Points system change for 08?

[m7ammed]

Orignal Article here

Bernie to push for points system change
Monday, 01, January, 0001, 00:00

Bernie Ecclestone has criticised Formula 1’s current points system, arguing that it provides perverse incentives for drivers to settle for second place rather than fight for wins.

The current rules award 10 points to the race winner, eight to the runner-up and six to the third-place finisher, with the top eight all scoring points.
Under the system used from 1991 to 2002, the winner earned 10 points, with six points going to the runner-up and four to the third-place finisher. Only the top six finishers scored points.
The system was changed in 2003 following Michael Schumacher’s runaway victory in the ’02 championship, when he sealed the title at the French Grand Prix in July.
But Ecclestone believes the small differential between first and second places has made the sport less exciting, because drivers are encouraged to play safe rather than risk an overtaking move for the sake of an extra two points.
“With second place getting eight points it is not right that the winner takes only 10,” the F1 supremo told the Mail on Sunday newspaper.
“For 2008 I will propose a change.”
Elaborating on his reasons for backing a switch, Ecclestone said: “There’s not enough motivation for the driver in second place to go for the win.
“They weigh up the situation and decide it’s not worth the risk of falling off the road just for two lousy points.
“They reckon they might get lucky in the pits and sneak ahead that way, but that’s the only way they are prepared to go for the number one spot.
“All I keep hearing is people moaning about the fact that we don’t see an awful lot of overtaking any more in F1.”
Aside from discouraging overtaking, Ecclestone believes the current points system could result in drivers winning the title through consistency rather than speed – and that this runs counter to the spirit of F1.
“To me, it should be all about winning,” he said.
“The driver who wins the most races in the season should be the world champion.
“It’s as simple as that.
“Second places should only come into the reckoning if both drivers win the same amount of races.”
Ecclestone says he will push for a change in the system as soon as next season.
“Well, obviously not this season because the regulations are set, but I’d like to change it maybe for next season,” he said.
“As the president of the F1 Commission, I shall be bringing it up.”

Not sure really , it might be good to promote fighting for 1st place , but what happens if one car is faster than everybody then the season would early

 

[Blake]

If one car is faster than all the others then they deserve to win the title. Simple as that. If no one else can compete, then you did the best possible job and deserve the rewards.

The current points system is lousy. Renault have really thought about the points system when designing their cars, and their consistent podium finishes have won them four titles in the last two years. Congrats to them for thinking about the problem and coming up with a good solution, but I don’t think it is the way titles should be won.

Wins should count, and under the current system they just don’t. I would be happy if we went back to the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 points system. I think that rewards wins in just the right way, and a podium is still valuable if you have a weekend where things don’t quite go your way.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

I´d like to see a return to the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 too, but in addition, I´d like to see points given for pole position (2 points) and fastest lap of the race (1 point) as well.

 

[Small_Fryz]

Definely an interesting topic..

Personally i like moto GP points, but maybe F1 would be too penaized if you have a DNF..

 

[livemusic]

Yeah, maybe it's a good idea now that Ferrari isn't so superior to the other teams. I think that's what made them change the points system back then.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I´d like to see a return to the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 too, but in addition, I´d like to see points given for pole position (2 points) and fastest lap of the race (1 point) as well.

I'd take it a step further and take a leaf from SuperGT's book where the winner of the previous round and whoever is on pole position takes a weight penalty ... but then you'd get drivers willing to settle for a lower position on the grid purely to avoid the ballast ...

 

[Sureboss]

I like the current system barring the only 2 points gain for a win.

I think now we have a field of 22 cars only 6 scoring positions would make the teams beneath Ferrari, McLaren and Renault even harder so if we reverted back to the old system I think we could see the top 3 just pulling away from the pack even more.

 

[Danoff]

Seems like a dig at alonso really. He's been all about settling for lower spots as long as you finish decently. He's made that strategy work pretty well too.

 

[Impreza04]

I like the idea of an incentive for winning, but i also like to see smaller teams get small points here and there, so i'd like to see 12,8,6,5,4,3,2,1 for the top 8.

It does seem that the new system was to stop MS from walking away so easily, but on the counterside it played into Alonso hands..

 

[Jim Prower]

Perhaps they should do a three-race "Playoff" at the end of the season... top eight drivers all even again...

I jest, of course.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I like the idea of an incentive for winning, but i also like to see smaller teams get small points here in there

Yeah, I like to see the smaller teams try to get those last points, like that one point Toro Rosso got last season.

 

[Omnis]

Giving the small teams points defeats the purpose because then THEY would be discouraged from pushing it.

They have to FIGHT for those points! There's no room for socialism in F1!

 

[slackbladder]

12, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3 ,2 ,1 would be a good compromise or a point for pole and a point for fastest lap. I get what Bernie says but getting points is desperately important for lower teams and getting/keeping sponsor deals.

 

[Appie]

I'd take it a step further and take a leaf from SuperGT's book where the winner of the previous round and whoever is on pole position takes a weight penalty ... but then you'd get drivers willing to settle for a lower position on the grid purely to avoid the ballast ...

If you get pole in SuperGT, then you get a 10kg weight penalty. When a driver wins a race then he gets 50kg weight penalty. 50+10=60kg for the next race.

Its almost impossible to do that.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I wouldn't make it that extreme; maybe 20kg for whoever won the previous round and 10kg for whoever takes pole in the current round (or even 10kg for the win and 5 for the pole). 60kg is way too much for an F1 car, but some ballast would slow them down a little, but it's the driver that makes the car, not the other way around.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

I wouldn´t go as far as using penalties for succes in F1. It just wouldn´t work. I don´t understand how they can motivate teams to win when they get punished for it. Maybe if first place generated 20 points, and second only 8.

But I saw someone posting the 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1, wich seem pretty plausible. Adding then points for pole and fastest lap makes things more interesting.

 

[Appie]

I think that that the points system thats posted here would do well.

 

[SouL]

“The driver who wins the most races in the season should be the world champion."

What about using the old system in the late 80s where the driver that wins the most races (regardless of points) wins the championship? And in the event of a tie, the driver with the most points takes the title.

Senna won the title against Prost that way in the late 80s.

That would eliminate the incentives of playing it safe and scoring consistently rather than winning.
It would also make the front runners aim to win. Since it'd considerably lessen the impact on the title-running driver having a DNF in a race. (A DNF would not matter if the title-rival didn't win that race).
This would seriously make 2/3 of the championship way more interesting to watch (unless you get a driver that simply dominates the first half of the season).

 

[<_Spike_>]

Right, so in 2002 they change the points system to avoid another mid-season Championship end (which it was), and they now propose a system that will effectively give the "lead" driver a chance to win the championship half way through the darn season again. I want more over taking, but not if it means changing the points system again to the point where a driver could win the Championship by the half way point or there abouts

 

[Blake]

But they deserved to win in 2002. No point system would stop that. They built the best car and had the best driver. Simple as that.

 

[Tornado]

As Blake said, I fail to see what changing the point system in 2002 would have done if anyone did a similar feat under the current system. It might have taken another race, is all.
Therefore, I say change it back. It seems like a good plan.

 

[Pupik]

“The driver who wins the most races in the season should be the world champion."

What about using the old system in the late 80s where the driver that wins the most races (regardless of points) wins the championship? And in the event of a tie, the driver with the most points takes the title.

Senna won the title against Prost that way in the late 80s

F1 used a "Best 11 finishes out of 16" method to reward steady driving and preserve the value of a victory. The FIA played around with this sort of method a few times over the course of the World Championship, depending on the number of championship rounds in the season.

It also decided the 1964 Driver's Championship; John Surtees had one less point than Graham Hill, if all scores were counted, but his best finishes garnered more points.

Only in 1991 did that rule completely disappear, along with 9-point victories, although I don't think any titles since then would have changed if the 1990-spec point-scoring rules were enforced.

I don't expect any changes; I don't think the intended change from 6 to 8 points-paying positions was meant to "help" other teams, but to give drivers a reason to stay out and race, rather than withdraw from the event. Personally, I see less of it since 2003, although it's not easy to prove this.

 

[Boundary Layer]

I just find the timing of this idea of Bernie's interesting. The current system was brought in (supposedly) due to the dominance of MS and Ferrari in '01 and '02. Now that he's out of the picture there's talk of setting things back to the way they were.


I agree with Bernie's perspective on this issue though. They're should be greater emphasis on winning. I see nothing wrong with going back to 10-6-4-3-2-1. I don't think the current system really served it's purpose anyways. Ya, the '03 season was tighter, but Schumi and Ferrari still ran away with things in '04. And, as mentioned earlier, Alonso took advantage of the new tighter scoring in '05 to secure his first championship with a large number podiums in the latter half of the season instead of outright wins.
All the sport needed was for the 'best of the rest' to get their act together.

Someone mentioned that they like seeing the midfield teams fighting for those last few spots in the current system, but I don't think that would change if they reverted to old scoring. Fewer points = more desperation. Look at season end constructor scores from any season 94 through 02 - almost every team did manage points, and the ones that didn't score really didn't deserve to anyways. And under that system of scoring there was no lack of tight drivers and constructor battles. Honestly, I think the battles that took place between Hill, Villeneuve, Hakkinen, Schumi, Irvine, et al, were more thrilling to watch back then precisely because the points were a little more scarce. A driver behind in the points couldn't as easily afford to allow their rival take a win.... so some German's would resort to trying to punt their competitors off the track.
(I can't comment on 91-93 because I wasn't watching then)

Perhaps they should do a three-race "Playoff" at the end of the season... top eight drivers all even again...

I jest, of course.

Back to NASCAR for you!
NO CHASE!

 

[<_Spike_>]

But they deserved to win in 2002. No point system would stop that. They built the best car and had the best driver. Simple as that.

Where did I say it would've been a different result?

My point was, what is the point in a March to October Formula 1 season, if it's decided half way through? There isn't one. I'd rather see the points system stay as it is an over taking encouraged in other ways, rather then return to days where it's possible for a driver to take the championship and effectively make the remaining 3 months a waste.

Sides, how many drivers actually complained about the current points system in it's first couple of seasons? Not many I know that much, but Schumacher was certainly one of them...and I believe he still won that season.

 

[Blake]

But how does the current point system reward winning? It doesn&#8217;t. The points gap from first two second is not big enough.

Besides which, if the championship is going to be decided by the half way point, you generally know it after four or five races anyway. There&#8217;s no sense in having a point system that makes a championship look closer than it is IMO.

 

[mipuumal]

I would also like to see the Top 6 point scoring method return. But one thing they should really consider adding is a point for fastest lap.

I think it would get the championship contenders to push extra hard especially if they are behind another contender since otherwise they would loose even more points to the contender if he would get the fastest lap in addition to his better position.

 

[<_Spike_>]

But how does the current point system reward winning? It doesn’t. The points gap from first two second is not big enough.

Besides which, if the championship is going to be decided by the half way point, you generally know it after four or five races anyway. There’s no sense in having a point system that makes a championship look closer than it is IMO.

Then if that's the case why bother having a championship at all? Might as well make it an F1 Six Nations that's only five or six races long. I'd hate to see it return to Schumacher days (IMO the most boring Formula 1 days I've had the mispleasure to wittness) where championships were boring and pointless by the 50-80% mark in most cases. Closer championships are far more entertaining as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Blake]

Closer championships are more entertaining, or course. But the fact is that these teams are competing, sometimes someone will do a much better job than everyone else. Manipulating the points system to hide that fact is stupid, IMO.

I think the sport really should be about who wins the most races.

 

[XGT Taipan]

I'm liking Bernie's idea.

I'd like to see them go for judging the championship by positions, not points.

And Blake: I totally agree, if a car is faster, it deserves to win. That is what F1 used to be about back when Schumacher dominated, and when Prost dominated, and when Senna dominated.

Sure, the driver was good, but it was the team who recruited him, and the driver helped them make a winning car, so good on them. Cut the crappy rules and bring back old-school F1!

Spike: I have to disagree with you there my friend. I'd much prefer to see a good driver do what he does best; drive-in-anger from lights to flag, dominate everyone race after race. If you don't like it, then I suggest tuning in to A1GP.

F1 used to be about speed and domination, now it's all corporate BS and evening out the teams which makes it more boring. All the cars going the same speed is going to bring less overtaking, obviously. Can't anyone see that? Driver mistakes will determine the race, not good old fashioned aggresive driving.

 

[Sureboss]

Evening out the teams isn't more boring. I'd rather have the Super Agurris 4 seconds off the pace than 7 seconds a lap.

I think more than 2 points should be an advantage for a win, but I think more than 6/22 drivers should be rewarded or so many midfield teams will boil off the pace (Renault, Ferrari and McLaren would dominate more surely?

I think something like...

1st = 15 points
2nd = 10 points
3rd = 8 points
4th = 6 points
5th = 4 points
6th = 3 points
7th = 2 points
8th = 1 point

would work well.