Questioning the system for the none point scorers again!


No passing through my dirty air please
Ok so I'm sure this has been raised every year but I'm going to raise it again because in actual fact it does matter. The current system in order to rank teams in order who don't score points goes off who has the highest finish in a race and then how many if thats equal. What that means is that Caterham's 13th at Monaco on Sunday pops them into that all important 10th place and pretty much makes it impossible without some sort of freak race for either HRT or Marussia to pip past them. This is a massive shame, especially for Marussia who in actual fact have been looking far more consistant and on the ball than they have in previous years. Now it means to get that 10th place which would mean more funding and more sponsors which would be massively important for the team is not a realistic oppotunity. Hardly seems fair to reward one result on the back off a high number of retirments.

The solution? Well my solution is this. Add together all of the teams classified finishing places and the one with the lowest number is obviously the team at the top. This system would still leave Caterham top but would leave it not a foregone conclusion only 6 races in they would have the 10th spot for sure. Stats below

Caterham. results = 18, 19, 16, 18, 18, 23, 16, 17, 16, 17, 13, 20 = 211

Marussia. results = 14, 15, 17, 20, 19, 20, 19, 24, 18, 21, 14, 18 = 219

HRT. results = 23, 24, 21, 22, 21, 22, 20, 21, 19, 22, 15, 22 = 252

With only 8 different it would mean that Marussia would stand a chance of catching and passing Caterham with some good results and it would certainly push Caterham to keep going rather than kick around until their bigger funding comes in for their 3rd 10th place finish. Marussia have never acheived a 13th spot and HRT have only done it once in Canada last year so we really are waiting for a freak occurance for one of them to grab a 13th place that'll own 2.

It doesn't seem fair to me as you can see from those results that whilst Caterham have looked faster Marussia have looked more consistant. In fact Marussia have finished in front of at least one of the Caterhams in 4 of the 6 GP.

Anyone got any thought on how it could be judged better?
Your right it is unfair. I do think your system would be rather difficult to follow for the casual F1 fan.

Why not just change the points system. Simply award points to the entire field. Problem solved.

It happens in many other motorsports, its time F1 stopped awarding only the elite teams.
I don't think the casual F1 fan would need to understand it as they probably don't give a monkies about the 3 bottom teams.

I'm not sure about the points for the whole field thing. I think points have been devalued anyways - I'm still in favour of only the top 6 getting points! But I do think this system at the bottom needs to be sorted out to something better than it is. F1's equivalant of goal difference I guess.

It might seem silly but for those 3 teams that 10th place is the difference between sink and swim.
If Marussia or HRT want to beat Caterham they should bloody well build a faster car. I have no sympathy whatsoever.

Having said that, if it was up to me I'd give all 12 teams the FOM money. But keep the championship scoring as it is.
Well if you use your system just for the bottom 3 teams, then other teams on same points (the one that loses out) would complain why they have that system for the bottom 3 teams, and 'countback' for the rest of the teams.
I've toyed with different point systems in the past, including elaborate systems awarding points to the whole field based on the race, qualifying and fastest laps, and what always stood out is how similar the results are across the various systems. What you're suggesting may be fairer, but it is more complicated and I suspect it would lead to the same result most of the time. You'll also struggle to find many people who think Marussia or HRT deserve 10th place more than Caterham at the moment.
Well if you use your system just for the bottom 3 teams, then other teams on same points (the one that loses out) would complain why they have that system for the bottom 3 teams, and 'countback' for the rest of the teams.

Of course the system would replace countback as well. I don't really enjoy the countback system either to be honest.

You'll also struggle to find many people who think Marussia or HRT deserve 10th place more than Caterham at the moment.

Well I'd have said that too but Marussia have actually been impressively reliable this season compared to the Caterhams and I don't think that is being rewarded. I'm pretty sure even using my system Caterham will come out on top but my point is after that 13th place, only 6 races in, the competition for 10th is pretty much over. Marussia could beat the Caterham's for the rest of the season but would still be relying on a race of high attrition twice in order to move past them. Thats not promoting competition for every place is it? or for consistant performance.

My argument isn't that Caterham don't deserve 10th place but that the competition for it should be fair.
Ok, well in that case we have the question about whether F1 places more emphasis on consistency or speed, and I think it's speed. One 10th and 19 DNFs is worth more than finishing 11th all season, and in that regard I agree with you that it isn't fair. I just thought I'd mention that actually it seems that in the end, from my experience, you can put all the effort in the world in to developing a system and it spits out results that are almost exactly the same.
On that note, sorry to double post, but if some people are REALLY interested in seeing a championship based on a ridiculously complicated points system, I MAY be tempted to dig around and recreate one...
To be honest I don't think they're is a problem with the point soring system I think the problem comes when someone is on equal points or not scoring points at all. Just think we need a better 'decider' system
simplest way is to award the WDC points as usual then give every driver from 1st to last a set of shadow points.
The shadow points would be1 for the winner down to 24 (assuming 24 drivers) for the first driver in the race to crash out, or last man if all 24 finish!
(DNS/DNQ and DQ get nothing).

That way the places for the 24 drivers of all 12 teams are based on the performance of the whole season to decide the overall ranking of the backmarkers and their team in the fairest way even if they haven't scored any WDC points.

Shadow points would only need to be used after the WDC/WCC points have been earned:
a) to rank teams and drivers scoring equal WDC or WCC points, or
b) for ranking teams or drivers who didn't score any WDC/WCC points.

This system also works, unaltered, whether you're on the 10*6*4*3*2*1 system that I grew up with, 25*18*whatever system that we have now, any other daft system that Bernie can come up with, and would work for any number of teams in the F1 circus - winner gets 1, 2nd gets 2 and so on until all competitors have got their shadow points.

Or is that so unspeakably obvious that noone else has though of it?
I think we're on the same lines as my system to work out who should be in tenth if you look because I am adding the positions of the teams 2 drivers and the one with the least amount of points comes out on top. So I'll take that as a thumbs up on the system!
Rasputin we wouldn't need to have this discussion if the three new teams could stop embarrassing themselves and actually improve the car to a degree where they're not filling the bottom six grid slots every bloody race.

Caterham/Lotus have not achieved anything in finishing 10th the last two years in my opinion because, at the end of the day, they still finished with no points, like Marussia and HRT. How about actually scoring some points for a change?
Bus Stop Chicane thats fair enough but you have to look at the bigger picture. For starters that 10th place is massively important due to the way the TV and sponsor money is split up between the teams. If Caterham get it for the 3rd year in a row they're in for a considerable cut that Marussia and HRT won't get. As we know in F1 money = development so this in fact is the mission of these teams.

Second point I'll make is its very easy for us to all sit here and say "build a faster car and score some points" but the reality of it is not as easy as we sitting in our arm chairs might make out. The 9 other teams have been around in one form or another for at least 15 years (I think the last brand new team on the grid still competing amongs them was Stewart/Red Bull) and more importantly they've been around through the period of unlimited testing and therefore have had years and years to perfect the basics and understand how to run a team. Tell me what chance does a brand new team who only get 3 to 4 tests a year stand in catching the rest of these guys up and being competitve with them within 3 years?

It would be the equivalant of me letting you have a few stores over the world, telling you to start a fast food place, limiting you to only one market research a year and then having a go at you after 3 years for not being a bigger brand and a bigger seller than Mcdonalds and Burger King.

Is it any wonder that one of the teams (HRT) have given up completely trying to be competitve and are just concentrating on the team being finacially secure and hanging on in existance in hope that the rule changes might mean they'll be able to jump up on the back of the other teams some what.

Rant over.
Don't have a position in this discussion but I did create a graph when looking into other aspects of the sport that I think might be of interest to it.


This is a simple percentage of total WCC points on offer by season awarded to the teams that finished in the bottom half of the standings. Seasons in which an odd number of teams competed, I simply ignored the points awarded to the middle team, not counting them in either the top half nor the bottom half. As you can see, there have been several season in which the bottom half teams scored zero WCC points. In fact, some of those seasons (such as 1990), more than half the teams competing scored no WCC points.

EDIT: Apologies, chaps, I inadvertently included the top cell from the 1965 season -- who happened to be the WCC -- in the tots for the bottom half of the 1966 season. The corrected number is 3.2%. Thank you for keeping me honest, tooncheese. I did check all the seasons to make certain that was the only instance of that error.

The peaks now all look more pronounced because the overall scale has changed.
I expected the field to be most 'bunched up' in 2009, but the effect of adding three poor teams (and subtracting Toyota) has been pronounced. It returns to the levels of the late 90s - early 00s when that role was taken by Minardi and A.N. Other.

Certainly not a new issue sporting wise, but probably now more important commercially.
Top Bottom