Points system to be replaced?
- Thread starter Danny
- 356 comments
- 24,230 views
- 33,155
- Hammerhead Garage
Well, he has wanted the driver with the most wins to be crowned champion for some time now. I kind of see where he's coming from; I hate it when a driver only needs to finish fifth like Hamilton to stitch up the championship. They're the best drivers in the world; they should fight for it until the very end.
- 24,238
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
He's always seemed quite lucid to me. Obviously, he's gone senile.
👎
👎
- 463
I support the idea of making wins count more, but this is not the way to do it.
I'd much prefer going back to the old points scheme (10-6-4-3-2-1) and maybe add something for pole/fastest lap.
I don't know why so many people think that giving points for pole/fastest lap would degrade F1.
I'd much prefer going back to the old points scheme (10-6-4-3-2-1) and maybe add something for pole/fastest lap.
I don't know why so many people think that giving points for pole/fastest lap would degrade F1.
- 24,238
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Under this new system only, at the most, only a third of the drivers will come away from the season with anything to show. I know they'll still score for their team, but they'll have less motivation to fight for that single 8th place point if it makes no difference to them personally.
Last edited:
- 5,632
- Malaysia
- MuzaffarMusa
Agreed, that was totally uncalled for. I mean even A1GP, the "World Cup of Motorsport" didn't have a point scoring system like that. I'm all for making the race more exciting, but this has the potential to go really, really bad. Like the old saying, "if it ain't broken, don't fix it!" 👍
- 29,795
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Nice one, Bernie... let's make F1 pointless! 💡 
Indeed.... :\
👍 I think that's the best idea.
- 8,835
- Northamptonshire
- AlexGibbo27
It means people sitting comfortably in 3rd arent going to coast to the finish anymore, theyre more likely to go for it and go for the win. However, the lad has lost it. Give a point for pole, point for fastest lap, and top 6 points:
10
8
6
3
2
1
10
8
6
3
2
1
- 19,816
- Alabamamania
First they want to emphasize winning, then they'll complain next year that the championship was sewn up too early, and ratings were down. So then they take away the best-11-scores, and give 10 for a win. But that's not enough, you've got to then shrink the gap to 2 points between 1st and 2nd. And then give points to the top 8...
Now that Schumacher's no longer mopping up the floor with winner's trophies, just give the winner 15 points, and leave the rest of the scores alone, add a point for pole, a point for fastest lap, and...to spice things up, a point to the driver for the most positions gained from their initial starting position; with the caveat that the slowest qualifier is ineligible for that particular point (to prevent sandbagging).
Now that Schumacher's no longer mopping up the floor with winner's trophies, just give the winner 15 points, and leave the rest of the scores alone, add a point for pole, a point for fastest lap, and...to spice things up, a point to the driver for the most positions gained from their initial starting position; with the caveat that the slowest qualifier is ineligible for that particular point (to prevent sandbagging).
Last edited:
- 23,800
- Philippines
If you get lots of points for the most overtakes, you'll want to start from the back to ensure you get that.
Limiting this to a gold-silver-bronze thing will just turn off the minor players. There's a reason you give points all the way down to 8... because you want everyone to try their best to get that 8th spot.
The problem with people "cruising" in 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th is due to the spread of the field and the nature of aero-grip. You're obviously not going to risk crashing out to gain a few more points (or a shinier medal) if you can't catch up to the guy ahead of you or... if you can... you can't pass safely.
Yet, we've already seen some spectacular overtakes this season from some of the front-runners... and even more from the midfielders...
Why not just make the math more interesting? Give points up to 12th place... 15 - 12 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 ...even more incentive for guys to not give up if they're bumped to the back of the pack, because they can still salvage a race from the most hopeless of positions. Also gives you much more incentive to go for a win instead of cruising, because of the huge points differential between first and third.
Limiting this to a gold-silver-bronze thing will just turn off the minor players. There's a reason you give points all the way down to 8... because you want everyone to try their best to get that 8th spot.
The problem with people "cruising" in 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th is due to the spread of the field and the nature of aero-grip. You're obviously not going to risk crashing out to gain a few more points (or a shinier medal) if you can't catch up to the guy ahead of you or... if you can... you can't pass safely.
Yet, we've already seen some spectacular overtakes this season from some of the front-runners... and even more from the midfielders...
Why not just make the math more interesting? Give points up to 12th place... 15 - 12 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 ...even more incentive for guys to not give up if they're bumped to the back of the pack, because they can still salvage a race from the most hopeless of positions. Also gives you much more incentive to go for a win instead of cruising, because of the huge points differential between first and third.
- 2,976
- Sweden
I think Bernie has some point in what he suggests, but I don´t think it´s the better way forward. Like Pupik said, I think they´ll quickly see that the championship was settled halfway through the season, and then change the system again.
I´d rather see points for pole and fastest lap. They could also have some special races (especially tough races, where there tend to be fewer finishers, like Monaco) where they award points to the top eight halfway through the race (lap 39 at Monaco).
I´d rather see points for pole and fastest lap. They could also have some special races (especially tough races, where there tend to be fewer finishers, like Monaco) where they award points to the top eight halfway through the race (lap 39 at Monaco).
- 24,238
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Another thing i've just thought about. This new medals system that Ecclestone is proposing, the FIA haven't agreed to it yet by the way, doesn't reward consistency like a point system does. It almost negates the whole engine to last 2 (or 3) race meetings. The better teams could now build a engine that performs exceptionally well for one race but quite possibly fails for the next (and maybe he one after that) but still gives the driver enough wins to clinch the championship - 5 or 6 wins.
- 3,118
- Sunnyvale, CA
- GTP_Vaxen
f1.gpupdate.net:
Clearly this proposed change would have the opposite effect. Points were extended from 6 places to 8 in order to keep the title fight alive longer. Shrinking it from 8 to 3 would make the last couple races meaningless for purposes of determining the championship.
Roo
Premium
- 7,484
- Hampshire, UK
- GTP_Roo
Because I'm a bit boring I applied Bernie's proposal to this season:
Where there was a tie I placed the driver who scored the best non-podium result (so Glock beats Piquet with 2 4ths to Nelson's 1).
Would Bernie like to explain, for example, how Coulthard did a better job this season than Webber?
Code:
Gold Silver Bronze
Massa 6 2 2 Up 1
Hamilton 5 2 3 Down 1
Raikkonen 2 2 5
Alonso 2 1 0 Up 1
Kubica 1 3 3 Down 1
Kovalainen 1 1 1 Up 1
Vettel 1 0 0 Up 1
Heidfeld 0 4 0 Down 2
Rosberg 0 1 1 Up 5
Glock 0 1 0
Piquet 0 1 0 Up 1
Trulli 0 0 1 Down 3
Barichello 0 0 1 Up 1
Coulthard 0 0 1 Up 2
Webber 0 0 0 Down 5
Nakajima 0 0 0 Down 1
Button 0 0 0 Up 1
Bourdais 0 0 0 Down 1
Fisichella 0 0 0
Sutil 0 0 0
Sato 0 0 0
Davidson 0 0 0Where there was a tie I placed the driver who scored the best non-podium result (so Glock beats Piquet with 2 4ths to Nelson's 1).
Would Bernie like to explain, for example, how Coulthard did a better job this season than Webber?
- 5,603
- England, Warwickshire
- GTP_Sigma
I am struggling to comprehend the mindset behind Bernie here (not that I ever have mind 
) The previous 2 seasons have managed 3 drivers separated by one point and two drivers separated by one point. Thats a close enough finish as far as I am concerned, even if Lewis played it safe, he did run the risk of going too slow afterall and it turned out to be a rather close finish. The point system as it works just fine and if it were to change I would change it to include more positions eligible for points and give it a greater exponential, rewarding those top finishes but still allowing more drivers to fight for points.
[edit]
Had Nelsons tactical/lucky change payed off with a win this year rather than second he would find himself the next most succesful driver behind Vettel this season according to Bernie. One good tactical change and your set to finish in the top 8? Sure 10 points would help him but not close to the extent of what 1 win would get you under the new rules.
In fact, I think I am going to have to break out the rolleyes smiley
) The previous 2 seasons have managed 3 drivers separated by one point and two drivers separated by one point. Thats a close enough finish as far as I am concerned, even if Lewis played it safe, he did run the risk of going too slow afterall and it turned out to be a rather close finish. The point system as it works just fine and if it were to change I would change it to include more positions eligible for points and give it a greater exponential, rewarding those top finishes but still allowing more drivers to fight for points.[edit]
Had Nelsons tactical/lucky change payed off with a win this year rather than second he would find himself the next most succesful driver behind Vettel this season according to Bernie. One good tactical change and your set to finish in the top 8? Sure 10 points would help him but not close to the extent of what 1 win would get you under the new rules.
In fact, I think I am going to have to break out the rolleyes smiley
Last edited:
- 15,501
- UK
Stop fiddling with F1! We've had two of the best seasons of racing in a long time. I seriously fear for the future of little teams with a system which completely excludes them. Purely benefits those with bigger budgets who can target race wins.
Idiots.
Idiots.
- 24,238
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
Nobody except the constructors themselves give two hoots about their championship.
I can't remember off the top of my head which team won last years constructors championship, let alone the 30+ previous ones since i've been following the sport. I could however have a pretty good stab at naming the winners of the drivers title.
- 1,748
I think its the best idea ever..
NOT!
NOT!
- 10,373
- Manchester
- Ardius_
Hmm, so apparently people only care about the championship fight now? Rubbish, as 2008 is an excellent example, the interest was much more focused on the midfield runners, far more overtaking and competition there, with several ranking changes over the season, from Red Bull leading the midfield in 4th, to Toyota, to Renault and then Toro Rosso overtaking Red Bull (,Honda?) and Williams in one go.
Oh the irony, we finally have an excellent year of F1 racing and the main rulers of F1 think it was the worst ever.
They claim all these things that will happen in 2009 onwards, more overtaking, closer championship fights, etc. But none of that will happen at all, firstly because of the large differences in performance that will most certainly happen because of the massive rule changes, but now also because of this retarded new medal system.
At least if the top 4 positions were secured by the same team every race, there was still some interest lower down the field with the 5th - 8th positions. This also makes it much worse when someone like Piquet or Barrichello lucks into a podium and basically secures their position above all except the top teams because no-one else can possibly get onto the podium except in special circumstances.
Oh the irony, we finally have an excellent year of F1 racing and the main rulers of F1 think it was the worst ever.
They claim all these things that will happen in 2009 onwards, more overtaking, closer championship fights, etc. But none of that will happen at all, firstly because of the large differences in performance that will most certainly happen because of the massive rule changes, but now also because of this retarded new medal system.
At least if the top 4 positions were secured by the same team every race, there was still some interest lower down the field with the 5th - 8th positions. This also makes it much worse when someone like Piquet or Barrichello lucks into a podium and basically secures their position above all except the top teams because no-one else can possibly get onto the podium except in special circumstances.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Hmmm... maybe this is a good thing.
Each race, you'll have half of the midfileders on "Hail Mary" engine tunes... finish in the top three, and promptly blow up in qualifying for the next race... while the front-runners languish in 4th, 5th and 6th with no medals.
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,869
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
At least four different teams score points when you have points for the top eight. If you only had three for Gold, Silver and Bronze there would be no point at all in most of the teams even bothering to turn up at a race. At least under the current system everybody at least has a chance to score points at some point during the season.
- 7,719
As I wrote on F1Technical yesterday..
The medals system is just plain bonkers. Imagine this: A whole season of average results, everyone finishes where they should, and then rain strikes on the last GP, and Adrian Sutil's FIF1 wins the race. Suddenly, he's second in the championship?! Completely biased towards one-off results (especially as far as lower teams are concerned), and really, very unfair and a matter of luck.
Lets look at this year's championship(using stuff I remember - I can't double-check at the moment)[thanks to Roo doing the maths, I don't have to]? Ferrari and McLaren are obvious, but Alonso would be ahead of Kubica, Vettel just behind Heidfeld, and Rosberg behind the Bearded one thanks to his two podiums, and Sutil's almost-4th at Monaco could've set him up with a cozy position behind Coulthard.
Suppose a guy finished every race in 3th spot - and now a one-off 2nd or win by another driver sees him get a better position? A midfield team could put all their efforts towards one single race, get a podium, and beat every driver that didn't get one. Likewise, a team could be stronger than another throughout the season, but never quite lucky enough to podium while the other lucked out, and thus get beaten in the driver's standings.
The current system is pretty well balanced, in my opinion. An extra point for the win, perhaps, or bonuses for pole and fastest lap, would be a welcome addition to "encourage winning" - but as it is, with around a 1/3rd of the grid scoring, it's quite nicely balanced between the top-2 taking up the first four positions, and the midfield getting to battle for the remains.
At the same time, the "cruising for points" stuff is complete bollocks, in my opinion. No driver would give up a victory "just because he can get two points less", and it's unfair to accuse them of doing so. In a series that includes different cars, especially one where just two teams have a regular shot at a victory, only two-three drivers can win - but be sure that Barrichello in 14th place wants that win and drives just as hard as a Hamilton chasing the race-leader. But only one of those, after all, has the actual shot at winning.
Hamilton "could cruise to 5th" this season simply because he gathered enough total points previously to afford it. It didn't make the race any duller, as in the end he just barely managed to get 5th place - and it's not any different to 2006, when Schumacher still had that outside shot of winning. When a driver has a points lead he can, depending on the size of said lead, afford to relax a little, and rightfully so! The whole point of a points-system is to force a balance between reliability/consistency and outright speed, and with a medal system, everything will be compromised to create "one-off bullets" that might just win a race, but could just as well stay in the garage for the rest of the season. 4 wins at the start of the season, and the championship is nearly sealed come Barcelona!
Also, show me one other championship sport, Bernie, where the number of outright wins counts more. Even in Tennis, you have trophies for single events (just like F1 had since forever) - but the champion is the one with the most points.
Please, Bernie and Max, start digging your own graves and stop digging F1's.
The medals system is just plain bonkers. Imagine this: A whole season of average results, everyone finishes where they should, and then rain strikes on the last GP, and Adrian Sutil's FIF1 wins the race. Suddenly, he's second in the championship?! Completely biased towards one-off results (especially as far as lower teams are concerned), and really, very unfair and a matter of luck.
Lets look at this year's championship
Suppose a guy finished every race in 3th spot - and now a one-off 2nd or win by another driver sees him get a better position? A midfield team could put all their efforts towards one single race, get a podium, and beat every driver that didn't get one. Likewise, a team could be stronger than another throughout the season, but never quite lucky enough to podium while the other lucked out, and thus get beaten in the driver's standings.
The current system is pretty well balanced, in my opinion. An extra point for the win, perhaps, or bonuses for pole and fastest lap, would be a welcome addition to "encourage winning" - but as it is, with around a 1/3rd of the grid scoring, it's quite nicely balanced between the top-2 taking up the first four positions, and the midfield getting to battle for the remains.
At the same time, the "cruising for points" stuff is complete bollocks, in my opinion. No driver would give up a victory "just because he can get two points less", and it's unfair to accuse them of doing so. In a series that includes different cars, especially one where just two teams have a regular shot at a victory, only two-three drivers can win - but be sure that Barrichello in 14th place wants that win and drives just as hard as a Hamilton chasing the race-leader. But only one of those, after all, has the actual shot at winning.
Hamilton "could cruise to 5th" this season simply because he gathered enough total points previously to afford it. It didn't make the race any duller, as in the end he just barely managed to get 5th place - and it's not any different to 2006, when Schumacher still had that outside shot of winning. When a driver has a points lead he can, depending on the size of said lead, afford to relax a little, and rightfully so! The whole point of a points-system is to force a balance between reliability/consistency and outright speed, and with a medal system, everything will be compromised to create "one-off bullets" that might just win a race, but could just as well stay in the garage for the rest of the season. 4 wins at the start of the season, and the championship is nearly sealed come Barcelona!
Also, show me one other championship sport, Bernie, where the number of outright wins counts more. Even in Tennis, you have trophies for single events (just like F1 had since forever) - but the champion is the one with the most points.
Please, Bernie and Max, start digging your own graves and stop digging F1's.
- 39,085
- Application hell
- MP-Omnis
I think this system would work better:
Place number shall equal spankings received by Max Mosley. Least-spanked driver wins the championship. Drivers will push 100% for 1st place, even if they DNF in the process. Kinkiest drivers finish last.
Place number shall equal spankings received by Max Mosley. Least-spanked driver wins the championship. Drivers will push 100% for 1st place, even if they DNF in the process. Kinkiest drivers finish last.
