Pointing System & Quality Racing

[Tallgeese]

I say top-six (10-6-4-3-2-1) it would promote fiercer competition for points, & especially for the win. Remember, second place isn't good enough any more. Likewise, I am not sure if FL & PP should get points, but if they do then I think the constructor should be entitled to those points (one a piece).


So much has been said about promoting over-taking, & it is generally acknowledged as F1's main problem. Despite its popularity, over-taking is a rarity & racing are dubbed as, "the first ten laps are like the last ten laps" with very little action. Yet the keyword is probably 'action' not 'over-taking' & so on.

What F1 needs is more speed-chase & over-taking attempts, not just over-taking. Who could forget Monaco 1992 with Mansell chasing Senna, or (fast forward). Ayrton Senna (who was behind Michael Schumacher after pit-stops in Brazil) raced frantically to cut a ten second deficit to half culminating in an anti-climax finish (he spun out). Though marred by accusations that Schumacher's Benetton was using traction control, the fruits of Senna's resolve were clearly demonstrated, & remorselessly the chase brought both cars closer.

What about Imola 2006 with Alonso chasing Schumacher for 17 laps? Neither involved over-taking, but represent quality racing. Who knows, had Alonso stood to lose four points on aggregate, he probably would have taken more risks (the Renault was clearly faster than the Ferrari) to get in front.

In the end, F1 is starved of quality racing, not just over-takes. Good racing is not merely about over-taking, it's about speed-chases, over-taking attempts & over-taking. In the end, we want closer racing, wheel-to-wheel action, & attempts at over-taking & blocking, not the 'follow the bloke in front' routine.

It's nonesense to say, 'turbulance' or 'loss of downforce' or 'over-steer' or even 'grooved tyres' (yes, they don't make the job easier) but even if over-taking was made easier with new regulations, no incentive will exist as long as second or third are too generious on points. I say, go back tothe old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system & forget the talk of wider front-wings & higher/narrower rear wings.

[UltimateDanGTR]

you say top 6 scorers, but then it would be very hard for some teams to register more than a few points.

I say: 25-15-10-7-5-4-3-2-1-1 for top 10 finishers. This way the ratio of 1st to 2nd to 3rd place is the same as your idea of the old format

I would also say there should be a point for fastest lap, Pole postion. Plus, 2 points for most places climbed from starting position and 2 points for most on track overtakes for one driver in the race.

[Tazio]

(10-6-4-3-2-1) That system worked quite well for many years.
Ferrari's faults for making the rest of the field look like punks.
The system was changed to placate advertisers
which put more money in certain peoples pockets :dozey:

[Shifter]

I said it before and I will say it again: 10-7-6-5-4-3-2-1. Still 8/12 difference in getting points, win gets a 3-pt advantage. If you haven't won a race yet, every single point gained would be worth it to position yourself. No major change, just puts more emphasis on wins.

As strange as this may sound, if we need to really massage the system we could go to decimal points. Fact is, I love how quickly I can compute the many scenarios late in the season for who needs to do what. We are a base-10 society and increments of 10 or less come naturally. I don't get that from most racing series, NASCAR in particular. I just go by what the announcers tell me, because I just can't be bothered to perform such odd calculations.

so we could concievably go to, say, 10, 7, 5, 3.5, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1. Keep in mind it's not unprecedented in F1, drivers have gotten half-points for unusual races.

[jso1985]

In these days of good reliability points only for the top 6 kinda demotivates the midfield teams IMO, so I'd just add 2 more points for the winner and keep the current points system.

...In the end I think F1 does have and overtaking problem... the problem being that people cares too much about it...

[UltimateDanGTR]

I said it before and I will say it again: 10-7-6-5-4-3-2-1. Still 8/12 difference in getting points, win gets a 3-pt advantage. If you haven't won a race yet, every single point gained would be worth it to position yourself. No major change, just puts more emphasis on wins.

As strange as this may sound, if we need to really massage the system we could go to decimal points. Fact is, I love how quickly I can compute the many scenarios late in the season for who needs to do what. We are a base-10 society and increments of 10 or less come naturally. I don't get that from most racing series, NASCAR in particular. I just go by what the announcers tell me, because I just can't be bothered to perform such odd calculations.

so we could concievably go to, say, 10, 7, 5, 3.5, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1. Keep in mind it's not unprecedented in F1, drivers have gotten half-points for unusual races.

Good idea i must admit it had crossed my mind before. I mean I like to see 10 points for a win, its the F1 way(though 12 could work). But I said 25 for a win for that sheer amount of points that can be won. But decimals would work aswell, like 12-8-5-4-3-2.5-2-1.5-1-0.5 for top 10 finishers, since the reliability these days is better than ever like jso said. though 10-7-5-3.5-2.5-2-1.5-1 would also work. 12-8-5-3.5-2.5-1.5-1-0.5 would also be good.

[Cozzie]

15-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 + 1 FL and 1 PP

[Tazio]

I am constantly amazed at how little F1 (and it's fans) care about tradition and the integrity of the sport, and how easily common sense is trumped by $
why not go with 20 12 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 that way the top would reflect in the same proportions that the object is to win and the podium would reflect the proportions of the traditional scoring. You could still receive points to tenth position. plus if a top car had an off late in the race he wouldn't have to go bonzai ala Kimi up Sutil pipes because you can salvage points nearer to the back. F1 is the only big time sport i've ever heard of that feared it's demise when one team performs like the '27 Yank's. All problems would be solved if you put a franchise spending cap that could only be fudged a little.
This has turned into a rant never mind just put some different colored cars on the track and race.

[ShiftingGears]

I say that technical regulations influence the racing far more than any points system does.

[Mark]

10-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 seems to make the most sense to me. After all that puts almost as much emphasis on a win as 10-6-4-3-2-1 but still rewards the top 8.

[Knock-on]

12 - 9 - 7 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1

[Mark]

As said above though, we're a base 10 species. So 10 points for a win is the best number to have IMO.

I'm just glad the medals idea wasn't brought in!

[Knock-on]

As said above though, we're a base 10 species. So 10 points for a win is the best number to have IMO.

I'm just glad the medals idea wasn't brought in!

We were a top 6 scoring points system and changed to 8.

No reason not to increase to 12 points or even 15.

[Garry Walker]

Quality racing is not about point system. Drivers will always want to win, no matter the point system, as shown by Hamilton at Spa last year. The reason why you do not see such racing in every race is simply because usually the faster guy is leading and the guy behind him has been slower, therefor, any overtaking or fighting for position is not going to happen. If you give more points for win, that slower package will still be slower and nothing he does will help him to beat the faster car.
Races such as Monaco 1992 and Imola 2005 happened because due to weird circumstances, a much faster car was behind a slower car, nothing whatsoever to do with point system.

It is funny that we want to see drivers fighting for wins and positions, but when they do and fcuk up, all the idiots who got their drivers license 4 months ago and can barely parallel park, will whine and cry and bitch about those drivers, only to whine about there not being racing 3 hours later.

[Knock-on]

Quality racing is not about point system. Drivers will always want to win, no matter the point system, as shown by Hamilton at Spa last year. The reason why you do not see such racing in every race is simply because usually the faster guy is leading and the guy behind him has been slower, therefor, any overtaking or fighting for position is not going to happen. If you give more points for win, that slower package will still be slower and nothing he does will help him to beat the faster car.
Races such as Monaco 1992 and Imola 2005 happened because due to weird circumstances, a much faster car was behind a slower car, nothing whatsoever to do with point system.

It is funny that we want to see drivers fighting for wins and positions, but when they do and fcuk up, all the idiots who got their drivers license 4 months ago and can barely parallel park, will whine and cry and bitch about those drivers, only to whine about there not being racing 3 hours later.

I agree with most of that. However, you have drivers like Hamilton who just go all out but sometimes, with the current points system, drivers do settle for safe points instead of risking losing them to only get a couple more.

[Garry Walker]

I agree with most of that. However, you have drivers like Hamilton who just go all out but sometimes, with the current points system, drivers do settle for safe points instead of risking losing them to only get a couple more.

With the proposed system of 10-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, you woud only get one more point for bettering your position by one. Not that much incentive. The reality is that if someones sees a chance, they will take it, but otherwise there is little they can do against a similarly fast or faster car.

The current engine regulations are also to blame.

[Knock-on]

With the proposed system of 10-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, you woud only get one more point for bettering your position by one. Not that much incentive. The reality is that if someones sees a chance, they will take it, but otherwise there is little they can do against a similarly fast or faster car.

The current engine regulations are also to blame.

I appreciate the point about the engines.

However, I think the change in regulations will actually help the racing this year and make it possible for more overtaking.

Just a pity this wasn't done years ago.

[Mark]

That's true the engine regs don't help. Used to be if it was counting down to the final laps of the race a driver could decide to go for broken and increase the engine revs and risk the engine going bang but if it did they only lost out on one races worth of points.

[christophulus]

12 - 9 - 7 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1

FOTA agree - http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73735


A proposal unveiled by the Formula One Teams' Association (FOTA) to change the current points structure to a new system that rewards more for winning - broken down 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1 – has been officially put forward to the FIA for consideration.
The WMSC will now look at the document and take a vote on whether or not to adopt it for 2009.


Changing the regulations two weeks before the first race? Has that happened before?

[BTCC2]

What is wrong with the current points system?

[Shifter]

Okay, 12 is not too bad I guess. Knock-on, major props to you if you do wind up hitting the nail on the head!

[Knock-on]

Changing the regulations two weeks before the first race? Has that happened before?

This is the FIA. 2 weeks notice is generous.

They normally wait until a non Ferrari gains an advantage and ban it retrospectivly :D

(Joke ioan, calm down ;) )

[pino]

What is wrong with the current points system?

The winner isn't rewarded as he should be ;)