Point scoring system harming the spectacle?

[kleisj]

I would say yes since the current point system is harming the battle of 1st and 2nd specially in the last day of an event. Nowadays a driver at 2nd place is comfortable to stay there since he is getting 8 points (2 less than the winner). If 6 points were awarded as was done previously I would say that a 2nd place driver would have much more motives to push on the final day. Now they are just happy to finish 2nd gathering the 8 points.
I don't know if this was discussed before but I really believe that the point scoring system needs to be reviewed as would be one factor which could improve the spectacle.

Your views please.

[jonkka]

I pondered the question already in March 2004
http://www.juwra.com/editorials_value_of_win.html

[kleisj]

I pondered the question already in March 2004
http://www.juwra.com/editorials_value_of_win.html

Hmmm sorry , I couldn't remember, well 4 years back is a lot of time!!!
But still is a matter worth discussing specially now that we have 3 to 4 (in best case scenario) possible drivers for a win

[AndyRAC]

No change unless Bernie wants a change for F1, then the points will change for WRC as well.

[Viking]

Also WTCC use this system, so all FIA world championships use it.

[A.F.F.]

No change unless Bernie wants a change for F1, then the points will change for WRC as well.

It's unbelievable how that hairy little hobbit can rule the whole of FIA :mad:

[AndyRAC]

It's unbelievable how that hairy little hobbit can rule the whole of FIA :mad:

Which is the F1A's fault - they let him get too powerful. Like them or not, the F1A should be making decisions about the sport - not the Promotional affairs boss. We need a powerful President who tells Bernie who is boss.

[jonkka]

We need a powerful President who tells Bernie who is boss.

At that point Bernie would threaten to take F1 away, making FIA yelp like beaten dog. That's what one gets for signing commercial rights away for 99 years.

[Sulland]

Same topic being discussed here as well. A lot of historic views !
http://www.rallye-info.com/forum.asp?sid=0&boardid=1&action=thread&threadid=6811&new=15&page=1
The circle is often round...

Comparison btw the F1/ WRC point scoring model and the one used in MotoGP, just to se the result of different FIA score systems.
http://www.freewebs.com/axilla/PoengF1%5F1.JPG
And what it did to the order:
http://www.freewebs.com/axilla/PoengF1%5F2.JPG

[SchUMine]

Also WTCC use this system, so all FIA world championships use it.

Yes but they are doing 2 round each weekend under the same conditions at the same circuit. So this system is perfect for them, enjoyable to watch,fair etc.

But I don't think the same way when talking about rallying. Every rally is different than eachother, every day also every stage is different.So I don't like it!

[L5->R5/CR]

I don't know...

There isn't a lot of incentive to get first from the points structure but lets look at the situation.

Sebastien is almost guarnateed to take 40 points to a maximum 32 from Monte and the tarmac rounds.

This creates an 8 point deficit. You can't finish worse than second to have a chance since very rarely will Seb make a mistake, and even more rarely will he be off the pace. Given the fact that you have an 8 point deficit to overcome you have to go flat out up to the point where you risk DNF. Maybe if second was only worth 6 points we would see the second place driver taking bigger risks, but at the same time, given the current calendar and situation with Seb, you have to take maximum points all the time, if you always settle for second you cannot win the drivers title, because it is incredibly rare that you will finish second to someone other than Seb.

Also, the points system really drives the race for second and third. Those are meaningful positions in the championship, the risk/reward ratio might not be as high as if second were worth 6 points but you still can't slouch off, at least not in the WRC if you want to be champion...

Maybe if we saw a driver win the drivers title with only one win in the full WRC I'd think the system is broken. In reality the system can make for better fights since you can't pile up points as quickly over your rivals as you used to (of course, you used to be able to go for wins and risk a DNF knowing that if you won later you could make up more points if second got 6)...

[jonkka]

|if you always settle for second you cannot win the drivers title, because it is incredibly rare that you will finish second to someone other than Seb.

That is true. No matter what the points system, the driver being able to win five out of seven rallies will be in the lead no matter what else happens (barring exclusion from the championship). In that sense this is truly Loeb-era and no points system will change that.

But if seen in wider perspective, the current points system does not provide huge incentive to fight for better positions, does it? And that is the point of the thread instead of can-Seb-win-nth-title. Giving 100 points for win and 8 for second would get everyone try like lunatic even if it probably would not change the outcome - yet the spectacle would be good. Ok, that was a bit exaggerated but you get the drift.


In reality the system can make for better fights since you can't pile up points as quickly over your rivals as you used to

But if you've fallen behind in points, you can't catch up ny notching three wins in a row like Makinen did in 1998, for example. Each system has pros and cons.


Maybe if we saw a driver win the drivers title with only one win in the full WRC I'd think the system is broken.

Incidentally, the all-time record of least wins for world champion is one - and that's not from so long time ago. Do you know who and when? Additionally, there are four champions who scored only two wins in their championship year. At the other end of the spectrum is Loeb's ten wins in championship year (and two times he's won eight).

[AndyRAC]

That is true. No matter what the points system, the driver being able to win five out of seven rallies will be in the lead no matter what else happens (barring exclusion from the championship). In that sense this is truly Loeb-era and no points system will change that.

But if seen in wider perspective, the current points system does not provide huge incentive to fight for better positions, does it? And that is the point of the thread instead of can-Seb-win-nth-title. Giving 100 points for win and 8 for second would get everyone try like lunatic even if it probably would not change the outcome - yet the spectacle would be good. Ok, that was a bit exaggerated but you get the drift.



But if you've fallen behind in points, you can't catch up ny notching three wins in a row like Makinen did in 1998, for example. Each system has pros and cons.



Incidentally, the all-time record of least wins for world champion is one - and that's not from so long time ago. Do you know who and when? Additionally, there are four champions who scored only two wins in their championship year. At the other end of the spectrum is Loeb's ten wins in championship year (and two times he's won eight).

2001 Richard Burns - he won Rally NZ, his only win of the season, yet was a consistent points scorer. Whereas in 2000 he won 4 yet came 2nd in the Championship.
Seem to remember Auriol winning 6 in 1992 and losing the title, McRae winning 5 in 1997 but the car letting him down too many times.

[pino]

As posted many times now, this point-system is ridiculous and prevent any excitiment in the last day of any WRC events :down: :(

The winner should get a bigger reward !

[L5->R5/CR]

2001 Richard Burns - he won Rally NZ, his only win of the season, yet was a consistent points scorer. Whereas in 2000 he won 4 yet came 2nd in the Championship.
Seem to remember Auriol winning 6 in 1992 and losing the title, McRae winning 5 in 1997 but the car letting him down too many times.

Wasn't Burns' championship under the old 10-6 system?

[Josti]

I always liked the pre-'97 system. Biggest gap between winner and second place plus points up until 10th spot.

20-15-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1

[BDunnell]

I always liked the pre-'97 system. Biggest gap between winner and second place plus points up until 10th spot.

20-15-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1

So did I. I don't understand why there needs to be uniformity between F1, the WTCC and WRC. It's not as if the points system creates some sort of unified 'brand'. Neither, surely, would it confuse people unduly if the systems were different. They used to cope somehow.

[jonkka]

Wasn't Burns' championship under the old 10-6 system?

Yes.

It is not acceptable at any situation, the winner should get big prize. This is the universal and traditional, no one should be engaged to change this.

[Sulland]

I always liked the pre-'97 system. Biggest gap between winner and second place plus points up until 10th spot.

20-15-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1

Seems like a good system, can anyone calculate the 07 season using this one ?

[Wim_Impreza]

Seems like a good system, can anyone calculate the 07 season using this one ?

This are the results then:
1 Sébastien Loeb 229
2 Marcus Grönholm 219
3 Mikko Hirvonen 196
4 Daniel Sordo 126
5 Petter Solberg 93
6 Henning Solberg 75
7 Jari-Matti Latvala 65
8 Chris Atkinson 65
9 Manfred Stohl 32
10 Matthew Wilson 28
11 François Duval 23
12 Jan Kopecký 23
13 Toni Gardemeister 20
14 Daniel Carlsson 18
15 Xavier Pons 13
16 Guy Wilks 11
17 Gianluigi Galli 10
18 Luís Pérez Companc 8
19 Urmo Aava 7
20 Federico Villagra 6
21 Mads Østberg 5
22 Andreas Mikkelsen 4
23 Juho Hänninen 3
23 Gareth MacHale 3
23 Katsuhiko Taguchi 3
26 Jean-Marie Cuoq 2
26 Rune Dalsjø 2
26 Gabriel Pozzo 2
29 Toshihiro Arai 1
29 Mark Higgins 1
29 Daniel Solà 1
29 Masayuki Ishida 1
29 Niall McShea 1

Note that Latvala and Atkinson are equal in points, but Latvala scored a podium finish in 2007 and Atkinson not.
Just the same for Duval and Kopecký.

[N.O.T]

with the current situation in drivers skills i doubt we would see more....

[Sulland]

This are the results then:
New Current
1 Sébastien Loeb 229 116
2 Marcus Grönholm 219 112
3 Mikko Hirvonen 196 99
4 Daniel Sordo 126 65
5 Petter Solberg 93 47
6 Henning Solberg 75 34
7 Jari-Matti Latvala 65 30
8 Chris Atkinson 65 31
9 Manfred Stohl 32 13
10 Matthew Wilson 28 11
11 François Duval 23 12
12 Jan Kopecký 23 10
13 Toni Gardemeister 20 10
14 Daniel Carlsson 18
15 Xavier Pons 13
16 Guy Wilks 11
17 Gianluigi Galli 10
18 Luís Pérez Companc 8
19 Urmo Aava 7
20 Federico Villagra 6
21 Mads Østberg 5
22 Andreas Mikkelsen 4
23 Juho Hänninen 3
23 Gareth MacHale 3
23 Katsuhiko Taguchi 3
26 Jean-Marie Cuoq 2
26 Rune Dalsjø 2
26 Gabriel Pozzo 2
29 Toshihiro Arai 1
29 Mark Higgins 1
29 Daniel Solà 1
29 Masayuki Ishida 1
29 Niall McShea 1

Note that Latvala and Atkinson are equal in points, but Latvala scored a podium finish in 2007 and Atkinson not.
Just the same for Duval and Kopecký.

Changes in place is underlined

So no major changes in placement on a direct comparison, but it might be that drivers would fight for positions differently ?

[Wim_Impreza]

I really think that the 15-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1 system would be better. There should be more fights for a position, the last years we have mostly a boring final day.

If you are interested, I can also make the points as the MotoGP and World Superbikes is using:
25-20-16-13-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.

[jso1985]

I always liked the pre-'97 system. Biggest gap between winner and second place plus points up until 10th spot.

20-15-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1

well is it really a biggger gap?
with this system the 2nd placed car gets 75% of the points the 1st placed car gets. while with the current system it gets 80%...
and as showed on that 2007 standings post, nothing really changes...

[Langdale Forest]

I really think that the 15-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1 system would be better. There should be more fights for a position, the last years we have mostly a boring final day.

If you are interested, I can also make the points as the MotoGP and World Superbikes is using:
25-20-16-13-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.

If they used that system Loeb will be almost garranteed to win the championship because of the big gaps between the podium places.