Points system to be scrapped for 2009

[jddh1]

I think it should remain about points. You can favour a winner more by awarding him a wider gap in points, but points it must be nonetheless.
As I said, a season is about managing the situations as much as it is about jumping to opportunities.
If you see a driver make a mistake in front of you, then you jump at that opportunity and pass them. If you try everything you can to force them into a mistake and they don't commit one, then perhaps second place is not too bad after all because you were just not the best car+driver on the track that day.

[ISLAMATRON]

No, islamatron, that does not fly. Please remember, no matter how strongly you feel about a point, your belief does not constitute "proof." The winners in the instances you mention above still were those who scored the MOST POINTS in their best finishes -- NOT the most wins. Yes, it was most points in a sub-group of races, THAT is true, but the WDC was the driver who scored the most points -- their best FINISHES, not wins.

To clarify, rather than just rant, Please read you own "proof":

Only the best six scores from the first seven races and the best five scores from the remaining six races counted towards the championship

"best six scores" NOT "wins;" "best five scores" NOT "wins."

To cite some historical "proof" that POINTS counted, take 1961. Phil Hill, Wolfgang von Trips and Sterling Moss each won 2 GPs that year. Hill won the WDC on the basis of scoring the MOST POINTS in his best 5 finishes. Moss finished third, tied with Dan Gurney - who won NO races at all - again on the basis of points, not wins. Most telling, Giancarlo Baghetti won one race, but finished behind four drivers who won no races at all -- because of points.

In fact, that historical result refutes your statement

That is proof that for a long time F1 was more about Wins than consistancy

. In fact, the opposite was true. Moss won two races, Gurney none, but they finished tied, because of Gurney's consistency. Baghetti won a race; Bruce Mclaren, Jimmy Clark, Dan Gurney, and Richie Ginther won NO races, but finished ahead of Baghetti, because THEY WERE REWARDED FOR CONSISTENCY.

Do you accept my "proof"? Or are you still too closed-minded to see reality? Try 1964 when Clark won three races, Surtees two -- and Surtees was WDC because of TOTAL POINTS. He won fewer races -- and the WDC -- because he scored more points, was more consistent, than Clark.

The shear fact that they could in the past throw out their lowest scoring races shifts the importance away from consistency over the course of the entire season... it was implemented to take away the effects of Mechanical DNF's(which occurred more often back then, and also the fact that not everybody took part in every race). And when you stress points over a smaller number of races you increasingly favor the driver with more race wins(which give the most points per race). It is simple mathematics... do you wish to refute that?

I have no problem awarding points for positions and awarding the champion to the driver with the most points, but the relative points awarded in today's F1 for a win is too low, especially when they can not throw out their lowest point finishes.
Even in your 1964 example they gave 9 for 1st and 6 for 2nd. Oh great example for 1961 when Beghetti only started 3 races!

You are trying to imply that I said something that I didn't. I never said Wins are more important than points, I said wins should be more important than consistency. And F1 agreed with that premise for the most part until 1991.

[andartop]

So..everybody agrees, it's just a matter of how many points would be enough to make the difference between first and second. Given that we don't have 24 cars anymore I can't see why we shouldn't go back to the good old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system. Not 12, and definitely not 1000 (I mean, c'mon! That's just silly!)! Or, since the Teams agree on 12 points for the win, I don't see why FIA should listen to Bernie and not the Teams..

[Spencifer_Murphy]

ISLAMATRON, I'm sure you'd have noted that I said, and I quote:

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 am fully aware of the seasons where only certain results counted so your proof (altho throughly well researched) was wholly unnessecary. The reason only certain finishes counted was not to favour race wins but to discount an element of bad luck (in the past retirements were more likely due to less advanced quality control, whereas nowadays a mechanical retirement is a bit more of an irregularity) also:


Also I'm not so sure Hamilton being heavily fueled...his first pitstop was only one lap later than that of Felipe Massa & Heikki, and was in fact on the same lap as the Ferrari of Kimi Raikkonen.
http://www.formula1.com/results/season/ ... mmary.html
Also you know as well as I do that the conditions the drivers raced in were completely different to the conditions they qualified in, and while that is the same for everybody it is well known Mclaren favoured a slightly lower downforce setup, which clearly (Hamilton struggled to catch Vettel) put them up s**t creek without a paddle when it rained.

As stated elsewhere by jddh1 Q1 & Q2 are a different situation to the race, in the race Lewis' fastest lap was slower than that of both Ferrari's (only marginally mind) but fastest laps are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. For proof: Kimi Raikkonen had the most fastest lap of any driver last year...(what a lot of good that did him in his title chase!) What IS relevant are CONSISTANTLY fast laps, i.e setting fast laps for the whole race, not just in 1 out of 10 of them. which is what the Mclaren was unable to do come race day in Brazil (That is what I meant when I said they werent fast enough, not in outright pace, but in race pace). You still fail to provide any credible evidence as to WHY Mclaren would choose to aim only for 5th place when (and this is my evidence to suggest they didn't just settle for 5th) 1st place, if you're fast enough to challenge for it, would logically be the safest option as you don't finish behind anyone.

Just getting to the races seems extremely difficult these days, example Honda, SAR, Minardi, Spyker, Midland, Prost, Jaguar, and even BGP.

I don't see your point. In ease case you mentioned, you're talking about Financial difficulties, which is completely seperate to sporting issues, which is what this thread concerns. Financial issues are being combatted by the FIA's cost cutting measures, not by the points system.

Webber getting a 5th for Minardi and 2 points doesnt make him a better driver than Alonso now or When Alonso shined very brightly in Minardi with zero points

You are completely 100% correct...unfortunately nobody here said that Mark Webbers two points makes him a better driver than Alonso. What that result does mean is that on that day, Mark avoided the chaos and did a damn good job for his team. This is not to the deriment of anybody else who wasn't driving that day.

Points are arbitrary... All I would like is for the points system to reflect the situation as a whole in a better way. Staring at zeros across the board for Alonso & Minardi tells me nothing of his true performance in such a relativly crap car. Should he not be recognized for finishing 7th, 8th, 9th, or even 10th when his teammate could not even qualify within the 107% rule?

In terms of points - No he shouldn't be recognised for it, just like a brilliant performance by an individual Football player within a poor team doesn't get bonus points for trying hard. What they DO get is recognition for their talent, which in both cases, leads to a drive (or a transfer in fotball) to a better team, where a similarly gutsy performance is rewarded with a points paying result.

In short, Fernando's efforts in 2001 were rewarded, with a Renault dive, this subsequently lead to two WDC's.

In fact, the opposite was true. Moss won two races, Gurney none, but they finished tied, because of Gurney's consistency. Baghetti won a race; Bruce Mclaren, Jimmy Clark, Dan Gurney, and Richie Ginther won NO races, but finished ahead of Baghetti, because THEY WERE REWARDED FOR CONSISTENCY.

Do you accept my "proof"? Or are you still too closed-minded to see reality? Try 1964 when Clark won three races, Surtees two -- and Surtees was WDC because of TOTAL POINTS. He won fewer races -- and the WDC -- because he scored more points, was more consistent, than Clark.

Agreed, the best results were counted, If two drivers both won 3 races, the first driver got a 2nd and the rest were DNF's and the 2nd driver got a two 3rd places and the rest DNF's, in a season where only the best five results count guess who wins?

The driver with the most points, i.e, the driver who was more consistent.

You keep saying finishing consistently is more important than winning(consistently) yet you think giving points to all finishers is not important.

Actually I never said anythig of the sort...I chllenge you to quote me once where I have said that. What I HAVE been implying is that to win a championship you must be consistently fast. Take for example your own idea:

And if any driver wins 10 races he desrerves the WDC hands down.

I agree, if the driver wins 10races it means he has been consistently fast. This in turns means the driver/car/team package is fast AND reliable. SO...If in this situation the other 7or8 results are all DNF's then quite clearly the driver/car/team combo in question has made a right proper balls up of the situation and should NOT be WDC.

In another way take the same example:

Driver A: 10 races wins & 7 DNF's
Driver B: 8 race wins & 4 2nd, 2 3rds and a DNF

Surely driver B has done a FAR better job over the course of the season? Yes driver A won 10 races, an incredible achievement worthy of a WDC's...except in 41% of the season he made a total pigs ear of the race. Whereas Driver B won less races, still 8 is admirable, and then performed consistently well in the remaining 41% of races with the exception of one mistake resulting in a DNF. Putting such HUGE emphasis on race wins neglects the jobs of those who are doing a job well done consistently, which is what a SEASON is all about.

If wins were the only thing that counted the whole F1 season could be conducted in spec cars in a knockout style tournament on a single day...like the Race of Champions.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

So..everybody agrees, it's just a matter of how many points would be enough to make the difference between first and second. Given that we don't have 24 cars anymore I can't see why we shouldn't go back to the good old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system. Not 12, and definitely not 1000 (I mean, c'mon! That's just silly!)! Or, since the Teams agree on 12 points for the win, I don't see why FIA should listen to Bernie and not the Teams..

My thoughts exactly

[ISLAMATRON]

So..everybody agrees, it's just a matter of how many points would be enough to make the difference between first and second. Given that we don't have 24 cars anymore I can't see why we shouldn't go back to the good old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system. Not 12, and definitely not 1000 (I mean, c'mon! That's just silly!)! Or, since the Teams agree on 12 points for the win, I don't see why FIA should listen to Bernie and not the Teams..

Why is 1000 silly? I say 10 is Silly, especially when no other series in the world rewards that few points for a winner.

12 would be better than now, but that doesnt mean it would be the best system... how could we define "the best"

How about double for every position.

1 point for last, and double it for every position up.... at least that would be based on something rather than an artibrary 12 points for the winner and less for each position behind him for the top 8 only.

[andartop]

1000 points is silly solely based upon the width of the range in points between first and last. If we had something like 100 participants it might have made more sense. With 20 cars (or 22, or 24) it's just silly and more confusing, meaning that by the end of the season you'll get drivers with 10001 points, or 5678, or 4786, or 78 or 5, and there is SUCH A HUGE DIFFERENCE between these figures it's plain silly. Following your logic why 1000 and not a million? Or a billion? Why have to do all the maths? Look at what's going on with the Zimbabwean currency!!!!

[nae]

of course its all arbitrary
its a made up thing after all

it depends on how you want the teams to design their cars

if you want to reward targeted design for specific tracks with
winner takes all type wins then enact a wins only scoring system

if you want to have the teams design a car that competes in many different
styles of tracks (more old worldy than tyke tracks mind you) and therefore test
the car in a more complete fashion then stick with points

me i would go for 10-6 - - - (old system)

or 15 10 7 5 4 3 2 1

or some other way of increasing the points for a win

i do however suspect (as it was bernie that changed it to the current system)
there is a lot of 'Its MY ball' going on which negates speculation and throws
it into political power play which has little to do with the overall
'good of the sport'

[ISLAMATRON]

I am fully aware of the seasons where only certain results counted so your proof (altho throughly well researched) was wholly unnessecary. The reason only certain finishes counted was not to favour race wins but to discount an element of bad luck (in the past retirements were more likely due to less advanced quality control, whereas nowadays a mechanical retirement is a bit more of an irregularity)

When you favor the most points over a shorter season(same as throwing out the lowest points results) you are favoring the driver with the most points per race which in both this thread and other you have reminded me that wins pay the most points/race. Not to mention the first tie breaker is number of wins. Taking out lowest results inherently puts more emphasis on wins.

Also I'm not so sure Hamilton being heavily fueled...his first pitstop was only one lap later than that of Felipe Massa & Heikki, and was in fact on the same lap as the Ferrari of Kimi Raikkonen.
http://www.formula1.com/results/season/ ... mmary.html

They all pitted early for dry tires because the track was drying, not because they were out of fuel... He pitted later to be safe, because they were racing for 5th rather than the win, kimi pitted on the same lap because Massa was in the previous lap... pitting 1 lap later cost LH a position to Alonso... you should maybe watch the race again
http://www.formula1.com/results/season/ ... popup.html
But that is off topic

Just getting to the races seems extremely difficult these days, example Honda, SAR, Minardi, Spyker, Midland, Prost, Jaguar, and even BGP.

I don't see your point. In ease case you mentioned, you're talking about Financial difficulties, which is completely seperate to sporting issues, which is what this thread concerns. Financial issues are being combatted by the FIA's cost cutting measures, not by the points system.

What is so bad about rewarding points thru the field to more accurately show the true outcome of the season in regard to the midfield and backmarkers. A good points system in my estimation should allow me to look at the last 2 years points tables and accurately give me a good sense of if Sutil or Fisi is the better driver... rather than to just have zeros by their names for the last 2 years.

Webber getting a 5th for Minardi and 2 points doesnt make him a better driver than Alonso now or When Alonso shined very brightly in Minardi with zero points

You are completely 100% correct...unfortunately nobody here said that Mark Webbers two points makes him a better driver than Alonso. What that result does mean is that on that day, Mark avoided the chaos and did a damn good job for his team. This is not to the deriment of anybody else who wasn't driving that day.

Again I just would like the points system to properly reflect a drivers true performance over the year... but a comparison of 2 different drivers in 2 different years is somewhat irrelevant as you point out.
Unfortunately the point system as it stands is to vague to even "mean" what you claim it to "mean" in that instance. And what does it say over the season?

You keep saying finishing consistently is more important than winning(consistently) yet you think giving points to all finishers is not important.

Actually I never said anythig of the sort...I chllenge you to quote me once where I have said that. What I HAVE been implying is that to win a championship you must be consistently fast. Take for example your own idea:

And if any driver wins 10 races he desrerves the WDC hands down.

I agree, if the driver wins 10races it means he has been consistently fast. This in turns means the driver/car/team package is fast AND reliable. SO...If in this situation the other 7or8 results are all DNF's then quite clearly the driver/car/team combo in question has made a right proper balls up of the situation and should NOT be WDC.

In another way take the same example:

Driver A: 10 races wins & 7 DNF's
Driver B: 8 race wins & 4 2nd, 2 3rds and a DNF

Surely driver B has done a FAR better job over the course of the season? Yes driver A won 10 races, an incredible achievement worthy of a WDC's...except in 41% of the season he made a total pigs ear of the race. Whereas Driver B won less races, still 8 is admirable, and then performed consistently well in the remaining 41% of races with the exception of one mistake resulting in a DNF. Putting such HUGE emphasis on race wins neglects the jobs of those who are doing a job well done consistently, which is what a SEASON is all about.

I meant to say "And if any driver wins 10WET races he desrerves the WDC hands down." but i forgot the wet part... your drivers A(17) & B(15) have not driven the same number of races so I have insufficient information to come to a conclusion, but if Driver B can only win a race when driver A doesn't then he is not the champion. depending on circumstances of course. I may have misqouted you, so please forgive me on that account.

[ISLAMATRON]

1000 points is silly solely based upon the width of the range in points between first and last. If we had something like 100 participants it might have made more sense. With 20 cars (or 22, or 24) it's just silly and more confusing, meaning that by the end of the season you'll get drivers with 10001 points, or 5678, or 4786, or 78 or 5, and there is SUCH A HUGE DIFFERENCE between these figures it's plain silly. Following your logic why 1000 and not a million? Or a billion? Why have to do all the maths? Look at what's going on with the Zimbabwean currency!!!!

10 wins equals 10K points, what's so hard about that... Massa was given 6 wins so would have 6thousand and some odd points... not difficult at all... his 97 points tells me nothing about how many wins he had. If you think that a win is only worth 1.5 times more valuable than a 2nd place than 12 points would be sufficient. I dont hold that belief. And I rather not see half the fields total accomplishments for the season summarized by zeroes next to their names, so I support awarding points thru the whole field and to do that and still award proper value for a win 1000 points becomes accurate.

[nae]

its fair to say to the average viewer that 1000 points for a win is
just the same as a gold medal, that is nobody can match it by other means

and the argument seems to be wither it should be possible to amass the same reward
as a win without a actual win

you 'ISLAMATRON' appear to support the wins cant be equalled argument

I dont, wins can be equalled with 2 x 2nds or 3 x 3rds or whatever

it is silly to call medals anything else, it in fact confuses the argument
(perhaps thats the intent) medals, bananas, 1000 points call it what you will
its either

wins can be equaled
or
they are the only reason to race

[ISLAMATRON]

its fair to say to the average viewer that 1000 points for a win is
just the same as a gold medal, that is nobody can match it by other means

and the argument seems to be wither it should be possible to amass the same reward
as a win without a actual win

you 'ISLAMATRON' appear to support the wins cant be equalled argument

I dont, wins can be equalled with 2 x 2nds or 3 x 3rds or whatever

it is silly to call medals anything else, it in fact confuses the argument
(perhaps thats the intent) medals, bananas, 1000 points call it what you will
its either

In my proposed system 250 points are awarded to 2nd place so yes 4 2nds equals a win. So your accusation is false.

[Spencifer_Murphy]

They all pitted early for dry tires because the track was drying, not because they were out of fuel... He pitted later to be safe, because they were racing for 5th rather than the win, kimi pitted on the same lap because Massa was in the previous lap... pitting 1 lap later cost LH a position to Alonso... you should maybe watch the race again
http://www.formula1.com/results/season/ ... popup.html
But that is off topic

You are correct, I completely forgot thats when the track stared drying (I've had sooo much courework for uni atm, my brains a little fried lol)

Just getting to the races seems extremely difficult these days, example Honda, SAR, Minardi, Spyker, Midland, Prost, Jaguar, and even BGP.

I don't see your point. In ease case you mentioned, you're talking about Financial difficulties, which is completely seperate to sporting issues, which is what this thread concerns. Financial issues are being combatted by the FIA's cost cutting measures, not by the points system.

What is so bad about rewarding points thru the field to more accurately show the true outcome of the season in regard to the midfield and backmarkers. A good points system in my estimation should allow me to look at the last 2 years points tables and accurately give me a good sense of if Sutil or Fisi is the better driver... rather than to just have zeros by their names for the last 2 years.

your drivers A(17) & B(15) have not driven the same number of races so I have insufficient information to come to a conclusion, but if Driver B can only win a race when driver A doesn't then he is not the champion. depending on circumstances of course. I may have misqouted you, so please forgive me on that account.

Sorry my mistake again, brain fade, I knew exactly what I meant but didn't type it! (For whatever reason I got the basic maths of 17-8 wrong!)

I meant to say:
Driver A = 10 Wins, 7 DNFS
Driver B = 8 Wins, 3 2nds, 4 3rds, a 5th & 1 DNF

Driver A = 100 points
Driver B = 131 Points

Driver B has clearly done a better job over the season.

I see your point where u say that if Driver B can only win when Driver A has had a DNF then he's not a worthy champ. But I don't agree with it totally. In my view its not Driver B's fault if Driver A is clearly faster but unable to modulate this and secure more point scoring finishes because HE has over driven. If driver A didn't make such a silly mistake he'd be the champion, because he'd have had a buch of top results to accompany his 10 race wins.

Put it this way, we both know that to win a race setting fastest lap helps, but only if you can put in laps around that speed consistently, and you have to be able to manage your tyres & fuel etc (drive a little slower when needed), and you have to be able to make the most of bad situations (adverse weather, a seafety car etc).

In much the same way I think to win a championship is the same, you must win (drive fast) but you have to do it consistently, and when nessecary accept that 2nd or 3rd might be the best option avaliable to you, sometimes this is because of adverse conditions (weather, safety cars, package doesn't suit circuit). Do you see the parrallels that I'm trying to convey?

I agree that race wins should be the single most important thing, as I've pointed out and you've quoted, winning races gives maximum possible points. But I do understand the need to occasionally drive tactically for maximum avaliable points. Sometimes a defensive mindset is needed. Others take the view that the best form of defence is attack. Its all down to the team/driver tactics.

Forcing them to adhere to a "win at all costs" attitude, to me, would remove this aspect of the sport.

I think andartop hit the nail on the head:
We all agree wins are the most important part. Its just to what degree we think that should be the case, I for one don't feel it should be the be all and end of af the game. Sport, to me, is a combination of physical & mental attributes...not just physical strength or ability.

Take boxing...the greatest champions were all very clever tacticians in (and sometimes ot of) the ring. In football the bes managers are those who can tactically out fox the opposition, and in F1 Schumi owes a lot to the tactical wizardry of Ross Brawn.

The best example: Fangio's race @ the nurburgring in 1957. The race seemed lost, but (even though the points system rewarded the drivers LESS for a win than the old 10-6-4... system but admittedly more than the current system) he drove the nuts off his car to win...but he succeeed not only though his sheer ability, but also because of his tactical masterstroke of only fueling the car halfway in order to make a pitstop in his Maserati, whereas the Ferrari's raced non-stop.

[nae]

accusation ?

ho hum no matter your not really explaining your case well

and i disagree

but mostly not explaining

its your sport you can keep it

and by sport i mean made up circus , no elephants but plenty clowns

[nae]

back on topic

why the extra zero

100 would do rather than 1000

i dont even know why i asked i dont want to know