F1 Consistency Points Idea

[Com Fox]

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

You're still racing for points here but just in a different feeling. It's more of the line line of you are racing as hard as you can to retain your position, as securing the lead is much more difficult, and requires to you to be consistently at the top, Rosberg still isn't safely in the lead with this point system unlike with the current point system, where Rosberg can actually still be in the lead of the championship if he doesn't even race at Russia.

I took this idea for a point system in last years FIA WEC and the Mark Webber's Porsche Crew wouldn't of won the 2015 FIA WEC, It would go to Marcel's Audi Crew. Though Porsche would still win the Manufacturer's Championship.

 

[FutureF1]

You're still racing for points here but just in a different feeling. It's more of the line line of you are racing as hard as you can to retain your position, as securing the lead is much more difficult, and requires to you to be consistently at the top, Rosberg still isn't safely in the lead with this point system unlike with the current point system, where Rosberg can actually still be in the lead of the championship if he doesn't even race at Russia.

I took this idea for a point system in last years FIA WEC and the Mark Webber's Porsche Crew wouldn't of won the 2015 FIA WEC, It would go to Marcel's Audi Crew. Though Porsche would still win the Manufacturer's Championship.

Yeah I also did this with WEC and it was pretty interesting.

The idea of running consistently should be more important Than going out and doing well in 1 race then driving terribly the rest of the season.

Example: Maldonado vs. senna in 2012

 

[Roger the Horse]

You could conceivably have a champion who takes the title without winning a single Grand Prix.

Still entirely possible with the current points system, although at the moment the championship isn't really competitive enough for that to happen. With enough competition it'd be entirely possible for a driver to become champion without even scoring a podium, let alone a victory. ie:

Spoiler: Hypothetical F1 points

Ricciardo 12+12+12+12+12+12+12+12+12+12+12+12+12+12+12+12+12+12+12+12+12=252
Massa 0+25+0+25+0+25+0+25+0+25+0+25+0+25+0+25+0+25+0+25+1=251
Hamilton 18+18+0+18+18+0+1+15+25+18+25+0+4+18+18+0+25+18+0+2+10=251
Rosberg 10+2+18+0+25+1+18+1+18+0+1+18+15+0+25+18+18+2+18+18+25=251
Vettel 25+15+4+0+15+18+0+10+15+0+18+15+25+15+0+0+15+6+25+15+15=251
Raikkonen 15+10+15+10+8+10+25+18+10+15+10+8+10+8+15+10+10+10+15+1+18=251
Bottas 8+8+25+15+10+15+15+8+8+10+15+10+18+10+10+15+8+15+10+10+8=251
Kvyat 1+6+10+8+0+8+6+6+6+8+6+0+8+6+8+8+0+8+6+8+6=123
Grosjean 6+4+8+0+4+6+10+0+1+6+8+0+6+4+4+0+6+1+8+6+4=92
Verstappen 2+0+6+0+0+4+8+0+0+0+4+2+2+0+6+2+2+0+2+0+2=42
Sainz 0+0+2+4+2+1+0+4+4+0+0+4+1+2+0+4+0+4+4+0+0=36
Hulkenberg 4+0+1+0+6+0+0+2+2+0+2+0+0+0+2+0+4+0+0+4+0=27
Perez 0+1+0+6+0+2+4+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+6+1+0+1+0+0=21
Alonso 0+0+0+2+1+0+0+0+0+4+0+6+0+0+1+0+0+0+0+0+0=14
Button 0+0+0+1+0+0+2+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+1+0+0+0+0+0=4
Gutierrez 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+2+0+1+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=3
Magnussen 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+1+0+0+0+1+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=2
Nasr 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0
Wehrlein 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0
Ericsson 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0
Palmer 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0
Haryanto 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0

The fact that this is possible should emphasise how easily someone could win the title just by finishing second or third consistently while others are less consistent, even under the current points system.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The fact that this is possible should emphasise how easily someone could win the title just by finishing second or third consistently while others are off game, even under the current points system.

Given that the example you highlighted would require half a dozen drivers to consistently fail to score (or at least score poorly), I would characterise it as "theoretically possible", not "easy".

 

[Roger the Horse]

The example I highlighted was deliberately extreme in order to make a point about the existing points system. It wasn't intended to be in any way likely, just possible in a vaguely realistic scenario. One could have a 21 race season where one driver finished in 7th every race and the 21 other drivers all finished in each of the 21 other finishing positions over the 21 races and the driver finishing 7th in all those races would win the championship with 126 points while everyone else had 95.

A driver winning the championship with no victories but plenty of second places wouldn't surprise me at all. In a season as uncompetitive as one we've seen lately, I'd agree it'd be unlikely, but in one like 2010, with 3 teams in with a shot, completely possible.

In my opinion a more sensible driver's championship scoring system would go something like 120-60-40-30-24-20-17-15-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, making points achievable for those at the back of the grid, while providing a big incentive for drivers to push for higher finishing positions.

 

[FutureF1]

RESULTS AFTER Rd. 4

Rosberg - 88
Hamilton - 78
Ricciardo - 69
Massa - 68
Bottas - 61
Raikkonen - 59
Grosjean - 54
Verstappen - 45
Magnussen - 45
Kvyat - 44
Perez - 43
Vettel - 41
Sainz - 39
Hulkenberg - 32
Button - 32
Alonso - 28
Wehrlein - 27
Nasr - 27
Ericsson - 27
Palmer - 23
Gutierrez - 15
Vandoorne - 13
Haryanto - 8

Mercedes - 166
Williams - 129
Red Bull - 113
Ferrari - 100
Toro Rosso - 84
Force India - 75
McLaren - 73
Haas - 69
Renault - 68
Sauber - 54
Manor - 35

 

[Liquid]

You could conceivably have a champion who takes the title without winning a single Grand Prix.

F1 came close in 1982 and 1982 wasn't exactly a boring year.

 

[FutureF1]

Spain threw the championship wide open! Ricciardo and Rosberg are tied on points while the top 6 are within 10 points!

In constructors, Williams is on a great consistent finishing streak meaning they're 4 points off Mercedes!

This could get interesting if Ricciardo wins in Monaco with the new renewed Red Bull team.

AFTER Rd. 5

Rosberg - 88
Ricciardo - 88
Massa - 83
Raikkonen - 80
Bottas - 79
Hamilton - 78
Verstappen - 67
Vettel - 61
Perez - 59
Kvyat - 57
Sainz - 56
Grosjean - 54
Magnussen - 53
Button - 46
Ericsson - 38
Nasr - 36
Wehrlein - 34
Palmer - 33
Hulkenberg - 32
Alonso - 28
Gutierrez - 27
Haryanto - 14
Vandoorne - 13

Mercedes - 166
Williams - 162
Red Bull - 154
Ferrari - 141
Toro Rosso - 114
Force India - 91
McLaren - 87
Renault - 86
Haas - 81
Sauber - 74
Manor - 48

 

[Samus]

Yeah I still don't think this system is particularly fair, Rosberg won 4 races, a perfect start, he has one DNF and now he's tied with a driver who has finished no better than 4th. That doesn't reflect the results, to me.

You're certainly rewarding consistency but it doesn't seem fair. To me it's about finding the best driver and car combination of the season, not the most reliable and consistent.

In a hypothetical 5 series F1 championship can you honestly say Ricciardo has performed equally as Rosberg?

 

[FutureF1]

Yeah I still don't think this system is particularly fair, Rosberg won 4 races, a perfect start, he has one DNF and now he's tied with a driver who has finished no better than 4th. That doesn't reflect the results, to me.

You're certainly rewarding consistency but it doesn't seem fair. To me it's about finding the best driver and car combination of the season, not the most reliable and consistent.

In a hypothetical 5 series F1 championship can you honestly say Ricciardo has performed equally as Rosberg?

If this were a 5 race series, I would agree. Rosberg has outperformed Ricciardo. However, since this is a 21 race season, being consistently quick throughout will be more important than winning a few races then DNFing imo.

To me, every points system has its pros and cons so it's pretty much impossible to come up with one everyone will like.

 

[Com Fox]

Yeah I still don't think this system is particularly fair, Rosberg won 4 races, a perfect start, he has one DNF and now he's tied with a driver who has finished no better than 4th. That doesn't reflect the results, to me.

You're certainly rewarding consistency but it doesn't seem fair. To me it's about finding the best driver and car combination of the season, not the most reliable and consistent.

In a hypothetical 5 series F1 championship can you honestly say Ricciardo has performed equally as Rosberg?

I think it is totally fair, to me the best driver is one who performs well throughout the season. I'd rather have someone who hasn't won a race be in the lead instead of someone who had inconsistent results. Rosberg got a DNF therefore he payed the price with the other drivers getting dangerously close, makes it more compelling

I find it unfair that Rosberg suffered no championship consequences in the current system, he got a DNF that's the chance for other teams and drivers to strike and either overtake or be closer. You shouldn't be comfortable in the lead after winning 4 races in a 20 race championship, it proves how bad the F1 late game is.

 

[Samus]

You shouldn't have a comfortable lead after winning 80% of the races? It's obviously far from over with several hundred points still available but his performance so far should afford him a lead. Ricciardo has four 4th places and and 11th. Massa has finished no better than 5th, I just don't personally see how their performance overall is on a par.

 

[Com Fox]

Granted I don't think 11th place or lower should get points (I always preferred starting from 10 and giving points to the top 10) the Championship leader should always be on his toes, his performance in Spain barely mattered, he could've slacked off. In this system Rosberg would have still been fighting as hard as he can to increase the margin as one slip up would cost him greatly, makes it much more interesting to watch and give the other drivers the chance to make a huge comeback. In which in turn they need to push as hard as they can to get points they need to keep up the pressure and perhaps actually go for wins so Rosberg doesn't get the margin back.

Far from over? There hasn't been an F1 season with this point ystem (minus that one season where 3 drivers were at it) where the championship was easily predictable until near the end. The Australian GP gives away who are contenders and later races give away who wins, granted this would always happens under any point system but at least here there is glimmer of hope for the teams.

Getting a comfortable lead should be earned more harder, this is too early, maybe if it was a 5 race series than yeah but a 20 race series should not be that easy to get more than 25 points ahead of 2nd, no matter how much wins you get.

Riccardo and Massa both deserve it, they haven't had an really awful racing throughout (except for Riccardo's 11th because like I said I'd rather top 10 get points only), they are able to keep performing up there and not having and slacking races with poor awful results. I'd rather someone with 4ths take the lead over someone who got a DNF.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You shouldn't be comfortable in the lead after winning 4 races in a 20 race championship, it proves how bad the F1 late game is.

I think it proves that you still haven't got the concept of the new points; there are actually two more drivers per-race gaining on his potential misfortunes than there were in the old system. The proportions of the points haven't changed, the numbers just look bigger.

 

[Com Fox]

I think it proves that you still haven't got the concept of the new points; there are actually two more drivers per-race gaining on his potential misfortunes than there were in the old system. The proportions of the points haven't changed, the numbers just look bigger.

I do get it, but the gap from 1st to 2nd is like the 90's point system more than the 00's point system and that is where IMO most of the problem lies.

Granted I don't think 00's point system is perfect either and also has few issues, especially when Jenson Buttons victory, while I am happy for him as he is my favourite driver, it did feel like his period of poor racing performance didn't affect him in the overall championship.

 

[twitcher]

To me, many of these ideas for a different points system just seem like a bandaide to add a sense of excitement to rather dull seasons.

If we were in the midst of a season where up to 8 drivers or more had legit chances of winning races, the points would look very different and discussions regarding the system would be very different. To me, that's an indication that there's something wrong with F1, not something wrong with the points system.

I also don't think the arguement "look at the lead Rosberg has after only 5 rounds," is a valid reason to change the system. Yes, his lead is big. But as things in F1 stand right now, he is one of two drivers who are heavily favoured (we'll see if things change in Monaco and Canada) to win, and his main rival has had some poor luck.

If Hamilton had finished 2nd to all of Rosberg's wins, then the gap would be smaller, and in theory, Hamilton would just have to echo Rosberg with 4 wins of his own to tie the championship.

The fact that both Hamilton and Rosberg DNF'd in Spain is just another case of the strange circumstances that have taken place so far this year. If Hamilton would have won while Rosberg DNF'd, again, the points would look different, and the discussion would be different.

Let's imagine a hypothetical season, under a 22, 21, 20... point system. Let's say Rosberg wins the first 4 races, and Hamilton finishes 2nd each time - giving Rosberg a 4 point lead. Now, let's imagine at round 5, Rosberg gets Maldonado'd by someone and DNFs while Hamilton wins - which would give Hamilton and 18 point advantage over Rosberg. 18 points, with only 16 rounds remaining!! Rosberg could literally win every single remain round (imagining a 21 round season), and all Hamilton would have to do is cruise to 2nd in every race and still win the championship. You would have 20 wins with one DNF finish second to 1 win and 20 2nds. That just doesn't sit right with me.

With the current system, if a driver has a poor result, they can still take significant chunks out of a rival's points total by winning races. In a system where the points difference is minimal between positions, it becomes increasingly difficult to recover from one bad race. On one hand, I like the idea of consistency, but not if the trade-off is that one bad race can ruin the season (and let's face it, we all know "one bad race" can happen for a million reasons, many of them completely out of the driver's control).

Any sport where there is a championship table, with points awarded after each event, is always going to lead to scenarios where the "champion" is decided before the final round more times than not. Hockey, Baseball, Basketball, Football, Soccer....this happens almost every single year. Often times, top teams barely compete in final games once they've locked up their position. The reason we celebrate seasons which come down to the final minute of the final game is because they are rare - and that's what makes them special. Also, the reason we don't get too hung up on teams clinching titles before the end of the season is because in most other sports, there are playoffs, with a completely different type of rewards system. I've tried to wrap my head around the idea of playoffs in motorsports, and I just can't warm up to it.

So like I said, I don't think there is much wrong with the points system - the issue most people have, in my opinion, stem from problems due to the lack of real competition in F1, and not from the way the points are handed out.

Edit: just as an aside. Under the current system, with his win, Max went from 10th to 6th in points. Under the 22, 21, 20 system, he went from 8th to 7th. At this point in the season, a win gaining a driver 1 spot in the standings doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Com Fox]

Your saying as if Hamilton can just go on cruise mode with that 18 Point Lead over Rosberg (which might mean nothing at all if none of the Ferrari's were retired as they would still be in contention), he has chances to slip up or not do so well and if that happens than a lot of drivers are in contention to win again and if it doesn't happen and Lewis just ends up being flawless then I'd say he deserves the championship win. Lewis with an 18 Point Lead is only guaranteed 1 race of slacking off. Rosberg is given 2 races of slacking off and pretty much used 1 of them with a DNF.

I do agree that a lack of competition is a part of the problem but I don't think it is all of it, as if the cars are balanced, there are problems with the massive penalty 2nd gets, if 2nd got more points (like in 20) than it wouldn't be a problem as much.

Granted like I said it before and mentioned before in the other F1 points thread, I would do it differently than just every driver gets points. Though I'd change it a bit and award the Top 9 with 10 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 -4 - 3 - 2 - 1 with an extra point for the fastest lap OR pole position (I'm divided on that), that gap from 10 to 8, is there so 2nd can't just tie for the lead if he made the fastest lap or got pole.

 

[Tired Tyres]

You shouldn't have a comfortable lead after winning 80% of the races? It's obviously far from over with several hundred points still available but his performance so far should afford him a lead. Ricciardo has four 4th places and and 11th. Massa has finished no better than 5th, I just don't personally see how their performance overall is on a par.

It's completely fair. There is one point per position. That is the definition of fair. It is exaggerated points spreads that are not fair. A position is a position.

 

[twitcher]

It's completely fair. There is one point per position. That is the definition of fair. It is exaggerated points spreads that are not fair. A position is a position.

But a position is not just a position. 1st vs 2nd should have a more significant reward than 9th vs 10th.

Like I said, the 1 poiny difference system opens up a situation where someone could win 20/21 rounds and still not win the championship...that is not fair

 

[Tired Tyres]

Yes it is. A position is a position. End of. Equally if you win 20/21 rounds you will be 20/21 points ahead. If you chuck that away, A you are very unlucky and B your sport thanks you very much for creating them headlines for it.

 

[twitcher]

Yes it is. A position is a position. End of. Equally if you win 20/21 rounds you will be 20/21 points ahead. If you chuck that away, A you are very unlucky and B your sport thanks you very much for creating them headlines for it.

End of my ass that's your opinion, it's not a fact.

In my opinion, not all positions are equal, and thus the point difference between them should not be the same.

I can't repeat it enough, but the system should never be such that 20/21 race victories does not secure they championship. If a driver can win 20/21, but have something happen to them like what just happened to Pic in GP2 Race 2, which ends up costing him the championship, that is not fair. someone who wins 1/21 races should never be the champion over someone who wins 20/21....end of! In my opinion

 

[Com Fox]

End of my ass that's your opinion, it's not a fact.

In my opinion, not all positions are equal, and thus the point difference between them should not be the same.

I can't repeat it enough, but the system should never be such that 20/21 race victories does not secure they championship. If a driver can win 20/21, but have something happen to them like what just happened to Pic in GP2 Race 2, which ends up costing him the championship, that is not fair. someone who wins 1/21 races should never be the champion over someone who wins 20/21....end of! In my opinion

In any point system (unless the point system had only decimals between them), if you win 20 races, you secure the championship.

It's not like other sports where you either win or you don't as consolations are there for 2nd and 3rd etc. I'd rather someone who won 1 race be champion due to consistent finishes of the Top 5 over someone who won 7 races and in the other races, the driver either crashed a lot or barely reached the top 10.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'd rather someone who won 1 race be champion due to consistent finishes of the Top 5 over someone who won 7 races and in the other races, the driver either crashed a lot or barely reached the top 10.

Makes you wonder why a driver/team wouldn't just settle for 3rd place when a Kvyat, Maldonado or early-Grosjean could deploy a complete game-changer in the final race.

 

[twitcher]

In any point system (unless the point system had only decimals between them), if you win 20 races, you secure the championship.

It's not like other sports where you either win or you don't as consolations are there for 2nd and 3rd etc. I'd rather someone who won 1 race be champion due to consistent finishes of the Top 5 over someone who won 7 races and in the other races, the driver either crashed a lot or barely reached the top 10.

It absolutely does not secure the Championship.

In a 21 race season, with 22 points awarded for 1st, and 21 points awarded for 2nd - if Driver A wins 20 races with Driver B finishing 2nd in those 20 races, the point differential between the two will be 20 points. If driver A then fails to finish the last race while Driver B wins it, Driver B will earn 22 points, taking a 2 point lead in the standings and win the championship.

So again, 20/21 race wins loses to 1/21 race wins.

Remember that it's not necessarily a case of Driver A "throwing it away", as we all know a DNF can happen for several reasons beyond a driver's control - I use Pic having to retire due to a crash which he was involved in by absolutely zero fault of his own as an example.

This is why this point thing is purely subjective. Some people value finishing, others value winning. It's all personal preference.

 

[FutureF1]

I can see your point @twitcher. Maybe by giving the lead driver a 2-3 point buffer(maybe give them the full 25 then 21,20 etc.) this could be solved?

 

[Tired Tyres]

It absolutely does not secure the Championship.

In a 21 race season, with 22 points awarded for 1st, and 21 points awarded for 2nd - if Driver A wins 20 races with Driver B finishing 2nd in those 20 races, the point differential between the two will be 20 points. If driver A then fails to finish the last race while Driver B wins it, Driver B will earn 22 points, taking a 2 point lead in the standings and win the championship.

So again, 20/21 race wins loses to 1/21 race wins.

Remember that it's not necessarily a case of Driver A "throwing it away", as we all know a DNF can happen for several reasons beyond a driver's control - I use Pic having to retire due to a crash which he was involved in by absolutely zero fault of his own as an example.

This is why this point thing is purely subjective. Some people value finishing, others value winning. It's all personal preference.

Except that that is so unlikely it would probably never happen and you know that.

 

[mustafur]

This point system removes the power of winning, for that alone it's terrible.

Drivers will know they don't have to fight as hard for their position knowing the effect isn't as much and the pressure to defend a lead will be removed.

 

[Com Fox]

This point system removes the power of winning, for that alone it's terrible.

Drivers will know they don't have to fight as hard for their position knowing the effect isn't as much and the pressure to defend a lead will be removed.

Only for the first 2 races, then the front runners actually have to put in effort to get in front of all their rivals otherwise you drop positions greatly. Anything it is the opposite of our current point system, this system harms the early stages while the one we have now harms the late game. Fighting for the win in the current system is more offensive purposes while this one is more defensive.

If I had 44 points after the first 2 races and the other guys are still in the Late 30s or 40s, I can't let any of them beat me, and they all want the most benefits of my failures.

 

[Tired Tyres]

This point system removes the power of winning, for that alone it's terrible.

Drivers will know they don't have to fight as hard for their position knowing the effect isn't as much and the pressure to defend a lead will be removed.

A racing driver that doesn't fight for position isn't a racing driver. In my view.

Having said that, NASCAR has always had a broadly similar points system and that doesn't stop drivers fighting for position.

 

[mustafur]

But in Nascar the racing is completely different.