point systems and how it influence competition

**havk** · 4th June 2010, 11:28

I was thinking about point system and how it influence competition and drivers tactic. I remember 4 systems of scoring (before 97, 1997-2002; 2003-2009, and current). So if we compare it (If points for the win was more than 10 point I divided it to show better propotion) we have:

postition before 97 1997-2002 2003-2009 current
1st ... 10 ... 10 ... 10 ... 10
2nd . 7,5 .. 6 ... 8 ... 7,2
3rd ... 6 ... 4 ... 6 ... 6
4th ... 5 ... 3 ... 5 ... 4,8
5th ... 4 ... 2 ... 4 ... 4
6th ... 3 ... 1 ... 3 ... 3,2
7th ... 2 ... 0 ... 2 ... 2,4
8th . 1,5 .. 0 ... 1 ... 1,6
9th ... 1 ... 0 ... 0 ... 0,8
10th 0,5 .. 0 ... 0 ... 0,4

I really liked 1997-2002 points system - cause it forced drivers to fight for the win. The disadvantage of this system was that only 6 drivers was given points. If we want more manufacturer teams, system should reward eight or ten drivers. Current system is very similar to that which was before 1997. 2003-2009 system IMO had two little difference between 1st and 2nd position. I wonder how the rallies would be if 1997-2002 system returned. I had impression that in those time competitiors drives much more offensive, rallies was more exiting, and unpredictable. Of course it's mainly because of Loeb's dominance in recent years, but still I think some drivers (for example Latvala) could take advantage of old system, and it could do WRC more interesting. It think it wouldn't infulence final standings but the fight for the win in single rallies could be more interesting. I have to admit that I was hoping that Latvala become fast, spectacular driver, who could challenge Loeb, and with very agrressive and offensive style.. I think such a driver would make WRC more interesting.

**braktol** · 7th June 2010, 12:40

I agree that point system has an affection on how drivers drive, I think the key point is the difference between 1st position and 2nd /3rd , the bigger the more drivers compete to win as that gives them advantage.
I believe the 1997-2002 system is better and moreover a system like : 11-6-5-4-3-2-1-0,5 would make races more competitive and spectacular

**havk** · 8th June 2010, 23:28

Welcome to forum, Braktol

11-6-5-4-3-2-1-0,5 is one of option, I think also 12-7-5-4-3-2-1 or even 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 could be good. But it seems FIA prefers round numbers for 1st postition..

**NaBUru38** · 9th June 2010, 23:52

I prefer the current system, or even better (normalized to 10 points for the winner) 10-7-5.5-4.5...

**sollitt** · 10th June 2010, 03:21

Originally Posted by havk

I really liked 1997-2002 points system - cause it forced drivers to fight for the win. The disadvantage of this system was that only 6 drivers was given points. If we want more manufacturer teams, system should reward eight or ten drivers. Current system is very similar to that which was before 1997. 2003-2009 system IMO had two little difference between 1st and 2nd position. I wonder how the rallies would be if 1997-2002 system returned. I had impression that in those time competitiors drives much more offensive, rallies was more exiting, and unpredictable. Of course it's mainly because of Loeb's dominance in recent years, but still I think some drivers (for example Latvala) could take advantage of old system, and it could do WRC more interesting. It think it wouldn't infulence final standings but the fight for the win in single rallies could be more interesting. I have to admit that I was hoping that Latvala become fast, spectacular driver, who could challenge Loeb, and with very agrressive and offensive style.. I think such a driver would make WRC more interesting.

I'm not so sure that you're right at all. The problem with the larger gap between 1st & 2nd was that a driver could build a substantial lead early in the season and the chase for the championship then was effectively over. The leading driver would be comfortable with his lead and, whilst keeping an eye on his competitors, could consolidate points without risk. The following drivers would give up the chase and drive for manufacturers points ... aka - finishes.
It wasn't uncommon for the championship to be over with several rounds still to go. At least with a closer gap the series generally remains 'open' longer.

**NaBUru38** · 11th June 2010, 01:39

I prefer interesting races over interesting championships, sollitt. F1 2007 and 2008 were interesting championships with mostly boring races.

**havk** · 11th June 2010, 07:00

Originally Posted by sollitt

I'm not so sure that you're right at all. The problem with the larger gap between 1st & 2nd was that a driver could build a substantial lead early in the season and the chase for the championship then was effectively over. The leading driver would be comfortable with his lead and, whilst keeping an eye on his competitors, could consolidate points without risk. The following drivers would give up the chase and drive for manufacturers points ... aka - finishes.
It wasn't uncommon for the championship to be over with several rounds still to go. At least with a closer gap the series generally remains 'open' longer.

Maybe you have right although with larger gap you could easily bulild a big advantage but it is also more easy to lose it. In 2002 Marcus Gronholm scored 77 points while second Solberg had 37, so it could be like you wrote. Still thinks that competition in single rally/race would more interesting with this system.

**cosmicpanda** · 17th June 2010, 03:46

I don't think that a points system really influences competition. All drivers want to win; but if a driver after two days of competition finds that he is 30 seconds off the leader and cannot drive much faster than he has been, what would you do? Push on relentlessly and crash or settle for second?

If you want to stop drivers settling for second, don't give points to anybody but the leader.