F1 Consistency Points Idea

[Tired Tyres]

And I don't accept that. You don't like it because it directly contradicts your assertion that race drives won't race for position. They will. It is what they do.

By the way, if the point is winning, why do they have points at all....

For a championship? What is that other than a test if consistency.

 

[twitcher]

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.

except it did. Well, didn't necessarily stop fighting for position, but the old system didn't encourage it. Correct me if in wrong, but when Matt Kenseth won the title, he did so with consistent, safe top 10 finishes - which enraged people and was one of the main things that led NASCAR to adopt the Chase format.

Added a poll. Let me know what changes you'd like to see in the system. If we see a large majority leaning towards one option, I'm more than happy to alter it.

I wouldn't change your system. It's all theoretical, and it's fun to debate this kind of stuff.

If anything, keep your system, and let's come up with a 3rd system so we have 3 to compare instead of just 2.

I think it's important to remember that for every imaginary course of events which cause the current system to not have a battle in the final rounds, or cause your system to have a battle down to the wire - we can equally dream up scenarios where the current system comes down to the wire, or your system doesn't.

In my opinion though, I prefer the current system - which tends to reward finishing well, while not severely punishing DNFs - as opposed to your system which doesn't reward finishing well as highly, but severly punishes DNFs.

Again though, the biggest issue here is the lack of real competition in F1, and not the points system.

Perhaps it would be a fun exercise to take a closely contested championship like the 2016 V8SC, and apply both your system and the current system to see what we get.

 

[Samus]

And I don't accept that. You don't like it because it directly contradicts your assertion that race drives won't race for position. They will. It is what they do.

By the way, if the point is winning, why do they have points at all....

For a championship? What is that other than a test if consistency.

I certainly don't think wins should be all that matters like Bernie's medals idea but I do think it should carry some extra weight. Perhaps I'd adjust the current gap from 25/18 to 22/18, something like that.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Old WEC points for top ten were 20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2 and 1.

 

[FutureF1]

I agree with that. As I've said before, every system has its ups and downs.

I guess I'll ask you guys then, what you think might be a good points idea?

If we find a popular system, then we can add that to compare to the 2 systems we have here.

I'll leave the poll open though just to see

 

[TRGTspecialist]

I guess I'll ask you guys then, what you think might be a good points idea?

Points awarded equal to the number of Facebook likes each driver gets after a race.

 

[Roger the Horse]

144-89-55-34-21-13-8-5-3-2-1-1

Because Fibonacci.

Otherwise, I'd probably go with 120-60-40-30-24-20-18-16-14-12-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, with 12 bonus points for pole, 12 for fastest lap, 12 for leading a lap, 12 for leading the most laps, and 12 for finishing on the same lap as the winner (this also counts for the winner, not just for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.); allowing a driver to potentially win as many as 180 points.

For constructors points I'd stick with the 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1 system, but use Famine's system based off of the lower placed of the team's two cars.

 

[twitcher]

144-89-55-34-21-13-8-5-3-2-1-1

Because Fibonacci.

Otherwise, I'd probably go with 120-60-40-30-24-20-18-16-14-12-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, with 12 bonus points for pole, 12 for fastest lap, 12 for leading a lap, 12 for leading the most laps, and 12 for finishing on the same lap as the winner (this also counts for the winner, not just for 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.); allowing a driver to potentially win as many as 180 points.

For constructors points I'd stick with the 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1 system, but use Famine's system based off of the lower placed of the team's two cars.

Couldn't that lead to an outrageous number of bonus points if someone got Pole, lead a lap, lead most laps, set fastest lap, and wins the race?

 

[Roger the Horse]

Yes. They were the best driver that weekend, so they get the most points. On the other hand, if a driver finishes second, but won pole, the fastest lap, led the most laps, and finished on the same lap as the winner, they would be only 24 points off of the winner.

 

[FutureF1]

AFTER Rd. 6

Ricciardo - 109
Rosberg - 104
Hamilton - 100
Massa - 96
Bottas - 90
Raikkonen - 80
Vettel - 80
Perez - 79
Sainz - 71
Verstappen - 67
Grosjean - 64
Button - 60
Kvyat - 57
Magnussen - 53
Hulkenberg - 49
Alonso - 46
Wehrlein - 43
Gutierrez - 39
Ericsson - 38
Nasr - 36
Palmer - 33
Haryanto - 22
Vandoorne - 13

Mercedes - 204
Williams - 186
Red Bull - 175
Ferrari - 160
Toro Rosso - 129
Force India - 128
McLaren - 119
Haas - 103
Renault - 86
Sauber - 74
Manor - 65

 

[FutureF1]

After Rd. 8

Rosberg - 144
Ricciardo - 141
Hamilton - 140
Bottas - 127
Vettel - 122
Raikkonen - 116
Perez - 112
Massa - 109
Verstappen - 101
Sainz - 85
Grosjean - 83
Hulkenberg - 78
Button - 72
Magnussen - 69
Kvyat - 68
Alonso - 58
Gutierrez - 56
Nasr - 52
Ericsson - 52
Wehrlein - 49
Palmer - 41
Haryanto - 31
Vandoorne - 13

Mercedes - 284
Red Bull - 241
Ferrari - 238
Williams - 236
Force India - 190
Toro Rosso - 154
McLaren - 143
Haas - 139
Renault - 110
Sauber - 104
Manor - 80

 

[FutureF1]

AFTER ROUND 16: MALAYSIA

Rosberg - 309
Ricciardo - 301
Hamilton - 289
Raikkonen - 259
Verstappen - 247
Bottas - 228
Vettel - 228
Perez - 225
Massa - 177
Hulkenberg - 174
Sainz - 168
Alonso - 157
Grosjean - 140
Button - 140
Gutierrez - 130
Kvyat - 128
Magnussen - 118
Palmer - 96
Nasr - 92
Ericsson - 92
Wehrlein - 87
Haryanto - 43
Ocon - 24
Vandoorne - 13

Mercedes - 598
Red Bull - 547
Ferrari - 487
Williams - 405
Force India - 399
McLaren - 310
Toro Rosso - 297
Haas- 270
Renault - 214
Sauber - 184
Manor - 154

 

[mustafur]

This idea gives an excellent benchmark for the contructors championship on real pace/reliability over the course of the season(it's more accurate then the way it is now to determine a cars standing over the course of the year especially at the back end).

But as a Drivers championship its more of a Reliability World championship.

 

[FutureF1]

This idea gives an excellent benchmark for the contructors championship on real pace/reliability over the course of the season(it's more accurate then the way it is now to determine a cars standing over the course of the year especially at the back end).

But as a Drivers championship its more of a Reliability World championship.

I have to say I agree. I really enjoy looking at this, but the championships are really won and lost because of reliability. If you saw back at the beginning of the year, even in the constructors standings, Ferrari was miles back thanks to reliability and after Spain, Ricciardo was leading despite Rosberg dominating the first 4 races.

 

[Conquerer]

I don't like this idea at all. Let us not forget that the goal at every race is to win. Getting one fewer point to settle for 2nd (or two for 3rd)is ridiculous. I think the current gap of 7 points from 1st to 2nd is perfect. Puts emphasis on winning but it's not everything and consistency can still go a long way. But when consistently finishing 2nd and 3rd or less wins a championship over several wins and decent consistency then I have a problem with that.

 

[Com Fox]

I like this, I just like how this is Championship is close and Riccardo, Rosberg and Hamilton can't afford to mess up have to stay on their toes. You even have Raikonen who can pounce on the top 3 if any of them loosen up for him (however I doubt it because of the gap of a Mercedes and a Ferrari) We are at the late game now and as we see from the points in real F1, there is really no point on anyone trying anymore who isn't a Mercedes.

I don't like this idea at all. Let us not forget that the goal at every race is to win. Getting one fewer point to settle for 2nd (or two for 3rd)is ridiculous. I think the current gap of 7 points from 1st to 2nd is perfect. Puts emphasis on winning but it's not everything and consistency can still go a long way. But when consistently finishing 2nd and 3rd or less wins a championship over several wins and decent consistency then I have a problem with that.

Wait... what? This point system is the definition of consistency finishes. If someone won by just finishing in 2nd all the time, then whoever was winning the most races did really awful racing for him to lose the championship in which case I think the constant 2nd place finisher deserves th win because he was much make consistent than the driver who mght've won more race but did **** on other races.

 

[Conquerer]

Wait... what? This point system is the definition of consistency finishes. If someone won by just finishing in 2nd all the time, then whoever was winning the most races did really awful racing for him to lose the championship in which case I think the constant 2nd place finisher deserves th win because he was much make consistent than the driver who mght've won more race but did **** on other races.

All of a sudden "decent consistency" is "did ****"? I'm talking about a bunch of wins and 2nd-4ths vs someone who gets all 2nds. At the end of the day, like I said the goal is to win races. To reward 2nd and 3rd place nearly as a win does not make sense. The current system already rewards consistency, but also, importantly, puts a proper emphasis on wins. With the 22-1 point system, a win loses almost the entirety of its value. Also reliability can completely destroy your season with this point system, whereas a system that rewards winning or performing well a little more can allow drivers to recover.

 

[Com Fox]

All of a sudden "decent consistency" is "did ****"? I'm talking about a bunch of wins and 2nd-4ths vs someone who gets all 2nds. At the end of the day, like I said the goal is to win races. To reward 2nd and 3rd place nearly as a win does not make sense. The current system already rewards consistency, but also, importantly, puts a proper emphasis on wins. With the 22-1 point system, a win loses almost the entirety of its value. Also reliability can completely destroy your season with this point system, whereas a system that rewards winning or performing well a little more can allow drivers to recover.

If that's what you mean then the guy who won a bunch probably should lose to the guy who always came in 2nd, while 3rd can balance it out, getting 4ths while the other guy just get 2nd.

I don't think the point system F1 has now is entirely fair, sure winning is important but I think it's too important with the gap from 1st to 2nd. Since winning 3 races in a row guarantees you that you can just not show up at all to the 4th race and you would still be in the lead or at worst 2nd but with a very small point difference, how does this award consistency which winning enough races allows you to be lazy and pretty much get no punishment for failure in a future race.

I don't by the whole "if the field was more competitive argument" either, that's only assuming we'll just get different winners all the time which won't happen especially if someone starts winning more than once we'll be right back to the problems with the current system all over again.

 

[Conquerer]

If a driver, who continues to lose to the winner, wants more of a reward, then perhaps he should win a race? As I said, the ultimate goal is to win. People remember who won races, not who came 2nd. A famous driver once said, "Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose."

 

[Com Fox]

If a driver, who continues to lose to the winner, wants more of a reward, then perhaps he should win a race? As I said, the ultimate goal is to win. People remember who won races, not who came 2nd. A famous driver once said, "Being second is to be the first of the ones who lose."

I won't deny winning has the most value but making it so important that 2nd has no real value over 3rd or even 4th in comparison, ruins any chance of an exciting season. There is no point in watching any racing if the championship winner is decided before the final round and F1s curret system makes it far too easy to get away from 2nd in standings, makes the whole F1 Championship a bore because I know that anything exciting or unpredictable won't matter towards the championship so what's the whole point in watching the rest of F1?

This point system gives me interest in the F1, while I would prefer only top 10 or 9 getting points over anyone it was rather close and any future racd has a massive impact on the championship and not a small one.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

I just like how this is Championship is close.

I'm not seeing this.

Under @FutureF1 's system Rosberg has an 8 point lead over Riccardo. Assuming reliability does not come into play (perhaps a naive assumption after the last race...), this is a fairly large points gap under this system - Nico could finish behind Dan in every remaining race and not lose the title. Whilst the 20 point advantage he has over Lewis is mammoth - no lower than 5th would be enough no matter what Lewis did. So Nico's hardly being kept on his toes here.

The only way I could see that as "close" is if reliability did come into play - then of course a single DNF could wipe out Nico's lead in a single race. I'm still not convinced that championships decided or controlled by reliability are exciting, though.

I don't by the whole "if the field was more competitive argument" either, that's only assuming we'll just get different winners all the time which won't happen especially if someone starts winning more than once we'll be right back to the problems with the current system all over again

Not sure what you're saying here. If the grid was competitive, you would expect to see multiple winners. And if someone started winning more than the rest, then it would no longer be competitive.......

I stick by my view that a competitive grid (or front end of the grid at least) is all that matters if you're looking for a close championship, not some new points system. And I'll repeat, you only have to look at 2010 to see that when you have a competitive grid, the current points system was not a barrier to one of the best championship battles in recent times.

There is no point in watching any racing if the championship winner is decided before the final round

Really? I couldn't disagree more, a championship battle is important sure but a decider is far from the only entertaining aspect of motorsport.

 

[Com Fox]

I'm not seeing this.

Under @FutureF1 's system Rosberg has an 8 point lead over Riccardo. Assuming reliability does not come into play (perhaps a naive assumption after the last race...), this is a fairly large points gap under this system - Nico could finish behind Dan in every remaining race and not lose the title. Whilst the 20 point advantage he has over Lewis is mammoth - no lower than 5th would be enough no matter what Lewis did. So Nico's hardly being kept on his toes here.

The only way I could see that as "close" is if reliability did come into play - then of course a single DNF could wipe out Nico's lead in a single race. I'm still not convinced that championships decided or controlled by reliability are exciting, though.

If you look at the gaps sure, but any low place is costly and might not be just reliability. Rosberg still has to try to defend his position because any slip up and it could mean the gap closes or instant drop.

Not sure what you're saying here. If the grid was competitive, you would expect to see multiple winners. And if someone started winning more than the rest, then it would no longer be competitive.......

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a competitive grid a race filled with close racing of different vehicles and drivers not different winners.

I stick by my view that a competitive grid (or front end of the grid at least) is all that matters if you're looking for a close championship, not some new points system. And I'll repeat, you only have to look at 2010 to see that when you have a competitive grid, the current points system was not a barrier to one of the best championship battles in recent times.

Of course a point system isn't the only thing as anyone can still dominate but I do think a point system is a factor when it comes to how easy or hard it is to secure a championship.

Really? I couldn't disagree more, a championship battle is important sure but a decider is far from the only entertaining aspect of motorsport.

If it's a big race (like Bathurst 1000 or Monoco GP) or a home GP then I could see the race even if the championship is already decided but take for instance when Sebastian Vettal secured the championship after the Japanese GP, except for the finale, I don't think there was any important race on the calendar and there wasn't any point of any of the drivers winning or defending their championship position since the championship is already decided.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

If you look at the gaps sure, but any low place is costly and might not be just reliability.

Sure, but DNFs don't discriminate between drivers' mistakes, and reliability. Which ultimately is the problem with any sort of consistency points system, it can heavily, heavily punish bad luck.

Rosberg still has to try to defend his position because any slip up and it could mean the gap closes or instant drop.

Well we'll agree to disagree then because I think the maths is clear, if Nico brings the car home he doesn't have to defend at all, there's very little pressure on him. I'd say he's under a bit more pressure going by the current real-life points system, ironically.......

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a competitive grid a race filled with close racing of different vehicles and drivers not different winners.

Well yeah, but if you're getting different winners that suggests that the grid is competitive - or the front end of it, at least.

Of course a point system isn't the only thing as anyone can still dominate but I do think a point system is a factor when it comes to how easy or hard it is to secure a championship.

If you can show me a season (either under current points or the similar 2003-2009 system) that had a competitive front end of the grid but the championship wasn't close, I might reconsider, but I honestly can't think of one. The worst I can think of is 2005, where Alonso walked the championship despite Kimi's McLaren being as good if not better than the Renault - but that was mainly due to reliability. A consistency points system would have made that year even worse.

If it's a big race (like Bathurst 1000 or Monoco GP) or a home GP then I could see the race even if the championship is already decided but take for instance when Sebastian Vettal secured the championship after the Japanese GP, except for the finale, I don't think there was any important race on the calendar and there wasn't any point of any of the drivers winning or defending their championship position since the championship is already decided.

Alright. Be careful what you wish for though - always wanting a close championship, even if it isn't actually close, could end up working against you. Say if F1 had a points system that all but gauranteed a title decider no matter what happened - would you still be interested in the rest of the season? There'd be no excitement or tension in following the championship, because you know it's only going to come down to the final race anyway. Why bother watching any more than when a championship is decided in advance?

I think sometimes you have to accept that if a team such as Mercedes dominates as much as they have, you have to admit defeat and reflect it in the points. Because if people watch 20 races and see Mercedes win 90%+ of them, but then see at the 21st race they could still lose it all anyway, many are going to think that's simply been contrived. And if anybody can't tell the difference between a contrived season and a genuinely close season, then every championship loses it's value.

 

[Com Fox]

Well we'll agree to disagree then because I think the maths is clear, if Nico brings the car home he doesn't have to defend at all, there's very little pressure on him. I'd say he's under a bit more pressure going by the current real-life points system, ironically.......

If Rosberg constantly makes high positions then I do think he does deserve the title but it isn't like Rosberg can just come last every race and expect the title. Think of when Vettel secured the title after the Japanese GP, it didn't matter anymore where he finished in any future races, he was going to win the championship anyway.

Alright. Be careful what you wish for though - always wanting a close championship, even if it isn't actually close, could end up working against you. Say if F1 had a points system that all but gauranteed a title decider no matter what happened - would you still be interested in the rest of the season? There'd be no excitement or tension in following the championship, because you know it's only going to come down to the final race anyway. Why bother watching any more than when a championship is decided in advance?

I think sometimes you have to accept that if a team such as Mercedes dominates as much as they have, you have to admit defeat and reflect it in the points. Because if people watch 20 races and see Mercedes win 90%+ of them, but then see at the 21st race they could still lose it all anyway, many are going to think that's simply been contrived. And if anybody can't tell the difference between a contrived season and a genuinely close season, then every championship loses it's value.

I think what you are describing is already in place with the NASCAR Chase for the Cup and I think there is a line between contrived and close season as the NASCAR Chase is definitely contrived.

As for your example depends on the Mercedes driver. If it was just 1 driver, then they would likely have still won the championship anyway with 90% of wins unless a guy constantly comes in 2nd and wins every race the 90% win guy loses and not just a 3rd place but like 20th position, and I don't think it is contrived if the guy in 2nd won as the constant 2nd place and the wins where the 90% guy failed makes me think not only is he a deserving winner but it was relatively close as it is a battle of a guy who performs amazing but barely wins vs the most dominate but fragile driver.

To me at least, a racing season is like a story, it has a beginning, middle and end, when the ending begins to be predictable, obvious ending I have no interest continuing on with the story, granted some individual races will have their own stories to be interested.

 

[FutureF1]

AFTER ROUND 17: JAPAN

Rosberg- 331
Ricciardo- 318
Hamilton- 309
Raikkonen- 277
Verstappen- 268
Vettel- 247
Perez- 241
Bottas- 241
Massa- 191
Hulkenberg- 189
Sainz- 174
Alonso- 164
Grosjean- 152
Button- 145
Kvyat- 138
Gutierrez- 133
Magnussen- 127
Palmer- 107
Ericsson- 100
Nasr- 96
Wehrlein- 88
Haryanto- 43
Ocon- 26
Vandoorne- 13

Mercedes- 640
Red Bull- 585
Ferrari- 524
Williams- 432
Force India- 430
McLaren- 322
Toro Rosso- 313
Haas- 285
Renault- 234
Sauber- 196
Manor- 157

Interesting to note, unlike real life, where only Hamilton or Rosberg could mathematically win the championship, 6 drivers here still have a shot to win it. Crazily enough, Perez and Bottas are just 2 points off...

 

[FutureF1]

AFTER RD. 18: USA

Rosberg - 352
Ricciardo - 338
Hamilton - 331
Raikkonen - 277
Verstappen - 268
Vettel - 266
Perez - 256
Bottas - 248
Massa - 207
Sainz - 191
Hulkenberg - 189
Alonso - 182
Grosjean - 165
Button - 159
Kvyat - 150
Magnussen - 138
Gutierrez - 133
Palmer - 117
Ericsson - 109
Nasr - 104
Wehrlein - 94
Haryanto - 43
Ocon - 31
Vandoorne - 13

Mercedes - 683
Red Bull - 605
Ferrari - 543
Williams - 455
Force India - 445
McLaren - 354
Toro Rosso - 342
Haas- 298
Renault - 255
Sauber - 213
Manor - 168

 

[FutureF1]

AFTER Rd. 19: Mexico

Rosberg - 373
Ricciardo - 358
Hamilton - 353
Raikkonen - 294
Verstappen - 287
Vettel - 284
Perez - 269
Bottas - 263
Massa - 221
Hulkenberg - 205
Sainz - 198
Alonso - 192
Button - 170
Grosjean - 168
Kvyat - 155
Magnussen - 144
Gutierrez - 137
Palmer - 126
Ericsson - 121
Nasr - 112
Wehrlein - 94
Haryanto - 43
Ocon - 33
Vandoorne - 13

Mercedes - 726
Red Bull - 644
Ferrari - 578
Williams - 484
Force India - 474
McLaren - 375
Toro Rosso - 354
Haas- 305
Renault - 270
Sauber - 233
Manor - 170

 

[Liquid]

I certainly don't think wins should be all that matters like Bernie's medals idea but I do think it should carry some extra weight.

Going back a bit but... they do carry extra weight. They're used as a countback tiebreaker. It might not seem like much but it's logical, valid and stresses how important one win more could be.

 

[FutureF1]

Final 2016 Points

Rosberg - 415
Hamilton - 397
Ricciardo - 391
Verstappen - 326
Vettel - 322
Raikkonen - 311
Perez - 303
Bottas - 275
Hulkenberg - 237
Massa - 235
Alonso - 218
Sainz - 215
Grosjean - 180
Button - 177
Kvyat - 165
Magnussen - 153
Gutierrez - 148
Nasr - 133
Palmer - 132
Ericsson - 129
Wehrlein - 111
Ocon - 54
Haryanto - 43
Vandoorne - 13

Mercedes - 812
Red Bull - 716
Ferrari - 633
Force India - 540
Williams - 510
McLaren - 408
Toro Rosso - 381
Haas- 328
Renault - 285
Sauber - 262
Manor - 208

Well the season is over! It's been fun doing this and I'm looking forward to trying it our again next year!

 

[FutureF1]

Sorry I haven't updated this so far this year! Here are the current standings post-Monaco GP. The system is the same as last year.

Vettel - 117
Hamilton - 109
Bottas - 88
Raikkonen - 87
Perez - 80
Ocon - 72
Ricciardo - 69
Massa - 69
Sainz - 67
Verstappen - 66
Hulkenberg - 59
Kvyat - 49
Grosjean - 47
Magnussen - 39
Palmer - 32
Wehrlein - 28
Ericsson - 22
Stroll - 21
Vandoorne - 15
Alonso - 9
Giovinazzi - 9
Button - 0

Ferrari - 204
Mercedes - 197
Force India - 152
Red Bull - 135
Toro Rosso - 116
Renault - 91
Williams - 90
Haas - 86
Sauber - 59
McLaren - 24