The current points system...

I’ve been thinking about the current points system and I don’t like it at all. It has been something that’s been on my mind for a while but, given the possibility that Nico Rosberg could have come out of Hungary with the Championship lead, after being out-qualified 9-1 and a 5-3 win ratio, both stats in favour of Hamilton, it appears to me that there is something inherently wrong with the current system. We could potentially have a situation where one driver wins 15 races and another driver finishes second in each of those races but wins the other 5 races because driver one has retired with reliability on each occasion. We would then have a driver with 1/3 the race victories being crowned an undeserved world champion. The previous points system always seemed fairer to me with:

10-6-4-3-2-1

This way three wins followed by a rather unlucky retirement and you still retain the championship lead. Under the current rulings it takes four wins before a driver finally has that cushion in hand over an opponent. If you win three races more than your opponent and you have a retirement, then you deserve to keep the championship lead, imo.

Last year, after winning 4 races on the trot, Lewis Hamilton was only three points ahead of Nico Rosberg in the WDC, even though at that time Rosberg had only won one race, due to Hamilton retiring, and come home second in the rest of them. I think it needs to be more evenly balanced than it is and the winner should get 30 points for each win and the rest can remain the same then.

I disagree. If anything, the current points system exacerbates the points lead of the leader in the dominant car. Instead of introducing gimmicks like the double-points races at the end of season, it would be a lot better to reduce the points spread awarded in all races. Let's say the race winner gets 20 points, second place 18 points, third 16, and so on. In such arrangement, we could continue seeing a genuine battle for points and titles instead of yawning for the second half of season like in 2013, 14, and 15.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Black Knight

I’ve been thinking about the current points system and I don’t like it at all. It has been something that’s been on my mind for a while but, given the possibility that Nico Rosberg could have come out of Hungary with the Championship lead, after being out-qualified 9-1 and a 5-3 win ratio, both stats in favour of Hamilton, it appears to me that there is something inherently wrong with the current system. We could potentially have a situation where one driver wins 15 races and another driver finishes second in each of those races but wins the other 5 races because driver one has retired with reliability on each occasion. We would then have a driver with 1/3 the race victories being crowned an undeserved world champion. The previous points system always seemed fairer to me with:

10-6-4-3-2-1

This way three wins followed by a rather unlucky retirement and you still retain the championship lead. Under the current rulings it takes four wins before a driver finally has that cushion in hand over an opponent. If you win three races more than your opponent and you have a retirement, then you deserve to keep the championship lead, imo.

Last year, after winning 4 races on the trot, Lewis Hamilton was only three points ahead of Nico Rosberg in the WDC, even though at that time Rosberg had only won one race, due to Hamilton retiring, and come home second in the rest of them. I think it needs to be more evenly balanced than it is and the winner should get 30 points for each win and the rest can remain the same then.

---

Everything in your post except the last sentence lead me to believe you were going to suggest Bernie's Medals system as a solution.

Yep. The points down to tenth only work with over 12 teams. Go back to the top six until f1 can sustain more teams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zako85

I disagree. If anything, the current points system exacerbates the points lead of the leader in the dominant car. Instead of introducing gimmicks like the double-points races at the end of season, it would be a lot better to reduce the points spread awarded in all races. Let's say the race winner gets 20 points, second place 18 points, third 16, and so on. In such arrangement, we could continue seeing a genuine battle for points and titles instead of yawning for the second half of season like in 2013, 14, and 15.

---

I think you need a decent gap between 1st and 2nd. Winning the race should be the best and quickest way to the championship. With the small gap you have described a DNF is penalised much more than a win is rewarded. One DNF could cost a driver 20 points. Under your system the driver would have to beat his rival into 2nd 10 times to make up for the points loss.

I agree with The Black Knight, the previous system was better.

Under the old system, the following would be the current standings given their finishing positions this season.
Hamilton: 69
Rosberg: 54

That is 1.5 race wins difference. The equivalent of 37.5 points in todays current system. I think this far more accurately conveys how the championship should stand given the significant performance gap between both drivers this season thus far.

Absolutely agree, and I've never liked the current system.

25 then 18 just doesn't seem to fit.

I want them to keep the top 10 but change it to this

25-15-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1

Makes more sense to me.

Also, 15pts for 2nd compared to 25pts for 1st happens to be exactly proportionate to the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system, but the top 10 get points.

I could never go back to the top 6 as things are right now. Only 12 drivers would have any points at all this year. Considering the new for 2010 teams only got one, ONE, top 10 finish between them, EVER (far too few, they weren't that awful) I
d be against shrinking the points positions to less places.

I also don't like how consistency is rewarded too much. The 2004 F3000 season as mentioned last year where Liuzzi dominated the season winning the first 3 races, but he retired from the 4th. Enrico Toccacelo had won it, but since he also finished 2nd to Liuzzi in the other 3, he led the championship despite being nowhere near Liuzzi's pace generally. No wonder he was unhappy.

Consistency being overly rewarded as it is now also contributes to this super(boring)-reliability we have these days, just like watching a Playstation race in no-players mode - thrilling stuff :uhoh: - since a DNF is too harshly punished so -no-one can afford to have one, just finish finish finish and save everything.

Time was when you wouldn't dare go put the kettle on during a race, for fear of missing someone retiring from the lead, which would change the complexion of the race, and also allow for midfielders to sometimes come into the points. This all created variety, unpredictability and was tense and exciting - no wonder those bad old days had to go!