Too Many Points Awarded?

As far as reliability/less DNFs are concerned, there is one thing I really really don't like. I think it's very disappointing, that there is basically no gravel trap anymore in F1, not even in Brazil or Suzuka, or even Spa...That means that mistakes aren't punished anymore the way they used to be punished...and should be punished in my book...
Don't get me wrong, I know that safety issues make F1 prefer those stupid run off areas, and there's no way I would like to see a driver dead or injured, but considering the fact, that the only two fatal accidents in the last 26 years (Senna/Ratzenberger) had no gravel at all being involved really speaks for its own.
And sometimes I believe that the real reason why gravel traps are abolished is, because they want as many cars in the race as possible for sponsorship reasons, and that is guaranteed with the elimination of gravel traps...
What do you guys think?

Sorry for having gone way off topic here...:embarrassed:
 
TBH - I don't really take notice of the points system. I take notice in where people are in the Championship. At the end of the day who evers top come the end of the season is the Champion. Its the same in the Constructors aswell. At the end of the day ever driver is aiming to win a championship/s, none of them really take notice of the points they've scored. Their take notice of how many poduim, wins or poles and championships they've got. Points is just a number really!
 
RasputinLives said:
That thought depresses me the most. I'd much rather watch a driver hit the front out of nowhere in a car that could collapse at any min and be rooting for him to hang on to a shock victory than watch someone come 8th every race!
Click to expand
Get some old tapes of Gilles Villeneuve then :)

I know what you are saying about it being more exciting, but exciting for everyone else = painful to watch for the team.

What is it Al Davis of the Oakland Raiders used to say...? "Just win baby" :(
 
Vortex said:
I dunno, I think Ferrari and Mercedes may have risked reliability this season if hey were allowed to push the engines to 110% to try and end Red Bulls dominance.
Click to expand
D'ya think? Mercedes are in F1 to sell road cars and they really don't like seeing one of their machines go up in flames and people talking about "unreliable Mercedeses". Ferrari? Maybe more likely but again, their image is everything. Massa would just have crashed into Lewis anyway, so wouldn't have made any difference to him ;)

They could perhaps make things a bit more random by eliminating car to pit telemetry, fuel guages, rev limiters etc. Maybe then Seb would have broken his gearbox rather than cruised around in Brazil but I think the PR cost of a car failing is a lot higher than the cost of finishing 3rd.
 
I don't really get the arguement that the point system skews the comparision with different eras, just compare how many finishes they had in what positions. Of course things like amount of races, reliability etc. still make a comparison difficult but the changes to the point system can be worked around.
 
Yeah, its 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. On the one hand they don’t want to blow up but on the other hand they don’t want to be beaten.
 
The reasons why I think that the current points system can be changed are that, in the days of the top 6 only getting points, smaller teams, realistically, had to hope for a crazy race with numerous retirements to even stand a chance of getting anywhere near the hallowed land that is the F1 point. But with the reliability of the cars nowadays, races with ten+ retirements aren't really going to happen. Therefore, if the former 6-point system was implemented these days, Lotus, HRT and Virgin may just as well not turn up. Whilst I take into account the reasons for the abolishment of the current points system put forward by some of my esteemed CTA colleagues, excitement is what we need in races. In the pre-2010 system, there was never really any excitement for a battle for tenth place in a race. Now, however, an extra element of excitement is added to liven up a race battle. Also, the current points system gives drivers in the lower lower half of the field that extra impetus to fight for that higher position, instead of being content to save the car and remain where they are in the race. As for the difficulties of translating the current points system to different ones for the sake of comparing drivers, there have been many weird and wonderful points system of the past, such as dropped scores, and points for pole position and fastest lap. Ans anyway, the difference is nothing patience and a calculator couldn't sort out. Keeping the current points system, in my opinion, attract PR and new teams to F1, because being the sponsor to a point-scoring team sounds a lot more attractive to the public than being the sponsor of a 10th placed team. As for new teams, engine manufacturers and constructors, the prospect of having a rewarding symbol of the hard work to get into F1 without being an established grandee makes the sport a more attractive proposition. A larger points system (with 24 cars, lets not forget) allows newer names to have their moment in the limelight instead of only just Red Bull, Mclaren and Ferrari scoring point most of the time.
Finally, some stats: In 2009, when there were just 20 cars on the grid, the points system was for the top 8, and this represents a 40% chance of scoring points in a given race.
In 2010, with 24 cars, and points down to tenth, this represents a 41.6% chance of scoring points in a race - not a drastic change from 2009. I fear that taking away the incentive of scoring (accessible) points in F1 may contribute towards an exodus of smaller teams from f1.
 
The reason there needs to be more points given out is quite clear:

TBY.webp


Giving all of the top 10 points in 1996 would result in every driver who finished a Formula One race that season getting points. That includes Lamy, Montermini, Levaggi and even Badoer :yesss:! The only entrant who would not take points home would be the two starts, no finishes of Tarso Marques. Just to back that up, 1995 would see points for Magnussen, Wendlinger, Schiatterella, Gachot, Montermini, Inoue, Badoer :yesss: , Papis, Diniz, Katayama, Martini and (shockingly) Mansell. Pacific would have scored 10 points to compare with Williams' 5 in 2011.

That would have been a reward for mediocrity, but I don't think that the 2011 situation bears comparison with those kind of sights.
 
The thing is the FIA keeps changing the points system whenever it suits them, if they think that one driver is dominating too much they'll change it again. As long as it doesn't go to the medals system that Bernie wanted then i'll always follow F1.
 
No one was dominating it when it was changed to 25 for win, it was to make drivers push for the win rather than settle for 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc.

It's only been changed once when someone was dominating.
 

Similar threads

FB
  • Poll Poll
Poll What points system do you prefer
Replies
3
Views
742
The Artist.....
The Artist.....
F1Brits_90
  • Article Article
Grand Prix 2024 Azerbaijan Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion
    • Like
2
Replies
38
Views
972
F1Brits_90
F1Brits_90
F1Brits_90
  • Article Article
Grand Prix 2024 Brazilian Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion
    • Like
2 3
Replies
55
Views
1K
F1Brits_90
F1Brits_90
F1Brits_90
  • Article Article
Grand Prix 2024 Hungarian Grand Prix Practice, Qualifying & Race Discussion
    • Like
3 4
Replies
76
Views
2K
Dartman
Dartman
S
Netflix fans and Mick Schumacher
Replies
3
Views
302
shouxana
S
Back
Top Bottom