The Absurdaty Of Todays Points System

[F1 FANatic 1]

Ok, after the British GP I asked myself that Does Kimi need to do to win the WDC, and after doing some math I found this out

Hami could win the WDC with only 2 wins even if Kimi wins the last 8 races, Yes its very true

Right now Kimi is 18 points behind Hamilton, if kimi wins every race from now on, so the last 8, he would have a grand total of 132 points, If Hamilton in the same 8 races finished second every time he would have 134 points, so he would win with 2 points more than Kimi, even though kimi in this scenario would have 6 times as many wins as Hamilton

Now, to explain how this works. If you win and your nearest rival comes in second you make only 2 points good on him. So, Kimi can make good a total of 16 points in the last 8 races, Hamilton though with 2 wins this season already has an 18 point lead over Kimi.

Now you could argue that Hamilton deserves the WDC because he finished every race, but even so he never has to push for a win.

so your thoughts?

[Niall McBride 0]

tbh i think the points for winning should be more valuable (to say 15 perhaps), to force the drivers into going for the win more. it's all playing it safe these days cos the points awarded are so tightly packed. i reckon it would decide who would really deserve to win. gilles villeneuve mentioned one time when tom sneva won the indycar title (i think) in the 70s and didn't win a race, he critisised on how can anyone enjoy winning a title without winning a race lol

[Max Mosley 2]

Everyone knows I think the WDC is fairly meaningless no matter what points system you use.

The system we have atm basically rewards consistency over everything else (eg pure speed). Lewis has made the fewest mistakes, and that's why he leads. Interestingly I would say that the number of mistakes made by the drivers is reflected pretty well in the WDC (Lewis<'Nando<Massa=Kimi).

So I think(?) your question is basically: should we change the points system to reward eg pure speed, by making a win count more? I don't have a definitive opinion on it, but it seems to me that the main difference a driver can make is not making mistakes. Normally whoever has the faster car will win, unless someone makes a mistake. So, if you want to make the WDC as meaningful as possible (alas, still not very meaningful) without changing anything but the points system, I think the current system is arguably about as good as you can do.

[Jez 0]

I can understand the cost saving measures that inspired the two weekend engine life rule. But that rule is another thing to consider along with the current points system when analyizing what can be done to get more drivers fighting up to the last lap for a win. I personally would like to see 12 points for a win, and the rest of the top eight rewarded with the same points as is currently done.

[DOF_power 0]

>

^ During Fangio's time we had a similar system, 8-6-4 vs. 10-8-6.

And BTW Fangio won in 56 the WDC with just 2 (championship) victories.

And before that, there was a 1-2-3-4 point system, good enough for Nuvolari, Carcciola, Rosemeyer.

Here's the situation by 1930 rules:

THE 2007 CHAMPIONSHIP

WITH 1930s RULES!

Results after French GP:

L Hamilton 16

F Alonso 21

F Massa 25

K R

[DOF_power 0]

So what's the problem now ?!

[Hapankaalimies 0]

Bigger gaps between the first and second, second and third would do good for the sport. Also I think that if we'd give points to lets say ten best drivers each race, there would be more reason to fight at the back too.

Something like this: 20-15-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

I'd like the championship to go for the one that wins the most, so I want to encourage winning races, not staying relaxed at second place.

[angie 0]

The only certain thing is that the 1st place should be awarded with more points than it is now.This would definetely encourage the drivers to fight harder.Because if you consider the current points system, it is far better to secure the 2nd place than to take the risk to fight for the victory,knowing that if you manage to overtake the car which leads the race ,you'll gain only 2 points more.

[lukeB 0]

Bigger gaps between the first and second, second and third would do good for the sport. Also I think that if we'd give points to lets say ten best drivers each race, there would be more reason to fight at the back too.

Something like this: 20-15-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

I'd like the championship to go for the one that wins the most, so I want to encourage winning races, not staying relaxed at second place.

I agree, it should be more like the moto gp points system

Bernie did say the rules might be changing in 2008 to encourage drivers to fight more for the win. Let's hope so

[Null 0]

if the points just went 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 it would be sooo much closer but nooo, they won't do that...

[Max Mosley 2]

Yes and no.

(It would be much closer, and no they won't do it, that is.)

[Eric 0]

Here's an extreme idea:

1st: 1

Everyone else: 0

Here's another:

1: 512

2: 256

3: 128

4: 64

5: 32

6: 16

7: 8

8: 4

9: 2

10: 1

Fast Lap: 2

Logic: Everyone in the top 10 pushes because there are larger gaps between each position. Everyone outside pushes to either get in or get the 2 fast lap points. 2 more drivers score points because there will be 2 more drivers.

-Eric

[Quiet One 15]

Here's an extreme idea:

1st: 1

Everyone else: 0

Here's another:

1: 512

2: 256

3: 128

4: 64

5: 32

6: 16

7: 8

8: 4

9: 2

10: 1

Fast Lap: 2

Logic: Everyone in the top 10 pushes because there are larger gaps between each position. Everyone outside pushes to either get in or get the 2 fast lap points. 2 more drivers score points because there will be 2 more drivers.

-Eric

Or...we could replace the points system by an olympics like scoring system. 3 persons watching the race and then giving each the score for each driver as he crosses the line. Ok, I would be judge number one....volunteers?

[Eric 0]

Or...we could replace the points system by an olympics like scoring system. 3 persons watching the race and then giving each the score for each driver as he crosses the line. Ok, I would be judge number one....volunteers?

YEAH.

Okay. Scott gets a 10, Taku a 9, and Ant an 8. Everyone else a 0, unless they read my blog.

-Eric

[Quiet One 15]

YEAH.

Okay. Scott gets a 10, Taku a 9, and Ant an 8. Everyone else a 0, unless they read my blog.

-Eric

Rrrright...

Don't call us. We'll call you.

[Max Mosley 2]

Good idea! Or we can have a "value-added" WDC where we deduce the overall performance of the cars, and award points according to how the drivers' results compare with their cars' relative performances.

[Eric 0]

Rrrright...

Don't call us. We'll call you.

My views are quite good. The world needs more people like me. If there were more people like me, I wouldn't be in a mental institute. Or at least I'd have friends in the mental institute.

-Eric

[aussief1 4]

Ok, after the British GP I asked myself that Does Kimi need to do to win the WDC, and after doing some math I found this out

Hami could win the WDC with only 2 wins even if Kimi wins the last 8 races, Yes its very true

Right now Kimi is 18 points behind Hamilton, if kimi wins every race from now on, so the last 8, he would have a grand total of 132 points, If Hamilton in the same 8 races finished second every time he would have 134 points, so he would win with 2 points more than Kimi, even though kimi in this scenario would have 6 times as many wins as Hamilton

Now, to explain how this works. If you win and your nearest rival comes in second you make only 2 points good on him. So, Kimi can make good a total of 16 points in the last 8 races, Hamilton though with 2 wins this season already has an 18 point lead over Kimi.

Now you could argue that Hamilton deserves the WDC because he finished every race, but even so he never has to push for a win.

so your thoughts?

You raise a very good point. I'm not a fan of a consistantcy based Championship. The current point scoring system was put in place because of the success of Michael & Ferrari, now we don't have that level of domination it's time for a change.

tbh i think the points for winning should be more valuable (to say 15 perhaps), to force the drivers into going for the win more. it's all playing it safe these days cos the points awarded are so tightly packed. i reckon it would decide who would really deserve to win. gilles villeneuve mentioned one time when tom sneva won the indycar title (i think) in the 70s and didn't win a race, he critisised on how can anyone enjoy winning a title without winning a race lol

I agree more points awarded to the winner.

I can understand the cost saving measures that inspired the two weekend engine life rule. But that rule is another thing to consider along with the current points system when analyizing what can be done to get more drivers fighting up to the last lap for a win. I personally would like to see 12 points for a win, and the rest of the top eight rewarded with the same points as is currently done.

Another good point, with no incentive to go for more points, with the current two race weekend per engine rule teams will choose to turn down the engine and settle for the position they are in rather than risk the engine for the next GP. This is crazy we want entertainment right up until the last lap of the race not until the final pit stops are complete.

Here's an extreme idea:

1st: 1

Everyone else: 0

Here's another:

1: 512

2: 256

3: 128

4: 64

5: 32

6: 16

7: 8

8: 4

9: 2

10: 1

Fast Lap: 2

Logic: Everyone in the top 10 pushes because there are larger gaps between each position. Everyone outside pushes to either get in or get the 2 fast lap points. 2 more drivers score points because there will be 2 more drivers.

-Eric

I'm not a fan of massive points tallys, but I am a fan of drivers / teams being awarded for Pole and fastest lap of the GP.

Or...we could replace the points system by an olympics like scoring system. 3 persons watching the race and then giving each the score for each driver as he crosses the line. Ok, I would be judge number one....volunteers?

Are you "mad as a hatter" Mad Max Mosley????? That sounds like something that idiot would come up with

[F1 FANatic 1]

My thinking has always been to go back to the points system of the 90's

10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1

It awards winning, and for the midfield teams it gives a goal, it wont let them just coast with a 7th or 8th place home

[Quiet One 15]

You raise a very good point. I'm not a fan of a consistantcy based Championship. The current point scoring system was put in place because of the success of Michael & Ferrari, now we don't have that level of domination it's time for a change.

I agree more points awarded to the winner.

Another good point, with no incentive to go for more points, with the current two race weekend per engine rule teams will choose to turn down the engine and settle for the position they are in rather than risk the engine for the next GP. This is crazy we want entertainment right up until the last lap of the race not until the final pit stops are complete.

I'm not a fan of massive points tallys, but I am a fan of drivers / teams being awarded for Pole and fastest lap of the GP.

Are you "mad as a hatter" Mad Max Mosley????? That sounds like something that idiot would come up with

Your post's score:

0.5 1.5 0.5

[Rey 0]

I think a good solution would be 10,7,5,4,3,2,1 and 1 point extra for pole position

[BradSpeedMan 6]

It will not be wise to actually change it. I expect utter domination of a Kimi era starting next year. At least it will give his opponents some sort of a glimpse of challenging...

[Max Mosley 2]

I think this is a team sport, and we need to fully embrace that side of the sport. Therefore I propose making the grid girls part of the teams. The teams will hire and fire grid girls like they do drivers. Points will be awarded in a 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 fashion for the best girls, as judged by a panel comprising: me.

[lukeB 0]

I think it should be 15, 11, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 and 1 point for the fastest lap.

I also like Quiet One's idea, I'll volunteer to be the second judge

Silverstone: Raikonnen, 0, Alsono, 7, Hamilton, 10, Kubica, 5, Massa, 1, and whoever took the milk n cereal kid out (Speed), 10, can't remember who it was. Does that sound a bit biased

[Eric 0]

I think this is a team sport, and we need to fully embrace that side of the sport. Therefore I propose making the grid girls part of the teams. The teams will hire and fire grid girls like they do drivers. Points will be awarded in a 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 fashion for the best girls, as judged by a panel comprising: me.

I was actually thinking of posting something similar.

Champ Car kinda sorta does that, actually. The races hire girls and they pick the hottest one from each race and then pick the hottest of the hottest.

I think it should be 15, 11, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 and 1 point for the fastest lap.

I also like Quiet One's idea, I'll volunteer to be the second judge

Silverstone: Raikonnen, 0, Alsono, 7, Hamilton, 10, Kubica, 5, Massa, 1, and whoever took the milk n cereal kid out (Speed), 10, can't remember who it was. Does that sound a bit biased

Whoooooooaaaah. What did Scott do to you?? I agree with Raikkonen, Alonso, ehh, I guess so, Hamilton gets an automatic 0 everytime so you're wrong, Kubica...sure?, Massa gets a 10 for his drive but normally a 7, and Wurz/Rosberg (I've heard people say it was both) get shot.

As for your points system, it's pretty good and a lot more realsitic than mine would be. I like it. Unless you have no good reason for your hatred of Speed. Then I hate your system passionately.

-Eric