Point system change announced!

[Tazio]

What constitutes "suitable"? For starters MO means "my opinnion" :dozey:
My opinnion was that a 20% disparity between first,and second is not equitable.
MO did not include a definition of what is! MO? Something larger than 20% :rolleyes:
I suggest you may be better served proposing the question to the forum.
If you ask properly,
I bet Pino would even start a poll on this forum for whatever you think it is worth! MO

[UltimateDanGTR]

What should've happened was this:

"The FIA today announced a revision to the Formula One points system, after revealing that the scoring system will mirror that already featured in motorcycle racing. The popular system - which awards 25 points to the winner, 20 for second place, 16 for third, 13 for fourth and then 11 for fifth down to a single point for 15th - had been mulled over by the teams for a year before being confirmed after unanimous approval. The points system was shown by statistics to give a reasonable advantage to the winner over second and third places, as well as giving those teams further down the field something to play for with points running to 15th.



This may work for motorcycle racing, but not for F1. the ratio of 25 to 20 is 5:4, which is exactly the same as the current 10-8 system. the ratio between 25 and 16 points for 3rd is just one point off being 5:3, same as 10-8-6 system. So this system would probably not make much difference as the ratios are almost the same, and the ratio of 1st to second is the same.

25-15-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1.5-1-0.5 is a better system in my view, because 25-15-10 is a 5:3:2 ratio, same as the old 10-6-4 system. This would be a more 'exciting' system, and ofcourse you get over double the points for finishing first than you do finishing 3rd.

Sorry to be technical :D Its the only way to explain :D

[jjanicke]

For starters MO means "my opinnion" :dozey:
My opinnion was that a 20% disparity between first,and second is not equitable.
MO did not include a definition of what is! MO? Something larger than 20% :rolleyes:
I suggest you may be better served proposing the question to the forum.
If you ask properly,
I bet Pino would even start a poll on this forum for whatever you think it is worth! MO

Was just asking! No need to get defensive. Mostly everything that I post is MO ;)

To me the gap doesn't really matter, but logic does prevail. I can understand YO (your opinion ;) ) though. The points gap should be somewhat proportional to performance. The gaps between 1st-2nd and 2nd-3rd being equal isn't very logical IMO.

[Tazio]

Was just asking! No need to get defensive. Mostly everything that I post is MO ;)

To me the gap doesn't really matter, but logic does prevail. I can understand YO (your opinion ;) ) though. The points gap should be somewhat proportional to performance. The gaps between 1st-2nd and 2nd-3rd being equal isn't very logical IMO.GOIMO ;)

[patnicholls]

This may work for motorcycle racing, but not for F1. the ratio of 25 to 20 is 5:4, which is exactly the same as the current 10-8 system. the ratio between 25 and 16 points for 3rd is just one point off being 5:3, same as 10-8-6 system. So this system would probably not make much difference as the ratios are almost the same, and the ratio of 1st to second is the same.

25-15-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1.5-1-0.5 is a better system in my view, because 25-15-10 is a 5:3:2 ratio, same as the old 10-6-4 system. This would be a more 'exciting' system, and ofcourse you get over double the points for finishing first than you do finishing 3rd.

Sorry to be technical :D Its the only way to explain :D

Fair point on the statistics (although, "lies, damn lies and statistics" :p ) although I'm still struggling to see what exactly what is wrong with the 10-8-6-etc system in it's straightforward form.

Bernie's 'logic' of saying that the drivers don't try hard enough - which he used as an impetus behind the proposed change - is not only entirely wrong but completely ignorant of the very basic facts of the sport which he should have an entire knowledge of as a commercial rights holder. Namely that if your car is half a second off the pace, you can try as much as you want but you'll still be thirty seconds off the winner at the end of a race.

In these times of any financial spending having to be carefully scrutinised and furthermore justified at all levels down the grid and particularly the bottom, the way things are run has to provide something for the lower teams to work towards. Hence the thought behind adopting the bike racing system with points going further down.

[UltimateDanGTR]

well I agree with trying to get the points to go down as far as possible, but the system I proposed go's down to 12th. And in these times, all teams are capable of a top ten finish on the occasion, even Force India can break into the top twelve thus earning them some points. and I think 101h-12th for teams like Force India are a realistic target to work towards and on the occasion (say 3-4 times a season) they will achieve that.

[ArrowsFA1]

What else would you expect? Seriously?
Absolutely. It's an entirely predictable attempt to deflect responsibility.

[ArrowsFA1]

It could now be said that they listened to the teams, the fans and changed accordingly, thereby giving them credibility in future disputes...
That is certainly the way the FIA would like this presented after the event, but the reality is they had no option but to reverse their decision simply because what was proposed did not have the support of the teams and so, according to the FIA's own rules, could not be implemented for the 2009 season.

Funnily enough, the majority of people who wanted a change from what is a crap points system (only two more points for winning is not good) are now delirious that we have a system whereby you only get two more points for winning.

All FOTA have achieved is maintaining the status quo. Not exactly the progressive, listen to the fans ethos they have been spouting.
I disagree. I think people are simply relieved we did not end up with the FIA's system. You're right that the result is nothing has changed, but surely that's a better outcome, for the time being, than what was imposed by the FIA. Had FOTA not existed then the points system the FIA wanted would be in the rulebook now.

[Dave B]

According to Bernie, the "medal" system will be adopted for 2010 no matter what.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7957788.stm

Boo, hiss.

[F1boat]

We'll see about that. I hope that Todt wins the FIA presidency and stops Bernie's lunacy. I also hope that Slavica will get Bernie's money. I hope that Bernie and Max will go, go, go to hell ;)

[Shifter]

According to Bernie, the "medal" system will be adopted for 2010 no matter what.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7957788.stm

Boo, hiss.

From the article:

"The new system means that a driver could wrap up the title well before the end of the year, but Ecclestone brushed off suggestions it could potentially kill off interest in the sport.

"That's too bad. Maybe they'd be watching the other races where the people are racing to win rather than be second," said Ecclestone."

Anyone else confused by this statement? Other races? Bernie, face it, the fact that your brain was installed vertically has only hurried the onset of age-related dementia.

[MAX_THRUST]

Bernie was mad enough to marry a 6ft money grabber, why is anyone surprised he's losing the plot, and as for Max, wasn't he supposed to have retired by now.

These two men don't want anyone else to have F1 and they want to destroy it before it gets handed to anone else that way they will look like hero's when the new management can't save it.

Wish they would just disappear.....

[Nikki Katz]

According to Bernie, the "medal" system will be adopted for 2010 no matter what.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7957788.stm

Boo, hiss.
That's exactly what I was expecting him to say. Bernie has become a huge liability to F1 recently, even more so than Max, who just seems a little out of touch and ineffectual. But it would be very hard to get rid of him, and even harder for the teams to form a rival series, so I guess we're lumped with his mad decisions.

[AndyRAC]

If you read that interview, Bernie seems determined to get it through next year. Not only that, he used Athletics as an example, saying people watch the 100m to see who wins not who is 2nd - therefore F1 should be the same.
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't wash, it's a stupid analogy, typical of Bernie. A Grand Prix is one of 16/17 races in the year, so coming 2nd/3rd occasionally isn't bad - whereas in the 100m Olympic final, it's a one off race, now or never.
It doesn't matter how good a driver is, if his car isn't the fastest on a particular day, well he can't win - it's not always a case of settling for 2nd, why can he not see this?

[BDunnell]

If you read that interview, Bernie seems determined to get it through next year. Not only that, he used Athletics as an example, saying people watch the 100m to see who wins not who is 2nd - therefore F1 should be the same.

I watch any sport for the enjoyment of the competition, not just to see who wins. I don't understand why this is now seen as a strange concept by some.

[ArrowsFA1]

According to Bernie, the "medal" system will be adopted for 2010 no matter what.
Bernie says "It will be supported by the FIA and it will be in the regulations", but it was supported by the FIA this time around and it is not in the regulations so what is different about 2010?

[PolePosition_1]

I've always been wary of the FOTA, in how people want them to have more power etc etc. but I've always been against it simply because you cannot trust the teams to stay friendly over a long period, but throughout this, they do really seem to have the best interest of F1.

And whilst I'm still opposed to them having a great deal more power, they definately deserve representation within the WMSC.

Though I am disappointed we're keeping the 10-8-6 points format.

[ShiftingGears]

I thought the extra two points for the win was a great idea.

Why are "two more points" for winning not good?

Because any system that allows somebody who wins one paltry race to have a mathematical chance of beating somebody who has won 6 races is a joke.

2003 being a perfect example.

[Knock-on]

I think the FOTA proposal makes sense. It tweaks the system to make winning more appealing and finishing on the podium necessary without chucking a dirty bomb into the rule book.

Absolutely. It's an entirely predictable attempt to deflect responsibility.

And anyone who thinks that a change of leadership at the FIA would mean this wouldn't happen is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. The FIA are just like any other ruling body.....generally insenstive but will cling on to power whatever it takes.

This isn't about Max as an individual...this is how the world works outside Simpleton Town borders.

[Ranger]

Because any system that allows somebody who wins one paltry race to have a mathematical chance of beating somebody who has won 6 races is a joke.

2003 being a perfect example.

So what do you think of 1988 then, when the title winner scored 11 less points than the guy in second place?

So what do you think of 1988 then, when the title winner scored 11 less points than the guy in second place?

That too was a fecking joke system. Worse than any other. There was nothing wrong, in my opinion, with 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1, but then the powers-that-be started getting complaints from feckwits and morons that a competition to find the best driver had been won in July and instead of requesting that these lunatics were sectioned actually listened to them.

It was the so-called "fans" who fecked up a perfectly adequate system. These people aren't "fans", they are inadequates who should go and do gardening since the concept of competition isn't one they understand.

[BDunnell]

I agree that 10-6-4-3-2-1 was perfectly OK, just as points down to 10th was fine in the WRC rather than trying to standardise its points system with that of F1, but again I say that my interest lies in the whole competition rather than merely the winner.

The thing I don't understand about Bernie's medals proposal is that it appears to be based on the notion that some teams/drivers don't try hard enough to win, which is a rather strange idea.

[PolePosition_1]

And anyone who thinks that a change of leadership at the FIA would mean this wouldn't happen is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. The FIA are just like any other ruling body.....generally insenstive but will cling on to power whatever it takes.

This isn't about Max as an individual...this is how the world works outside Simpleton Town borders.


Can anyone explain to me exactly how the WMSC works?

I was under the understanding that it had 26 members, Max being one, Bernie another, and Max chairing the committee.

[PolePosition_1]

I agree that 10-6-4-3-2-1 was perfectly OK, just as points down to 10th was fine in the WRC rather than trying to standardise its points system with that of F1, but again I say that my interest lies in the whole competition rather than merely the winner.

The thing I don't understand about Bernie's medals proposal is that it appears to be based on the notion that some teams/drivers don't try hard enough to win, which is a rather strange idea.


I agree with Bernie in this respect. And its niave to think that drivers don't already settle for second best, because the benefit difference between first and second are relatively minimal.

How often do we hear drivers in the title hunt of being happy to settle for a podium position, because of the risks involved trying to win.

Whilst I agree with Bernie in principal, I just disagree with his proposal to solve the issue, and think the FOTA proposal was a good compromise. Though it would have been interesting to see how Bernie's proposal would have had an impact on the racing.

[ArrowsFA1]

And anyone who thinks that a change of leadership at the FIA would mean this wouldn't happen is living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
You may be right, but it would be good if the opportunity existed to test that theory.

The thing I don't understand about Bernie's medals proposal is that it appears to be based on the notion that some teams/drivers don't try hard enough to win, which is a rather strange idea.
I agree. Everyone on the grid wants to win, but the majority are realistic enough to know that at times they can't win. Bernie's medals system, and the FIA version of it, does not change that.

[Mark]

But up to now as much as winning Formula 1 has been about knowing when the car isn't up to the job on that particular day and minimising your losses. There have been many spectacular drives when a driver finds himself out of position and fights through the field to finish (say) third. Under this system he'll get scant reward for that.

[ArrowsFA1]

As Pat Symonds says (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73852):

The target I set at the beginning of the season is always the same: to be winning races and challenging for the championship - it would be wrong to have any other intention. However, when you start tempering your expectations with reality, you may moderate that target a little bit.

[jens]

I watch any sport for the enjoyment of the competition, not just to see who wins. I don't understand why this is now seen as a strange concept by some.

Same here. I'm interested in following the progress of all the competitors, not just frontrunners, as it gives a better idea of the dynamics of the whole competition.

The current debate about "most wins" idea reminds me ancient Greek's pentathlon, where the winner was the man, who had won most events. So I see - FIA is aiming to go back to the roots. :p :

[christophulus]

If every team on the grid disagrees with the points change, can it go ahead anyway? There might end up being a stand off next season and the FIA will have to take the teams side. Plus there is the added notion that around 90 percent of the fans object to it, so I think they would be fools not to listen. IMO of course...

Yep, technically. It'll be in the regulations when the teams "sign up" for next year's championship so the FIA can quite happily not listen to the teams and enforce it anyway. I hope they don't but you never know..

[MG2004]

Since the win is now going to be the crucial element get ready for the return of "team orders" and mysterious slowing down to let your team mate into 1st when running 1-2, and many, many more race results and stewards decisions being queried and appealled and only decided in the courts weeks after the event.

No point watching the races any longer as you won't know the result until after the inevitable objection and appeal :( :(

[ArrowsFA1]

Yep, technically. It'll be in the regulations when the teams "sign up" for next year's championship so the FIA can quite happily not listen to the teams and enforce it anyway. I hope they don't but you never know..
Well, Bernie has clearly said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73840) it will be in place for 2010 so...

[PolePosition_1]

But up to now as much as winning Formula 1 has been about knowing when the car isn't up to the job on that particular day and minimising your losses. There have been many spectacular drives when a driver finds himself out of position and fights through the field to finish (say) third. Under this system he'll get scant reward for that.


Well not quite, the constructors wouldn't be affected, which other than the WDC, is what counts. And he'd still get the same pointed for the WDC standings as currently, it'd only make a difference if he were in hunt for title.

[Dave B]

Well, Bernie has clearly said (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/73840) it will be in place for 2010 so...
Bernie doesn't make the rules - the FIA do.

Of course, this episode could lead a cynical person to think that the FIA are lackeys to Mr E. and don't really care what the paying public think, but I couldn't possibly comment.

You may be right, but it would be good if the opportunity existed to test that theory.

Fair enough, just don't get your hopes up.

There was a bright new dawn in '92 when Balestre lost the presidency.....things were going to be so different....no more knee jerk changes....the Brits finally had one of their own in charge....FOCA had won the battle....

Not to mention other sports...Platini replacing Blatter in charge of UEFA....the Olympic organisational body...

Wanting something to change is a lovely request, but there are those of us relaistic/cynical enough to know that things don't and accept it for what it is - deeply flawed but the only option.

Plus Ca Change....the French even have a saying for it....and where are FIA headquarters?

[BDunnell]

Fair enough, just don't get your hopes up.

There was a bright new dawn in '92 when Balestre lost the presidency.....things were going to be so different....no more knee jerk changes....the Brits finally had one of their own in charge....FOCA had won the battle....

Not to mention other sports...Platini replacing Blatter in charge of UEFA....the Olympic organisational body...

Wanting something to change is a lovely request, but there are those of us relaistic/cynical enough to know that things don't and accept it for what it is - deeply flawed but the only option.

Plus Ca Change....the French even have a saying for it....and where are FIA headquarters?

What all this tells me is that the bodies governing many major sports are ripe for major reform, because they are all deeply flawed and many of them are deeply corrupt too. It is surely not beyond the wit of man for this not to be so, although disagreements will always remain when national interests, even in sport, are at stake.

[K-Pu]

But how do you fin someone who is not corrupt, and, more important, won´t be corrupted?

When you are at Bernie or Max level, I´d dare to say you have to be corrupt. Too many influential people, money, interests and who knows what... You have no room for idealism, and obviously the fans are the least important thing in their agenda.

It is surely not beyond the wit of man for this not to be so

Well, so long as we can find a way of keeping mankind out of governing bodies, we might have a chance.

[Mark]

Whoever you vote for, the government always gets in.

[Mark]

So I'm confused now. Is this change going ahead this year. The BBC website says no?

So I'm confused now. Is this change going ahead this year. The BBC website says no?

Which change?

The original change or the change back again from the original to what we had before?

[Mark]

So we're back to 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 with no account taken of number of wins?

[Dave B]

So we're back to 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 with no account taken of number of wins?

Yup, but the stupid win system will be in place for 2010 according to his Bernieness.

[Mark]

Yup, but the stupid win system will be in place for 2010 according to his Bernieness.

Okay. That's sensible. To my mind you either have a points based system, or a position only system. Not both!

[pino]

Yup, but the stupid win system will be in place for 2010 according to his Bernieness.

Montezemolo and FOTA will never accept that system, so I look forward to see how this fight will end...

[Thor]

This is completely stupid

[LeonBrooke]

Because any system that allows somebody who wins one paltry race to have a mathematical chance of beating somebody who has won 6 races is a joke.

2003 being a perfect example.
True - and you don't want a situation where the World Champion didn't win a single race all year - this happened in motocross in '07. It was just embarrassing to watch.

[ArrowsFA1]

Because any system that allows somebody who wins one paltry race to have a mathematical chance of beating somebody who has won 6 races is a joke.
Taking that one step further do you think that Mike Hawthorn and Keke Rosberg's title wins were a "joke"?

In 1958 Hawthorn won 1 race to Moss's 4, and in 1982 Prost, Lauda, Pironi, Arnoux and Watson all won more races than the champion.

Taking that one step further do you think that Mike Hawthorn and Keke Rosberg's title wins were a "joke"?

Alas I am too much of a whippersnapper to have any knowledge of 58.

As for 82, there was a unique situation that year in that no driver won more than 2 races. That hasn't happened since and quite probably will never happen again.

Rosberg, in those circumstances, deserved the title. However, had the win system proposed by the FIA been in place, equally it wqould not have been unjust if he wasn't champion.

However, there is a massive difference between 82 & 03. The driver with the most wins in 03 had a hell of a lot more than one win seperating him from the 2nd place guy.

[ArrowsFA1]

As for 82, there was a unique situation that year in that no driver won more than 2 races. That hasn't happened since and quite probably will never happen again.
You never know, we may see something similar again this year :)

However, there is a massive difference between 82 & 03. The driver with the most wins in 03 had a hell of a lot more than one win seperating him from the 2nd place guy.
Fair point.

You never know, we may see something similar again this year :)

Maybe, and since 82 was an absolute classic year I wouldn't be complaining.

Well, so long as it is happier for Ferrari....82 was pretty rotten in that respect.

I do believe, though, that having a driver win only one race and taking the title against somebody who won 6 would have been a mockery, whereas I don't have any problem with somebody who won 5 races winning the title from somebody who won 6.

My only issue with the current points system is that there isn't a big enough reward for winning.

[BDunnell]

Here's an interesting example, albeit slightly off-topic - the 1986 British Open Rally Championship. It was won by Mark Lovell in the Ford RS200 without him winning a round or, frankly, ever looking like doing so. Admittedly, there were only six rounds, so it's probably easier for someone to win such a short a series without a single event victory than it is a complete F1 world championship, but even so it's worth considering. Had that championship been decided on the basis of wins, Hannu Mikkola would have won, having taken two victories in the first three rounds, but then Audi pulled out so declaring him the champion would have been rather unfair. Everybody else won just once in a year when no-one especially shone.

Now, if F1 does adopt the new system in 2010, other series will inevitably follow suit, and there could end up being some very odd champions in situations like the one described above, and in short championships which are highly competitive with lots of different winners.

[AndyRAC]

Here's an interesting example, albeit slightly off-topic - the 1986 British Open Rally Championship. It was won by Mark Lovell in the Ford RS200 without him winning a round or, frankly, ever looking like doing so. Admittedly, there were only six rounds, so it's probably easier for someone to win such a short a series without a single event victory than it is a complete F1 world championship, but even so it's worth considering. Had that championship been decided on the basis of wins, Hannu Mikkola would have won, having taken two victories in the first three rounds, but then Audi pulled out so declaring him the champion would have been rather unfair. Everybody else won just once in a year when no-one especially shone.

Now, if F1 does adopt the new system in 2010, other series will inevitably follow suit, and there could end up being some very odd champions in situations like the one described above, and in short championships which are highly competitive with lots of different winners.

Seeing as the FiA like uniformity in their points scoring - I think you're probably right. So it will be most wins how the Championship is decided - well at least we know one World Champion for next year......

[ArrowsFA1]

My only issue with the current points system is that there isn't a big enough reward for winning.
I think there's general agreement there :up:

[Dave B]

My only issue with the current points system is that there isn't a big enough reward for winning.
I agree, but that's exactly the problem that FOTA were propsing to address before the FIA rode roughshod over them :\

[christophulus]

I'm happy to see that Massa has come out and said he doesn't agree with the winner-takes-all system.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/7962728.stm


Massa won six races last year, one more than champion Lewis Hamilton, but lost the title by one point under the existing system.
But he said: "I'm really not interested in the fact that with such a system I would have won the title last year. I'm interested in what's right for our sport."
He added it was more important to reward consistency over the course of the season.
"A driver might win more races, but might be inconsistent in his performance not gaining many points. In this case I think he wouldn't deserve the title."


Bernie has said numerous times that Massa deserves a championship and I'd agree, he's developed into a great driver. It is, however, very irritating to hear everyone go on about how he'd have been champion last year if this system was in force, it's irrelevant. I'm glad to see even Massa isn't a fan :up:

[LeonBrooke]

Seeing as the FiA like uniformity in their points scoring - I think you're probably right. So it will be most wins how the Championship is decided - well at least we know one World Champion for next year......

I assume you mean Loeb? If you're going to introduce winner-takes-all system for the WRC for 2010 jut cancel all the rounds and give him the title in january and be done with it.


Here's an interesting example, albeit slightly off-topic - the 1986 British Open Rally Championship. It was won by Mark Lovell in the Ford RS200 without him winning a round or, frankly, ever looking like doing so. Admittedly, there were only six rounds, so it's probably easier for someone to win such a short a series without a single event victory than it is a complete F1 world championship, but even so it's worth considering. Had that championship been decided on the basis of wins, Hannu Mikkola would have won, having taken two victories in the first three rounds, but then Audi pulled out so declaring him the champion would have been rather unfair. Everybody else won just once in a year when no-one especially shone.

Similar thing happened in the motocross world championship in 2007. The rider who took the world title hadn't won a single race, let alone an event (events were two races), but won the title because the guy who deserved it was out for the last third of the season with injuries. Now that is just embarrassing. I think titles (especially world titles) shouldn't go to people who can't win races - in cases like that the title should go to the driver/rider with the most points who actually won a race.