F1 Consistency Points Idea

  • Thread starter FutureF1
  • 125 comments
  • 8,749 views

How Should I alter the system?

  • More points for 1st (25, 21, 20, 19, etc.)

    Votes: 5 29.4%

  • Points only to 10th (22-13)

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • Combination of both (25-13)

    Votes: 2 11.8%

  • Keep it the same

    Votes: 9 52.9%
  • Total voters
    17
FutureF1

FutureF1

1,837
United States
Connecticut
FutureF1
Hey everyone!

I've had this idea for a little while and I've been waiting for the new F1 season to start to talk about this.

The idea is to alter the points scoring system in F1 so that it rewards consistent drivers who might frequently finish out of the points.

By doing this, the value of one point is lowered significantly as all finishing drivers earn points, however this make finishing positions all the more important.

Here's how it works:
  • Points awarded from 1st to last 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, etc..
  • Drivers who DNF, NC, DSQ, DNS do not score points
I've made a few charts for previous seasons(2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015) and the results have been interesting.

2012 was quite exciting with Kimi Raikkonen leading the championship until the final round where the top 3 were tied in the end point versus the 74 point gap between the top 3 during the actual season.

2014 was also interesting as Hamilton only won the championship due to double points. Had there not been the DP round in Abu Dhabi, Rosberg would have been claimed champion of 2014.

Let me know what you guys think and I'll be updating this thread as the season goes on.
 
Last edited:
AFTER ROUND 1:

ROS: 22
HAM: 21
VET: 20
RIC: 19
MAS: 18
GRO: 17
HUL: 16
BOT: 15
SAI: 14
VES: 13
PAL: 12
MAG: 11
PER: 10
BUT: 9
NAS: 8
WEH: 7
ERI: 0
RAI: 0
HAR: 0
GUT: 0
ALO: 0
KVY: 0

Mercedes: 43
Williams: 33
Toro Rosso: 27
Force India: 26
Renault: 23
Ferrari: 20
Red Bull: 19
Haas: 17
McLaren: 9
Sauber: 8
Manor: 7
 
Last edited:
Why would points be deducted because drivers failed to finish. That's not making finishing positions more important.
 
GTPorsche
Why would points be deducted because drivers failed to finish. That's not making finishing positions more important.
Click to expand...
a). if this were implemented, it would prevent teams from pulling cars out of the race to save the engine or other things like that.
b). It means there is still a penalty for retiring. These are to reward consistency so if a driver frequently crashes or a car is unreliable. They don't still score points.
 
FutureF1
eg. Nico Rosberg will only be awarded 21 points as Dany Kvyat did not make the start.
Click to expand...

Say what now? How is that fair, when if for example we get to the last race, Hamilton wins with 22 points and takes the title by a point? Rosberg loses the title because Kvyat didn't start in Melbourne?
 
FutureF1
a). if this were implemented, it would prevent teams from pulling cars out of the race to save the engine or other things like that.
b). It means there is still a penalty for retiring. These are to reward consistency so if a driver frequently crashes or a car is unreliable. They don't still score points.
Click to expand...
Because there's a trend of having cars not start a race intentionally. Right...

It's not fair to penalize those that finish because one car had an issue before the start of the race.
 
Samus
Say what now? How is that fair, when if for example we get to the last race, Hamilton wins with 22 points and takes the title by a point? Rosberg loses the title because Kvyat didn't start in Melbourne?
Click to expand...
GTPorsche
Because there's a trend of having cars not start a race intentionally. Right...

It's not fair to penalize those that finish because one car had an issue before the start of the race.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I thought it might add something interesting but it's fairly obvious that others don't agree with me on this..

And I never said people don't start races intentionally. You asked why drivers who fail to finish have points deducted so I responded. I never said people pull their cars out before races begin.

EDIT: Reverted it back to 22, 21, 20, etc.
 
Last edited:
Just give the winner 22 points as there are 22 runners. That way none starts cannot affect the scores of the finishers.

I've kept a spreadsheet of average finishing positions using this method since 2004 but I give points for every position - even none finishers. The only ones who don't get points are drivers who get disqualified.
 
Tired Tyres
Just give the winner 22 points as there are 22 runners. That way none starts cannot affect the scores of the finishers.

I've kept a spreadsheet of average finishing positions using this method since 2004 but I give points for every position - even none finishers. The only ones who don't get points are drivers who get disqualified.
Click to expand...
Are there any championships that would have changed using this method? I have also thought of and supported a 22 and down points system but have never tested it out using previous seasons.
 
Last edited:
Working only from memory and therefore subject to not being remembered correctly.

Three Titles change hands. Hamilton would have won instead of Räikkönen in 2007 and Alsono would have won two of Vettel's championships, 2010 comfortably and 2012 in a last race that was between Alonso, Vettel and Räikkönen with 3 or 4 point difference between them at the start of the race..

The only other two really notable things is in Hamilton's real championship year of 2008 Robert Kubica led the championship until two races to go. His consistency would have kept him in it and it just shows how much BMW let him down by not developing the car.

The other was last year. Rosberg had a big enough lead all the way though that only by scoring very few point could he lose it. Of course that is actually what he did and Hamilton nicked it on average score as well as actual score.
 
Tired Tyres
Just give the winner 22 points as there are 22 runners.
Click to expand...

The current 25-point system is identical in benefits to the 10-point system with the exception of 2nd place which is now penalised more heavily. A strict inverse-points-per-position system like yours wouldn't inspire much racing, surely?
 
TenEightyOne
A strict inverse-points-per-position system like yours wouldn't inspire much racing, surely?
Click to expand...
And there's the issue V8 Supercars found in 2006 when Rick Kelly won the title without winning a single round (though he did win individual races). You could conceivably have a champion who takes the title without winning a single Grand Prix.
 
TenEightyOne
The current 25-point system is identical in benefits to the 10-point system with the exception of 2nd place which is now penalised more heavily. A strict inverse-points-per-position system like yours wouldn't inspire much racing, surely?
Click to expand...

It's not without faults, as detailed by @prisonermonkeys in that it does mean consistency is more important that race wins, if matched with much worse results, but I don't think a race driver will stop pushing for the best possible result. They are, after all, race drivers and only the top 3 step onto the podium. It's not so different from NASCAR which has always had a variation on that sort of scoring system. It doesn't stop them fighting for the win though.
 
Looking back at old seasons and seeing how they would change with a different system is mostly pointless because you're applying the system retroactively and not using it in the season. Drivers would have approached races and scenarios differently with a different system in place. For example there could be a case where in the real system passing from 6th to 5th might not have made a difference and they didn't bother, but if under a different points system it would've helped they might have put more effort into the pass.

Or similarly I vaguely recall moments where implementing team orders wouldn't have helped a driver enough and they didn't bother but again, if it would've helped under a different system, they'd have done it. They can't if you just apply a new system retroactively.
 
What's retroactive about doing it live during the season? Nothing. I'm perfectly well aware that races would have turned out differently. They run to the rules at the time. This is just an exercise of "what if."

I thought it up originally after the race Barrichello had to move over for Schumacher as a way of maybe making it unnecessary to pull stunts like that.
 
RESULTS AFTER RD. 2: BAHRAIN

Rosberg - 44
Hamilton - 41
Ricciardo - 38
Grosjean - 35
Massa - 33
Verstappen - 30
Bottas - 29
Hulkenberg - 24
Magnussen - 23
Raikkonen - 21
Vettel - 20
Perez - 17
Wehrlein - 17
Nasr - 17
Kvyat - 16
Sainz - 14
Vandoorne - 13
Palmer - 12
Ericsson - 11
Button - 9
Haryanto - 6
Alonso - 0
Gutierrez - 0

Mercedes - 85
Williams - 62
Red Bull - 54
Toro Rosso - 44
Ferrari - 41
Force India - 41
Haas - 35
Renault - 35
Sauber - 28
Manor - 23
McLaren - 22

EDIT:

This could shake things up with Ferrari's reliability looking weak in the first two rounds. Vettel and Raikkonene currently well down the order with Ferrari running in 5th...
 
Last edited:
Sorry for double post but wanted to share this:

I redid the 2012 championship and it came out with some pretty awesome results.

It really shows how reliability affected this championship and just how close it really got at the end.

Vettel - 391
Alonso - 391
Raikkonen - 391
Webber - 339
Button - 326
Massa - 323
Hamilton - 295
Di Resta - 276
Rosberg - 275
Hulkenberg - 274
Ricciardo - 246
Kobayashi - 242
Senna - 232
Perez - 226
Grosjean - 209
Vergne - 204
Maldonado - 202
Schumacher - 194
Kovalainen - 161
Petrov - 148
Glock - 140
Pic - 107
de la Rosa - 87
Karthikeyan - 57
D'ambrosio - 12

Red Bull - 730
Ferrari - 714
McLaren - 621
Lotus - 612
Force India - 550
Mercedes - 469
Sauber - 468
Toro Rosso - 450
Williams - 434
Caterham - 309
Marussia - 247
HRT - 144
 
TenEightyOne
The current 25-point system is identical in benefits to the 10-point system with the exception of 2nd place which is now penalised more heavily. A strict inverse-points-per-position system like yours wouldn't inspire much racing, surely?
Click to expand...
The issue though is that this really harms the late-game where the racing should have bigger impact. We see drivers out of the running of the championship much more faster, so what is the point of them racing? I'd say this system does inspire racing, as if you end up falling behind in 1 race, nearly everyone will overtake you in the standings as punishment, the best drivers have to be in the top positions consistently and while the early-game might be harmed, the latee-game becomes much more dramatic and impactful. Especially since if the Championship Leader messes up, he pretty much either lost the lead or is very close too.

Let's not forget the constructors championship is a huge joke with the 25 point system, You really only need 1 dominating driver and the other driver to be somewhat competent. As unless a team gets 2nd, and 3rd or 4th. You pretty much are in the lead of the constructors championship just by 1 driver winning the race.

prisonermonkeys
And there's the issue V8 Supercars found in 2006 when Rick Kelly won the title without winning a single round (though he did win individual races). You could conceivably have a champion who takes the title without winning a single Grand Prix.
Click to expand...
I really don't get how is that an issue, honestly that feels like an achievement. It will always be possible to win a championship without winning a single round if the people who run rounds pretty much let it happen. If you looked at the round results, sure Craig Lowndes won the most but it was only at 4 and if you looked at each race individually, Rick Kelly got the same amount of Top 4s as Craig Lowndes and when Lowndes and Kelly wasn't performing well, Lowndes was more shocking.

Let's not forget it was the season with Reverse Grids for most of the 3-Races. So there is a lot of more focus on consistent placing, and battling through traffic.
 
Last edited:
RESHIRAM5
Let's not forget the constructors championship is a huge joke with the 25 point system, You really only need 1 dominating driver and the other driver to be somewhat competent. As unless a team gets 2nd, and 3rd or 4th. You pretty much are in the lead of the constructors championship just by 1 driver winning the race.
Click to expand...

But the spread is identical to the ten points system with a slightly larger penalty for 2nd place.
 
TenEightyOne
But the spread is identical to the ten points system with a slightly larger penalty for 2nd place.
Click to expand...
The other places have a bigger separation from 1st place as well. That is a massive problem if 1st place is given a significant gap (7 Points) while the other positions are much smaller (3 then 2 then 1).

The older one had a 4 Point difference from 1st to 3rd, now it is 10 when in theory to the old system, it should be 6.
 
TenEightyOne
No, the points multiplied by 2.5 which multiplied by 4 is 10.
Click to expand...
True, though doing by multiples is probably a wrong move too as 10 is still a pretty massive gap no matter what point system you're looking at especially since the difference between 2nd to 3rd to 4th are 3. Increasing the old system by multiples only increases the gaps unevenly from the last point system (especially with what happened to 2nd Place even without the differences with 1st 2nd and 3rd would be 5 and then it will suddenly drop to 3) and causes the problems I mentioned above on my first post.
 
RESHIRAM5
Let's not forget the constructors championship is a huge joke with the 25 point system, You really only need 1 dominating driver and the other driver to be somewhat competent. As unless a team gets 2nd, and 3rd or 4th. You pretty much are in the lead of the constructors championship just by 1 driver winning the race.
Click to expand...

Under the old system 1st place gave you 25.6% of the total points available for a given race. Under the current system 1st actually gives you slightly less at 24.8%.

Under the old system, for a team to beat a 1st place driver they could finish no lower than 3rd and 4th. Under the current system they can finish no lower than......3rd and 4th.

As @TenEightyOne said the current system hasn't made 1st place more important as such, rather 2nd place has been penalised to give the impression 1st is more valuable. So I don't see how the current system has changed the WCC in the way you say.
 
The 2nd place penalty does leave a huger impact though. A team could even come 5th and 6th, if its teammate came 2nd to either tie or beat 1st Place., Now that is impossible.

1st Place has been made too valuable IMO, the later game in F1 severely takes massive damage as drivers are out of the running for the championship much more quicker, I never bother watching any of the 2nd half of F1 because by that point the Championship winner is clear, because even if he messes up, due to the point system he isn't at risk of losing his lead. We only had 1 season in F1 with this new point system where drivers from different teams fought for the championship until the end.
 
AFTER Rd. 3

Rosberg - 66
Hamilton - 57
Ricciardo - 57
Massa - 50
Verstappen - 45
Bottas - 42
Vettel - 41
Raikkonen - 39
Grosjean - 39
Kvyat - 36
Hulkenberg - 32
Perez - 29
Magnussen - 29
Sainz - 28
Wehrlein - 22
Nasr - 20
Button - 19
Ericsson - 18
Vandoorne - 13
Palmer - 13
Alonso - 11
Gutierrez - 9
Haryanto - 8

Mercedes - 123
Red Bull - 93
Williams - 92
Ferrari - 80
Toro Rosso - 73
Force India - 61
Haas - 48
McLaren - 43
Renault - 42
Sauber - 38
Manor - 30
 
I've thought about this more and it seems like it's Nascar's point system minus the lame chase format. I like it but I have always enjoyed the "race for points" syst
 

Latest Posts

Back