New Points system.

[Ranger]

Poll please.

Yay or Nay?

For the record, in the new system:

Drivers:
1. Massa 39
2. Vettel 37
3. Alonso 37
4. Button 35
5. Rosberg 35
6. Hamilton 31
7. Kubica 30
8. Webber 24
9. Sutil 10
10. Schumacher 9
11. Liuzzi 8
12. Barrichello 5
13. Alguersuari 2
14. Hulkenberg 1

Old system:

1. Massa 16
2. Alonso 15 (+1)
3. Vettel 14 (-1)
4. Rosberg 14 (+1)
5. Button 13 (-1)
6. Kubica 13 (+1)
7. Hamilton 12 (-1)
8. Webber 9
9. Sutil 4
10. Schumacher 3
11. Liuzzi 2
12. Barrichello 1

Still little to nothing in it, but I dig the new points system. Late in the season there should be a lot less conservative driving. :up:

[F1boat]

The new one is more entertaining, but it always depends on the season.

[Brown, Jon Brow]

The new system is designed to benefit winners and Button is one place higher with the new system. So it works.

[Wasted Talent]

The new system is designed to benefit winners and Button is one place higher with the new system. So it works.

Fair point

WT

[steveaki13]

I know it doesn't matter as much as the current season, but the only dissapointing thing for me is.
It will be impossible to compare points scorers across the ages.
As a driver entering this year could potentially be all time top scorer within four seasons.

I know it would be unlikely as he would need to win almost every race each year but still its now impossible to compare.

[wedge]

It is better now but only for top 8 at the very most.

[maximilian]

I like the new system. It was interesting to see the guys scrap over the last few points. I think that's the real advantage of the new system... where there wasn't much to fight about in the midfield in past seasons, now they can gun it out between 11th, 10th, 9th... we saw a lot of great battles today in those positions. Thumbs up!

[Somebody]

I don't get the "aww... it'll be impossible to compare across the ages."

People of the forum: It already was.

8-6-4-3-2 +1 for fl
9-6-4-3-2-1
10-6-4-3-2-1
10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

And that's BEFORE you consider the dropped races before 1990 (which changed the destination of more than one championship).

Oh, and if we're talking career totals, there's also the inflation in the number of races - even if the points system had never changed and there were no dropped races, it is one hellavalot easier to accumulate career points when the number of races/year has trebled over time.

The new system may make it more blatant, but the historical comparisons were already BS.

[Sonic]

I don't get the "aww... it'll be impossible to compare across the ages."

People of the forum: It already was.

8-6-4-3-2 +1 for fl
9-6-4-3-2-1
10-6-4-3-2-1
10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

And that's BEFORE you consider the dropped races before 1990 (which changed the destination of more than one championship).

Oh, and if we're talking career totals, there's also the inflation in the number of races - even if the points system had never changed and there were no dropped races, it is one hellavalot easier to accumulate career points when the number of races/year has trebled over time.

The new system may make it more blatant, but the historical comparisons were already BS.

Indeed. The only facts that hold their value are chamionship position and start to win ratio. Almost everything else has already been so poluted by earlier changes to the system.

[Saint Devote]

A case can be made for any point system.

BUT: Massa has won nothing yet he heads the points table!

Definitely something is still ridiculous.

[Sonic]

A case can be made for any point system.

BUT: Massa has won nothing yet he heads the points table!

Definitely something is still ridiculous.

You don't advocate the medal system do you? :(

[Alfa Fan]

What so having a championship leader who hasn't won after 3 races is ridiculous?! One wonders what you must have made of Richard Burns' 2002 season!

[Saint Devote]

What so having a championship leader who hasn't won after 3 races is ridiculous?! One wonders what you must have made of Richard Burns' 2002 season!

This is about F1.

[BDunnell]

This is about F1.

But passing references to other motorsport formulae are not forbidden.

[DazzlaF1]

Indeed. The only facts that hold their value are chamionship position and start to win ratio. Almost everything else has already been so poluted by earlier changes to the system.

Seconded :up:

TBH thie new system is growing on me, I mean after 3 races, only 9 points covers the top 7 which is intriguing

[Josti]

But passing references to other motorsport formulae are not forbidden.

For Saint Devote it is.

[Saint Devote]

You don't advocate the medal system do you? :(

It is clear that having now to deal with a gazillion points per race is not the answer either - looking back it would not have changed much at all.

The point is: how do they derive these systems? Is it done scientifically using algorythms - I doubt that. Or do they sit around a table and just "decide".

I do think that race wins ought to count first. So maybe the driver with the most wins and then the points should count.

This would put Massa at most fourth.

The FIA ought to get several of the best mathematical brains in the world and pay them to derive a system where drivers that win have an advantage.

Massa at the top without a win or even a pole position is just ridiculous.

[Saint Devote]

But passing references to other motorsport formulae are not forbidden.

Formulae is still motor racing. Rallying is not, it is motor SPORT.

[Saint Devote]

Seconded :up:

TBH thie new system is growing on me, I mean after 3 races, only 9 points covers the top 7 which is intriguing

Under the old system they would have been covered by FOUR points.

[BDunnell]

Formulae is still motor racing. Rallying is not, it is motor SPORT.

But mentions of rallying are, nonetheless, not forbidden in the F1 forum, in which, the last time I looked, you had no specific moderating authority.

You seem also to forget that the word 'Formula' has been applied in rallying in the past as well, and that the word 'motorsport' covers all forms of, well, motorsport, but we will gloss over that.

[BDunnell]

The FIA ought to get several of the best mathematical brains in the world and pay them to derive a system where drivers that win have an advantage.

Why bother, when they have you offering advice on an internet forum?

[DazzlaF1]

Under the old system they would have been covered by FOUR points.

Yes but in terms of points percentage compared to a win, it is closer with the new system in direct comparison

OLD SYSTEM (10 points for a win)
4 POINT GAP = 40%

NEW SYSTEM (25 points for a win)
9 POINT GAP = 36%

[call_me_andrew]

Formulae is still motor racing. Rallying is not, it is motor SPORT.

motor racing = motor sport

And to clarify: drifting is neither racing nor sport.

[wedge]

A case can be made for any point system.

BUT: Massa has won nothing yet he heads the points table!

Definitely something is still ridiculous.

Massa beat Vettel in Bahrain, out drove Alonso 2 races in a row

Vettel has scored a DNF

There is nothing wrong (yet) with the points system.

[e2mtt]

I think the new system is quite good. The older systems where only the top 6 scored points worked better when there were more DNFs.

For a point system that really rewards wins, try this: Championship is scored by number of wins, then 1 point for each car beaten in each race. Points only serve as a way to score between drivers with the same number of wins.

[Saint Devote]

Obviously we all have our own [irrelevant] views that will shift nothing. So we just have to accept whatever the FIA toss up.

[Saint Devote]

motor racing = motor sport

And to clarify: drifting is neither racing nor sport.

Motor racing is not motor sport, it is motor RACING. And rallying or dragsters or any other variation is motor SPORT.

[wedge]

It is clear that having now to deal with a gazillion points per race is not the answer either - looking back it would not have changed much at all.

The point is: how do they derive these systems? Is it done scientifically using algorythms - I doubt that. Or do they sit around a table and just "decide".

I do think that race wins ought to count first. So maybe the driver with the most wins and then the points should count.

This would put Massa at most fourth.

The FIA ought to get several of the best mathematical brains in the world and pay them to derive a system where drivers that win have an advantage.

Massa at the top without a win or even a pole position is just ridiculous.

What races let alone algorithms have you been watching? We've had 3 different winners.

[BDunnell]

Motor racing is not motor sport, it is motor RACING. And rallying or dragsters or any other variation is motor SPORT.

According to whom? And in what way is what you categorise as motor racing, rather than motorsport, not sport?

[call_me_andrew]

Maybe F1 could go the NCAA route and replace the whole point system with a poll of reporters.

[Ranger]

A case can be made for any point system.

BUT: Massa has won nothing yet he heads the points table!

Definitely something is still ridiculous.

Consistency will always be rewarded, no matter the points system.

See: 1982.

[Saint Devote]

According to whom? And in what way is what you categorise as motor racing, rather than motorsport, not sport?

The definition decided by the doyan of great publications, Motorsport magazine. I agree with it. I read it about thirty years ago as a kid.

Look you are entitled to think what you want and to disagree with me, but going around in circles with you asking me a question I have already answered is also ridiculous.

[Saint Devote]

Consistency will always be rewarded, no matter the points system.

See: 1982.

1982 was a very unusual and tragic year and nobody could want a repeat.
Rosberg did win a grand prix.

Consistency alone should NEVER be rewarded with a championship win. Winning and consistency, yes.

Anyway, the champion this year is not going to be someone that has won nothing and will likey be the driver who wins the most grands prix.

[52Paddy]

1982 was a very unusual and tragic year and nobody could want a repeat.
Rosberg did win a grand prix.

I take it that you share the exact same sentiment about 1958.



Consistency alone should NEVER be rewarded with a championship win. Winning and consistency, yes.

I have to disagree here. I think consistent driving should be awarded. If somebody wins 6 or 7 races in a season (i.e. the most wins in that season) and then fails to perform well at the other races, he should suffer because of it. A driver always needs to be top of his game. Winning races should certainly give the driver the advantage of not needing to push hard for a win in later rounds, because of work done earlier in the year. Winning and consistency of course will be rewarded and is the best recipe for taking the world championship (Mansell in 1992). But there are many scenarios were a champion has either been consistent and won most races (Hawthorn, Rosberg and Lauda 77 to name just 3), or won most GPs in a season but failed to bring up the goods at races he didn't win (Moss/Brooks 1958, Clark 1964 and Prost 1983).

Not trying to put words in your mouth dude but: are you saying that in the former situation, those drivers didn't deserve the title? If it was down to most wins throughout season, teams could put all of their effort into an A-spec car, sweep up the competition, and feck development for the later stages in the year. Brawn had to do this due to budget but did so well in the first half that they could take the title down to the wire. And fair dues :up:

But F1 is a development race as much as anything, and consistent driving is something I value as much as the ability to win a race, particularly if the car isn't at race winning pace. Different strokes for different folks though. If we were competing team managers, we would have a completely different approach :p :

[Josti]

Consistency alone should NEVER be rewarded with a championship win. Winning and consistency, yes.

So to get this clear, in your view, a point system is obsolete?

[Saint Devote]

What races let alone algorithms have you been watching? We've had 3 different winners.

Three different race winners and the driver that has not won a race yet is leading the championship :eek:

But anyway for me the championship is secondary to winning grands prix. Isnt winning races what its all supposed to be about?

Actually its not - its about winning the championship.

[Saint Devote]

So to get this clear, in your view, a point system is obsolete?

:D thats your interpretation. No.

A properly designed point system is not obselete. The problem is we have no idea how the system is derived and nobody with any standing asks.

Whats the alternative? To the current one, a PROPER one formulated by mathematicians who have studied the situation we have in racing.

[Saint Devote]

I take it that you share the exact same sentiment about 1958.



I have to disagree here. I think consistent driving should be awarded. If somebody wins 6 or 7 races in a season (i.e. the most wins in that season) and then fails to perform well at the other races, he should suffer because of it. A driver always needs to be top of his game. Winning races should certainly give the driver the advantage of not needing to push hard for a win in later rounds, because of work done earlier in the year. Winning and consistency of course will be rewarded and is the best recipe for taking the world championship (Mansell in 1992). But there are many scenarios were a champion has either been consistent and won most races (Hawthorn, Rosberg and Lauda 77 to name just 3), or won most GPs in a season but failed to bring up the goods at races he didn't win (Moss/Brooks 1958, Clark 1964 and Prost 1983).

Not trying to put words in your mouth dude but: are you saying that in the former situation, those drivers didn't deserve the title? If it was down to most wins throughout season, teams could put all of their effort into an A-spec car, sweep up the competition, and feck development for the later stages in the year. Brawn had to do this due to budget but did so well in the first half that they could take the title down to the wire. And fair dues :up:

But F1 is a development race as much as anything, and consistent driving is something I value as much as the ability to win a race, particularly if the car isn't at race winning pace. Different strokes for different folks though. If we were competing team managers, we would have a completely different approach :p :

I am not trying to detract what has occurred already. Remember the drivers at the time always race to win of course but they also race according to how the championship is won. It is not their fault.

This is why I disagree with taking the current system and trying to apply it to past seasons, even though the changes were minimal.

BTW Alain Prost ended up with SEVEN title wins and Schumacher FIVE, Senna TWO with Hakkinen ONE and Irvine ONE. The least favorable was that James Hunt lost to Lauda and the Austrian won FOUR titles using the current system.

I would like to discover how the system is derived. Without that we, as fans, can have no idea.

Why 25 points? Why not 26 or 24?

[F1boat]

I have to disagree here. I think consistent driving should be awarded.

I agree.

[Garry Walker]

Why bother, when they have you offering advice on an internet forum?

Oh what a surprise, dunnell making another personal attack.

[Retro Formula 1]

motor racing = motor sport

And to clarify: drifting is neither racing nor sport.

Drifting, like Stunt riding, is a Motor Art form and damned exciting :D

Watched Kevin Carmichael yesterday and what he does is jest amazing.

As for the new points system, it doesn't matter. The purists will always moan that the good ole days were best but drivers and teams will race to whatever system is in place. I think that the current system encourages wins while offering encouragement for reliability. It is slanted to give a noticeable reward for 1st and encouragement further down the field.

Personally, I would prefer something like 25, 15, 11, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 to really reward winning but that's just a preference. The system in place is workable.

[UltimateDanGTR]

the reward for winning is greater, yet we still have a championship where the top 4 drivers are split by 4 points currently. (its early days, but..) thus, it seems to be working so far.

i know its no longer 'old school' but we've got to move with the times...

[52Paddy]

This is why I disagree with taking the current system and trying to apply it to past seasons, even though the changes were minimal.

Yes I completely agree here.



I would like to discover how the system is derived. Without that we, as fans, can have no idea.

Why 25 points? Why not 26 or 24?

I don't understand the thinking behind it either. But, can we really derive a points system most suitable through maths? What is it that makes a perfect points system? Our way of thinking in Western Europe is different to that in the rest of the world too so there will always be contrasts of opinion with regard to how points should be dished out. This system does award the winner with a nice margin of points over the next best guy, and that makes sense in my opinion. Why 25 indeed? But, even more strange to me was the 9 points that the winner used to get. What was so significant about the number 9? Anything in multiples of 5 or 10 seems easy for us to deal with (at least in Europe). I don't know why but it's accepted. As far as I'm concerned, the authorities have looked at percentages and tried to make certain percentage gaps between the positions. Whether you find that a good basis is your personal opinion.

The only thing I had trouble with was your idea the consistent driving should not be valued over grand prix wins. Yes, a driver that wins a grand prix in ordinary circumstances should definitely be awarded. But, in terms of winning a championship, consistency is just as important. Winning grand prix seems to have lost the prestige it once had (especially with the disappearance of non-championship races) but times change and opinions can be justifiably altered because of that.

Take Massa and Ferrari. Ok, so Massa won nothing so far but he has scored to podiums and a 7th (from 21st on the grid). Alonso won in Bahrain but has been off the podium since then, including a non-score. Button's win has been compromised by just scoring a handful of points in the other two rounds. And Vettel, while I believe him to be the best driver so far, has suffered because of his team's inability to keep the car reliable. Those setbacks should, and do, adversely effect a championship challenge and that's why I have no problem with Massa leading the championship - especially considering 1. it's early stages yet and 2. the gap he has over rivals is very small.

[christophulus]

It works OK, but seems like a change for the sake of change. I used to be able to do the maths during the race, now I haven't got a clue how it's going to affect the championship.

But I agree that any comparisons with previous seasons is futile, when a driver can score almost as many points in one race today than other drivers managed in three..

[V12]

I like the new system. 10-8-6-5... was an awkward compromise/fudge and while I do have a certain nostalgia for 10-6-4-3-2-1 that I grew up with, the insane reliability of modern F1 cars has rendered that particular scheme unfeasible :(

Going to 25 for a win was a big step but if you want to both reward race winners accordingly AND reward a sensible number of finishers with points then staying with 10 for a win was out of the question. I rightly slag off the FIA every time they implement some awkward half measure so I can only congratulate them for (for once) taking it by the balls and doing something decisive..

I agree with the points that historical comparisons were kind of irrelevant before this season, with previous points changes and the steady increase in the number of races. I made a post on it during the winter and noted that anything which ranks David Coulthard (all due respect) as twice the driver of Fangio was already massively skewed. But if anyone feels that strongly about it (which I don't) feel free to retrospectively apply this points system (or any points system you choose) across the entire history of the championship and see what you come up with :p

[jens]

I still can't help but feel that the points system is a bit weirdo. 25-18-etc. Wtf?! At least winner should get a rounded number of points to make calculations easier. :p :

20-15-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1 seems significantly better for eyes, but then again FIA has a phobia that they always must create new things (in this case a new points system for all FIA-series, which certainly must have never been used before!!!) to make themselves look like a "modern organization". How false is that.

[V12]

I used to be able to do the maths during the race, now I haven't got a clue how it's going to affect the championship.

I kind of feel the same, but that's probably because it's new, I still can't tell you all the points from memory yet except 25 for 1st and 1 for 10th, give it a bit of time for it to get ingrained in our heads.

It's still infinitely simpler to keep track of than the NASCAR and IndyCar points systems, for instance. Perhaps F1 could maybe help out here with championship "predictor" graphics of the type we kept getting during Brazil 2008 with Hamilton and Massa every time the positions changed, except doing it a little more frequently and from the second race onwards.