Gascoyne calls for points extension

[zako85]

Gascoyne calls for points extension | F1 News | Jan 2013 | Crash.Net (http://www.crash.net/f1/news/187312/1/gascoyne_calls_for_points_extension.html)


Gascoyne makes one important point. As places are assigned in WCC right now, if Petrov didn't take 11th place finish in Brazil, then Marussia would have taken 10th place in WCC (and prize money associated with this) even though Caterham was ahead of Marussia most of the year. If all points structure was such that all teams are awarded points, then Caterham would have been solidly in 10th place even after Glocks 12th place finish in Singapore.

On the other hand, the cynic inside of me wants to note that after three years of failing to score a point, even with Renault engine and RedBull gear box, it sounds like Caterham F1 gives up and now wants the points to come to them. I'd probably be against extending points system. After all, scoring a single point _used_ to mean something, and still means something (lesser). If points system is extended, scoring a points by itself will not mean much any more.

[rjbetty]

I do agree with this, but in F1 it's so hard to score points now as the days of unreliability and drivers spinning out are long gone, since the gravel traps have been removed, all bumps and tricky bits get smoothed out, and the cars are easier to drive and less on a knife-edge as Michael Schumacher just explained the other day.

So I do think a 10th place for one of these teams now is every bit worth as much as a 6th place used to be in the 90s and earlier. I've thought these last few years that I would have liked to see the classic CART points system of 20-16-14-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 for the top 12 in place. That seems to have the best mix of big points for the top finishers while also rewarding consistency and lower teams. I don't understand why CART felt the need to get rid of that and replace it with a system that rewarded something like the top 35 - when there were only 19 drivers in the field!

[Big Ben]

Perhaps they should think of a long term solution and conceive a system where everybody gets points or fractions of a point.. Maybe keep the current system the way it is and those under the 10th place receive 0.900 of a point, 0.800, 0.725... and so on :p :

[zako85]

I do agree with this, but in F1 it's so hard to score points now as the days of unreliability and drivers spinning out are long gone, since the gravel traps have been removed, all bumps and tricky bits get smoothed out, and the cars are easier to drive and less on a knife-edge as Michael Schumacher just explained the other day.

Indeed. I have been watching records of some early 90s races. Only half field finishing was completely normal. I just remembered 1993 South Africa race. 5 cars made it to the finish. Brutal, but not entirely unexpected back then.

[zako85]

I do agree with this, but in F1 it's so hard to score points now as the days of unreliability and drivers spinning out are long gone, since the gravel traps have been removed, all bumps and tricky bits get smoothed out, and the cars are easier to drive and less on a knife-edge as Michael Schumacher just explained the other day.

Indeed. I have been watching records of some early 90s races. Only half field finishing was completely normal. I just remembered 1993 South Africa race. 5 cars made it to the finish (this is without any sort of major accident). Brutal, but not entirely unexpected back then.

[BDunnell]

I do agree with this, but in F1 it's so hard to score points now as the days of unreliability and drivers spinning out are long gone, since the gravel traps have been removed, all bumps and tricky bits get smoothed out, and the cars are easier to drive and less on a knife-edge as Michael Schumacher just explained the other day.

So I do think a 10th place for one of these teams now is every bit worth as much as a 6th place used to be in the 90s and earlier.

That's one argument, certainly. But I never like points going down below 10th place in any series — 10th, to me, is far enough. Furthermore, there were other difficulties in days gone by, like passing obstreperous backmarkers.

[wedge]

That's one argument, certainly. But I never like points going down below 10th place in any series — 10th, to me, is far enough. Furthermore, there were other difficulties in days gone by, like passing obstreperous backmarkers.

Agreed.

I'm not too keen on points being awarded down to 10th. P8 was fine but then I remember Sato's heroic drive in an B-spec Super Aguri at the 2006 Brazillian GP and that felt it deserved more than an emotional one.

More than anything it is FOTA demanding more slice of the pie and no surprise given that Mike Gascoyne representing Caterham who are now resorting to pay drivers and struggling to breaking into the midfield.

Points should be awarded on merit.


Indeed. I have been watching records of some early 90s races. Only half field finishing was completely normal. I just remembered 1993 South Africa race. 5 cars made it to the finish. Brutal, but not entirely unexpected back then.

The flip side was that the gaps in competition were greater whereas today the competition is far closer, particularly the midfield which what? For the sake of argument P4-P12/P14?

Rarely is it truly satisfying now that a driver finishes in the top 10, not like say Senna & Derek Warwick hauling their Tolemans into the points who (the Toleman that is) arguably were in different league altogether and needed tremendous skill to overcome performance deficit not to mention rate of attrition - that I cannot deny.

[rjbetty]

These are some really good points guys, but I feel that if none of the new teams could break into the top 10 even once in 58 races, then things are a little unbalanced. Caterham have taken a lot of flak but they are hardly Pacific or Lola.

[keysersoze]

I am in favor of an expansion of points in some form or fashion. Perhaps all finishing cars earning points, or all cars less than two laps down earn points. With the current regs, a driver in 17th with less than 10 laps to go is less likely to hang it out. An expanded points system encourages a reward for a herculean effort. JMO.

[steveaki13]

When the points were revised in 2003 to award points to the top 8, I was against it as I felt the top 6 was historical and with unrealiabilty it seemed that it was difficult for backmarkers but do-able. Of course as rjbetty said, these days the cars are bullet proof so the backmarkers would neve get within a lap of a top 6 most weekends.

The last race I remember that only had 5 cross the line although I think 7 were classified was the 2008 Australian GP. So since then no race would have given a backmarker a chance of a top 6 these days.

I dont like the top 10 points and new points system, but I think it is neccessary in order to give these teams something to aim at. But the top 10 is enough.

Come 2014 realiabilty could become an issue again maybe?

[BDunnell]

These are some really good points guys, but I feel that if none of the new teams could break into the top 10 even once in 58 races, then things are a little unbalanced.

That's not the fault of the points system.

[BDunnell]

With the current regs, a driver in 17th with less than 10 laps to go is less likely to hang it out.

To what end?


An expanded points system encourages a reward for a herculean effort. JMO.

And the current system encourages the teams to develop their cars into genuinely points-scoring propositions.

[steveaki13]

And the current system encourages the teams to develop their cars into genuinely points-scoring propositions.

I agree. Rather than Caterham just needing to finish ahead of a Marussia to score 10 points to their 8, with a reduced points system you have to aim high. Caterham need to build and push the limits of their car to beat good racing teams to score points.

This forces teams to push hard and develop F1 rather than just aiming at the next team.

[BDunnell]

I'm not too keen on points being awarded down to 10th. P8 was fine but then I remember Sato's heroic drive in an B-spec Super Aguri at the 2006 Brazillian GP and that felt it deserved more than an emotional one.

More than anything it is FOTA demanding more slice of the pie and no surprise given that Mike Gascoyne representing Caterham who are now resorting to pay drivers and struggling to breaking into the midfield.

Points should be awarded on merit.

I saw something somewhere about the change to the BTCC points system for last year, with points down to 15th, which compared how things would have panned out had the system not been altered. The classification was virtually the same, except people obviously had more points to their name, and those nearer the back end of the table had the odd point when previously they wouldn't have scored any. Exactly the same would be true of F1.

In fact, I think having more points-scorers is no great problem in a series like the BTCC. If it enables some teams to be able to go to potential sponsors saying they were championship points-scorers when otherwise they wouldn't have been, then all well and good. But in F1 I can't imagine how there would be any beneficial effect at all.



The flip side was that the gaps in competition were greater whereas today the competition is far closer, particularly the midfield which what? For the sake of argument P4-P12/P14?

Rarely is it truly satisfying now that a driver finishes in the top 10, not like say Senna & Derek Warwick hauling their Tolemans into the points who (the Toleman that is) arguably were in different league altogether and needed tremendous skill to overcome performance deficit not to mention rate of attrition - that I cannot deny.

All very good points.

[keysersoze]

To what end?


To earn more points by passing the car in 16th of course.

[keysersoze]

And the current system encourages the teams to develop their cars into genuinely points-scoring propositions.

Testing regulations seriously hamstrings these teams, or have you not been paying attention? :rolleyes:

[BDunnell]

Testing regulations seriously hamstrings these teams, or have you not been paying attention? :rolleyes:

I don't think they deserve excuses, to be honest. All three of the recently-added (won't say 'new') teams have, surely, under-achieved.

[BDunnell]

To earn more points by passing the car in 16th of course.

As racing drivers, they should be seeking to race each other anyway.

[keysersoze]

I agree. Rather than Caterham just needing to finish ahead of a Marussia to score 10 points to their 8, with a reduced points system you have to aim high. Caterham need to build and push the limits of their car to beat good racing teams to score points.

This forces teams to push hard and develop F1 rather than just aiming at the next team.

What makes you think the teams haven't been pushing and trying to maximize their resources? It's much more complicated than merely "pushing the limits." They are all professionals and working their butts off. Last year Caterham, for example, were paying Kovalainen over $2 million bucks and Vitaly brought in a few million. The team is run with (I'm guessing) 50 million. Sure, this isn't Ferrari or Red Bull-sized budget, but it's serious money with serious people behind the project.

I just don't think these backmarker teams are content to trade ground strokes and hang around waiting for someone to make a mistake. I think they are trying darn hard, all the time.

[BDunnell]

I just don't think these backmarker teams are content to trade ground strokes and hang around waiting for someone to make a mistake. I think they are trying darn hard, all the time.

In that case, then, why seek to argue that points for lower places would make the drivers try harder to overtake? If they're trying darn hard all the time, they wouldn't need the inducement.

[wedge]

That's not the fault of the points system.

Gascoyne seems to show little sympathy for Kovy's predicament. On that basis Gascoyne shouldn't be blaming the points system for Caterham's predicament.

Mike Gascoyne: Heikki Kovalainen (http://www.edp24.co.uk/sport/formula_one_2_1884/mike_gascoyne_heikki_kovalainen_s_own_fault_over_l ack_of_2013_formula_one_drive_1_1792090)


Testing regulations seriously hamstrings these teams, or have you not been paying attention? :rolleyes:

I'm not so sure. I would argue that testing hampers all teams.

SomersF1 has done analysis of HRT and perhaps arguably not quite the joke team that can easily be perceived:


All in all I will miss HRT, I admired their ethos even though it seemed misguided at times. Their relative success of 2010/11 was driven by their ability to extract performance from a relatively unchanged car something the likes of Red Bull, McLaren & Ferrari have been unable to do over recent years. With the top teams spending inordinate amounts of money on resources and developments the delta to the lower teams will always become larger but HRT for the large part kept up. They did what they could with a small budget creating a baseline and concentrating on mechanical performance and High/Low downforce aerodynamic upgrade configurations.

SomersF1: HRT - 3 Seasons in F1 (http://somersf1.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/hrt-3-seasons-in-f1.html)

I would say that lack of money and resources was more at fault for HRT than testing whereas Caterham appear to have the resources that should be competing in the midfield.

[rjbetty]

That was really good. I've long felt HRT deserved more recognition.

[keysersoze]

In that case, then, why seek to argue that points for lower places would make the drivers try harder to overtake? If they're trying darn hard all the time, they wouldn't need the inducement.

I think the teams are working flat out, but I tend to believe drivers (at the team's request) would be more inclined to go easy on equipment toward the end of a race if there were no points available. That's not to say that they are trying "less hard," only that they are looking at the big picture with regard to mileage on the motor as well as picking up data on the development of the chassis / tire degradation with various fuel loads.

[SGWilko]

I see Mike's point. Caterham were consistently the better of the new teams throughout 2012, but one rogue result could have seen all the good work to achieve that mean nothing.

Why don't non points finishers overall position in the championship be taken as an aggregate of the results (as a points system does effectively) thus ironing out the rogue results and taking stock of the overall performance throughout the year?

[BDunnell]

I see Mike's point. Caterham were consistently the better of the new teams throughout 2012, but one rogue result could have seen all the good work to achieve that mean nothing.

Why don't non points finishers overall position in the championship be taken as an aggregate of the results (as a points system does effectively) thus ironing out the rogue results and taking stock of the overall performance throughout the year?

I don't see why rogue results need to be ironed out. They're not ironed out within the points-scoring positions, after all.

[rjbetty]

I have to say I find all the talk in general about Marussia outperforming Caterham to be a bit silly, given that the Caterham's qualified on average about +2.9 to 3.2sec off the pace last year, while the Marussias of Glock and Pic were more like +4.1 and +4.5sec respectively.

Marussia didn't have KERS, but that does not account for the full gap either. They did have their best year, but never made Q2 unlike Caterham, and very rarely outqualified them.

[The Black Knight]

Gascoyne calls for points extension | F1 News | Jan 2013 | Crash.Net (http://www.crash.net/f1/news/187312/1/gascoyne_calls_for_points_extension.html)


Gascoyne makes one important point. As places are assigned in WCC right now, if Petrov didn't take 11th place finish in Brazil, then Marussia would have taken 10th place in WCC (and prize money associated with this) even though Caterham was ahead of Marussia most of the year. If all points structure was such that all teams are awarded points, then Caterham would have been solidly in 10th place even after Glocks 12th place finish in Singapore.

On the other hand, the cynic inside of me wants to note that after three years of failing to score a point, even with Renault engine and RedBull gear box, it sounds like Caterham F1 gives up and now wants the points to come to them. I'd probably be against extending points system. After all, scoring a single point _used_ to mean something, and still means something (lesser). If points system is extended, scoring a points by itself will not mean much any more.

A better solution to this would be to keep the points system as it is but for any team that hasn't scored a point, just take the average finishing position of both their cars for the year. Those with the highest average, get the all important tenth constructors place.

[SGWilko]

A better solution to this would be to keep the points system as it is but for any team that hasn't scored a point, just take the average finishing position of both their cars for the year. Those with the highest average, get the all important tenth constructors place.

That's what I meant, but failed to articulate!

[wedge]

I see Mike's point. Caterham were consistently the better of the new teams throughout 2012, but one rogue result could have seen all the good work to achieve that mean nothing.

Why don't non points finishers overall position in the championship be taken as an aggregate of the results (as a points system does effectively) thus ironing out the rogue results and taking stock of the overall performance throughout the year?

Marussia were P10 in the WCC during last year based on Timo Glock finishing 12th in Singapore - which, effectively was akin to scoring a point.

[Firstgear]

Am I understanding this correctly? For teams that haven't scored any points, one 11th place puts them higher in the standings than a team with numerous 12th's.
Potentially, one 11th trumps a whole seasons worth of 12th's?
This is exactly what Bernie was trying to intoduce with his 'medals' system a couple of years ago.

[BDunnell]

Am I understanding this correctly? For teams that haven't scored any points, one 11th place puts them higher in the standings than a team with numerous 12th's.
Potentially, one 11th trumps a whole seasons worth of 12th's?
This is exactly what Bernie was trying to intoduce with his 'medals' system a couple of years ago.

Well, in fact such a system is nothing new — after all, in the event of a championship points tie between two or more drivers, their positions are calculated on exactly such a basis, and long have been.

[steveaki13]

Well, in fact such a system is nothing new — after all, in the event of a championship points tie between two or more drivers, their positions are calculated on exactly such a basis, and long have been.

I have to agree.

Always been the same, and the fact is F1 is about scoring points over a season. If you dont then thats not F1s problem. The issue in the past was mute, because 10 teams obviously scored points and those 11th backwards got no extra.

Its only these days with fewer teams and more realiabilty that a team finishing 10th has no points the same as the 11th placed team i guess.

[Firstgear]

Ok, but it's not consistent with how drivers/teams are ranked if they score points. One 3rd place finish will not put you ahead of a competitor with twelve 4th place finishes, for example.
It's one system of measurement/ranking for the points scorers (points), another for the rest (medals). I just don't like the inconsistency.

[BDunnell]

Ok, but it's not consistent with how drivers/teams are ranked if they score points. One 3rd place finish will not put you ahead of a competitor with twelve 4th place finishes, for example.
It's one system of measurement/ranking for the points scorers (points), another for the rest (medals). I just don't like the inconsistency.

A fair point, I must say.

[SGWilko]

Ok, but it's not consistent with how drivers/teams are ranked if they score points. One 3rd place finish will not put you ahead of a competitor with twelve 4th place finishes, for example.
It's one system of measurement/ranking for the points scorers (points), another for the rest (medals). I just don't like the inconsistency.

And this, methinks, is what Mike is on about.

[BDunnell]

And this, methinks, is what Mike is on about.

Fair enough, but don't actually award them points.

[SGWilko]

Fair enough, but don't actually award them points.

Gets my vote.

[Firstgear]

Fair enough, but don't actually award them points.
Well, to get away from the medals system you'd have to assess some kind of value (even if it's not official points) to each position.
Maybe two 12th place finishes equals one 11th place finish, with the most actual 11th place finishes winning in the case of a tie. Or maybe it's a 3:1 ratio. Then, so on and so on, all the way down the order.

[steveaki13]

I have to agree, maybe afterall there is a case of going the way of some other formula and motorsport and award decending points all the way through the field.

I wouldn't particuarly like it, but it would help solve these lower teams battles.

[rjbetty]

I don't really want to see even more points awarded as there comes a 'point' where they lose value and mean less as there would be an abundance. This is why I never liked the IRL points or CART > 2004.

I don't really like the current system - I feel the British F3 and until recent BTCC points are better - 20,15,12,10,8,6,4,3,2,1 - but I understand that finishing in the top 6, which was difficult for small teams before, is now virtually impossible.

I think most people underestimate the level F1 is at these days and how hard it is to start up a team from scratch. The current weakest established team, Toro Rosso have been around for over 30 years, and in F1 28 years, and now are backed and by Red Bull. Their drivers are good despite what some may say. I believe Toro Rosso are on a much higher level than most realise - if they were at their current level in the 90s, I think they would have been greatly successful.

So realistically, I think it's actually a 5 year plan for the new teams just to get some points, that's how hard it is.

[wedge]

I have to say I find all the talk in general about Marussia outperforming Caterham to be a bit silly, given that the Caterham's qualified on average about +2.9 to 3.2sec off the pace last year, while the Marussias of Glock and Pic were more like +4.1 and +4.5sec respectively.

Marussia didn't have KERS, but that does not account for the full gap either. They did have their best year, but never made Q2 unlike Caterham, and very rarely outqualified them.

You don't get points based on speed or quali - its finishing position. There were races where a Marussia was able to mix it with the Caterhams.

On that basis I think Mike is being a bit disrespectful and looking for special treatment and feels Caterham deserves 10th by default.

I don't agree with those proposals - and I had re-read Firstgear's comment a few times to get the gist of where the argument turned.

The 'fairest' way would be to have separate points system for WCC and I wouldn't even advocate it.

[BDunnell]

You don't get points based on speed or quali - its finishing position. There were races where a Marussia was able to mix it with the Caterhams.

On that basis I think Mike is being a bit disrespectful and looking for special treatment and feels Caterham deserves 10th by default.

I agree.

[BDunnell]

Well, to get away from the medals system you'd have to assess some kind of value (even if it's not official points) to each position.

Easiest way: to add up the finishing positions of each team's cars: say 12 + 14 + 15, etc, right through the season. Whichever ends up with the lowest number is deemed to have finished 'ahead' in the championship. The same could be applied to decisions when there's a tie between points-scoring teams.

[rjbetty]

Easiest way: to add up the finishing positions of each team's cars: say 12 + 14 + 15, etc, right through the season. Whichever ends up with the lowest number is deemed to have finished 'ahead' in the championship. The same could be applied to decisions when there's a tie between points-scoring teams.

I don't know... cos a team with more, but better finishes will total higher than a team with fewer but worse finishes.

[BDunnell]

I don't know... cos a team with more, but better finishes will total higher than a team with fewer but worse finishes.

That's sort of the point, isn't it?

Fundamentally, motorsport should be a meritocracy. If you can't get in the actual points, so be it. Never used to be an issue.

[IceWizard]

To me increasing the number of positions for which points are scored decreases their value. Rather than complaining about the points system, the onus should be on the smaller teams to improve to the point that they can finish within the top 10. If it was still only the top six places that scored then I could perhaps see the issue. Caterham and Marussia have now been in F1 for three years. If they can't manage a top 10 finish within the next couple of seasons then perhaps they should be re-evaluating their participation in F1.

[keysersoze]

To me increasing the number of positions for which points are scored decreases their value. Rather than complaining about the points system, the onus should be on the smaller teams to improve to the point that they can finish within the top 10. If it was still only the top six places that scored then I could perhaps see the issue. Caterham and Marussia have now been in F1 for three years. If they can't manage a top 10 finish within the next couple of seasons then perhaps they should be re-evaluating their participation in F1.

Let's say they do as you suggest: continue to fail, re-evaluate . . . and decide to leave. An 18-car grid is acceptable in your eyes?

If so, then Toro Rosso will be finishing last and Red Bull may say "What's the point? May as well focus on the two cars--finishing last more often than not is not poor PR."

Now the grid is 16.

[BDunnell]

Let's say they do as you suggest: continue to fail, re-evaluate . . . and decide to leave. An 18-car grid is acceptable in your eyes?

If so, then Toro Rosso will be finishing last and Red Bull may say "What's the point? May as well focus on the two cars--finishing last more often than not is not poor PR."

Now the grid is 16.

But if that's the effect of the two remaining newer teams failing to perform, so be it. They need not be shown any charity.

I can't say the addition of Lotus/Caterham, Virgin/Marussia and HRT has added to my enjoyment of F1 one iota.

[IceWizard]

Let's say they do as you suggest: continue to fail, re-evaluate . . . and decide to leave. An 18-car grid is acceptable in your eyes?

If so, then Toro Rosso will be finishing last and Red Bull may say "What's the point? May as well focus on the two cars--finishing last more often than not is not poor PR."

Now the grid is 16.

Yes, an 18 car grid would be perfectly acceptable to me. I can't see what value four cars cruising around at the back of the field and never mixing it with the others adds. Torro Rosso haven't been consistently the 17th and 18th slowest across recent seasons and besides, they are there primarily to evauluate young drivers, so I think it unlikely they would come to the same conclusion.

Anyway, isn't the guarantee of a minimum 20 car grid still in force, whereby the top teams would be required to run extra cars?

[keysersoze]

Points for all competitors, in my opinion, provides a better indicator of driver strength over the course of a season. The last three teams finished in this order: Petrov, Glock, Pic, Kovalainen, Karthikeyan, de la Rosa. But if you ask 100 people, 99 will tell you Heike had the most impressive season, and the same would tell you Narain was the worst.

Using the Indycar points system, which isn't ideal because they award 18-24th the same points, the final standing for the bottom three teams would look like this:

Kovalainen: 275
Glock: 243
Petrov: 239
Pic: 198
de la Rosa: 181
Karthikeyan: 123

My other caveat is that I didn't give points for a DNF, but I still maintain that this finishing order is more reprentative. You wouldn't find as many people, IMO, who would disagree with this final standings. Now, no one says that these drivers or teams deserve a payout for finishing this far down the order, but there is a solid argument that it is a fairer system.

[tfp]

Points for all competitors, in my opinion, provides a better indicator of driver strength over the course of a season. The last three teams finished in this order: Petrov, Glock, Pic, Kovalainen, Karthikeyan, de la Rosa. But if you ask 100 people, 99 will tell you Heike had the most impressive season, and the same would tell you Narain was the worst.

Using the Indycar points system, which isn't ideal because they award 18-24th the same points, the final standing for the bottom three teams would look like this:

Kovalainen: 275
Glock: 243
Petrov: 239
Pic: 198
de la Rosa: 181
Karthikeyan: 123

My other caveat is that I didn't give points for a DNF, but I still maintain that this finishing order is more reprentative. You wouldn't find as many people, IMO, who would disagree with this final standings. Now, no one says that these drivers or teams deserve a payout for finishing this far down the order, but there is a solid argument that it is a fairer system.

If the 1 person in 100 disagrees with the other 99, then maybe the other 1 doesn't watch F1.

This system is fine by me.

I just hope Caterham and Marussia close the gap to the midfield next year, or its going to be a lonely, seperate, four car race at the back of the grid.

[wedge]

Pffft

Find legitimate source of money, run your team better, having a decent driver helps (I was just reading about Pierluigi Martini F1 Rejects - The Underrated Pierluigi Martini (http://www.f1rejects.com/centrale/submitted/martini/index.html))

Force India took over Spyker and turned them from perennial back-of-the-grid team to solid midfielders.

Super Aguri took an old Arrows chassis and made it into a top 10 car with minimal resources.

[BDunnell]

Points for all competitors, in my opinion, provides a better indicator of driver strength over the course of a season. The last three teams finished in this order: Petrov, Glock, Pic, Kovalainen, Karthikeyan, de la Rosa. But if you ask 100 people, 99 will tell you Heike had the most impressive season, and the same would tell you Narain was the worst.

Using the Indycar points system, which isn't ideal because they award 18-24th the same points, the final standing for the bottom three teams would look like this:

Kovalainen: 275
Glock: 243
Petrov: 239
Pic: 198
de la Rosa: 181
Karthikeyan: 123

My other caveat is that I didn't give points for a DNF, but I still maintain that this finishing order is more reprentative. You wouldn't find as many people, IMO, who would disagree with this final standings. Now, no one says that these drivers or teams deserve a payout for finishing this far down the order, but there is a solid argument that it is a fairer system.

I genuinely don't mean to sound rude in saying this, but my response to the above is: so what? There is no legitimate argument for awarding everyone points. And why do any of these teams, often being as they were some way off those ahead of them, deserve points?

[keysersoze]

I genuinely don't mean to sound rude in saying this, but my response to the above is: so what? There is no legitimate argument for awarding everyone points. And why do any of these teams, often being as they were some way off those ahead of them, deserve points?

I know you don't mean to sound rude BDunnell . . . because it comes natural to you.

My first sentence gave the reason. If ranking the drivers is insignificant, then why give points at all? Is there a better way to determine the champion, and who is runner-up, etc? By your logic (that points don't matter) it naturally follows that the driver with the most wins is champion. If you would go ahead and state that I would have respect for your answer and would not denigrate it (though I wouldn't agree).

Are you capable of dealing with the logic of my post with something other than "there's no legitimate argument," and asking me why they deserve points?

This isn't some radical line of thinking. There are many series that award points for teams that finish down the order (or don't finish at all), and it doesn't distort the results.

[keysersoze]

Find legitimate source of money, run your team better, having a decent driver helps (I was just reading about Pierluigi Martini F1 Rejects - The Underrated Pierluigi Martini (http://www.f1rejects.com/centrale/submitted/martini/index.html))

Force India took over Spyker and turned them from perennial back-of-the-grid team to solid midfielders.

Super Aguri took an old Arrows chassis and made it into a top 10 car with minimal resources.

Pfft yourself.

In 2007 there were 11 team--3 of them were Toro Rosso, Spyker, and Honda (which were in a miserable transition and even in the hands of Rubens and Jensen scored but 6 measly points). With only 7 other teams capable of scoring points, it is no wonder Super Aguri managed a couple of results that year. BFD.

Are you calling Kovalainen a bad driver? or Glock? or de la Rosa? All three have been on an F1 podium.

[zako85]

Points for all competitors, in my opinion, provides a better indicator of driver strength over the course of a season. The last three teams finished in this order: Petrov, Glock, Pic, Kovalainen, Karthikeyan, de la Rosa. But if you ask 100 people, 99 will tell you Heike had the most impressive season, and the same would tell you Narain was the worst.

Using the Indycar points system, which isn't ideal because they award 18-24th the same points, the final standing for the bottom three teams would look like this:


If the IndyCar system is flawed then why do you use it to support your claim? To me it's not clear at all whether Kovalainen or Petrov did well. Let's look at the facts. There have been 19 races where both started (Petrov DNS in Britain). There have been 18 races when at least one of them finished. In those 18 races, I believe Petrov finished 10 times ahead Kovalainen. Kovalainen finished 8 times ahead of Petrov. Petrov had 2 DNFs out of 19 races, Heikki 1 DNF out 20 races. So hard facts do not support the notion that Heike had the most impressive season. I would say Petrov had the impressive season as he has less experience with F1 and the team. Heike was with them for three years. And this is why his seat in such a precarious position. It should be when the "paid" driver is not faster than team's "pay" driver. Petrov pulled off a similar feat in 2011, when the team fired its likely handsomely compensated Heidfeld who after half season did not seem much faster the less experienced Petrov. I do think it would be stupid for Caterham to let go both of these drivers. They are the best drivers that this team could ever hire in its current situation.

[keysersoze]

If the IndyCar system is flawed then why do you use it to support your claim? To me it's not clear at all whether Kovalainen or Petrov did well. Let's look at the facts. There have been 19 races where both started (Petrov DNS in Britain). There have been 18 races when at least one of them finished. In those 18 races, I believe Petrov finished 10 times ahead Kovalainen. Kovalainen finished 8 times ahead of Petrov. Petrov had 2 DNFs out of 19 races, Heikki 1 DNF out 20 races. So hard facts do not support the notion that Heike had the most impressive season. I would say Petrov had the impressive season as he has less experience with F1 and the team. Heike was with them for three years. And this is why his seat in such a precarious position. It should be when the "paid" driver is not faster than team's "pay" driver. Petrov pulled off a similar feat in 2011, when the team fired its likely handsomely compensated Heidfeld who after half season did not seem much faster the less experienced Petrov. I do think it would be stupid for Caterham to let go both of these drivers. They are the best drivers that this team could ever hire in its current situation.

I used the Indycar system because there is no series that uses the "Keysersoze Points System," so I had to pick one that was available and relevant. Duh.

I'm probably the biggest Petrov fan on this board, but I have to say that this season, regardless of the context you put it in, i.e. VP has less experience, HK finished more races, whatever, Kovalainen was better . . . but only just. He outqualified Vitaly 12-8, got into Q2 twice, had by far the best opening laps in passing more cars. Vitaly truly had it over HK in long runs, tire management (here I'm guessing). Petrov didn't pass Kovalainen in the standings until the last race. From your argumentative standpoint, it's a slippery slope to start counting number of finishes because then we have to consider that Jenson benefited from better reliability than Hamilton, and Lewis' paltry 2 point margin over JB is in no way indicative of Lewis' dominance this season. To me Lewis was at least as dominant over Jenson as Vettel was over Webber, yet Sebastian was 102 points clear of Mark.

In the end, however, a points system is what we got, so why end it with just the top 10? It makes logical sense to keep it going on through the order. After all, a driver who finishes 11th twenty times is more successful than a driver who finishes last 20 times. But guess what? At the end of the season these two drivers have the same number of points. It's farcical.

[steveaki13]

Its tough. I feel i would prefer points to be limited to top 6 or 8 as in the past. HOWEVER if it takes points for all to encourage the small teams to stay and for another 2 teams to join to get upto that 26 car grid I would be willing to take it of course.

I want a full grid of 26 above all else and if it takes giving points all the way down, then lets do it.

[AndyL]

That's sort of the point, isn't it?

Fundamentally, motorsport should be a meritocracy. If you can't get in the actual points, so be it. Never used to be an issue.

It never used to be an issue because it used to be more difficult to finish a race. The problem being considered here is lack of meritocracy. For the bottom 3 teams, their WCC positions are determined as much by luck as merit.

I think if there were no prize money at stake, probably no-one would care. So rather than extending the points system, maybe the answer is to give all the non-points-scorers the same share of the TV money regardless of whether they finished 10th, 11th or 12th in the WCC.

[DazzlaF1]

These are some really good points guys, but I feel that if none of the new teams could break into the top 10 even once in 58 races, then things are a little unbalanced. Caterham have taken a lot of flak but they are hardly Pacific or Lola.

I have to agree, yes Caterham and Marussia have failed to score a point in 3 years but think, on average they're between 2-3 seconds off the pace, now 10-15 years ago, that would have comfortably got you into the midfield.

And think of the teams back in the 90's that did get points finishes, the most perfect example I can think of are Larrousse, they were a very average and small run team but in their 3 years without Lola's help, they managed FIVE top 6 finishes, on the current points system, in 1994 (the year they went bust), they would have scored 41, yes FORTY ONE Points. And in 1995, Forti, with a badly outdated car that was regularly 10 seconds off the pace would have scored ELEVEN points, most of which down to Pedro Diniz's 7th place (out of 8 finishers) at the Adelaide finale.

It really does go to show how much improved reliablilty is affecting smaller teams chances of getting on the scoreboard nowadays

[DazzlaF1]

Its tough. I feel i would prefer points to be limited to top 6 or 8 as in the past. HOWEVER if it takes points for all to encourage the small teams to stay and for another 2 teams to join to get upto that 26 car grid I would be willing to take it of course.

I want a full grid of 26 above all else and if it takes giving points all the way down, then lets do it.

If you want a grid of 26, then extending the points is not the way to do it, you need to entice teams with the lure of more financial incentives, if you remember when Lola went bust after 1 race, Bernie jacked up the entry fee from £500k to over £20million, thats why we had so few new teams from 1997 onwards (only Toyota and Super Aguri were technically new, the rest were takeovers of existing teams) no-one could afford to be competitive without putting up so much money upfront to join the party in the first place, and when even Bernie comes out and says "11 teams is still too many" you do get the feeling that if you did come in, you would'nt feel very welcome.

[BDunnell]

It never used to be an issue because it used to be more difficult to finish a race. The problem being considered here is lack of meritocracy. For the bottom 3 teams, their WCC positions are determined as much by luck as merit.

I think if there were no prize money at stake, probably no-one would care. So rather than extending the points system, maybe the answer is to give all the non-points-scorers the same share of the TV money regardless of whether they finished 10th, 11th or 12th in the WCC.

Well, as I said earlier, there is a way of doing this without actually awarding points.

[BDunnell]

I know you don't mean to sound rude BDunnell . . . because it comes natural to you.

My first sentence gave the reason. If ranking the drivers is insignificant, then why give points at all? Is there a better way to determine the champion, and who is runner-up, etc? By your logic (that points don't matter) it naturally follows that the driver with the most wins is champion. If you would go ahead and state that I would have respect for your answer and would not denigrate it (though I wouldn't agree).

Are you capable of dealing with the logic of my post with something other than "there's no legitimate argument," and asking me why they deserve points?

This isn't some radical line of thinking. There are many series that award points for teams that finish down the order (or don't finish at all), and it doesn't distort the results.

And they end up with drivers or teams scoring absurd numbers of points. I can see the need, given how F1 has changed in terms of numbers of finishers, etc, to have some sort of means of ranking the non-points-scoring teams in a way more in line with those who do score points, but awarding points to everyone is not something that, to me, befits a sport that's meant to be at the pinnacle. This isn't some non-competitive school sports day where 'everyone's a winner'. This is serious business. Points should be earned.

[BDunnell]

If you want a grid of 26, then extending the points is not the way to do it, you need to entice teams with the lure of more financial incentives, if you remember when Lola went bust after 1 race, Bernie jacked up the entry fee from £500k to over £20million, thats why we had so few new teams from 1997 onwards (only Toyota and Super Aguri were technically new, the rest were takeovers of existing teams) no-one could afford to be competitive without putting up so much money upfront to join the party in the first place, and when even Bernie comes out and says "11 teams is still too many" you do get the feeling that if you did come in, you would'nt feel very welcome.

It's often been said, but bears repeating: the experience of the 'three new teams' has shown just how difficult F1 is. Which is as it should be.

[BDunnell]

It never used to be an issue because it used to be more difficult to finish a race. The problem being considered here is lack of meritocracy. For the bottom 3 teams, their WCC positions are determined as much by luck as merit.

I think if there were no prize money at stake, probably no-one would care. So rather than extending the points system, maybe the answer is to give all the non-points-scorers the same share of the TV money regardless of whether they finished 10th, 11th or 12th in the WCC.

Where, in that, would be the incentive to try and perform better? The longer Caterham and Marussia are in a race of their own, the more I will think they shouldn't be there at all.

[wedge]

if you remember when Lola went bust after 1 race, Bernie jacked up the entry fee from £500k to over £20million, thats why we had so few new teams from 1997 onwards

Lola's F1 programme wasn't really on in the first place especially having a pyramid scheme cum sponsorship deal.

MasterCard Lola - Profile (http://www.f1rejects.com/teams/lola/profile.html)

Partly why there is an increase in fees and the 107% quali rule in the mid-late '90s because it was about quality and not necessarily quantity.

[Bezza]

The points system is perfect right now. A significant advantage for 1st over 2nd (which improved the absurd 10-8-6-4-3-2-1 system of 2003-2009).

Offering points beyond 10th place would be against the spirit of racing. If Caterham and Marussia up their game, they will get points – at the moment they are not doing enough. If they match Toro Rosso in terms of speed, they will score points, end of story. Giving them paltry points for 17th and 21st place etc would be farcical – where is the reward – and where is their ambition? Points, podium, win is the progression for a new team – like Jordan had to do gradually from 1991 for example. They started from scratch and did a damn fine job in their first year, before struggling until the mid-90’s. But they eventually got there.

Aside from that, it would make the points at the top end absolutely ludicrous and incomparable to yesteryear. Vettel wins the title with 1,292 points, 59 points ahead of Alonso? Far too hard to fathom.

I understand the necessity for points systems like this in NASCAR, where there are 40 cars and the whole thing is about “the show”. But this is F1, and getting a point for finishing 21st, two laps down, shouldn’t be rewarded.

[BDunnell]

The points system is perfect right now. A significant advantage for 1st over 2nd (which improved the absurd 10-8-6-4-3-2-1 system of 2003-2009).

Offering points beyond 10th place would be against the spirit of racing. If Caterham and Marussia up their game, they will get points – at the moment they are not doing enough. If they match Toro Rosso in terms of speed, they will score points, end of story. Giving them paltry points for 17th and 21st place etc would be farcical – where is the reward – and where is their ambition? Points, podium, win is the progression for a new team – like Jordan had to do gradually from 1991 for example. They started from scratch and did a damn fine job in their first year, before struggling until the mid-90’s. But they eventually got there.

Aside from that, it would make the points at the top end absolutely ludicrous and incomparable to yesteryear. Vettel wins the title with 1,292 points, 59 points ahead of Alonso? Far too hard to fathom.

I understand the necessity for points systems like this in NASCAR, where there are 40 cars and the whole thing is about “the show”. But this is F1, and getting a point for finishing 21st, two laps down, shouldn’t be rewarded.

Exactly.

[zako85]

The way I see it, perhaps we need some kind of a compromise solution. For example, consider this.. keep the points system as is. In particular any team with at least one point is placed above the teams with no points in WCC. In addition, introduce a _shadow_ points system that applies at the end of year _only_ to teams that have no points. Let's say, 11th place: 10 shadow points, 12th place: 6 points and so on until 16th place with 1 shadow points. At the end of year, the WCC positions are distributed as usual to the teams with real points. Then the shadow scores are calculated to allocate the WCC positions among the teams with no WCC points.

This system would have been the best of both worlds. Truly slow car do not get any WCC points. However, under this system a consistently better car would be placed above a consistently "slower" car. Right now we have a terrible "winner takes all" system for distributing WCC positions among teams with no points at all. It's not a lot different from a system where the WDC champion is decided solely by the number of wins (suddenly, Hamilton would have been in contention at the end of championship, and Alonso with no chances to win WDC with his 3 race wins against Vettel's 5, which sounds like an unfair system that rewards those who take huge risks to win but without good consistency).

The system I propose does have a flaw. A team that only by sheer luck manages to score a point will still beat a consistently faster team that hasn't had a chance to score a point. Nonetheless, this seems better than what we have now.

[BDunnell]

It's not a lot different from a system where the WDC champion is decided solely by the number of wins (suddenly, Hamilton would have been in contention at the end of championship, and Alonso with no chances to win WDC with his 3 race wins against Vettel's 5, which sounds like an unfair system that rewards those who take huge risks to win but without good consistency).

You mean in the event of a tie?



The system I propose does have a flaw. A team that only by sheer luck manages to score a point will still beat a consistently faster team that hasn't had a chance to score a point. Nonetheless, this seems better than what we have now.

Not a flaw at all. A points score of any sort should always be a target to aim for, not something to which everyone is entitled. And luck always plays its part.

[keysersoze]

Not a flaw at all. A points score of any sort should always be a target to aim for, not something to which everyone is entitled. And luck always plays its part.

So you are saying zako's system is better than the one in place now?

[zako85]

You mean in the event of a tie?

No, I mean where the championship is decided by the number of wins first, and then by other factors. I believe the idea has been floated in the past before, most recently there were calls for this after 2008 when Hamilton won the championship with less wins than Massa. Most would say this is not a good idea.

[BDunnell]

So you are saying zako's system is better than the one in place now?

If there is a reason (i.e. financial) to put non-points-scoring teams in some kind of ranked order, I think there is an argument for deciding this on the same basis as are ranked the teams that do score points, rather than on the basis of who gets the best individual result. However, I don't think that points should actually be awarded. My earlier suggestion, of merely adding up their race finishes (say, 14 + 11 + 12, etc) and ranking them on the basis of the team that ends up with the lowest numerical total, is both simple and avoids the need actually to award points.

This said, though, on the basis of the point I make in the post below, there is also a good argument — one, on balance, I favour — for doing nothing.

[BDunnell]

No, I mean where the championship is decided by the number of wins first, and then by other factors. I believe the idea has been floated in the past before, most recently there were calls for this after 2008 when Hamilton won the championship with less wins than Massa. Most would say this is not a good idea.

It certainly isn't a good idea. But this is exactly how end-of-season ties are currently decided; on the basis of best finishing positions. This, I would imagine, is the rationale behind the non-points-scoring teams having their ranking decided on which achieved the best individual race finishing position: they are deemed to have tied on 0 points, and therefore the calculation is made on the same basis as are ties within the points.

[truefan72]

all this is a terrific argument for proper revenue sharing
keep the points as it is and merit some extra bonus to teams finishing in the top 10 at the end of the year, but find a way for a more level revenue sharing system.
A better revenue sharing system benefits everyone, closer competition, better cars and a better product for everyone to watch.
This will also attract more revenue from sponsors and advertisers up and down the grid to adequately subsidize their budget.

Of course the bigger teams ( more specifically Ferrari, RBR and Mclaren) have no interest in a fairer revenue sharing system as they like keeping most of the pie to themselves. and could care less if the series only features 6 cars.

[N. Jones]

Gascoyne calls for points extension | F1 News | Jan 2013 | Crash.Net (http://www.crash.net/f1/news/187312/1/gascoyne_calls_for_points_extension.html)


Gascoyne makes one important point. As places are assigned in WCC right now, if Petrov didn't take 11th place finish in Brazil, then Marussia would have taken 10th place in WCC (and prize money associated with this) even though Caterham was ahead of Marussia most of the year. If all points structure was such that all teams are awarded points, then Caterham would have been solidly in 10th place even after Glocks 12th place finish in Singapore.

On the other hand, the cynic inside of me wants to note that after three years of failing to score a point, even with Renault engine and RedBull gear box, it sounds like Caterham F1 gives up and now wants the points to come to them. I'd probably be against extending points system. After all, scoring a single point _used_ to mean something, and still means something (lesser). If points system is extended, scoring a points by itself will not mean much any more.

Scoring a point now means nothing with 11 or 12 teams. It rewards mediocrity. Give me 14 teams and I can see awarding down to tenth. For the moment though, going down to eighth would be good enough.