Points system to be replaced?

  • Thread starter Danny
  • 356 comments
  • 21,502 views
If they do decide to this medal points system then the same will be done to the GP2 Series. Even though the GP2 already uses medals and the points system I believe. I do love the new cars becuase it give the other teams a chance to shine. Just as Brawn I think thats how you spell it. But that Kurz or how it's spelled system must go if they want to do a boost system give them a turbo charger just as in GP2.
 
Will GT5 have the NEW F-1 Cars? If your watching now you may see the Play Station Logo just as I did.
 
Will GT5 have the NEW F-1 Cars? If your watching now you may see the Play Station Logo just as I did.
No, GT5 will not have the 2009-spec cars. Codemasters has the licence to produce the game based on the 2009 season; it's a bit like the way the WRC games didn't feature Colin McRae because Codemasters had the licence for that, too. We may see historic Formula One cars up until 2008 in GT5, but there will be nothing from 2009 and beyond.
But that Kurz or how it's spelled system must go if they want to do a boost system give them a turbo charger just as in GP2.
It's spelt KERS, and stands for Kinetic Energy Recovery System. Personally, I'm refusing to pass absolute judgement on it until such time as more cars start running it.
 
Last edited:
No, GT5 will not have the 2009-spec cars. Codemasters has the licence to produce the game based on the 2009 season; it's a bit like the way the WRC games didn't feature Colin McRae because Codemasters had the licence for that, too. We may see historic Formula One cars up until 2008 in GT5, but there will be nothing from 2009 and beyond.
PD could get licenses for each individual car from the manufacturers. Live for Speed and CTDP (develops cars and circuits for rFactor) were able to get the BMW F1.06, even though SCEE had the license to the Formula One World Championship.
 
PD could get licenses for each individual car from the manufacturers. Live for Speed and CTDP (develops cars and circuits for rFactor) were able to get the BMW F1.06, even though SCEE had the license to the Formula One World Championship.
I think Bernie - or FOM at the very least - might have something to say about that. I'm pretty sure the licencing agreement would go through Formula One Management, because they own the commercial rights to the sport. If, say, Renault wanted to licence the R29 individualy, they may be able to do it, but because GT5 would be in competition to F1-2009 as they're both racing/driving simulators, there would probably be a few issues. Live for Speed and CTDP would probaly be unusual circumstances, because they're not game developers per se. They develop content for a pre-existing game, which is not the same as developing the game proper the way Polyphony does. It might sound like semantics, but I suspect that may be why they were able to get their hands on the F1.06. It wold certainly be very difficult for Brawn, Red Bull, Williams, Toro Rosso and Force India to licence their cars out to Polyphony because they're privateer teams as opposed to manufacturer outfits like Ferrari, McLaren (works Mercedes under privateer name), Toyota, Renault and BMW-Sauber.
 
I think Bernie - or FOM at the very least - might have something to say about that. I'm pretty sure the licencing agreement would go through Formula One Management, because they own the commercial rights to the sport. If, say, Renault wanted to licence the R29 individualy, they may be able to do it, but because GT5 would be in competition to F1-2009 as they're both racing/driving simulators, there would probably be a few issues. Live for Speed and CTDP would probaly be unusual circumstances, because they're not game developers per se. They develop content for a pre-existing game, which is not the same as developing the game proper the way Polyphony does. It might sound like semantics, but I suspect that may be why they were able to get their hands on the F1.06. It wold certainly be very difficult for Brawn, Red Bull, Williams, Toro Rosso and Force India to licence their cars out to Polyphony because they're privateer teams as opposed to manufacturer outfits like Ferrari, McLaren (works Mercedes under privateer name), Toyota, Renault and BMW-Sauber.

As far as I know, the ones who control the licensing of the cars themselves are the constructors/teams. The FOM has no say over it except for making sure GT5 doesn't use the name "Formula 1" anywhere.
Privateer teams are no different, merchandise in general is up to them, if they want to market their car (and hence their sponsors) in a different game, they can.

I don't see where it comes into the FOM's jurisdiction - they have nothing to do with what the teams can or cannot do, the only licensing they have control over is the brand Formula 1.
Otherwise, would you suggest licensing circuits from the F1 calendar would be the same?
 
This is completely off topic. I'd love to see the F60 in GT5 though, beautiful car. But I wonder how they will make the KERS work out, or if they will put it in at all.
 
This is completely off topic. I'd love to see the F60 in GT5 though, beautiful car. But I wonder how they will make the KERS work out, or if they will put it in at all.

:confused:

You know its off topic, but you posted it anyway. It's not as if your responding to an off topic post either?

The KERS system in the F60? Or will they put it in GT5?

Couldn't you have put it in the KERS thread?

This is the points system thread and has no relevance to your post whatsoever.
 
I called their discussion off topic, which it is, but added a little thing to it. There's no problem with that, now is there?
 
Uh, if there was no problem with it, the mods wouldn't have raised the issue.

Anyway, back on the actual topic, and I can't help but think the Winner Takes All system was destined to lose; indeed, it may have been intended t from the very beginning. This is one of Bernie's favourite tactics: he's got something he knows may be a bitter pill for the teams to swallow - in this case, the buget cap - so he suggests something even more out there - the Winner Takes All proposal - and then bargains the teams down to what he really wants. So now that the budget cap is in for 2010, they can quietly kill the Winner Takes All system. They did it with Sepang and Melbourne, asking for night races that they knew couldn't happen - the size of the run-off areas and things like trees in Melbourne would have cast long shadows that would be dangerous - and worked them down to twilight races. Bernie still got what he wanted, which was a better timeslot for European audiences.
 
*bumpity bumpity bump*

F1 set to adopt new points system

By Matt Beer Thursday, December 10th 2009, 18:52 GMT

Formula 1 is set for a radical alteration to its points system in 2010 if the World Motor Sport Council approves an F1 Commission proposal to give points to the top 10 finishers in each race.

In today's Commission meeting, chaired by Bernie Ecclestone and attended by FIA president Jean Todt, a new scoring system was put forward which will award 25 points to each race winner, 20 for second place, 15 for third and 10 for fourth, before descending 8-6-5-3-2-1 for fifth through 10th positions.

The change has been proposed to take into account the increased field for 2010, when the addition of the new entrants will take the grid up to 26 cars, its highest figure since 1995.

Assuming it is approved by the WMSC, the change would be the first revision to the points system since the number of scoring drivers per race was increased from six to eight in 2003.

The F1 Commission also agreed that its Sporting Working Group sub-committee should develop "detailed proposals to improve the show" that would take effect next year, and that "the FIA and FOM will further collaborate to enhance the communication and promotion of the championship to the media and its worldwide fanbase."

I think that should be 4 points for 7th. But 25 for a win? There's me thinking 15 was too much.
 
The FOTA proposal last year was best - 12, 9, 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Points down to 10th is ok I suppose, but making wins and podiums so stupidly high is almost as bad as the medals idea (unsurprisingly seeing as Ecclestone is involved once again).
 
I don't like the even disparity from 25 to 20 to 15 to 10. It should be 25-18-12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1.

Personally I wouldn't mind going back to 9-6-4-3-2-1.
 
I don't like the even disparity from 25 to 20 to 15 to 10. It should be 25-18-12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1.
Under this year's rules, first place received 100% of the points on offer for first place (obviously), while second place received 80% of the points on offer for first, and third place 60% right down to 10% for coming eighth. If you look at the proposed system, first place still gets 100%, second 80%, third 60% and so on.

Personally I wouldn't mind going back to 9-6-4-3-2-1.
That won't work. It might make the fight for points more competitive, but there are going to be teams who, in all likelihood, won't score any points in a season because only six of the twenty cars are going to get points. Teams like being able to say "we scored this many points and came in this championship position at the end of the year". If they can't do that, if they can't clearly intimate where they came and how good they are, they'll lose interest. Even if they're circulating in the lower places, the can still lay claim to having a World Championship position. If three or four teams are scoring nothing at all, there's nothing to separate them, even if one team is constantly just outside the points and another is twenty seconds off the pace There's nothing to distinguish between or separate them from the others. On paper, it won't reflect their true performance, and they need to use that performance to justify staying in the sport. 9-6-4-3-2-1 would only work if you could guarantee that the field would be so competitive that the podium - and possibly the points-scoring places - would almost always be different from race to race.
 
The FOTA proposal last year was best - 12, 9, 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Points down to 10th is ok I suppose, but making wins and podiums so stupidly high is almost as bad as the medals idea (unsurprisingly seeing as Ecclestone is involved once again).

Personally, this too.

-

Maybe that's what Bernie wants. I do see some logic in it... makes you really, really want to fight for points, as the MotoGP system does...

25-20-16-13-11-10- 9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1

It still doesn't prevent you from cruising to victory... but if you're laid up in 5th place and the guy behind you is in first, it gives you more of an incentive to actually win... and penalizes guys who don't finish even more.

I'm willing to wait and see how this makes the championship shape up.
 
Personally, this too.

-

Maybe that's what Bernie wants. I do see some logic in it... makes you really, really want to fight for points, as the MotoGP system does...

25-20-16-13-11-10- 9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1

It still doesn't prevent you from cruising to victory... but if you're laid up in 5th place and the guy behind you is in first, it gives you more of an incentive to actually win... and penalizes guys who don't finish even more.

I'm willing to wait and see how this makes the championship shape up.

Well the Moto GP has less of a points differential (percentage wise) from 1st to 5th place than the current F1 points system, so it's not really going to give a driver any more of an incentive to move up the grid and go for the win. Moto GP (5th & 1st) 11/25 = 44% vs Formula 1 (5th & 1st) 4/10= 40%

I'm also of the opinion that teams/drivers go for the best possible finishing position they can achieve regardless of how many points are rewarded for what position anyway. So I believe making the points spread too large between the podium finishers will only dilute the competition throughout the season if one chassis happens to be just a bit more competitive during the course of the season.
 
Last edited:
I never liked the change to the top eight getting points in the first place.

10, 6, 4, 3, 2 & 1 is all that is required for the drivers.

No one who finishes outside the top six deserves points for it. That just rewards those that are not good enough for being not good enough. That is not what sport is about.
 
^To be fair though, nowadays reliability is so good that a good drive from a backmarker team is no longer rewarded as much as it could be. Back in the day, the 6 place points system worked because reliability was so cruddy that teams like Minardi and Arrows could still grab the odd point or podium.

But I'm not sure whether going past 8th place is a good idea, do we just give everyone points for trying? Is there any proof that the drivers aren't already pushing to the maximum? Seems to me its the opposite - we see more battles down the field than anywhere else, and its always for 15th places or whatever.

I think they should just either keep it as it is or use the FOTA proposal. The points system isn't broken and no one has complained, so why do they feel the need to change it? Its not going to be helpful for fans to keep track of points with such odd gaps between positions either, and this is meant to be a sport thats "improving" its image for the fans.
 
I'll be interested to see if it makes much difference overall. I think with 8(?) more cars on the grid for next year, and with the above mentioned much improvement in reliability, there needs to be more reward for those teams lower down the pecking order. With the current points system it's quite possible that next year's overall points tally would include multiple teams scoring no points at all. Apart from the logistics of the next seasons garage allocations and the dividing of the loot for teams with no championship points, lower end teams need to score points to keep up team morale. A couple of points for a struggling team is like a win for a top team.
 
Do not like it. There used to be value in earning a point, now they will be given away like candy. The change is too drastic for me and the gaps are too big. 👎
 
Do not like it. There used to be value in earning a point, now they will be given away like candy. The change is too drastic for me and the gaps are too big. 👎
Like I said: if you look at the 2010 points and compare them to the 2009 ones, you'll see that each driver is earning the same percentage of points on offer.
 
If they'd put this last year Button probably would have won the title after Turkey! (I'm too lazy to work it out) God knows how early Schumacher could have won it with a gap like that! It's not going to help make the title chase any tighter.
 
If they'd put this last year Button probably would have won the title after Turkey! (I'm too lazy to work it out) God knows how early Schumacher could have won it with a gap like that! It's not going to help make the title chase any tighter.
Actually, it wouldn't have been all that different. It's not like they just changed the value of first place. I just read a pretty interesting article over at Autosport about what, exactly, the points change means for Formula One. Under the new system, every championship since 1999 would have been won by the people who won them. In fact, 2007 and 2008 would have been won by the same one-point margins that they were under the old system, and 2003 would have been decided by just four points. 1999 would have seen Eddie Irvine crowned World Champion, but he also would have been awarded that title under the 2003 system, when the value of second place was increased. So aside from the number of points awarded, it's not a super-dramatic change.
 
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 agree.

Looking back at brazil 08, massa set the fastest lap. With an extra point and one more win under his belt, that would have made massa champion.

Looking back at the whole 08 season, massa set 3 fastest laps, whereas hamilton only set one.
 
Back