Thread: New points sytem for 2009

And one point for Fred each race for just showing up

The discussion about changing points system takes place on several occasions every year. I'm fine with current system, giving 12 instead of 10 sounds good too.

But what I certainly don't like to see, are the extra points for pole or FL, what are proposed every time points system is discussed.

What should ultimately count, is the final result of the Grand Prix Sunday's race. Qualifying was created just because somehow starting grid had to be determined - everyone can't start side-by-side. And determining starting grid by lap-times of session(s) is better than by drawing lots like it was done in the beginning?

In modern F1 qualifying plays important role in race results anyway, I'd say even too important role. Most of the race winners start from poles. Why should be an extra point awarded for a pole as starting from pole is an extremely important advantage in achieving a great race result anyway?

And fastest lap. Well sorry. What should count, is that how one drives a full race distance - this is what Grand Prix and racing is about. Why should someone in a top car, who drives in last position, get a point, after he has changed tyres a couple of laps before the end. He failed in the race and doesn't deserve any points. Simple as that.

A Formula One Grand Prix is about driving fast for one and half an hour and ~60-70 laps, not just one fast lap. One fast lap should not be awarded. Wonder, when will someone propose to award the fastest pitstop... and other fastest things. You know, racing well for a full race distance means nothing, just do something well for a moment and you'll get points.

I don't mind bonus points, but I just don't think they are in line with F1 philosophy, somehow (yes, I am aware they awarded a point for fastest lap in the early days). And I certainly don't like the possibility of the race winner scoring fewer points than someone who finishes second and bags all the bonuses. If there ever was to be a bonus point reintroduced, I'd make it just the one, and I'm not sure whether I'd make it for pole position or fastest lap. There is also the "most laps led" that some other series use, but in F1 that tends to be the winner as well, so I wouldn't use it.

In full agreement with the race fuel loads in qualifying situation too - everyone cottoned onto the best strategies fairly early on after its introduction, and it hasn't really done much to improve the racing. In fact, I'd ask if there's anyone out there who actually likes it?

Absolutely right. So much so that it makes no difference therefore we might as well not have it!

I agree that qualifying with race fuel loads makes GP even more boring. My reasoning for this is that with such rules top drivers are basically on similar strategies. To get a good grid position, it is needed to qualify with lighter fuel load and make a shorter first stint in the race, hence 1-stop strategy is basically out of question. Also 3 stops on most circuits are a bit too much, so all the front runners have a 2-stop strategy (Lewis in Turkey at 3 was a rare exception and even this due to tyre wear caused by his driving style) - also drivers pit in the race only within 1-2 laps as a result of finding a balance between good qualifying and optimal race strategy.

IMO the "pit-battles" during Häkkinen vs Schumacher era were far more interesting. Often we saw one driver opting for a 1-stop strategy and the other for a 2-stop strategy, which created an exciting battle, whose strategy would pay off better. Nowadays with almost identical strategies the one, who runs in front, is even less vulnerable, than he was in the past. A driver can't opt for a 1-stop strategy as he'll struggle badly in qualifying and his race will be lost. If drivers and teams can choose strategies before the race, we would definetely see a lot more variety in strategies.

Qualifying is one more example, how FIA tries to make F1 more interesting with artificial methods, but this actually makes the show worse. So a note to FIA: just give more 'freedom' to competitors - this is the best way to get excitement!

I think the quali rules were changed to force some action onto the roads throughout the whole session. Remember the days of 1hour free quali session and only one or two teams would go out for the first 40mins. Bernie (or whoever benefits from viewer count) had a big part in changing the quali rules to try make it exciting.
Another reason for the change might have been to slow MS down in racking up the poles and taking that record as fast as he was taking the others for himself. If u think about it, a lot of rule changes were made to prevent the Ferrari/MS runaway train from boring the viewers to sleep.

Originally Posted by wmcot

It looks more impressive if the WDC has a couple of thousand points at the end of the season!

That would bring a whole new variable in to play if they ever implemented a 2kg handicap for each WDC point scored.

With a couple of thousand points being awarded there'd be a place for diesels in F1 after all...

Getting pole positions was if I remember never one of Michael Schumacher's strong points. Ayrton Senna was better at it - and Mika Hakkinen probably was too.

I remember seeing somewhere an interesting idea that I think could make sense, although it'll never happen; reverse points. Instead of getting 10 points for winning, the person who wins gets nothing, while the person who comes second gets, say, 2, the person in third gets 3, in fourth gets 4 and so on all the way through the field. The champion would be the person with the least points at the end of the year.

It's a bit tricky to apply this to DNFs; perhaps they should get an amount of points equal to that remaining in the race, plus the number of finishers or something.

The pros of this system are that instead of rewarding success it punishes failure, which therefore means that every person on the grid can score points without it becoming farcial, which makes the final championship classification much more meaningful. It would also distinguish whichever series used it from the others who use the normal system of awarding points to the winner. Unfortunately, though, it might just be a bit confusing to casual fans (who probably don't care very much about point systems anyway).

Originally Posted by inimitablestoo

Dear Spanky,

You had a perfectly good points system that was used for the World Rally Championship (amongst others) until 1996. It awarded points 20-15-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1. The gaps were sensible and awarded the right amounts to the top finishers. Awarding the top ten also makes sense when, these days, most of the field finishes a Grand Prix. Please consider reinstating this points system for Formula 1's use and ditching the current one, which doesn't really work.

Yours,
Some bloke who posts stuff on t'internet

as I once heard... everything is relative in the universe... a bigger gap doesn't mean a bigger award!

with the current point-system the second placed driver gets 80% of the points the winner gets while with the old WRC system the second placed driver gets 75% of the points the winner gets... now tell me, is that a big change?

anyway whatever they do, please don't introduce NASCAR style points system... where you get a zillion points for a win, a thousand points for showing up and bonuses points for eveything! let's keep it simple

I don't particularily care for the extra points like in GP2. I also happen to like the 10 points for first, it just fits so nicely that you can easily mentally caulculate stuff for seasons-end projections. The real problem is the 2 point gap from winning to second place. So, the simple solution is 10-7-6-5-4-3-2-1. If winning is the most important thing, than what does it matter if this system doesn't leave a gap point between 2nd and 3rd? It clearly gives the advantage to the winner, and everybody else is fighting for their place in the 7-point string.

Originally Posted by Shifter

...If winning is the most important thing, than what does it matter if this system doesn't leave a gap point between 2nd and 3rd?

I don't think winning is the most important thing. Second place is as good as winning until a driver is two points down in the final race of the season.

I hate the thought of stratospheric point totals but it is the only way I can see that any manipulation of team/driver thought processes can be introduced into the mix. The points for each race would need to start at 50 or even 100 for winning and work down to 1 point for last place finisher. This is the only way that winning, and finishing as high as possible, can be rewarded, and failing to finish is severely penalised - if that is what the organisers want to achieve.


Can a correctly balanced point system see drivers thinking aggressively and strategically?