The Points System
- Thread starter teabagyokel
- Start date
Aahhhh right! I'd thought I'd missed something! Too many shandys obviously!
So will your DNFs all score 18 points or will the 2nd DNF score 17 points etc. And I assume DNFs in the last 5 laps or so will count as position as per.
I can work out one GP for you though: 2005 Indianapolis;
M Schumacher 1, Barrichello 2, Monteiro 3, Karthikeyan 4, Albers 5, Friesacher 6, Trulli, Raikkonen, Button, Fisichella, Alonso, Sato, Webber, Massa, Montoya, Villeneuve, Zonta, Klien, Heidfeld, Coulthard 20 each, R.Schumacher 21.
[R. Schumacher did not make grid].
I wonder how this would affect the 2005 Championship, since Schumi would have picked up an even bigger advantage than he actually did out of the farce! (Ferrari beat Toyota in '05 by 18 points in WCC, and Trulli was on pole for this GP; Schumi would almost certainly been behind Montoya and Fisi in the WDC as well). I also think that the rule would make it impossible for drivers to make an impression on the points board should they be subbed out through injury [Think Schumi 1999], through a team dispute [Trulli 2004] or because they didn't start the season [de la Rosa, 2006].
It is very difficult to find a working scenario for this!
I can work out one GP for you though: 2005 Indianapolis;
M Schumacher 1, Barrichello 2, Monteiro 3, Karthikeyan 4, Albers 5, Friesacher 6, Trulli, Raikkonen, Button, Fisichella, Alonso, Sato, Webber, Massa, Montoya, Villeneuve, Zonta, Klien, Heidfeld, Coulthard 20 each, R.Schumacher 21.
[R. Schumacher did not make grid].
I wonder how this would affect the 2005 Championship, since Schumi would have picked up an even bigger advantage than he actually did out of the farce! (Ferrari beat Toyota in '05 by 18 points in WCC, and Trulli was on pole for this GP; Schumi would almost certainly been behind Montoya and Fisi in the WDC as well). I also think that the rule would make it impossible for drivers to make an impression on the points board should they be subbed out through injury [Think Schumi 1999], through a team dispute [Trulli 2004] or because they didn't start the season [de la Rosa, 2006].
It is very difficult to find a working scenario for this!
Ah, you're making me think about this now! If you start the race but get a DNF you get the points relative to the finish; so at the Canadian GP last year Lewis scored 18 points as he was the 2nd retirement (after Sutil) and Kimi scored 17 as his car "stopped" after Lewis's. In the 2005 US GP scenario (although this race was exceptional in F1 history) the points could be awarded relative to their grid position. If you look at the official result for this race Coulthard "finished" last as he was 16th on the grid.
The major problem is if a driver withdraws due to injury, such as Kubica at the US GP in 2007. In my 2007 calculation I gave Kubica 22 points as he didn't start, not fair perhaps but I can't think of another way of doing this. One advantage of this would be that teams may be less likely to replace a driver during the season as the repalcement would immediately be given the maximum points for any races they had not take part in.
The major problem is if a driver withdraws due to injury, such as Kubica at the US GP in 2007. In my 2007 calculation I gave Kubica 22 points as he didn't start, not fair perhaps but I can't think of another way of doing this. One advantage of this would be that teams may be less likely to replace a driver during the season as the repalcement would immediately be given the maximum points for any races they had not take part in.
That is actually quite interesting as I thought it would increase the chances of a fluke affecting the table. I'm surprised that Barrichello is 3rd, however, it did he get lots of 9th places that would be far more valuble under the point-a-position system. Can you work out 2003 for us, if you're not too busy? 
I say 2003 because the title race was between winning but inconsistencies [MSC] and consistent podiums [RAI]! What would not be interesting is 2002 & 2004 because there's nothing that's gonna change them results!
I say 2003 because the title race was between winning but inconsistencies [MSC] and consistent podiums [RAI]! What would not be interesting is 2002 & 2004 because there's nothing that's gonna change them results!
2003 looks like (actual position in brackets)
1. Schumacher M (1) 68
2. Raikkonen (2) 94
3. Montoya (3) 99
4. Schumacher R (5) 122
5. Barrichello (4) 127
6. Alonso (6) 133
Going back a little further 1996 works out as:
1. Hill (1) 76
2. Villeneuve (2) 79
3. Alesi (4) 110
4. Hakkinen (5) 119
5. Schumacher (3) 123
6. Berger (6) 142
In all years I have worked out the champion still appears to be the same as they, generally, are more consistent. What you would get is the championship (in most cases) going to the last race of the season as, on a 20 car grid, there could be a 19 point difference if the finishing positions were to fall that way.
1. Schumacher M (1) 68
2. Raikkonen (2) 94
3. Montoya (3) 99
4. Schumacher R (5) 122
5. Barrichello (4) 127
6. Alonso (6) 133
Going back a little further 1996 works out as:
1. Hill (1) 76
2. Villeneuve (2) 79
3. Alesi (4) 110
4. Hakkinen (5) 119
5. Schumacher (3) 123
6. Berger (6) 142
In all years I have worked out the champion still appears to be the same as they, generally, are more consistent. What you would get is the championship (in most cases) going to the last race of the season as, on a 20 car grid, there could be a 19 point difference if the finishing positions were to fall that way.
Aarghh! 
Surely with all the brains in F1 someone has pointed that out to him?
And what does he mean by this?
6 5 drivers still in with a chance. If I'm not mistaken that is the highest number ever at this stage in a season.
Why does he think it won't go down to the wire as it is now?
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86878
The reason the new points system hasn't made much difference is because the ratios are almost identical.
Surely with all the brains in F1 someone has pointed that out to him?
And what does he mean by this?
There are
Why does he think it won't go down to the wire as it is now?
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/86878
It's classic Bernie tactics.
Bernie: I want the medal system
Teams: No, we want a modified point system
Bernie: Sigh, OK, you can have a modified points system.
Teams go away mollified, not realising it's really the same system they had before.
Next year.
Bernie: See, I told you that a different points system would make no difference, now can we have a medal system?
Bernie: I want the medal system
Teams: No, we want a modified point system
Bernie: Sigh, OK, you can have a modified points system.
Teams go away mollified, not realising it's really the same system they had before.
Next year.
Bernie: See, I told you that a different points system would make no difference, now can we have a medal system?
The medal system is fine if we only had the 5 or 6 big teams who all had chances of winning races and getting regular podiums but what about the Toro Rosso's, Saubers and the new teams? They know they're not going to win any races anytime soon so the best they can hope for is scoring more points than their rivals and becoming the best team in their own mini championship.
Constructors winnnings depend on the finishing position of the team so if there is a medal system for the top 3 drivers each race how will they work out a system for working out which of the lower teams finish higher?
Constructors winnnings depend on the finishing position of the team so if there is a medal system for the top 3 drivers each race how will they work out a system for working out which of the lower teams finish higher?
Muddytalker
Points Scorer
"All the way to the wire" - The top 5 are separated by less than a win, and have been all season, and probably will do so for the next 2 or 3 races. Even then, it's not hard to imagine the top 3 separated by the points reward for 5th or 6th come the final race. Alternatively, if Mark wins this weekend, the title would just about be his, under your preferred scheme
But that aside, Bernie, let me get this straight.
What you're saying is, if Lewis or Alonso win the next race, then they will either equal or just get ahead of Mark (lets assume Webber comes home 3rd), under your system:-
Webber 4-2-2
Hamilton 4-3-1
or Alonso 4-2-1
(compare this with the points table)
Webber 187 + 15 = 202
Hamilton 182+25 = 207
or Alonso 166+25 = 191
Hamilton checks out, Alonso, not so much.
The next two guys, realistically need 2 wins to get near. Poor results from Mark would also help them.
Webber 4-2-2
Button 4-3-1
Vettel 4-1-3
(compare with the points table again)
Webber 187 + e.g. 3rd + 4th = 214
Vettel 163+50 = 213
or Button 161+50 =211
Again, this compares well with the medal system. There's no real change! (The downfall, as has been pointed out ad finitum is when a driver gets a streak of say 3 or more wins, and so becomes unbeatable with several races still to go. A points system negates this, rather well in my opinion)
So, the only real gainer, in your system would be if Alonso won the next race. Currently, on points, and assuming a 'normal' points finish for his rivals, he would not stand to gain so much with just one further win.
Leopards and spots spring to mind, in conjunction with a preference for all things rossa.
Andrea_Moda_Rules
Podium Finisher
Im trying to think of a constructive post to write but i cannot.
It can be summed up only by my response after seeing this article on autosport.
"Oh ****ing hell"
Oh why doesn't Bernie learn.
I said that if F1 adopts this idiotic rule i would never watch another lap of F1. two years has not changed my opinion.
It can be summed up only by my response after seeing this article on autosport.
"Oh ****ing hell"
Oh why doesn't Bernie learn.
I said that if F1 adopts this idiotic rule i would never watch another lap of F1. two years has not changed my opinion.
Bernie Ecclestone said:
I wish I could figure out stuff like this.
Edit - I also think a medals system would be worse, because of the consistency issue (as mentioned by others already). You could have one driver win the first 5 races then take it easy for the rest of the season and win the championship; the driver that had say 3 wins and 10 podiums would lose out big time.
So he wants to change the system, because with his system there'd be 3 people in with a chance of the title. There are now 5.
So his system increases the Championship contenders by -2! Win, win!
But seriously, the medal system would award mediocrity, by not giving any punishment at all to a driver who needlessly bins a 5th place, because only wins matter.
Its like the Premier League being decided on goal difference, and it is wrong in so many ways that it is actually difficult to argue with!
So his system increases the Championship contenders by -2! Win, win!
But seriously, the medal system would award mediocrity, by not giving any punishment at all to a driver who needlessly bins a 5th place, because only wins matter.
Its like the Premier League being decided on goal difference, and it is wrong in so many ways that it is actually difficult to argue with!
There's a good reason that all motorsports have used point systems to decide their seasonal champions since the beginning of time. It's the only logical way to do it and it just makes sense.
There's also a good reason that the better part of human civilization regards Bernard Ecclestone as a demented dwarf that has long overstayed his welcome. His judgement rarely makes sense, and it hinges solely on the matter of profitability.
Anybody that has given the idea of a Medal System a moment of serious thought will surely come to the conclusion that it would be completely ridiculous to abandon a system that has regularly brought title fights down to the final round.
However, there has been many minor tweaks in the point systems over the years, and there's an aspect of one system that I think could throw even more drama and excitement into the picture. The old "BEST OF" system. I don't think they need to drop as many scores as they used to, but having a couple scores dropped could make things more interesting.
If a driver knows that a mistake might not cost him anything at all in the standings at the end of the year, then I believe he would be more willing to risk making a daring maneuver. Currently, I believe many drivers are too concerned with throwing away points to have a go at somebody in an aggressive manner. Losing out on points that were within grasp is a possibly championship deciding blunder in todays ultra-competitive, ultra-close F1. If a driver were allowed to drop 3-4 scores from their final tally, they could take a few more risks while knowing that an error might not drastically hamper their chances for the crown.
I know the computations can get a bit confusing with a "BEST OF" format, but with more and more races coming on line in the years to come, I think dropping 3-4 poor results would induce more chancetaking than a hare-brained Medal scheme would.
There's also a good reason that the better part of human civilization regards Bernard Ecclestone as a demented dwarf that has long overstayed his welcome. His judgement rarely makes sense, and it hinges solely on the matter of profitability.
Anybody that has given the idea of a Medal System a moment of serious thought will surely come to the conclusion that it would be completely ridiculous to abandon a system that has regularly brought title fights down to the final round.
However, there has been many minor tweaks in the point systems over the years, and there's an aspect of one system that I think could throw even more drama and excitement into the picture. The old "BEST OF" system. I don't think they need to drop as many scores as they used to, but having a couple scores dropped could make things more interesting.
If a driver knows that a mistake might not cost him anything at all in the standings at the end of the year, then I believe he would be more willing to risk making a daring maneuver. Currently, I believe many drivers are too concerned with throwing away points to have a go at somebody in an aggressive manner. Losing out on points that were within grasp is a possibly championship deciding blunder in todays ultra-competitive, ultra-close F1. If a driver were allowed to drop 3-4 scores from their final tally, they could take a few more risks while knowing that an error might not drastically hamper their chances for the crown.
I know the computations can get a bit confusing with a "BEST OF" format, but with more and more races coming on line in the years to come, I think dropping 3-4 poor results would induce more chancetaking than a hare-brained Medal scheme would.
You're right, Keke, although I would be looking to only bring in a Best Of to deal with mechanical retirements. They don't happen so often nowadays, but just think what Hamilton's position would be in the WDC without Spain and Hungary!
I feel there is a need to award consistency, and I would be against any measure that put Fernando Alonso ahead of Robert Kubica in 2008, because Alonsault only woke up at the end of the season, and Kubica was excellent throughout. That Alonso would have come =3rd in the WDC in 2008 for not doing anything specifically excellent for 6 months and then cheating his way to victory before deservedly winning the next race is intolerable to me.
I feel there is a need to award consistency, and I would be against any measure that put Fernando Alonso ahead of Robert Kubica in 2008, because Alonsault only woke up at the end of the season, and Kubica was excellent throughout. That Alonso would have come =3rd in the WDC in 2008 for not doing anything specifically excellent for 6 months and then cheating his way to victory before deservedly winning the next race is intolerable to me.
Similar threads
