Race winners could get 25 points in 2010
Button would stay champion under the new system - with 230.5 points
The FIA will vote tomorrow on a new points system for F1 proposed by the re-formed F1 Commission. The change looks radical on the surface with a winner getting 25 points instead of ten.
But on closer inspection the new points system will probably make little difference at all and only act to encourage drivers to settle for a lower position instead of trying to move up a place.
What do you think of the proposed new points system?
- It's an improvement over the current one (35%, 621 Votes)
- It doesn't make much difference (31%, 553 Votes)
- It's worse than the current one (34%, 621 Votes)
Total Voters: 1,795
Loading ...If it had been applied in 2009 the most significant change would have been moving Jarno Trulli up to seventh in place of Nico Rosberg.
The extension of points to cover ninth and tenth places means non-scorers Nelson Piquet Jnr and Kazuki Nakajima would have picked up points.
Proposed 2010 F1 points system
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
| Proposed 2010 points | 25 | 20 | 15 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Points as % of a race win | 100 | 80 | 60 | 40 | 32 | 24 | 20 | 12 | 8 | 4 |
| Current points | 10 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | ||
| Points as % of a race win | 100 | 80 | 60 | 50 | 40 | 30 | 20 | 10 |
The present points system, introduced in 2003, was criticised for making second and third place finishes more valuable compared to winning.
As the table above shows under the new system the difference between finishing second or third compared to winning remains proportionally the same. Second place still gives 80% of the points for finishing second, and third gives 60%.
It appears to be another attempt to ensure championships are decided as late in the season as possible, as it will be harder for a driver to amass a 25-point lead of a rival when you get ten points just for finishing fourth.
It is opposite in philosophy to the system FOTA suggested last year (12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1) which would have increased the relative value of a win.
What is truly strange about the proposed points system is that seventh place would be worth five points which is two more than eighth but one less than sixth. Surely it would make more sense for seventh place to be worth four points?
I’m not convinced by the perceived need to keep the championship alive until the last stages of the year. A good race is a good race regardless of whether the championship is it stake or not. One of the most popular races of the last ten years was the 2005 Japanese Grand Prix, after that year’s drivers’ title had already been decided.
I do think it’s worth extending the points further so that F1’s increased number of teams next year will have a greater chance of scoring points, making it easier for us to differentiate between their performance over a season.
On the other hand a driver who only needs a point to win the championship can go into the final round aiming to finish tenth.
I still feel wins are seriously under-valued by the present points system. If tenth place is worth a point, a win should be more like 50.
What do you think of the proposed change to the F1 points system?
Update: FIA confirms new points system in 2010
2009 F1 points under the new 2010 system
| Pos | Driver | Points |
| 1 | Jenson Button | 230.5 |
| 2 | Sebastian Vettel | 203 |
| 3 | Rubens Barrichello | 183 |
| 4 | Mark Webber | 175 |
| 5 | Lewis Hamilton | 120.5 |
| 6 | Kimi Raikkonen | 119 |
| 7 | Jarno Trulli | 78 |
| 8 | Nico Rosberg | 75.5 |
| 9 | Timo Glock | 63.5 |
| 10 | Fernando Alonso | 62 |
| 11 | Felipe Massa | 48 |
| 12 | Heikki Kovalainen | 46 |
| 13 | Nick Heidfeld | 44 |
| 13 | Robert Kubica | 44 |
| 15 | Giancarlo Fisichella | 26 |
| 16 | Sebastien Buemi | 16 |
| 17 | Adrian Sutil | 13 |
| 18 | Kamui Kobayashi | 8 |
| 19 | Sebastien Bourdais | 6.5 |
| 20 | Kazuki Nakajima | 5 |
| 21 | Nelson Piquet Jnr | 1 |
| 22 | Jaime Alguersuari | 0 |
| 22 | Luca Badoer | 0 |
| 22 | Romain Grosjean | 0 |
| 22 | Vitantonio Liuzzi | 0 |
Actual 2009 F1 points
| Driver | Points | |
| 1 | Jenson Button | 95 |
| 2 | Sebastian Vettel | 84 |
| 3 | Rubens Barrichello | 77 |
| 4 | Mark Webber | 69.5 |
| 5 | Lewis Hamilton | 49 |
| 6 | Kimi Raikkonen | 48 |
| 7 | Nico Rosberg | 34.5 |
| 8 | Jarno Trulli | 32.5 |
| 9 | Fernando Alonso | 26 |
| 10 | Timo Glock | 24 |
| 11 | Heikki Kovalainen | 22 |
| 12 | Felipe Massa | 22 |
| 13 | Nick Heidfeld | 19 |
| 14 | Robert Kubica | 17 |
| 15 | Giancarlo Fisichella | 8 |
| 16 | Sebastien Buemi | 6 |
| 17 | Adrian Sutil | 5 |
| 18 | Kamui Kobayashi | 3 |
| 19 | Sebastien Bourdais | 2 |
| 20 | Romain Grosjean | 0 |
| 20 | Vitantonio Liuzzi | 0 |
| 20 | Jaime Alguersuari | 0 |
| 20 | Kazuki Nakajima | 0 |
| 20 | Luca Badoer | 0 |
| 20 | Nelson Piquet Jnr | 0 |
Read more: Final 2009 F1 championship standings
Image (C) Brawn GP
I agree with you totally. This is about the only thing worse than the current one! oh and maybe the medals…nothing is worse than that idea!
I can understand the thinking with the new teams there. But if they are at the back then the midfielders are just going to pull away in the constructors now anyway as they will be getting more points.
I do not understand the jump from 5 points to 3.
Agree with you Keith that I don’t want a production title decider. I just want better racing and if the best whens then I don’t care when they do.
Suzuka 2005 was that good not even if the championship had been decided, but partly because of that. Would Raikkonen had attacked Fisichella with one lap to go if he needed the points? And this year when Hamilton crashed trying to pass Button at an impossible place, he only tried because the championship was gone.
The proposed system looks Moto GP like to me, and that works well… like the current one!
i like it. the only thing i would change is the value of 2nd place – 18 points would be roughly 75% the value of a win.
I’ve never accepted the argument that there is “not enough incentive” for drivers to go for the win. Look at Kubica in Melbourne this year, or Kimi and Hamilton at Spa in 2008 …. those guys want to win, and anyone telling you that they don’t have enough incentive to do so because of the points system is wrong. No hyperbole needed – they’re just wrong.
I’m ok with it!
Don’t forget the objective is to get more points out there for the teams (with more care on the grid now),
so they can get their money easier
But it’s only very, very slightly easier for them. I can’t see any of the new teams getting any points on merit. And it would take a very fluky result for any of them to even earn a point through luck:
McLaren
Ferrari
RBR
Mercedes
Then every other team competes for the last two points’ positions!
Isn’t the money distributed on finishing position rather than points scored?
In which case it doesn’t make much difference other than to potentially benefit consistent-but-slow teams over quick-but-unreliable ones.
I believe the cost to a driver for renewing their super-license is more expensive depending on how many points they scored the previous season – something like 2000 EUR per point scored. I wonder this is a veiled method to get more money from the drivers by awarding lots more points than they used to?
I’m just copy and pasting my comments from the forum that I wrote about ten minutes ago:
This will take some getting used to. One thing’s for sure, it will completely shake up the career points total charts if drivers are getting 2 and a half times more points than before for winning.
I suppose it was necessary to give some of the smaller teams a chance of scoring points, reliability is so strong these days that a top 8 finish would be difficult. But then again, will scoring a point or two seem like much of an achievement with this system?
It won’t screw up career points total charts. That has already been done long ago, all these charts are totally worthless.
it isn’t good..was anyone complaining back in the 26-car grid days, with only 6 places worth points?
Not really, but in those days reliability was much worse.
Complete different era. Even the biggest dogs had a shot to score at the time because races with less than 10 cars running at the end where very usual. So bad cars could count on scoring sometimes if they made till the end, nowadays that is nearly impossible as we can count on 5-6 of the 8 best cars to finish every race at worst. Despite all the talk about Schumacher being responsible for the 2003 change, I always thought complains by mid-level teams that it was getting harder and harder to score as realibility got highrer played, I’m pretty sure Toyota got thrilled at time, as I imagine Renault, Williams, Force India and Toro Rosso are now.
I understand the principle behind the revamp of the points’ system; i.e., it gives the new teams a greater chance of earning one or points; and, consequently, that all important prize money. However, it seems to me somewhat of a futile effort. Under this new proposed system, the top 5 cars, as opposed to the top 4 cars under the present system, will occupy the points’ positions. Now, do we honestly think that one or more of the new teams will have a top 5 car? I very, very much doubt it. And, in this age of great reliability, I can’t see any of the new teams earning any points, on merit, and very, very few through luck.
On a somewhat cynical note, as a Lewis Hamilton fan, this new proposed system will make it an awful lot easier for Lewis (and several other current F1 drivers, btw) to score more points than any other driver in F1 history. And this is, therefore, a prima facie reason for someone in my position to support the change. This just goes to show that one shouldn’t put too much weight behind bare statistics, though. Confining ourselves to points alone, Schumi has many, many more points than any other driver. But we must remember that Senna and Prost didn’t get points for finishing outside the top 6, and raced (for a while) when the win was only worth 9 points and only the best 11 (?) results counted. And I haven’t even mentioned years competing, quality of machinery, quality of opposition, ability of team-mate, political ‘assistance’, general rule-bending, etc.
But weren’t 12 of his years in F1 under the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system, with only 4 under the current system? Didn’t you even stop to think that he has “many, many more points than any other driver” because he was consistently in the top 5 in the championship between 1992-2006, a whole 15 straight years?
‘Didn’t you even stop to think that he [Schumi] has “many, many more points than any other driver” because he was consistently in the top 5 in the championship between 1992-2006, a whole 15 straight years?’ (David A)
Well, Schumi actually finished in the top 5 for 14 seasons (remember: he was disqualified from 97). Prost finished in the top 5 for 12 seasons. So there’s only two seasons’ difference here. But, between them, there’s a gargantuan difference of some 570.5 points! (To emphasise this difference, consider that Prost’s TOTAL career points amounted to 798.5.) I suggested that one reason for this difference was the difference in points’ system. I think that this is more important than the difference in years spent in the top 5. But this wasn’t really my point. My argument was that career points, as a bare stat, are not very helpful in determining the merit of a driver; all the more so, the relative merits of drivers (with the exception of drivers during their time as team-mates). The consequence being that, in terms of assessing driver talent, it doesn’t really matter which points’ system is used. So there’s no need to protest, whatever. For how we score drivers in our minds is (or should be) largely independent of the number of points that they amass in their careers.
So many people might think that Schumi was better than Prost; perhaps this is the majority view. But surely the majority isn’t of the opinion that the stats here accurately reflect this different in talent – which would be a gulf. As I said, quality of machinery, quality of opposition, ability of team-mate, political ‘assistance’, general rule-bending, etc., all come VERY MUCH into play. And none of this is mentioned in the record books.
The merit of stats is an important point to make, because many pundits, aficionados, and newcomers simple go, or are at least unduly influenced, by stats. E.g., Murray Walker.
Similarly, these people largely go by machinery and not by the driver. Hence, Jenson Button was ranked ahead of Lewis Hamilton in the drivers’ rankings this year on F1Fanatic. Let’s see where these two are placed next year when the car becomes an extraneous factor to their relative performance! It’s incredible, really, when people say that Lewis had his best year ever in F1 and then rank him third: that’s where his car should go (at best), not him.
Indeed, career points are not a very helpful stat, but that is no reason to back the implementation of this new points system. It fails to address the “issue” felt by some that a second place is worth too much, when the percentage of a win earned by coming second would remain the same.
I will use exactly the same reason to disagree with the change, it will simply completely ruin the tradition of our sport. If this system would have been introduced last year, then Jenson Button would pass Aryton Senna on points next year. And Jenson Button on an equal note with Aryton Senna? I’m ashamed at the thought of it!
And seeing as the actual value of the positions barely change, it is actually completely pointless – it won’t “spice up” the show only complicate it even more for the casual viewers (which is not sooo bad in a certain way) what is, especially for Ecclestone, not desireable.
So, I think it shouldn’t be done, but noone ask me (or any of us for that matter) anyways…
It won’t ruin any tradition. The points system has been changed a million times through history and with this radical change it will put an end to those stupid career points charts. Finally these charts will look as useless as they’ve been for decades…
I think this new system won’t change very much, as Keith’s tables above show. It slightly devalues the finishers just behind the top 3 (good), give the smaller teams a decent chance at scoring points without everybody else blowing up (good), adapt the points system to the larger grid (very goood), but still won’t value a win (bad, but no change).
‘If this system would have been introduced last year, then Jenson Button would pass Aryton Senna on points next year. And Jenson Button on an equal note with Aryton Senna? I’m ashamed at the thought of it!’ (Klon)
It’s even worse than you may know: Rubens, Jenson’s vanquished prey, is currently just 7 points behind Senna in career points; so, whatever system is in place next year, Rubens will, then, surely pass Senna in career points! Words fail me.
Having looked-it-up, though, with a career points total of 1369 (!), Schumi will take some catching.
This is a joke, right? It’s April 1st?
It’s absolutely horrendous, this new system. If they were to keep the way that 2nd place is worth 80% of a win then at least keep it the same as it already is or change it to: 15-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 to reward the top ten.
I like your system better than their proposed one
I’ve always felt that there should be a 3 point difference btwn winner and no.2
Terrible. They need to give MORE incentive to go for the win…
Just moving my comments form the forum:
This points system is definitely worse! It has only one good thing: To extend the 10 point mark to the winner.
But look at the numbers: 25-20-15-10, divide them by 2.5 and yo get 10-8-6-4, almost exactly the same points system that runs now (except for p4). I believe we all want to extend the gap between 1st and 2nd, and so on, making the gaps bigger when approaching p1, for example: 25-18-12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 (gaps being 7-6-4-2-2-1-1).
Also, what’s the deal in making the last points 6-5-3-2-1, and making gaps smaller, then bigger, and smaller again?
Besides, 20 points for a win is more than enough.
They should go with the 12-9-7-5-4-3-2-1 system plus a point for Pole and Fastest Lap.
Can you imagaine a scenario where you have some of the rear-midfeild teams saving a set of tyres on Saturday to try and go for a Banzai effort to get that extra point in the race ??
I think that the prospect of seeing the lower order flying round the track on quali-style runs towards the end of the race WOULD be interesting !!
no because then we could have a championship decided by a fastest lap, or a pole. how boring would that be?!
No more boring than it being decided by 8th place to be honest. However, a win needs to be worth more.
F1 is all about winning. That’s all that matters. Therefore, winning should pay. At the moment, winning gives out a bit extra spare change.
What the hell, why not give the winner DOUBLE what second place gets? Extreme, perhaps. But I want to see drivers going hell for leather for the win. I don’t care if the world champion wins 8 and crashes out of 8. But I want him to have shown that he can win, and win regularly. The only people who would complain about that would be the people who finish second.
And so it should be. They didn’t win the race, after all…
Pole position is its own reward. I dont think they should give points for it.
thanks for the conversion table keith!
It’s amazing to realize how this season was REALLY bad to Kovalainen… under the 2010 points he’d have lose to Massa!!
Or was Massa going to be a threat?
He lost to him on countback anyway. Keith just put them in wrong order
http://www.formula1.com/results/driver/2009/
Sorry – fixed!
I could agree if it was something like
25 15 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 1
but as it is, the so called change, does not, in fact, change a thing.
This is a great idea
BRING IT ON! Fantastic points system!
Complete overkill.
I worked out a system which gave 20-15-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1 which barely changed this year’s standings except nearer the bottom. At the same time it convinced me both that the system could be changed without disrupting anything and that the current one really didn’t need anything.
The arguments for increasing the points are flawed. First of all, this year has shown that a smaller team can legitimately claw its way into decent points positions (Force India is the best example). Secondly, the argument about “drivers not going for the win” has always been a fallacy.
The main reason for bringing in the current system – Schumacher’s domination – is well and truly gone. Perhaps we should go back, for the next seven years, go to an 8-6-4-3-2-1 system to redress the balance in the career points tables (though it won’t change anything for drivers no longer racing), and then go to a 10-8-6-4-2-1 (rather than the 10-6-4-3-2-1) system after that, preserving the value of getting a second (which as Fisichella showed us in Belgium, is an achievement) but keeping it in the Top 6.
I never really had a problem with a Top 8 system before, but the more I think about it the more I come to believe that if you finish out of the Top 6, you don’t deserve to have points.* After all, we don’t have copper medals for people who come 5th in the Olympics.
*Although maybe we could look into bonus points for drivers who start at the back and work their way up – a point for every 10 places gained in the race, perhaps?
Should be:
Worst. System. Ever.
If you change it again, either admit you were wrong and revert back to 10-6-4-3-2-1 or even the pre-1991 system of 9-6-4-3-2-1…
…or be bold and adopt either the MotoGP system that awards 15 finishers: 25-20-16-13-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, or the old CART system which awarded 12 finishers: 20-16-14-12-10-8-6-6-4-3-2-1, possibly with a point for pole and for fastest lap.
MotoGP seems to be the inspiration but if you look at it the proposed point spread for 2010 F1 will be greater than the point spread in MotoGP – more incentive to push at least from third to second.
A doubling of points under the pre-03 system might have worked better, giving a 20-12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 for the top nine.
What I posted in the forums:
Sorry, meant to leave out the ‘Good point’ (was a response to another poster).
I like the new points system, its a lot like MotoGP’s. You should see the Aus V8Supercar points system. They basically pick a random number & multiply it by pi for each race
You can’t presently use the points accumulated by a driver as an index for comparison to drivers of “other eras”. So this new system can’t be faulted in that regard. I agree with most of the posts and Keith….no real change.
I believe they are really missing an opportunity to increase the interests of the fans by not issuing 1 point each for Q-1 and Fastest Lap. Especially the fast lap, as it is an easy concept for fans to identify with. (If I had my way I’d probably make it worth about 5 points)
I really don’t like the ‘point for pole and fastest lap’ idea. It’ll just end up with people winning championships on Saturdays (when audiences are a fraction of what they are on race days) and people using qualifying setups during races to grab extra points.
If we start with the principle that the top ten finishers should get points – which isn’t a bad idea – how should the points be shared?
I’d suggest something more like this:
50-35-20-10-8-6-4-3-2-1
Under this we’d have Button on 391, Vettel on 343, Webber on 295 and Barrichello on 281. Unlike both the current and proposed systems, Vettel would have finished within one win of Button.
Guardian calls it at 20 15 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 1
which aint hald bad if you ask me
100% 75% 50% now if that isn’t encouragement to go for the win.
one post down, im right with you….its a shame i dont raed first….i could have saved myself some math and just posted “+1″
bang on with 50pts for the win!
By percentage i have it as follows:
100 – 70 – 50 – 30 – 15 – 10 – 8 – 6 – 4 – 2
which translates to points like so:
50 – 35 – 25 – 15 – 8 – 5 – 4 – 3 – 2 – 1
i think the important part is when u look at the gap between points for first to second and then from tenth to ninth (or present seventh to eigth).
Currently:
10(first)-8(second)= 2pts /10(max)= 20% diff.
2(7th)-1(8th)= 1pts /10(max)= 10% diff.
which is only a 10% spread over all the point scorers.
My Way:
50(first)-35(second)= 15pts /50(max)= 30% diff.
2(9th)-1(10th)= 1pts /50(max)= 2% diff.
28% spread over all the point scorers make climing up to the podium way more rewarding then coasting in 4th.
and with a system similar to this, the reward differences are expodential.
I don’t think it makes much difference. As you pointed out, Keith, the points’ percentage of the total value hasn’t changed too much.
Not sure. I don’t like the idea of 10 people getting points, points should be a big challenge for lower teams – remember the days when a point for Minardi was like winning the world title for them!
I think fuel strategies is the main reason people settle for the places, they know what laps times they can do an exactly where they will finish before the race has even started.
I hope to see more do or die moves for the lead but I doubt it will happen
It seems that points will be awarded for just starting the car… a dnf will be too costly!!! so no overtaking moves, no risks, no fascinating staff…
This doesn’t make much difference, the proportions of the top positions are virtually identical. It’s good to extend the points further, but I think it should be more like 25-18-13-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1. Why on Earth is it 5 points rather than 4 for 7th? There’s a 2 point between 7th and 8th, but only 1 point between 6th and 7th… aren’t the gaps supposed to increase for the higher positions? It’s like having a 10-9-7-4 system.
They can change the points about as often as they want. What counts when comparing current drivers with those past is; titles, wins, poles and fastest laps. I can think of at least 15 points changes since I started to watch. If the season is taken to 20 races and a driver wins 8 with 3 2nd’s and a handful of other results he will win with over 200 points. My first year watching Jochen Rindt won with 45 points. As much as I love this sport I hate to see the sideshow it is becoming.
This is totally stupid. The present points system is absolutely fine for a 26 car grid so lets just leave it. Why does F1 have to constantly fiddle and change rules and regulations between seasons? It just makes casual fans lose interest because the whole thing becomes too hard for them to follow.
I hear that
why do we need such huge number off points? 25point for a win, 50 points for a win!
***!!!
10 points is fine, having less points availible makes the individual point more valuable, with 50, 25 pints for the win, we are unlikely to ever see the championship being decided over 1 point like in 07, and famously in 08!
anyway if the percentage thing is the same why not keep 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1.
this system is much easier to follow.
Look at the last 10 seasons, the best driver became WDC, the current system works.
IF IT AINT BROKEN DONT FIX IT!!! and the point system definatly is not broken, changing it will not make better racing! when people like lewis are racing they will always want more points, it doesnt matter if it worth 25 points or 10, as he showed in Monza this year.
…to the FIA please dont make this like NASCAR, where drivers end up on hundreds of points! it makes the individual point less valuable as more are up for grabs and they are easier to score
As most people seem to be saying, there needs to be a bigger difference between 1st and 2nd than what we currently have. If you are good enough to win a lot of races and wrap the title up by halfway through the year, then congratulations. I’d be happy with 50-35-20-10-8-6-4-3-2-1 as suggested by others.
Its getting too close to the crap system they have in V8 Supercars here in Australia, where this year the guy that had won 10 or so races still had to score points in the last round to win it while the guy coming second had only won 4 or so races yet was breathing down his neck. Close to the rubbish they have for NASCAR
i can’t understand why people are harping on about the ‘career points tables’? we all know that nobody calibrated them for all the countless changes over the years. not to mention the fact that there were fewer races per season in the past. between 1950 and 1958 Fangio raced in 51 grand prix. 9 years racing in this decade would give a driver ~3 times as many starts, 3x the opportunity to score points etc.
why can’t we go back to 10-6-4-3-2-1? i always thought that had a good balance to it. the proportions could be kept so 20-12-8… or 25-15-10-8/7-5-3/2…
obviously that still only awards points to the top 6 which is not what they want. they could leave it well alone, we’ve had exciting seasons recently. the reasons for the boring years were due to ferrari dominance which was caused by the rules stagnating.
Hate the new system. Points records wont mean anything. Scoring points wont mean anything and Glock will end up with more points than Senna which just isnt right.
Solution: Driver with most wins, wins but points still awarded for constructors champ and to seperate equal drivers points for Fasest lap and pole too.
Points for win have been around 10 and have produced brilliant championship fights especially 2007,2008 for the last 59 years why change now.
So basically the medals system for you?
Ultimately the actual points system makes no real difference. Apply ANY of the point scoring systems of the past to ANY of the championship years and you get the same world champion (Ok there are a couple of minor exceptions, but it is 59 years and loads of different systems), it’s the lower orders that move around…. as Keith’s table shows. What is clear is that the best driver in a year always gets to the top. But there is a clear danger here that it will discourage risk taking…. it’s got to feel worse to loose 20 points for spinning off than 8….
Yes, but this isn’t just about math – the idea (if they did the right thing and awarded exponentially more points for the first three positions, especially the winner, as many have pointed out above) – is that bigger points differences near the top would stimulate drivers to not settle for 4th, 3rd, or 2nd. That’s the ideal, anyways.
Anyhoo, what I mean is that just reassigning points to past championships isn’t necessarily a true reflection of what would have happened inside races, ergo in the championship, had a different points system been in place. Anyhoo, I’m not really arguing here, just thoughts.
What a pointless system. Probably over half of the finishers will score points which is just plain stupid, the incentive to win isn’t increased at all, as Keith’s table shows, and why would a championship contender risk losing 20 points when going for 25? Which means no-one will risk a move, especially not for the lead, and therefore the races will be duller.
The only thing this system will do is promote the mediocre teams and drivers like Sauber and Glock above the true legends of Grand Prix racing in the points tables.
Under this new system, Force India, for instance, would have had their first points I believe in Bahrain or Spain 2008, their 3rd race, in an absolute dog of a car with 2 unspectacular drivers.
Do we want to see teams and drivers scoring points for building a competitive car and racing well? Or do we want to see teams earning points for not crashing or breaking down?
And in addition, it won’t even be easier to score points with a slow car.
2008 rules – 8/20 cars – 40%
2010 rules – 10/26 cars – 38.5%
I think the current system can be adjusted to THIS:-
If there are 26 cars in 2010…
1st 10
2nd 7
3rd 5
4th 4
5th 3
6th 2
7th 1
The idea that you give more than a 1/3 of the field points is rediculous, teams should not be in F1 just to get a couple of points to either earn money in other businesses or to pormote their comercial cars. They should be in it to get further up the time sheet and challenge for the title.
I like that… A win would still be 10 points, a 2nd place less interesting and the “ponits places” slightly extended.
I prefer that than a major change.
I think it’s simple and rational – they scaled all the top awards up by a factor of 2.5 in order to allow what are effectively fractions of points to lower placed drivers. It shouldn’t effect the championship too much except (as others have mentioned) consistent points finishes will be easier to come by.
I think it’s a good idea, as it will give us a second championship of the new teams to follow, which would be a lot harder if we were just trying to track 9th/10th places.
Did anyone notice that under the new system Ferrari would have beat Mclaren by half a point in the constructor championship?
To me the new points system makes no sense,I would rather have the FOTA point system.The new system will still favor the people who will have a better car at the beginning of the season.
Haha! Nelson Piquet Jr gets a point under the new scheme
lol!
I always liked the fact how 1 world championship point was significant. I dont like MotoGP how hundreds of points are thrown around. Keep the old system, the new system wont make any change and will only dilute the importance of a Championship point. I do think that 1st place should reap an extra award and possibly bonus points for fastest lap or quali.
the new points system has to better reward the winner. I liked the previous system in which the winner got 10 and second got 6. i think they should go back to the 66% margin over second place at least. I like to see drivers risk it all for the championship (remember raikkonen in the European Grand Prix in 2005 when he refused to hand over the lead).
am i right that since 96 every champ but Lewis would have won under the Medals system? regardless of points system wins will (normally) mean you win the Worlds Title – should be 12 9 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 for my two cents.
Well, there is at least some good news about the new system. If you don’t like it, you won’t have to wait long till the FIA changes it again.
And how can this be a system with Bernie’s blessing…he wanted the medal system…which would have the greatest gap between first and second possible. This one keeps the same relative relationship. Does he know this? Todt is supposed to be the mathmatical genius, has he pointed this out to Mr. E?
Oh…sidebar…Keith, on your comment…
It’ll just end up with people winning championships on Saturdays (when audiences are a fraction of what they are on race days)
If you assume that part of the interest of F1 revolves around determining who is really the fastest driver, though driver/car is obviously more accurate, then it would be nice to formalize this into a direct points relationship. Plus, you mentioned that people would simply run a Q-set up on Sunday to get the……..single point for fast lap? Are they going to come into the pits and sacrifice their track position to go for FL? (I doubt the back half of the grid could get FL with any settings.)
Fastest lap is a historical element of Grand Prix racing that has always had a special aura about it, think of Moss or Senna and how important the mantle of “fastest driver” has always been.
You may be right of course, it might end up being an FIA adjunct that gets simply “lost in translation”…they have a recent record of such choices.
Seems like a bit of fun to me though!
And what if they did. I think it might add some extra interest to the
Can we lose that last partial sentence please…thanks.
I agree with the 10th place getting points part. If you consider that with 20 cars a driver would have to be at the top 40% to be in the 8th ans thus score a point, now that there is 26 cars one would have to be at the top ~40% to be in the 10th and thus score a point. So the new system is just thing as they are already.
Now one could argue if the amount of points given are right. They sure keep the same proportion the old system does for the top 3, but place the 4th (and behind) closer to the winners. I myself consider that if it is to be kept the proportion for the top 3, it should be kept for all top 8.
Sure increasing the “relative value of a win”, as Keith nicely put, would encourage overtaking, and we as motor racing lovers love overtakes and long for more of them in our beloved F1. So I guess it would be of no harm, quite the opposite actually, if the relative value of a win would be increased.
One good way to look at the new points system is by normalising the points system. In the 2009 system, the points awarded are 10,8,6,5,4,3,2 and 1. If we normalise the 2010 system, the points would be 10,8,6,4,3.2,2.4,2,1.2,0.8 and 0.4. There is no difference for the first three places but for the 4th, 5th and 6th places, a driver gets lesser points in the new system. Hence, it makes sense for the driver to be in the top 3 and should not settle for a 4,5,6 positions as the championship points gap would increase with time.
From this perspective, it can be argued that the drivers will push for gaining positions and hence the on-track action should be better!!
Yes, you are right, I misread Keith’s chart for the 4th down. Anyhow my point is still valid for the top 3, it could be changed for something like 100-75-55 instead of 100-80-60.
This change was inevitable.
With 26 cars, it is necessary that there is some incentive for the new teams to do well.
Okayish job with the point system. Bu 25 points instead of 10!! Won’t this make the current drivers on almost equal points with past greats like Senna, Schumacher!! S unfair to the earlier drivers.
Just another example of FIA swings and roundabouts, and there apparent love for regulation changes in F1.
They implement a new points system in 2003 to reward teams that build reliable cars. The teams work hard and end up building cars that are almost bullet-proof. Now it is going to be too difficult for new teams to score points. So the FIA decides to change the points system to allow more cars to score points in a race. Oh yeah, and they inadvertently make winning more rewarding. So much for rewarding reliability.
Personally I think they should just keep the points system the same. Stop messing around with it (or at least proposing changes to it). We had wholesale Technical Regulation changes last year, (possibly) a new points system for 2010 and we are probably going to have new engine regulations in the next couple of years. Too much change in too short a space of time.
It’s the F1 Commission that had come up with it, not the FIA. Todt was there, so was Bernie (who is chairman) but the commission is made up of stakeholders in the teams and officials from the teams. They came up with it, and im glad they have. Buttons happy with it. Hes a driver, if hes happy with it then shut your mouth.
This would be best system
1 12
2 8
3 6
4 5
5 4
6 3
7 2
8 1
More points should be awarded for the race winner, but more than that
I also think that bonus points would be a good idea, 2 for pole position, 1 for fastest lap and 1 for leading the most laps. 1-16 2-12 3-10 4-8 5-6 6-5 7-4 8-3 9-2 10-1. so if you have a great weekend a driver can rack as many as 20 points. It rewards qualifying and trying as hard as you can during the race to get the fastest laps