The Points System


Valued Member

F1 Live said:
The change, he argues, will rid the sport of the situation of the 2008 series finale in Brazil, where Lewis Hamilton was able to finish just fifth and still be crowned world champion.

Bernie Ecclestone wants to rid the sport of the excitement that happened in the Brazilian Grand Prix! Imagine how boring that race would have been under this system! But, Ferrari would have won the WDC, so its all good! >:(

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if its slightly broke, don't get a huge hammer and smash it until its only skip fodder!
Another daft idea from dear old Bernie.

I can name any number of world titles that have been won by a driver not finishing first to clinch the title in the final race and any number of others where the title has been clinched before the last race of the season. In essence all Bernies scheme does is remove the need to be consistant.

If this idea did get pushed through then there would be even more risk of the Bernie show trying to, shall we say, tweek the results somewhat. What happens for example, if there are three races to go and one driver is 4 wins ahead? That makes the last 3 races totally pointless. It also fails to reward smaller teams who may have had their race of the season to finish forth. Remember Sutil in the Force India? If Kimi hadn't lost it and punted it off we would still be talking about a wonderful drive to 4th well next season that wouldn't count for anything. Another point is that if a driver is 6th or 7th he may be inclined to push a little harder to make it a 4th or 5th now what point is there. If the guy in 3rd is a minute or so up the track but a driver is only a tenth behind 4th then why bother pushing in the final laps. No reward for finishing 4th. Ok so there may be some constructors points on offer but that's normally a secondary consideration to the drivers isn't it?

Oh to dream of the day when Bernie moves on and someone else can have a go at running the sport. :givemestrength:


Instead of "medals" for 1st, 2nd and 3rd, why not have a system whereby the person finishing first gets the most points, followed by a reduced number of points for the 2nd place finisher and so on.

Oh wait....
Brogan said:
Instead of "medals" for 1st, 2nd and 3rd, why not have a system whereby the person finishing first gets the most points, followed by a reduced number of points for the 2nd place finisher and so on.

Oh wait....

This system seems oddly familiar, Brogan, I'm sure I've seen it somewhere before...! If this idea had come in at a time when the points system wasn't working, I'd be OK with it. But haven't the last 2 WDCs ended with (at least)2 drivers within a single point of the title!

In this system, I reckon Michael Schumacher would have won the 2004 World Title by American Independance Day! A system which allows you to win the World Title at such a bloody ridiculous point in the season is daft!

And anyway, why does he cite the Olympics in all of this. The Olympics is either run on a gold-by-gold basis (leaving the proud sporting nation of Sweden behind Panama, who had only 5 competitors, all of which failed miserably but Irving Saladino, the winner of the long jump!) or by a total medals basis (gold=bronze :givemestrength:) I was advocating 3pts gold, 2pts silver and 1pt bronze at the Olympics, but what do I know? Did Bernie coin it in 2004 when no-one was watching? I dunno!
My understanding of the points system is that it's there to reward consistency - i.e. a team/driver who might come second constantly verses another team/driver who might win every 3rd race but achieve next to nothing in the other two.

I'd much rather keep the status quo. Of course, the cynic in me notes that Ferarri would have won both championships this season if a medal system had been in place. Funny that...
Because the medal system rewards winning over reliability we would see a much higher failure rate.

You could actually get a result that went:

DriverA WDC with 4 wins, 14 DNFs;
DriverB loses with 3 Gold, 4 Silver, 5 Bronze and 6 DNFs.

That would be an improvement in Little Bernie's mind?
If this silly idea gets pushed through then it's going to ruin F1.

I was just reading that apparently "Ecclestone claimed on Wednesday that there were quite a few races Hamilton did not try to win in 2008."

So what!
He was criticised by Ecclestone, Mosley and everyone else last year for not just settling for a finish in China which would have handed him the WDC and instead racing Kimi and destroying his tyres.

So when he does play the long game he gets criticised for not going for the win.
It seems Hamilton can't do right for doing wrong.

And it's even worse than you suggest Croydon Bob.
The title will be decided on race wins only so in theory 1 driver could win the first 2 races and sit out the rest of the season and if all other races are won by a different driver then that driver will be WDC.
An extremely unlikely scenario but it just demonstrates how ludicrous the proposal is.
It would also mean that Fernando Alonso would beat Robert Kubica in the Championship due to that complete fluke at Singapore, Mark Webber would be behind Rubens Barrichello and his team-mate David Coulthard, Jarno Trulli would be behind Nico Rosberg, and Timo would edge out Nelsinho for best rookie by virtue of one 4th place, rather than the 6 points that is deserved.

All that it means is that utter flukes, such as Alonso/Rosberg's good timing in the dark, Barrichello's wet weather driving in Britain, Coulthard's only half-decent drive of the year in Canada, Nelsinho lucking out at Hockenheim etc. count for more than consistent and bloody good driving!

(Italicised where different)

1950: Farina
1951: Fangio
1952: Ascari
1953: Ascari
1954: Fangio
1955: Fangio
1956: Fangio
1957: Fangio
1958: Moss
1959: Moss
1960: Brabham
1961: Hill, P
1962: Hill, G
1963: Clark
1964: Clark
1965: Clark
1966: Brabham
1967: Clark
1968: Hill, G
1969: Stewart
1970: Rindt
1971: Stewart
1972: Fittipaldi
1973: Stewart
1974: Fittipaldi
1975: Lauda
1976: Hunt
1977: Andretti
1978: Andretti
1979: Jones
1980: Jones
1981: Prost
1982: Pironi(Trust me on this one, its a serious nightmare!)
1983: Prost
1984: Prost
1985: Prost
1986: Mansell
1987: Mansell
1988: Senna
1989: Senna
1990: Senna
1991: Senna
1992: Mansell
1993: Prost
1994: Schumacher, M
1995: Schumacher, M
1996: Hill, D
1997: Villeneuve, J
1998: Hakkinen
1999: Hakkinen
2000: Schumacher, M
2001: Schumacher, M
2002: Schumacher, M
2003: Schumacher, M
2004: (Surprisingly) Schumacher, M
2005: Alonso
2006: Alonso
2007: Raikkonen
2008: Massa

Oddly, 2008 is the first year since Prost in 1989 that the World Champion has not won the most races, whereas most of the '80s was changed! Fangio retains his 5 titles, whilst Moss picks up two. Jim Clark becomes a 4-time Champion whilst John Surtees and Denny Hulme miss out. Niki Lauda takes a single title in 1975, and Mario Andretti and Alan Jones win consecutive titles, deposing Lauda and Scheckter. Keke Rosberg's 1982 title is ceded to Didier Pironi (who had an eventful season to say the least in 1982) by virtue of Pironi having more 2nd places than Arnoux & Lauda and more 3rd places than Watson & Prost. Prost becomes a 5-time Champion, whilst Nelson Piquet loses out all together. Nigel Mansell becomes a 3-time Champion and Ayrton Senna wins 4-in-a-row! Michael Schumacher loses nothing nor gains anything, Alonso won his two titles by 2nd places, and Felipe Massa takes his maiden title this year!

If he brings it in, he'll regret it if it ends up like 1982!
Brilliant post T-bag and interesting to see how many drivers would actually have been rewarded for their efforts. Moss is a very good example. Regarded by all who saw him as the greatest driver of his generation and yet as we know he never won a world title.
i'm all for this medal idea or any other way which will give drivers more incentive to go for it

i think f1 indeed needs more to make it interesting. i fully appreciate all systems have their pro's and con's but i see less con's to a medal system then i see in a points system.

ok, so a driver can become wdc by winning a certain amount of races and drop out of lots. but somehow that still sounds more like racing then having drivers who do just enough. of course this 'playing the numbers' has been a part of f1 since eons and loads of drivers have won a wdc by doing this. but that is no reason to maintain a point system. a champion of average sounds to me much less attractive then a champion of winning races.

times have changed and maybe drivers nowadays need more stimulus then before to go for it. we see way too many processions cos there is no real need to really go for it. in fact, last year, i myself thought LH was a wee bit silly to try and win races instead of playing the numbers, but when i look back it does seem like the attitude we need. and not just from LH.

in fact, i have a tough time coming up with any great drive of the last 2 years. only some iffy moments and the win of vettel is still in my mind. we need to get back to what matters and thats on the track. maybe this medal system will shake drivers and they will try for at least one race per season to really really go for it. that means we would have at least 3 teams competing for a win per race. and that sounds great to me.

plus, and this is often overlooked in discussions regarding the points system, f1 is nowadays much more a tv sport then it used to be. local people and fans who watch their local race would be really served much better with having more then 'just' a driver who won but in the end did not win. in fact a medal like system would enhance a feeling of pride of their local race and could lead to much more interest for the sport be it for only just one race. but if this happens with every race... to me, right now winning a race is like a third rate prize. who cares? there's a line at the end and thats what matters. a sport aimed at tv needs more then just one prize.
>:( I feel that the FIA should recognise my contribution to that post!!! Either way, they came up with the duration stuff!

The cheque should be adressed to "Teabag Yokel Research/Plagarism Inc", Max!
I'd like to see a system where you get the points relative to your finishing position and then the lowest score wins. In 2007 this would have meant:

Hamilton 67
Alonso 68
Raikkonen 72
Massa 91
Heidfeld 113
Kubica 166 (22 point for US GP as he didn’t take part)

This would reward both wins and consistency at the same time. Any takers?
So finishing first would give you 1 point, 2nd 2 points, etc?

Wouldn't that just be the same as giving 22 points to 1st place, 21 points to 2nd place, etc. but in reverse?
Or would the fundamentals change due to non-finishes? :s

An interesting idea - I'd like to see it worked out for a few seasons to see how it affects the results.
Where are you teabagyokel? :D
The real advantage of a 1,2,3 system is that it doesn't rely on a particular grid size so next season when there are only 18 cars (I assume the worst for Honda) the first one to crash out in Australia would get 18 rather than 22 points.

One thing it may stop is the rather daft 1st corner dives (such as LH in Japan last year) and some of the more dubious blocking/punting off the track incidents that occur. The obvious problem is that it might discourage drives fromr trying to overtake altogether.

If I get bored later I'll work out 2008...
So I got bored. Under my proposed system the top 10 of 2008 would read:

Hamilton 94
Kubica 101
Massa 109
Heidfeld 117
Raikkonen 126
Alonso 134
Kovaleinen 142
Trulli 163
Vettel 181
Glock 188

Going into the last race in Brazil it would have meant 4 drivers could, mathematically, still have won the championship. Bernie wants exciting, I can give him exciting :thankyou:
In an odd sort of way (no offence Fat Bloke), this does make sense. I'd support this. (If I was entitled to a vote! :snacks: )

Although, I do have a question. What happens if a driver has a DNF. Surely scoring nil points would be an advantage (this isn't Eurovision, obviously!) Maybe a penalty of a pre-determined amount? Say 25 points, for example?
Top Bottom