New F1 Points System

Grim.

from crash.net

The World Motor Sport Council has confirmed that the new points system will be adopted in time for the 2010 F1 World Championship.

The F1 Commission recommended a revamp on Thursday to reflect the expected increase in gird sizes following the addition of three further two-car teams for 2010. Under it the top three drivers will now receive 25, 20 and 15 points respectively, with the remaining seven finishers being awarded 10-8-6-5-3-2-1 respectively.

2009 F1 World Champion, Jenson Button has already given it the thumbs-up: "It's a great idea," Button told BBC Radio 5 live. "It's nice that you get five points over second for winning.

"That's important because we all love winning races. I won six races this year and I got just two more points."

This year points were awarded to the top-eight finishers, in a 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 format, something that came in back in 2003.

Assumingly with the new points system coming into force in 2010, the gold medal proposal, championed by F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone, whereby the F1 Champion would have been determined by the driver getting the most wins during a season, has been shelved – at least for now.

amacachi

Don't like it, adds no value to winning. Still goes 100%, 80%, 60% for the top 3.

projectmayhem

Fantastic, so who ever manages to get the best car at the start of the season, thrashes through the first few races & does nothing for the rest of the season can win by some margin. This season could very, very easily be over by Monaco.

Bernie has been a plague on F1 for years. Jean Todt should have made it his business to get rid of this idiocy as his first major public move in his new role.

They're ruining the sport...

amacachi

projectmayhem wrote: »

Fantastic, so who ever manages to get the best car at the start of the season, thrashes through the first few races & does nothing for the rest of the season can win by some margin. This season could very, very easily be over by Monaco.

Bernie has been a plague on F1 for years. Jean Todt should have made it his business to get rid of this idiocy as his first major public move in his new role.

They're ruining the sport...

Fancy explaining the maths basis behind your assertion? The top three positions are basically worth the same as they're worth now, 4th-7th worth less and 8th-10th worth more.

Slutmonkey57b

And more to the point, if your diatribe is aimed at Button, lots of driver's champions won in the "glory days" of the 70's and 80's driving much worse, with fewer wins, fewer podiums, fewer overtakes, and less drama. No shortage of pole-to-flag snorefests only interrupted by shocking displays of incompetence from pay drivers running off the track at random.

amacachi

Aye it's not that long ago a win was basically worth double second (which I'm in favour of), this new system will make very little difference overall, I suspect it's just to get more teams to finish the season with points so they can get some prize money. If there were 13 teams and only 8 scored points it's a massive imbalance in funding straightaway before backing and sponsorship.

Grim.

they should have just went with the proper motogp point system instead of this take on it imo

frostie500

projectmayhem wrote: »

Fantastic, so who ever manages to get the best car at the start of the season, thrashes through the first few races & does nothing for the rest of the season can win by some margin. This season could very, very easily be over by Monaco.

Bernie has been a plague on F1 for years. Jean Todt should have made it his business to get rid of this idiocy as his first major public move in his new role.

They're ruining the sport...

Its only in the last 20 years that all races were put towards the points total for the season. You used to have best ten, best four from each half of the season etc. The only difference as stated elsewhere is that points go down to 10th and give the smaller teams the chance of winning points. There was a piece in Autosport about the new system-cant find it right now-that showed with the new system 09,08,07 and 03 wouldnt be different and in fact the only change would have been Irvine in 99 where he would win with the new system and the 03-09 system

rohatch

amacachi wrote: »

Don't like it, adds no value to winning. Still goes 100%, 80%, 60% for the top 3.

I don't like it either

could have just went

20, 16, 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 1

2 points pole
2 points fastest lap

Zaph

I would have liked an extra point awarded for pole position and fastest lap as well. Why shouldn't a driver who's really gone for it during qualifying get an extra reward for his efforts? As for the fastest lap, you often see a lower placed driver having the fastest lap, so it's a good chance for them to pick up an additional point.

projectmayhem

amacachi wrote: »

Fancy explaining the maths basis behind your assertion? The top three positions are basically worth the same as they're worth now, 4th-7th worth less and 8th-10th worth more.

If the same three at the top keep getting the same positions in the first series of races in the season, they will have their own fight - running away with the entire season.

It's not wholly unthinkable that a driver will win the first few races, then go into the depths of mediocrity for the rest of the season and still win. The fact that Bernie tabled a motion about a championship being won on the number of race wins rather then points tells me that the FIA might be thinking along the same lines as me.

The points difference should be marginal for winners. F1's top tier racers should be brought closer to the middle of the pack. Instead of having 3 races each time (1 with the top teams, 1 with the mid-range teams who are really just there to flash brand logo's around a track for 2 hours and then another with 2 or 3 back-end teams just in it to try and stay afloat financially) it would be far more exciting if they actually reformed the sport.

If a driver wins a race he shouldn't be immediately 5 points clear of his rival, not in a sport where routinely the same few faces take the podium positions. Bringing it closer would make it more interesting. If they want to give a bit more money and prestige to smaller teams, then just extend the number of teams awarded 1 point in a race. Rewarding the top drivers with so many points just makes a season predictable by the middle of the calendar, which isn't much fun.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

And more to the point, if your diatribe is aimed at Button, lots of driver's champions won in the "glory days" of the 70's and 80's driving much worse, with fewer wins, fewer podiums, fewer overtakes, and less drama. No shortage of pole-to-flag snorefests only interrupted by shocking displays of incompetence from pay drivers running off the track at random.

More to the point? I said nothing about Button. In fact, I don't think I've entered any debate about the guy on boards, ever. How my moaning about Bernie and the points system brought a response about drivers in the 70s and Button makes no sense, to me anyway.

amacachi

projectmayhem wrote: »

If the same three at the top keep getting the same positions in the first series of races in the season, they will have their own fight - running away with the entire season.

It's not wholly unthinkable that a driver will win the first few races, then go into the depths of mediocrity for the rest of the season and still win. The fact that Bernie tabled a motion about a championship being won on the number of race wins rather then points tells me that the FIA might be thinking along the same lines as me.

The points difference should be marginal for winners. F1's top tier racers should be brought closer to the middle of the pack. Instead of having 3 races each time (1 with the top teams, 1 with the mid-range teams who are really just there to flash brand logo's around a track for 2 hours and then another with 2 or 3 back-end teams just in it to try and stay afloat financially) it would be far more exciting if they actually reformed the sport.

If a driver wins a race he shouldn't be immediately 5 points clear of his rival, not in a sport where routinely the same few faces take the podium positions. Bringing it closer would make it more interesting. If they want to give a bit more money and prestige to smaller teams, then just extend the number of teams awarded 1 point in a race. Rewarding the top drivers with so many points just makes a season predictable by the middle of the calendar, which isn't much fun.

I think you're putting too much into the literal number of points, it needs to be looked at as percentages rather than sheer number. A 200 point lead sounds like a lot but in NASCAR can be wiped out in a single race. If anything this new system will keep things closer than the current system, can you really not see that?

projectmayhem

amacachi wrote: »

If anything this new system will keep things closer than the current system, can you really not see that?

It could certainly do this, but going by last season and "modern f1", that won't happen. Someone is likely to run away with it early on, and build up a nice nest egg of points so he can take it easy for the rest of the season.

amacachi

projectmayhem wrote: »

It could certainly do this, but going by last season and "modern f1", that won't happen. Someone is likely to run away with it early on, and build up a nice nest egg of points so he can take it easy for the rest of the season.

The points system isn't to blame for that. All the older points system would have resulted in the same thing, especially when a win was 10 and second only 6.

EvilMonkey

At least it means the medals thing is off the table.
I like the fact that you get more points for wining but would have preferred the ratios to be adjusted, also anyone know why there is a 2 point difference between 7th and 8th Good reason to push if your in 8th i suppose.
Did anyone apply this points system to last years results? Is anything different?*

*Too lazy to do it myself

rua1972

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80532

Follow the link and you will find how older championships would have finished. Only '99 season would have been different.

projectmayhem

rua1972 wrote: »

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80532

Follow the link and you will find how older championships would have finished. Only '99 season would have been different.

Point taken, however, if this is the case, why bother? I still think they could have a closer season if they just added more places that get 1 point, rather then spreading out more points over the grid and overly-rewarding (imo) the winner of a race.

rua1972

The FIA moves in mysteries ways. The reward for a win will be 15 more than it was upto 2010. If the meaning is to reward more teams, because more teams are competing, i can understand that. It is a big step, maybe they think it will help overtaking. Like the big mouth front wings did
As long the championship is decided in one of the last races, hopefully the last, it is fine by me.

Slutmonkey57b

projectmayhem wrote: »

More to the point? I said nothing about Button. In fact, I don't think I've entered any debate about the guy on boards, ever. How my moaning about Bernie and the points system brought a response about drivers in the 70s and Button makes no sense, to me anyway.

Key phrase in my post:
IF

Your original post was:

Fantastic, so who ever manages to get the best car at the start of the season, thrashes through the first few races & does nothing for the rest of the season can win by some margin. This season could very, very easily be over by Monaco.

Bernie has been a plague on F1 for years. Jean Todt should have made it his business to get rid of this idiocy as his first major public move in his new role.

They're ruining the sport...

My response was:
Complaints that the new points system will create "unworthy" winners who luck into a good car and then do nothing all year is misguided - there were plenty of unworthy winners in the past, with the old points system.

"Ruining the sport":
This is a comment that gets my goat because people seem to think that "in the old days" racing was great, exciting, wheel-to-wheel stuff between men with hairy chests putting it on the edge. It wasn't. It was regularly boring, the racing was predictable, half the drivers were pay drivers that Nakajima or Nelsinho would race rings around, a field packed with teams who were so hopeless they had to run "pre-qualifying" to weed them out, those teams that did make it through, only half of them were capable of finishing a race, never mind winning one.

People should seriously look back at some racing from the 80's and 70's.
Pit mechanics who couldn't operate a bolt gun.
Pit bosses who would be sat in the garage scratching their balls with the tyres in piles when the drivers came in for a pitstop.
Rich amateur drivers who couldn't be trusted to go in a straight line at Imola in the dry.
Engines that couldn't be trusted to finish qualifying, never mind a race.
Qualifying sessions that lasted an hour but where nobody was on the track at all for the first 45 minutes.
Seasons where one team had a minimum speed advantage over the field of 2 seconds.
Technological freedom? There were teams that actually ran the same chassis (never mind design) for years. Years! Without a single innovation or change.

Seriously, the past 2 or 3 years has been golden racing. Really it has. This year we had a whole field of competitive teams, some great wheel to wheel racing, fired up drivers shoving each other at the side of the track, edge of the seat qualifying sessions, massive changes in fortune, a worthy winner, scrapping battles right down the field, and single drivers making the difference between a team with a win and a last place (spa).

Modern F1 does not deserve the criticism it gets.

IM0

what was ever wrong with the origional 10 - 6 - 4 - 3 - 2 -1

go back to that, like they did with the no re-fueling ban/sham they abolished over the last decade plus.

rhetorical question btw, the only thing was it was a victim of origionality which some genius decided needed a change for change sake

frostie500

me@ucd wrote: »

what was ever wrong with the origional 10 - 6 - 4 - 3 - 2 -1

go back to that, like they did with the no re-fueling ban/sham they abolished over the last decade plus.

rhetorical question btw, the only thing was it was a victim of origionality which some genius decided needed a change for change sake

That wasnt the original points system. It was implemented around 93. Prior to that it was 9 for a win. Back then there was also 'x' amount of races counting for the title. As in your best 8 races, or else your best four races from each half of the season. Would that be another thing you'd look to go back to after the 'sham' of 15 years of good racing with the championship going to the wire far more regularly then any point prior in the history of the sport?

This change in the points system will not have the championship won by half way, and nothing to play for. The cars are too reliable to allow that to happen, look at MotoGP how many times are the titles in the three classes settled with more then two rounds to go? We will still get a close entertaining battle for the title

Ghost Train

Don't really like the new higher points, but do see a need for it with the new teams. It will mean most teams should at least pick up the odd point and at the end of the year the championship positions will be clear, the battle at the front will be among two or three consistent teams. I think if your not getting podiums you will be out of the championship pretty quick.

Oblomov

F1's new points system could be scrapped before the first race in 2010 for two reasons, according to Germany's Auto Motor und Sport. The report claims the system was adopted illegally by the F1 Commission, and subsequently ratified by the World Motor Sport Council.

Auto Motor und Sport said the F1 Commission, which had not met for several years prior to its recent Monaco meeting, can only vote on desired rule changes that are put forward in full by the Sporting and Technical Working Groups. It is revealed, however, that the sporting group discussed the points system for only two minutes during its 4 December meeting, with only USF1's Peter Windsor pushing for a change.

Meanwhile, the FIA has confirmed that the new points system, awarding points down to tenth place, was devised due to "the expanded grid of 13 teams". But if fewer than 13 teams ultimately turn up in Bahrain next March, F1 could face a situation where nearly half of the entire grid is awarded points at the end of races.

joesoap007

projectmayhem wrote: »

Fantastic, so who ever manages to get the best car at the start of the season, thrashes through the first few races & does nothing for the rest of the season can win by some margin. This season could very, very easily be over by Monaco.

Bernie has been a plague on F1 for years. Jean Todt should have made it his business to get rid of this idiocy as his first major public move in his new role.

They're ruining the sport...

its not broken dont fix it,,Bernie is going slowy mad,,

joesoap007

has anyone herd that Bernie was on about puting short cuts in to some tracks like axbox video game,,it was on the bbc site a few days ago ,eddy irvine was ask what he taugh of it,,he said never in a million years,Bernie is realy going mad lol