15 replies to this topic

[Negative Ions]

The Points System needs to give points to all the finishers

The current points system is absolutely ridiculous.  I saw a graphic on the Brazilian race, that had the three teams with zero constructors points etc, yet one had just passed the other team due to better results.  How is that even remotely interpreted by the average fan?  How does that make it easy to understand what has happened in previous races?  The teams that get no points are obviously racing for championship money, but the points system should reflect this.  Also the drivers should be rewarded exponentially for higher place finishes right down the field.

Here is my proposed points system:

Position  Points  Difference
1   100
2   90   10
3   82 8   
4   76 6
5   72 4
6   68 4
7   64 4
8   60 4
9   56 4
10 52 4
11    48 4
12    44 4
13    40 4
14    37 3
15 34 3
16 31 3
17 28 3
18 25 3
19 22 3
20 19 3
21 16 3
22 14 2
23 12 2
24 10 2
25 8 2
26 6 2
27 4 2
28 2 2
29 1 1
30 0 1

Number of cars per team:

Each team should be able to field 3 cars.  This way the racing will be more exiting as the top four teams which are usually competitive will have a total of 12 cars = much more excitement.

Also they need to get rid of the HRT's etc that join, run around in last place, and then leave due to lack of money.  How they are going to do that I have no idea, but they are a waste of space.

Edited by Negative Ions, 27 November 2012 - 08:21 AM.

[dribbler]

In my view, the existing points system is fine. The fans amongst us understood the implications of the Caterham/Marussia overtake. It does not need a re-configured points allocation to cater for those who do not care anyway.

I like the idea of a third car per team, as long as all the teams are financially able to do so. It would allow us to benchmark certain drivers better.

As for team coming in then leaving, it's always been that way. For me, it gives weight and credibility to those who stay for the long haul and reminds us of how difficult it is to do that. I also prefer the added dimension of the front runners having to negotiate back markers.

Levelling the field by reducing team numbers makes the sport more elitist than it already is.

Edited by dribbler, 27 November 2012 - 08:24 AM.

[Negative Ions]

dribbler, on 27 November 2012 - 08:21 AM, said:

In my view, the existing points system is fine. The fans amongst us understood the implications of the Caterham/Marussia overtake. It does not need a re-configured points allocation to cater for those who do not care anyway.

I like the idea of a third car per team, as long as all the teams are financially able to do so. It would allow us to benchmark certain drivers better.

As for team coming in then leaving, it's always been that way. For me, it gives weight and credibility to those who stay for the long haul and reminds us of how difficult it is to do that. I also prefer the added dimension of the front runners having to negotiate back markers.

Levelling the field by reducing team numbers makes the sport more elitist than it already is.

Fair call about the teams leaving.

I strongly disagree with the points system.

I thought of a better one.

Position Points Difference
1 465
2 435 30
3 406 29
4 378 28
5 351 27
6 325 26
7 300 25
8 276 24
9 253 23
10 231 22
11 210 21
12 190 20
13 171 19
14 153 18
15 136 17
16 120 16
17 105 15
18 91 14
19 78 13
20 66 12   
21 55 11
22 45 10
23 36 9
24 28 8
25 21 7
26 15 6
27 10 5
28 6 4
29 3 3
30 1 2

Edited by Negative Ions, 27 November 2012 - 08:26 AM.

[HandyNZL]

Why not just make up some formula incorporating Pi and Phi why don't you?

Whilst I agree that the whole no points for 11th and back makes it hard for the lesser teams to differentiate themselves on a scoreboard, it does then make it a goal to finish in the top ten, and thus, improve your car.

How you improve your car in this day and age is with money - money to spend on engineers, on designers, on things like KERS which Marussia and HRT do not have (not sure if Caterham has one either...can't remember)...to be without said KERS translates to a whopping amount of time over the course of a GP.

It used to be that only the top 6 got points, but this was changed due to fan outcries and because it was Williams, McLaren and Ferrari/Benetton taking all six spots, and thus all the points....then it wasn't three teams on zero points, but sometimes many more.

I think it is unfair to deride the smaller teams...perhaps Leyton House should never have been allowed to race, you know, because they were small and had a year where they were crap and were in financial strife.  Guess maybe if that was the case, Adrian Newey would never be where he is today - chances are he would be in the USA, which is where he was prior to Leyton House, and telling Bobby Rahal how to set up a car.

And maybe Alonso would never had had a shot at F1, nor Webber, nor quite a few others.

F1 needs back marker teams more than the back marker teams need F1.  That might sound absurd, but if it really was just McLaren, Ferrari and RBR, then what a dull old thing F1 would be....much like  World Chevrolet Touring Cars.

F1 needs MORE small teams...they don't need three car teams - how awful would that be when driver 2 and 3 block an entire race so that driver 1 can scoot off to a world title.  F1 needs SINGLE car teams - guys that try and pre-qualify.  However this will never happen again even if the rules re-allowed it...it's just too darn expensive, even if they were running previous years cars.

Sure there are some things that F1 could do better, like race on proper race tracks (not Tilke-dromes), return to ground effects, reduce front wing sizes and number of elements (I can't begin to think how much money each of those front wings is worth in terms of design, wind testing and the like, just to gain 0.01secs a lap).  In other words, the skeleton of F1 is OK...

[dribbler]

*Pulls a 'Paxman' type face of dissaproval.*

[Negative Ions]

HandyNZL, on 27 November 2012 - 08:54 AM, said:

Why not just make up some formula incorporating Pi and Phi why don't you?

Whilst I agree that the whole no points for 11th and back makes it hard for the lesser teams to differentiate themselves on a scoreboard, it does then make it a goal to finish in the top ten, and thus, improve your car.

How you improve your car in this day and age is with money - money to spend on engineers, on designers, on things like KERS which Marussia and HRT do not have (not sure if Caterham has one either...can't remember)...to be without said KERS translates to a whopping amount of time over the course of a GP.

It used to be that only the top 6 got points, but this was changed due to fan outcries and because it was Williams, McLaren and Ferrari/Benetton taking all six spots, and thus all the points....then it wasn't three teams on zero points, but sometimes many more.

I think it is unfair to deride the smaller teams...perhaps Leyton House should never have been allowed to race, you know, because they were small and had a year where they were crap and were in financial strife.  Guess maybe if that was the case, Adrian Newey would never be where he is today - chances are he would be in the USA, which is where he was prior to Leyton House, and telling Bobby Rahal how to set up a car.

And maybe Alonso would never had had a shot at F1, nor Webber, nor quite a few others.

F1 needs back marker teams more than the back marker teams need F1.  That might sound absurd, but if it really was just McLaren, Ferrari and RBR, then what a dull old thing F1 would be....much like  World Chevrolet Touring Cars.

F1 needs MORE small teams...they don't need three car teams - how awful would that be when driver 2 and 3 block an entire race so that driver 1 can scoot off to a world title.  F1 needs SINGLE car teams - guys that try and pre-qualify.  However this will never happen again even if the rules re-allowed it...it's just too darn expensive, even if they were running previous years cars.

Sure there are some things that F1 could do better, like race on proper race tracks (not Tilke-dromes), return to ground effects, reduce front wing sizes and number of elements (I can't begin to think how much money each of those front wings is worth in terms of design, wind testing and the like, just to gain 0.01secs a lap).  In other words, the skeleton of F1 is OK...

Hmm some good points there on the 3 car thing.  Although blocking for a team mate will be hard with DRS.

But I still like my points system better.

Edited by Negative Ions, 27 November 2012 - 09:11 AM.

[HandyNZL]

dribbler, on 27 November 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

*Pulls a 'Paxman' type face of dissaproval.*

A what????

[Massa]

Good points formula for youth soccer, but I'll take what we have.  It emphasizes winning first and foremost, and then emphasizes not sucking shortly afterward.  If you award points to everyone, you get the NASCAR syndrome of "good points day" where a driver is happy to finish fifteenth because he "didn't lose that much ground."  It should never be helpful in the WCC or WDC to not get a good finish.

[JHS18]

I like it how it is. It shows how difficult points are to achieve when these three new teams still haven't scored any. It just emphasises the good job the likes of Red Bull have done to win three WCC in a row too.

I'd rather not get it the point where everyone's a winner like at a school sports day. Sure it might be hard for the casual fan to understand, but F1 worries too much about the casual fan. Everything these days is to meet the needs of the "casual" fan.

Don't like the idea of three cars for top teams either. It reminds me of the height of the diesel domination at Le Mans where Audi and Peugeot had three cars each, meaning that it was basically guaranteed that those six cars, unless something happened, would be the first six home. I like it that a Sauber, Williams, Force India or whoever can occasionally create an upset like we've seen this year and take on the "big" teams. I fear they wouldn't get much of a look in if Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren were suddenly allowed to enter a third car.

Edited by JHS18, 27 November 2012 - 09:10 PM.

[Argento Reloaded]

First real change will be apply the same rules to vettel / red bull and the rest teams. Will revolutionary!

[HandyNZL]

Argento Reloaded, on 28 November 2012 - 12:03 AM, said:

First real change will be apply the same rules to vettel / red bull and the rest teams. Will revolutionary!

Yikes!! You want them further out in front of everyone?

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

Only tweak I would make would be the IRL style: 1 point extra for getting pole and 1 point extra for leading most laps.

This way this is more of an incentive to qualify competitively and those whose car expires/gets punted off after leading most of the race can still salvage something....

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

Negative Ions, on 27 November 2012 - 08:25 AM, said:

I thought of a better one.

Position Points Difference
1 465
2 435 30
3 406 29

Ooh no, I've got one.

Whoever wins gets given a live chicken each race which he has to keep alive for the rest of the season and each of which has to be seated in the car in every race.

2nd place gets a quail

3rd place gets a kitten

Down to 12th place who gets a house cricket.

Winner would be the person who has the most animals alive at the end of the season!

The added advantages of my system are:

• Incurs a weight penalty for those consistently running at the front, increasing competition
  
• Would finally allow a c#ck in the c#ckpit (although some would say there are plenty of c#cks out there)
  
• Solves catering issues as they could have an end of season knees up

Edit, just realised the flaw in my argument as the kitten may cause havoc with the chickens....

Edit 2: on the other hand that could be part of the challenge for the driver. Mwah ha ha it works!!!!

Edited by Grabthaw the Hammerslayer, 28 November 2012 - 05:39 AM.

[Argento Reloaded]

HandyNZL, on 28 November 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

Yikes!! You want them further out in front of everyone?

If they can manage between the rules limits it´s ok for me. Not like this year!

[Massa]

HandyNZL, on 28 November 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

Yikes!! You want them further out in front of everyone?

Perfect post, Craig.

[Insider]

dribbler, on 27 November 2012 - 08:21 AM, said:

In my view, the existing points system is fine. The fans amongst us understood the implications of the Caterham/Marussia overtake. It does not need a re-configured points allocation to cater for those who do not care anyway.

I like the idea of a third car per team, as long as all the teams are financially able to do so. It would allow us to benchmark certain drivers better.

As for team coming in then leaving, it's always been that way. For me, it gives weight and credibility to those who stay for the long haul and reminds us of how difficult it is to do that. I also prefer the added dimension of the front runners having to negotiate back markers.

Levelling the field by reducing team numbers makes the sport more elitist than it already is.

I agree whole-heartedly though I fear there may be no takers for HRT and most teams outside the top four would struggle to field three cars. There would also be a shortage of garages.