That's incorrect. So, this is right: The thing I don't understand is why there's a two-point difference between 8th and 7th when there's only a 1 point gap from 7th to 6th. Is this to inspire more aggressive racing in the mid-pack towards the end of a race? It seems a bit arbitrary to me. I would have proposed something more like this: 1st - 20 2nd - 15 3rd - 10 4th - 7 5th - 6 6th - 5 7th - 4 8th - 3 9th - 2 10th - 1 All the best, Andrew.
Hi David, Here's the one I used for that specific point: Formula 1 - The Official F1 Website (link to article) Usually, I find Bernie's site a little slow on the release of news but it tends to more accurately reflect the 'official' policy of the governing bodies. May I ask what source you used? All the best, Andrew.
So if someone goes from 26th place to 2nd, they get 24 points + the 20 for winning for a total of 44 points??? This makes no sense since the guy who started from pole and kept the lead will only receive 25. There cannot be points for passing, that makes pole useless. It's a disincentive to get and maintain the lead. Mark
I'd like to see an extra point or two given for setting the fastest lap in a race. That could be interesting. All the best, Andrew.
I agree. It might work if you counted finishing spot vs. grid position but in that it punishes those who qualify well its a bit too contrived for me. I can just see two team mates passing each other every lap to build up points.
I still like the Nascar system where there are buckets of points including ones for laps completed. Its better for the "show" but admittedly does not reward the top teams enough. For sure it eliminates runaway WDC wins like we had this year and during Ferrari's sweet spot a few years back. Still; the rewarding of points to 10 spots back is a step in the right direction.
They obviously don't rate Schuey's comeback too highly, with this change to the points system. After all, It was originally changed to the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system to prevent him wrapping up the titles too early while at Ferrari.
Giving points down to 10th is pretty obviously to let some of the new teams get points, so all the new cossie teams don't run goose eggs. Inflating the podium points makes sense, though. When the old nine point win was established, there were only six races a season. A three point difference between first and second is more significant when you finish a season with a total of 30-50 points. With 18-20 races a season, and well over 100 points total, the difference between first and second is only one or two percent of a year's total points. With more races, you need a bigger points gap between positions, to keep the finishing positions in each race significant. Otherwise, people stop fighting for position once they get near the front. (Why risk 8 points for an additional 2, when the season is 130?)
I don't think they left because of that but I certainly think the current system sort of disrespects the effort of those who aren't in the upper part of the field. When you look at the post season highlights, you see who won and such, but there is often 4 or 5 teams without any points, or with 1 or 2 points. It doesn't really give them anything for their efforts, and sort of says "your effort counted for nothing". I'd actually be in favor of giving points the whole way through the field... even last place earns points, and you only get none if you DNF. As it stands, a team like Force India could beat someone like Honda all year long... then because of a rainy race where Honda lucks into a points position, they go down in history as being the superior performer that year. I can see how that is demoralizing for the folks working so hard and achieving nothing (in terms of points)
Note to FIA, there is no need to re-invent the wheel, just bring back the points system from the mid-80's and let the drivers/teams do what they do best, which is to compete and win races, not just to finish and nurse a freaking points lead.
I wonder how much the points mean to non championship contending teams. Making the podium and sharing all the hoopla is great for morale but at this level how much more motivation is generated by coming in tenth with a point than just coming in tenth. I think that the poster who said is has a lot to do with making the new guys look good is closest to the truth here.
You could never get from 26th to 2nd. Obviously it needs some details added to even start considering it (e.g. can't have 2 drivers passing each other back and forth gaining points), but if you start from 5th and win you should get more than winning from pole.
The World Motor Sport Council has approved the new point system. Places one through ten will receive 25 20 15 10 8 6 5 3 2 1 points respectively.
Interesting idea and I like the points extended back further with more constructors. This solves the ambiguity in the lower ends of the constructors standings that occurs due to one freak race with rain or something similar. My problem with the original points still exists though. I think people have been deceived in a sense. The difference between first, second and third is still the same percent wise. Meaning everyone's primary concern of not enough difference between 1st and 2nd is still unresolved.
Found this interesting: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80532 Under the 2010 system, the result of this year's championship would have been exactly the same. Jenson Button would have beaten Sebastian Vettel (243 points to 203), with Rubens Barrichello third (187), Mark Webber fourth (178), Lewis Hamilton fifth (123), Kimi Raikkonen sixth (119), etc. The close finishes of 2007 and 2008 would have retained the same order under the new system, with the following scores: 2008 Lewis Hamilton 240 Felipe Massa 239 2007 Kimi Raikkonen 271 Lewis Hamilton 270 Fernando Alonso 268 The close finish of 2003 would also have produced the same result, with Michael Schumacher beating Raikkonen 225 to 221. In fact, you'd have to go back to 1999 to find the first change of place. Under the 2010 system, Eddie Irvine would have beaten Mika Hakkinen to the title 230 to 218. But Irvine would also have won that title under the 2003-2009 system.
Well, maybe, but the circumstances have to be juuuuust right ... 2008 Singapore - Alonso Q15 - P1 2005 US - Montiero Q17 - P3 a few real ones ... 1996 Monaco - Panis Q14 - P1 1984 Monaco - Senna Q13 - P2 1982 US - Watson Q17 - P1
Teams might have used different strategies if the point system were different so we can't say for sure but given the lack of effect on results you have to ask "why Bother?".
I was going to look those stats up myself so thank you. If I remember right, MS, Kimi, and Alonso have all come from the back or near the back to somewhere near the podium. Adding points for passing would make them the race winner even though someone else actually won the race. I like the idea to promote passing, but it just doesn't work. Honestly, if you are going to award passing, you need to award obtaining and maintaining the lead in the same manner (points for each lap led). And if that's the case, we start to have a near indeterminate system like Nascar. A point or two for fastest lap and pole is a better idea to me. Mark
Part of any point system is to provide incentives. The championship being the most obvious. Giving points for fastest lap could change the racing but does offering points for pole really change anyone's behavior?
My $0.02: I think it is safe to say that there are @4 teams that will "rise to the top" on a regular basis, so to say that those 4 teams will take "most all of the points most all of the time" on the old system. The "problem" is that would leave 9 other teams to fight for little to no points, and thus would make it harder to figure out who is really Team #5 - Team #13 at the end of the season. By adding points to 10th they should be able to sort those spots out a bit easier, and thus dole out the $$$ at the end of the year for finishing place without having a 5-way tie for last.
