Ecclestone wants to change the points system?

According to Autosport, Bernie Ecclestone blames the current point system for the lack of fight between leaders on the track during GRs. Ecclestone's theory is that a 2-point incentive for a win, is no motivation enough for the second on the track to risk it all to challenge the leader. The difference between a win and a second place used to be 3 points.
Although it's too late for this season, Ecclestone says that he will bring the subject up for 2008.

 

haha..of cos it's lame. the whole points system is screwed up, IMO. it focuses on reliability rather than go for the win. i can be crowned champion if i finish 2nd every race.

 

I think Bernie is moving towards the "Who's Line Is It?" system: "the points don't matter", and Bernie will announce a winner (by decision) after it's over.

Actually, from 2000-2002, it was a *four* point difference between first and second -- because of the impression that three points weren't enough to get people to fight for the win, and because when they stretched the calendar to 17 races, you could win the WDC without winning a race.

And then Schumi clinched the championship with six races left on the calendar.

So they changed the points to keep one team from winning too soon ... and to let the "also run" teams get a point once in a while.

With 18-20 races in the season, there's no simple points system that will assure that every race is significant.

What's next? Style points? (Low scoring from the east german judge?)

 

They went from 9 points to 10 for the winner to provide greater reward for winning.

Then they went from 6 points for 2nd to 8 to tighten up the points race.

And now we are back to square 1.

Why not go back to the old 9-6-4-3-2-1 system?

 

that can't be done, i'm afraid. Sato will be the default champ

 

The current system rewards the middle field teams, so they have something that helps them distinguish from the back runners. Important to get sponsor money.

I agree with Bernie's comments and the way to fix it, is by keeping the current system, but give the winner more points:
12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

What they also should consider is what F1 used to have in the fifties: An extra point for fastest lap in the race. I would also give an extra point for pole position.

 

I think they want to give points to first 8 places. This gives the also rans an incentive to get some points and have mid-pack runners keep racing. Of course these could easily be done by starting with say 12 pts or more for first and go from there.

Or we could go to the NASCAR system where everyone gets points if they finish and it's so complicated I don't really understand it. I just look at the results and say, "OK, it must be right."

 

Agreed. I'd love to see the controversies of a pole-point system if they returned to an open qualifying format!

 

Agree 100%

 

I would also give another point for the pole position, like US races...

 

<Insert Schumacher-bashing post here>

Just imagine how many more times Schumacher would have "suddenly" had a problem on-track in the waning minutes of qualifying if there were an extra point on the line...

<End Schumacher-bashing post>





<Commence flaming>

 

LOL

Just read an interview with Wurz and they asked him whether MS will be missed by the grid. His response was, that everybody got really frustrated with Schumi after what he did at Monaco.

 

Send it to Bernie! That's exactly how the point system should be, with one small exception in my opinion. I would not give a point for fastest race lap because it's a bit artificial. You could get drivers who are running well out of the points coming in for tires but no fuel just to set a time, and then coming back in for their fuel.

Now if we could just get qualifying to go back to its original format...

 

I don't think there would be a problem with people running way out of the points trying for the fastest lap point. If the first place finisher was getting 12 points I see no reason to give one of the back runners a point for pulling off a fastest lap during the race.

 

A lot of good ideas but the 12 8 6 5 4 3 2 1 makes the most sence of all. How about this one. Leave the points where they are and add in something for quali. Say something like 3 for pole 2 for second 1 point for 3rd qualifier but you can only keep the points if you finish the race in that position or better.

 

Or better yet, get points for every position you improve from quali if you finish in the points.

 

Would people dog it in qualifying so they could earn points moving up?

Might be interesting go have some races where you start inversely to where you finished the last race. Would be fun to watch all the top drivers coming from behind. You'd see some passing then. Probably wouldn't work for a season and total points.

Wouldn't work for Monaco, but tracks where you can pass it would be fun.

 

Why not give point to those who finish beyond 8? That way a team with sevral 9th or 10th finishes will beat a team with a single 8th or 7th.

 

They should also consider adding points for 9th and 10th positions. There continue to be teams that score "goose eggs" year after year. This would provide some competition for some of the back runners. I also like the 12-8-etc scoring system.

 

The problem is when you get to 20 races in a season.

Finishing 8th in every race is the equivalent of winning two races?

9-6-4-3-2-1 was implemented when there were something like six races a year.

27-18-12-9-6-3 for an 18 race season leaves room to squeeze in some extra points places.

How about 30-20-15-12-9-7-5-3-2-1 for the top 10?

Then you might see some actual passing up in the front of the pack.

Discuss.

 

+1

AND an extra one for the fastest lap of the race. That will make it interesting. Say Kimi gets a puncher and has no chance of winning. He can bang in the fastest lap and get something for 'continuing to give it a go'. This has to be a plus for the crowd.
Pete

 

Pete, the way People are responding regarding the extra point, I think it would be a great idea for someone who has no chance to get a point for really giving it ago.

 

I like it more points for a win and more positions. Last year Fernando would have had 368, Schumi 336,
massa 204,
fisichella 180,
kimi 157,
button 144,
rubens 73,
montoya 63,
de la rosa 44,
heidfeld 60,
ralf 54,
Jarno 43,
DC 40,
Webber 21,
JV 18,
Kubica 19,
Nico 15,
Klein 6,
Liuzzi 6,
Speed 5,
Monteiro 2,
Albers 1,
Sato 1,

Overall Standing FA, MS, FM,GF,KR,JB,RB,JPM,PDLR,NH,RS,JT,DC,MW,RK,JV,NR,CK,VL,SS,TM,CA,TS

de la rosa jumps 2 position, kubica jumps 1

Renault 548, Ferrari 540, McLaren 264, Honda 217, BMW Sauber 97, Toyota 87, RBR 46, Williams 36, STR 11, Midland/Spyker 3, Super Aguri 1

 

That is exactly what you can't say and why the points system should be changed: With only 2 points difference there is little incentive to go all out for a win. Better to carry the 8 points home. Once you give the winner a much bigger points advantage you can no longer just recalculate the points situation because people would have driven differently.

That's precisely the reason why the current system should be changed and why any comparison across different points system in time is flawed.

PS: Not trying to beat up on ferraridude615. His calculations are correct. I'm just saying applying a different points system in hindsight doesn't work strategically, even if mathematically correct.

 

Thanks Ferrari Dude, that was excellent.