has the most points hands down. I also think they should award points all the way to last place, just so we as fans can have a clear view of how the backmarkers perform vs their teammates.

In the situation you speak of, being content with 3rd, is absolutely correct, the problem lies when the 2nd place driver makes little effort for the win because the risk far outweighs the reward. The reward for winning should far outweigh the risk so that we can see these fantastic drivers going 100% balls to the wall. Bringing it home, when you dont have a great car is understandable but not attacking when you have the faster car is totally unacceptable.

I totally agree with a lot of what you've posted in theory. I agree that a win should be of more "value" than 2nd or 3rd but as you say, when you come 2nd or lower you're furious, do you really think that F1 drivers are any different, in fact do you really think that most succesful sports persons are any different? Believe me, they're not. I myself compete/competed in:
Boxing
Athletics
Football
Rugby
Cricket
Basketball
Swimming
American Football
In my lifetime so far, and I was pretty damn good at some of them (Boxing, Athletics & Swimming), and frankly awful at others (Cricket & Tennis comes to mind! ) but regardless of how good or bad I was I always started wanting to win., nothing less. In my experience this applies to almost all sports persons. Nonbody will willingly risk their life in an F1 car (yes I know its very safe now, but there is still a risk far higher than that of, say, football) to just make up the numbers, they all believe they can do it and will race the nuts of a crap car to get a drive in a good car, then when they're there they'll race the nuts off of it to win, because wins are the best way to win titles, regardless of the points system. It doesn't matter if you only get 0.5 points more for a win than 2nd...if you win races you'll be getting more points than anybody else.

I do agree however that points could be scored all the way don the grid, unfortunately everytime a team leaves or joins F1 the system would need to be reworked, and that's going to be a problem. TBH I'm faily happy with the current system and wouldn't mind if they simply awarded 12 points to the winner and left it at that. But if we're talking about a complete rehaul I guess I'd say:

Top 10 finishes get points as thus:
1st = 20
2nd - 15
3rd - 10
4th - 8
5th - 5
6th - 4
7th - 3
9th - 2
10th - 1

It extends the points system for lower teams and would improve midfield competition in the eyes of a casual viewer, top 3 finishes are rewarded heavily but there is a clear benifit to finishing 1st rather than 2nd and subsequently 3rd. It also allows for relability to be an issue, because of you retire from 2nd place and your rival wins you then have some catch up work to be doing, you'll need four race wins to you're rival (assuming he comes 2nd in those races) just to bridge that deficiet.

I don't agree with 1000 points for the winner though, its a litte...extreme. And I DO believe that mechanical DNF's have should have a serious implication, allowing a system when reliability is unimportant will either encourage teams to build cars that frequently disintegrate leave for races with very few finishers (we'd have some great Indy '05 style races then, I'm sure the fans would love that) OR it would allow one or two teams to dominate because they've managed to couple speed with reliability.

I see DNF's of any kind as very important because a win is the ultimate goal in a race, but in order to win you have to cross the finish line first, and in order to do that you have to cross the finish line. There's no getting away from that. Whatever points system is in place, the current one, medals, 1000points for a winner, only wins counts, whatever, they all rely on the presumtion that these race rewards are awarded for those FINISHING a race.

[ISLAMATRON]

I totally agree with a lot of what you've posted in theory. I agree that a win should be of more "value" than 2nd or 3rd but as you say, when you come 2nd or lower you're furious, do you really think that F1 drivers are any different, in fact do you really think that most succesful sports persons are any different? Believe me, they're not.
In my lifetime so far, and I was pretty damn good at some of them (Boxing, Athletics & Swimming), and frankly awful at others (Cricket & Tennis comes to mind! ) but regardless of how good or bad I was I always started wanting to win., nothing less. In my experience this applies to almost all sports persons. Nonbody will willingly risk their life in an F1 car (yes I know its very safe now, but there is still a risk far higher than that of, say, football) to just make up the numbers, they all believe they can do it and will race the nuts of a crap car to get a drive in a good car, then when they're there they'll race the nuts off of it to win, because wins are the best way to win titles, regardless of the points system. It doesn't matter if you only get 0.5 points more for a win than 2nd...if you win races you'll be getting more points than anybody else.

I do agree however that points could be scored all the way don the grid, unfortunately everytime a team leaves or joins F1 the system would need to be reworked, and that's going to be a problem. TBH I'm faily happy with the current system and wouldn't mind if they simply awarded 12 points to the winner and left it at that. But if we're talking about a complete rehaul I guess I'd say:

Top 10 finishes get points as thus:
1st = 20
2nd - 15
3rd - 10
4th - 8
5th - 5
6th - 4
7th - 3
9th - 2
10th - 1

It extends the points system for lower teams and would improve midfield competition in the eyes of a casual viewer, top 3 finishes are rewarded heavily but there is a clear benifit to finishing 1st rather than 2nd and subsequently 3rd. It also allows for relability to be an issue, because of you retire from 2nd place and your rival wins you then have some catch up work to be doing, you'll need four race wins to you're rival (assuming he comes 2nd in those races) just to bridge that deficiet.

I don't agree with 1000 points for the winner though, its a litte...extreme. And I DO believe that mechanical DNF's have should have a serious implication, allowing a system when reliability is unimportant will either encourage teams to build cars that frequently disintegrate leave for races with very few finishers (we'd have some great Indy '05 style races then, I'm sure the fans would love that) OR it would allow one or two teams to dominate because they've managed to couple speed with reliability.

I see DNF's of any kind as very important because a win is the ultimate goal in a race, but in order to win you have to cross the finish line first, and in order to do that you have to cross the finish line. There's no getting away from that. Whatever points system is in place, the current one, medals, 1000points for a winner, only wins counts, whatever, they all rely on the presumtion that these race rewards are awarded for those FINISHING a race.

As of late F1 drivers have been ingrained with the idea of getting maximum points, rather than going all out for the win, and yes I do believe that Massa or Hamilton would be much more satisfied with a 2nd place than Prost or Senna or Mansell, not because of their inherent makeup but because F1 has been reduced into a points collecting exorcise. Our most obvious example was Brazil last year where we saw Hamilton/McLaren doing everything they could Not to lose 5th place rather than gunning for the win. I can blame neither, as that is how the rules dictate towards their preferred course of action, but therein lies the inherent problem.

Simply put the risk of attacking 1st (losing 8 points) far outweighs the reward gaining 2 points.

I think we both agree on the basic importance of both winning and finishing so rather than discussing that lets look at this from a mathematical perspective, which is how my points system came about.

Current reward/risk ratio [2/-8] = 0.25
in your system [5/-15]= 0.33
my system [750/-250]= 3

To incentivise winning there must be a much greater reward to risk ratio then there presently is... my sytem would increase that by around a factor of 10.

Also in your system I noticed that the point differential(5 points) is the same between 1st & 2nd as it is 2nd to 3rd.

I know the idea of 1000 points seems extreme, but then again what isnt extreme in F1? If we look into any other series we see that no other series pays fewer amount of points to a winner. What that does is take the priority away from winning and puts it solely on finishing "in the points", but to much so.

Honestly, should 2 2nd places and a 5th be equal on points to 2 wins & a DNF? both with 20 points? Or in your system 2 2nds and a 3rd?

Back in the 80's they used to account for DNF's by only counting the top 11 points rounds, but when they took that out of the regs they didnt account for it by adjusting the points table. That is what got us to this point where the risk of DNF has paralyzed the teams/drivers from making bold attempts for wins.

[jddh1]

Top 10 finishes get points as thus:
1st = 20
2nd - 15
3rd - 10
4th - 8
5th - 5
6th - 4
7th - 3
9th - 2
10th - 1

Your system needs revising I think. 3pts gap between 4th and 5th, but only 2 pts gap between 3rd and 4th.
In my opinion, if we're talking the top 10 placements pay points, then it should be:

1st - 20
2nd - 15
3rd - 11
4th - 8
5th - 6
6th - 4
7th - 3
9th - 2
10th - 1

Yes finishing is good, but to be honest when I race I could not care less if I finish 2nd or 32nd, If I dont win I am furious.

ISLAMATRON =? JP Montoya

[jddh1]

If we look into any other series we see that no other series pays fewer amount of points to a winner.

I beg to disagree:

http://www.motorsportsetc.com/info/points.htm

Notice, in Nascar, IRL, AMAs, you get points just for starting. In MotoGP, the top 15 get points (that was good when they had 25 entries, but these days, that's kinda lame.)
F1, on the other hand rewards work more then the rest. You get points only if you get to the top 8. It's cruel, but I think better. Why get 10 pts just for making the starting your car (IRL)?

[ISLAMATRON]

If we look into any other series we see that no other series pays fewer amount of points to a winner.

I beg to disagree:

http://www.motorsportsetc.com/info/points.htm

Notice, in Nascar, IRL, AMAs, you get points just for starting. In MotoGP, the top 15 get points (that was good when they had 25 entries, but these days, that's kinda lame.)
F1, on the other hand rewards work more then the rest. You get points only if you get to the top 8. It's cruel, but I think better. Why get 10 pts just for making the starting your car (IRL)?

In those series they award points "just for starting" because it used to be the norm(still is with NASCAR) that there are more entries than grid positions... BUMP day at indy used to be quite a spectacle.

And your link proves what I said to be true... that along with WRC, F1 pays the fewest amount of points to the winner.

And awarding points through the field gives every fan, not just the hardcore ones a clearer picture of who the better midpack and backmarker drivers are. In 2001 nobody looking at just the WDC table could tell you Alonso was as good a driver as he was scoring a grand total of 0 points, or having Coulthard outscore a much better Webber in 2007 on the back of a couple lucky finishes shows just how inferior the low F1 points sytem is. It is an archaic system from the mid 20th century that needs revamping.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

As of late F1 drivers have been ingrained with the idea of getting maximum points, rather than going all out for the win, and yes I do believe that Massa or Hamilton would be much more satisfied with a 2nd place than Prost or Senna or Mansell, not because of their inherent makeup but because F1 has been reduced into a points collecting exorcise. Our most obvious example was Brazil last year where we saw Hamilton/McLaren doing everything they could Not to lose 5th place rather than gunning for the win. I can blame neither, as that is how the rules dictate towards their preferred course of action, but therein lies the inherent problem.

Maximum Points = Win Every Race, so your first point is a little counterintuitive, but I think you mean that they are told to collect as many points as is within a reasonable risk, I still see that as nothing more than just common sence, remove that and you remove a key tactical aspect of F1.

F1 has always been a points collecting exercise, its not like this has been a recent deveolpment. For 58years the system has been: Collect points, add them up, most wins. The only difference being exactly how the points are scored, how many, and how many results count.

I also feel that the example you made of Hamilton and his Mcaren team at Brazil was a rather poor one. The best way to ensure you don't finish behind so and so is to finish first, simple commonsense I'm sure you'll agree. THE REASON Mclaren did not aim to finish first in that race is because the car simply was not fast enough at that circuit to win. If they had a car capable of winning the race do you honestly think they'll not aim for that?! The reason Hamilton had to struggle to keep fifth place is because he qualified (4th I think...I don't remeber clearly) either way he qualified a few places behind his main title rival. Commonsence would therefore dictate that racing to win (the only way I can think of doing so if your car fundamentally isn't fast enough around a particular lap is to crack up the revs and block off cooling apperatures) would be foolish as you run a hgh likelyhood of retireing, leaving you with no points, no championship, and no race win either way.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Your system needs revising I think. 3pts gap between 4th and 5th, but only 2 pts gap between 3rd and 4th.
In my opinion, if we're talking the top 10 placements pay points, then it should be:

1st - 20
2nd - 15
3rd - 11
4th - 8
5th - 6
6th - 4
7th - 3
9th - 2
10th - 1

Yeah I know, I thought of it whilst posting...I didn't really give it any serious thought, it was just an off hand suggestion. Took me all of 20seconds lol...and yet I still think its better than a medals idea haha

I beg to disagree:

http://www.motorsportsetc.com/info/points.htm

Notice, in Nascar, IRL, AMAs, you get points just for starting. In MotoGP, the top 15 get points (that was good when they had 25 entries, but these days, that's kinda lame.)
F1, on the other hand rewards work more then the rest. You get points only if you get to the top 8. It's cruel, but I think better. Why get 10 pts just for making the starting your car (IRL)?

If we look into any other series we see that no other series pays fewer amount of points to a winner.

I beg to disagree:

http://www.motorsportsetc.com/info/points.htm

Notice, in Nascar, IRL, AMAs, you get points just for starting. In MotoGP, the top 15 get points (that was good when they had 25 entries, but these days, that's kinda lame.)
F1, on the other hand rewards work more then the rest. You get points only if you get to the top 8. It's cruel, but I think better. Why get 10 pts just for making the starting your car (IRL)?

Good point.

[Metar]

Points down to 8th is a good system, I believe. Considering that most seasons have one or two dominant teams (if not, then usually one dominant and another between it and the rest of the field), which sit on places 1-4 usually. That leaves us with 4 points-positions for the midfield, which is usually about 10 cars. With points-to-8th, there's just enough to let the bottom teams fight hard with a reasonable chance, and for the midfield teams to consistently battle over these points.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

That's true, using a system like ISLAMATRON pointed out, whereby all positions score points has two problems:

a) you score points puely for finishing the race (big deal)
b) (if you believe that F1 drivers are happy to just settle for the seasy option)the midfield loose the will to fight for that much desired final points scoreing position.