Results using the old point system ***SPOILERS***

So, I couldn't resist running the #'s, and it wouldn't have made much difference:

1 - SV - 79
2 - FA - 76
3 - LH - 73
4 - MW - 72
5 - JB - 58
6 - FM - 33
7 - NR - 28
8 - RK - 26
9 - MS - 10
10= RB & AS - 5
12 - VP - 3
13= NH, VL, KK

Only 15 versus 19 drivers would have scored.

Cheers,
Ian

 

Cool info.

As I understand, the ratios between the points scoring positions is the same as before, but they have just extended it back further in the field, right?

I guess it depends which "old points system" we're talking about too - we have the one from a couple of years ago, the one from several years before that, and the one from before that

 

Close, but a ways from the "same" - A win *should* have been worth 27 with 2nd worth 18 for example. 3rd "should" have been 12 and so on.

Other than a few occasions when they've added points for pole and fastest lap, I think it's always been "9-6-4-3-2-1". (?)

Cheers,
Ian

 

Points systems:

1991-2002: 10 6 4 3 2 1
2003-2009: 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 1
2010-: 25 18 15 12 10 8 6 4 2 1

Really, they are much the same. They change the back end a bit, but from 2003 on not much has changed at the top of the order.

The only way to break this up a bit is to offer 1 point for pole and another point for pole + win.

Further, eliminate the top x rewards mentality and offer a single point each race for fastest lap in quali and another point for the same in a race. That way the minnows can compete with each other and have something to show for it a year's end while the big fish keep focus on the big picture. The minnows will produce cars that are only good at the start, therefore all the real teams will be behind them on raceday and all the top tier drivers will have to earn their paychecks by passing them.