Why does every position not pay points?

[Earth]

Doesn't this make non points paying positions useless? If you are a title contender and fall well behind in a race, so far back a points paying position is unobtainable, why continue to race and pick up positions even though no points are offered, and accomplish nothing but using up your engine?

Formula 1 is the only motorsport that I know of that does not offer points for most or all of the positions.

 

[F1 fan]

There are many series that don't give points to every finisher. We've been over this before. I for one, am glad the way that F1's points system works. It makes people actually have to work for points. Unlike in Indycar where Bourdais was once given points despite not even starting the race.

 

[Earth]

There are many series that don't give points to every finisher. We've been over this before. I for one, am glad the way that F1's points system works. It makes people actually have to work for points. Unlike in Indycar where Bourdais was once given points despite not even starting the race.

Many series? Indycar, Moto GP, NASCAR, V8 Supercars, all award points to everyone. Formula 1 and the ALMS dont. But to be fair, the ALMS gives points to the top 10 finishing positions in each class, and there's usually not more then 10 positions in each class.

Why use one negative incident (Bourdais) to burn giving everyone points? Theres also the "start and park" guys in NASCAR. But I do think there are more positives then negatives.

So the 14th place team and driver is not working? I dont agree with that. Didnt Lewis Hamilton ask to park the car after falling far behind in one race because it was pointless to continue?

 

[GTPorsche]

ALMS and LMS also require the car to complete at least 70% race distance to get points.

But points doesn't really matter. Whether or not F1 gave points for everyone it most likely wouldn't change championship results.

 

[F1 fan]

Many series? Indycar, Moto GP, NASCAR, V8 Supercars, all award points to everyone. Formula 1 and the ALMS dont. But to be fair, the ALMS gives points to the top 10 finishing positions in each class, and there's usually not more then 10 positions in each class.

WRC don't. DTM don't. Pretty much every European series don't. And MotoGP do not award points to everyone. It's just that they have so few entries that it might seem that way.

Why use one negative incident (Bourdais) to burn giving everyone points? Theres also the "start and park" guys in NASCAR. But I do think there are more positives then negatives.

Because I think giving someone points, despite the fact that they did not even start the race is ridiculous. The start and park is equally ridiculous.

So the 14th place team and driver is not working? I dont agree with that. Didnt Lewis Hamilton ask to park the car after falling far behind in one race because it was pointless to continue?

And what of it? There have been plenty of recent races where people have found themselves at the back of the grid and worked their way through to the points.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Doesn't this make non points paying positions useless? If you are a title contender and fall well behind in a race, so far back a points paying position is unobtainable, why continue to race and pick up positions even though no points are offered, and accomplish nothing but using up your engine?

Formula 1 is the only motorsport that I know of that does not offer points for most or all of the positions.

Because it adds incentive - particularly in the constructors' championship. If every postition paid points, the overall value of those points would be less than it currently is.

 

[Northstar]

Don't they kind of award points to everyone even if they don't?

How else do they place drivers/teams who haven't scored a single actual point?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Okay, look at the bottom end of the teams' table from 2011. You'll see Virgin, Lotus and HRT all scored zero points. However, Lotus is considered to have finished 10th, HRT 11th, and Virgin 12th. The reason for this is because of the results they achieved. Lotus' highest finish was 13th in Australia, Monaco, and Italy, so they came 10th overall. HRT's highest finsh was also 13th, but they only finished 13th once (in Canada); hence, they came 11th. Virgin achieved no 13th placings - their best was 14th in Australia and Canada - so they came 12th overall.

 

[Pupik]

Prize money
Pit girls
Noise
Fans
Fun

Used to be good enough before championships existed. Well, I suppose there were no pit girls until sponsors got into the act.

NASCAR isn't really rewarding success by giving the 35th place driver one-quarter of the points a winner might score, it's just making the championship matter longer into the season. Granted, that had been the recipe since the mid-1970s, but I think that's like having a 256-team college basketball bracket.

 

[Ardius]

I think that the happy medium is to award 50% of the field points - it should be an achievement to finish in the top 10 or whatever and I think if you only give points to the higher finishers, it makes it seem more of an achievement.

I always like to think of when Mark Webber scored points for Minardi at Melbourne - it was like a victory to them to achieve it. Whereas if points had been awarded to all positions, simply finishing 5th would have meant a lot less.
There are plenty of other examples of small teams rarely scoring points but when they did it was more of an achievement.

Its nice to have goals for the backmarkers and midfield cars and giving them points just for participating devalues the points and makes it almost meaningless to finish 20th or 10th - sure they get more points but its bizarrely less impressive.

I'm also of the opinion that points systems should be as simple as possible. Ever since F1 switched to the 10-position points system giving 25, 18, 15, etc its become more difficult to quickly work out how the championship looks during the race. It was much easier when it was 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

In the BTCC, they also award points for pole position, fastest lap and leading the race - which also adds a little confusion for working out championship positions. I actually completely rely on ITV or the BTCC.net website to work out the championship positions as its too much effort having to remember all the various points and calculate it all.

Football has it right - 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, 0 for a loss. Nice and simple.

 

[Pezzarinho17]

It could be worse, Bernie wanted championship based on medals... Though I believe there were also points (as a form of tie breaker) for positions outside of the podium.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Doesn't this make non points paying positions useless? If you are a title contender and fall well behind in a race, so far back a points paying position is unobtainable, why continue to race and pick up positions even though no points are offered, and accomplish nothing but using up your engine?

Formula 1 is the only motorsport that I know of that does not offer points for most or all of the positions.

Why reward mediocrity? That is all you are doing when you give points out to everybody.

F1 offers too many points as it is. Only the top 6 should score points.

What is the point of anyone outside the top 3 teams taking part though?

How about they stop settling for 7th or 9th and get better than the teams in the top 6. That is what sport is about. Striving to be better, not tooling around at the back and scoring points for just showing up.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Even if you are dead last, egos, team management, sponsors, and the paying fans say otherwise.

Besides, there's always valuable data at the end of a race. Why cut yourself short on that front?

 

[peterjford]

I'm also of the opinion that points systems should be as simple as possible. Ever since F1 switched to the 10-position points system giving 25, 18, 15, etc its become more difficult to quickly work out how the championship looks during the race. It was much easier when it was 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 9, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Fixed it for ya.

 

[Liquid]

Fixed it for ya.

Agreed. Less points-paying positions means points are more valuable.

Unfair on backmarker teams given the bulletproof reliability we have these days, but points have been extended from 6th down to 10th place. Imagine how many more points backmarkers would have earned if they had used the current system. Even Ricardo Rosset would have earned 8 points in his terrible career.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

But teams like points, because points show a clear progress. If there are only six points-paying positions on offer, then come the end of the season, teams will find it increasingly difficult to find a budget, particularly if they are tied on zero points with several teams.

 

[mjm_98]

They are not useless as if multiple teams finish on 0 points cough cough last yeah cough cough average position put caterham 10th so every place still counts

 

[Ardius]

Agreed. Less points-paying positions means points are more valuable.

Unfair on backmarker teams given the bulletproof reliability we have these days, but points have been extended from 6th down to 10th place. Imagine how many more points backmarkers would have earned if they had used the current system. Even Ricardo Rosset would have earned 8 points in his terrible career.

This is why I think giving 50% of the field points is better these days because reliability is so much better.
Rosset wouldn't have earned 8 points in today's points system. Caterham, HRT and Marussia have all failed to score points even at high attrition races - so what makes you think Rosset would have 8 points? Williams barely scraped any points at all last year.

With the current points, its still an achievement to earn points but its at least possible for midfield teams to actually score them. Whereas the 8-place and 6-place systems would mean only the top teams would have any points at all.

There should always be a heirarchy with points:
Top teams should have the lions share.
Midfield teams should be able to score them on a regular basis but a relatively small amount at a time.
Backmarkers should struggle to ever score points.

This way it gives a greater sense of achievement for each type of team.

Don't they kind of award points to everyone even if they don't?

How else do they place drivers/teams who haven't scored a single actual point?

They are not useless as if multiple teams finish on 0 points cough cough last yeah cough cough average position put caterham 10th so every place still counts

No, because as soon as a team scores one point or one 11th, that puts them above the other teams. This is not the same as giving points to all positions:
Team A scores five 13th places
Team B scores one 12th place and a spread of 14th, 15th and 16th places.

If both received points for all positions with equal spread, Team A would be on top due to consistent finishes.
But going by number of positions or points only for 12th, Team B would be on top.

So no, its not the same as giving all positions points.

 

[Liquid]

what makes you think Rosset would have 8 points? Williams barely scraped any points at all last year.

I meant that if you applied the current point system retrospectively, he would have got 8 points.

In fact, I was wrong. His top ten finishes were 2x9th and 2x8th, which actually makes 10 points. (I'd forgotten he'd gotten 2 8th places, and not 1 8th place and a 10th place)

 

[Ardius]

But why? The whole point of points systems (lulz pun) being extended is partially because of bigger fields and better reliability. If today was like 1997/1998, the FIA probably wouldn't have extended the points. Equally, if 1997/1998 was like 2011, they would have extended the points and Rosset wouldn't have scored points due to the better reliability ahead of him.

Kind of pointless (lulz again) to bring up old seasons when the racing was so different in this respect.

 

[IceMan PJN]

Doesn't this make non points paying positions useless? If you are a title contender and fall well behind in a race, so far back a points paying position is unobtainable, why continue to race and pick up positions even though no points are offered, and accomplish nothing but using up your engine?

If there's a tie for driver ranking it can be decided on positions, whether those positions pay points or not. For example, if you and I both have just two points apiece at the end of the year, which one of us is ranked higher can be determined by our finishing positions throughout the season, even if they were virtually all no-point positions.

Secondly, there's valuable experience to be gleaned even from a poor race performance. F1 in particular harvests terabytes of data from each race weekend, and this data is invaluable to teams for development of their car as well as for car setup. Data for the car aside, it's also experience for the drivers and crew, and more experience is never a bad thing. Cars that are typically toward the back have no real chance of improving later into the season or for the following season if they aren't learning by being out there on the track.

Finally, those cars are painted with sponsors and those sponsors would surely like to see their cars out there on track in front of the eyes of hundreds of millions. Even a car limping along in mid-pack is still out there on track viewed by millions, and that's worth more to sponsors than a car that's parked in the garage.

Many series? Indycar, Moto GP, NASCAR, V8 Supercars, all award points to everyone. Formula 1 and the ALMS dont.

There are heaps of racing series scattered about the world, and not just a dozen.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Doesn't this make non points paying positions useless? If you are a title contender and fall well behind in a race, so far back a points paying position is unobtainable, why continue to race and pick up positions even though no points are offered, and accomplish nothing but using up your engine?

I don't see what your problem with this is - the points system demands that drivers fight for every available position. Just look at Jenson Button in 2009: Brawn gave him a phenomenal car, but then their first mid-season upgrade failed, and they used up all their remaining money fixing the problem. They literally ran out of money halfway through the season, and had to rely on race-by-race sponsor deals just to make it to every Grand Prix. A lot of people think that Button did the bare minimum in the first half of the season and just coasted to the title, but that's not even remotely true. He had to fight for every position available just to get to the point where he could win the championship while everyone else started demoloshing his championship lead. If every position paid out points, Button probably would have won the title much sooner than he actually did.

 

[Tired Tyres]

But teams like points, because points show a clear progress. If there are only six points-paying positions on offer, then come the end of the season, teams will find it increasingly difficult to find a budget, particularly if they are tied on zero points with several teams.

So what. If you can't compete for the top 6 points why are you there anyway? If points go down further where is the need to improve? More points for more positions rewards mediocrity, less point for less position breeds competitiveness because teams on the bubble have to improve in order to score. That is a good thing.

 

[Famine]

average position put caterham 10th

No, countback did.

Caterham (then Lotus-Renault) had three 13th place finishes, which put them ahead of Hispania who had one 13th place finish. Virgin (now Marussia) only had two 14th place finishes, which put them last. Had either Virgin or Hispania scored a 12th place in the final race, they would have been put ahead of Caterham

Of course under my scheme, the finish order would have been preserved but with Caterham on 53pt, Hispania on 41pt and Virgin on 40pt - Caterham's superior efforts over the course of the season would have prevented the ridiculousness of them losing out to a single freak result and HRT and Virgin would have battled like crazy for that last point (though 11 applicable finishes for HRT to 10 for Virgin and a better points score in HRT's 8 to Virgin's 9 would probably have seen a change of positions as unjust).


My scheme also removes the point of every position getting points - as every team is capable of scoring points simply by getting both cars home, while every team is capable of scoring none simply by losing one car. FATC fixes all questions about who gets points for all reasons - you can even apply it to 9-6-4-3-2-1 and it makes sense.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If points go down further where is the need to improve?

Uh, it's right there. You need to start getting results in order to catch the team in front. If there are only six points-scoring places, teams and drivers have nothing to show for themselves. They'll have to go into a lengthy explanation as to why they finished in the position that they did, rather than show how many points they scored.

Nobody has complained about there being too many points-scoring positions since the new system was introduced.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Of course they haven't. They like the easy life.

If there is nothing to strive for, then what is the point?

What is it about rewarding someone for not being good enough to compete at the front that you find acceptable?

I do not think that it is a good thing to reward mediocrity. You either get better or you quit and let someone else have a go.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why is it that you think teams should be punished for not being competitive? Under your logic, you might as well only give points to the winner, because they were the only ones who could compete.

You are completely overlooking the fact that even if some of the teams cannot race the Red Bulls, McLarens and Ferraris, they do race one another, and their races are often hard-fought. Just look at Sauber and Toro Rosso, who finished the 2011 season on 44 and 41 points respectively. If you only awarded points to the top six finishers in any race, Sauber would have finished the season with a single point (Kobayashi took fifth in Monaco) and Toro Rosso would have finished with none. So despite fighting one another harder and for longer to get those results than any other two teams did, you still want them to have a single point between them to show for themselves.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that by limiting the number of points-scoring positions to six, the grid will somehow be more competitive as a result, as if most teams are simply doing the bare mainimum now because they know they'll get points for it. This is patently untrue, and if you genuinely think that, then I have to say that I think you're an idiot. The teams spend tens of millions of dollars in a single season - why on earth would they then turn around a phone it in?

 

[Tired Tyres]

Thank you for your aggressive and totally over the top post. That is the usual response of someone who can't win an argument, Much appreciated. I take it you have never heard of NASCAR start and park then?

 

[Northstar]

I take it you have never heard of NASCAR start and park then?

Which has nothing to do with points and everything to do with race payouts being payed to every position.

 

[jcm]

Even if a Caterham, Mercedes, or Ferrari is in last place there's still a chance they could get points. If there's a freak accident causing multiple cars to retire, they could get in the points. And because giving up looks really lame.