Race winners could get 25 points in 2010

Posted on | Author Keith Collantine

Button would stay champion under the new system - with 230.5 points
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%)
  • It doesn't make much difference (31%)
  • It's worse than the current one (35%)

Total Voters: 1,795

Loading ... 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

135 comments on “Race winners could get 25 points in 2010”

  1. 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!

  2. 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.

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

    1. 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.

  5. 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 ;)

    1. 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!

      1. 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.

        1. 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?

  6. 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?

    1. It won’t screw up career points total charts. That has already been done long ago, all these charts are totally worthless.

  7. it isn’t good..was anyone complaining back in the 26-car grid days, with only 6 places worth points?

    1. Not really, but in those days reliability was much worse.

    2. 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.

  8. 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.

    1. Confining ourselves to points alone, Schumi has many, many more points than any other driver.

      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?

      1. ‘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.

        1. 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.

    2. 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…

      1. 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).

      2. ‘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.

  9. This is a joke, right? It’s April 1st?

  10. 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.

    1. 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

  11. Terrible. They need to give MORE incentive to go for the win…

  12. 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.

  13. Stephen Higgins
    10th December 2009, 20:57

    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 !!

    1. no because then we could have a championship decided by a fastest lap, or a pole. how boring would that be?!

      1. 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…

    2. Pole position is its own reward. I dont think they should give points for it.

  14. thanks for the conversion table keith!

  15. 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?

    1. He lost to him on countback anyway. Keith just put them in wrong order

      http://www.formula1.com/results/driver/2009/

      1. Sorry – fixed!

  16. 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.

  17. This is a great idea :) BRING IT ON! Fantastic points system!

  18. 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?

    1. 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.

      Should be:

      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 any changing.

  19. 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.

    1. 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.

  20. What I posted in the forums:

    How long will this system last? What if one year, a team completely dominates (probably unlikely, but would lead to a boring season)?

    Good point. Will this system lead to more backmarker teams dropping out of F1 if they fail to score anything?

    1. Sorry, meant to leave out the ‘Good point’ (was a response to another poster).

  21. 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

  22. 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)

    1. 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.

  23. 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.

    1. 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.

    2. 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”

  24. 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.

  25. Prisoner Monkeys
    10th December 2009, 22:06

    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.

  26. 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

  27. 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…

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

  30. 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.

    1. I hear that

      1. 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

  31. 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

  32. 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.

  33. Mike "the bike" Schumacher
    10th December 2009, 23:39

    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.

    1. So basically the medals system for you?

  34. 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….

    1. 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.

  35. 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?

    1. 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%

  36. 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.

    1. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. Did anyone notice that under the new system Ferrari would have beat Mclaren by half a point in the constructor championship?

  39. 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.

  40. mclarenproject4
    11th December 2009, 2:03

    Haha! Nelson Piquet Jr gets a point under the new scheme :P lol!

  41. 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.

  42. 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).

  43. 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.

  44. theRoswellite
    11th December 2009, 5:00

    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

  45. theRoswellite
    11th December 2009, 5:04

    Can we lose that last partial sentence please…thanks.

  46. José Baudaier
    11th December 2009, 5:51

    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.

    1. 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!!

      1. José Baudaier
        12th December 2009, 0:06

        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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

    1. 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.

  49. This would be best system

    1 12
    2 8
    3 6
    4 5
    5 4
    6 3
    7 2
    8 1

    1. More points should be awarded for the race winner, but more than that

  50. 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

  51. under my system button would still be the champion with 172 points, in 2008 hamilton would retain the championship with 172 but the twist is in 2007 alonso would have beat out both kimi and lewis, alonso with 179, lewis with 174 and kimi with 163. Rewarding McLaren’s almost perpetual stranglehold on the podium in 07

  52. Whatever the outcome i think an emphasis must be placed on winning, rather than just being a consistent driver. One thing that nags me is the fact that Massa lost the championship to Lewis by 1 point, yet he won 1 more race than Hamilton, and 1 more race win is much more important than 1 point.

    1. Medals anyone? :)

    2. This may nag you, but you can’t do anything about someone picking up more points, no matter how they do it – c’est la vie.

    3. José Baudaier
      12th December 2009, 15:04

      That’s not true. If a driver managed to do one point more, even though he win one race less, it means he was more consistent throughout the season and deserves the championship.

  53. I would like to see a 25-15-10-6-3-1 system. I reckon it would work better and encourage more overtaking for the wins as the points magnitude is increased :)

  54. KingHamilton&co
    11th December 2009, 9:19

    i think its very random how 7th gets 5 and 8th gets 3. also, i dont see the point in just extending points scoring down to 10th. id rather see: 26-18-14-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 for top 12 finishers. and there would be an 8 point gap between 1st and second-so 26=100% and 18=69%-a far better ratio. and 3rd gets just over half the points of 1st. i think this is a better system

  55. 12pts for a win. Simple. Always has been.

    Is this 25pt crap Todt’s idea? The rubbish (somewhat predictably) continues $:(

  56. My initial reaction is I don’t like it. Had anyone even heard anything about this new system before yesterday considering it will be voted on today?

    I can understand them wanting to alter the points system with the new teams coming in so that more places are awarded points, as although F1 has had larger grids in the past it seemed that reliability wasn’t as good back then so some teams could get points in some races because of the high rate of retirements, whereas in recent seasons it wouldn’t have been a surprise if no cars dropped out and so the quickest four teams collected all the points.

    I agree that the points for seventh seem strange and would like to know the reasoning behind it.

    I don’t like that the gaps between the first four places are all five points each. Personally I think that the gaps should get bigger the higher up the driver finishes. For example 15-11-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.

    This gives a one point gap for the top ten finishers outside the podium and then an increasing gap in points for the podium finishers. The only changes I would make to something like this is to increase the gap for top three.

    Of course if this new system is approved today it will mean all points based F1 records will be split in two, sort of like the number of pole positions under traditional qualifying and those qualifying with race fuel, as although the points system has changed in the past I don’t think it has changed so much that that the points for the winner has increased by 150%.

  57. The system proposed is much closer to the current Karting system of points in our part of the world.. In here Karting it’s supposed to promote attendance at all races in a year AFAIK, as it’s much easier to change the result if you have one or two good results…… and historically in more amateur racing circles people tend not to show towards the end of the season if they have their Championship in the bag..

    Which in turn helps keep money flowing into the sport.

    In that sense to some degree it’s irrelevant to F1 as it would not change this years result…

    I suppose the idea is to spice up the race between competitors that are close to one another in points…. and I guess that might make the end of season more exciting for spectators… and perhaps sell more tickets..

    So it’s another push to bring money into the sport in terms of ticket sales, nail biting end of season finishes etc. BUt at the end of the day if teams like Ferrari can just stop developing cars when they feel they are too far behind the competition what difference will it really make?

    Overall IMO it’s a cynical move by the FIA.. what a suprise!

  58. The proposed points system is like painting an elephant black and yellow to make it look like a bee. It fails to address the real issue: giving the small teams a chance to be competitive, and giving the drivers an incentive to fight for positions on the track.

    What F1 needs is cars and tracks that make overtaking possible. The rest will come naturally.

    And the issue with the seventh place is just a hint of how little thought has been spent in the proposed system. You don’t improve F1 with random rule changes, it’s not a piñata!

    1. The proposed points system is like painting an elephant black and yellow to make it look like a bee.

      That’s something we can all relate to.

  59. Accidental Mick
    11th December 2009, 10:33

    All this talk about drivers needing more incentive to win is absolute rubbish.

    Keep in mind that the issue keeps being raised by Ecclestone who failed as an F1 driver.

    Perhaps he judges everyone by his own standards.

  60. I think it is better than the current one even if it still takes 5 wins to overcome the deficit of one DNF.

    I like the idea that the points awarded to top 10 finishers rather than 8. The grid size will be bigger next year, so with the 2009 points system there is a bigger chance that some teams may end up 0 points. How do we sort them? With the proposed format it will be easier for minnows to get points and make the final classification easier.

    Of course it is not perfect, we definitely need one points system which should reward the winners more.

    1. How do you mean “it takes five wins to overcome one DNF”?

      1. Gap between 2nd and 1st is 2 points. 5 x 2 is 10 – the value of the race win, or loss incase of a DNF.

  61. Football works so well because it rewards attacking play in goal difference as well as giving points for the win. In racing you get no points for pole, none for fastest lap and none for overtaking. You used to get a fastest lap point i think and that was when it was only 9 for a win so why not? God if 10th is enough for a reward then surely most overtakes deserves something. Broadly though i support the new points system and as the poll suggests its not a whole lot different but gives something for the new boys to aim for.

  62. I don’t think this makes much difference and I agree that it’s a good idea to distribute more points as there will be more cars on the grid. However, I agree with Keith that a win should be a greater % of points compared to 2nd & 3rd.
    So I would propose the following:

    #1 – 20 (=100%)
    #2 – 15 (=75%)
    #3 – 11 (=55%)
    #4 – 8 (=40%)
    #5 – 6 (=30%)
    #6 – 5 (=25%)
    #7 – 4 (=20%)
    #8 – 3 (=15%)
    #9 – 2 (=10%)
    #10 – 1 (=5%)

    IMHO when the points haul gets too big (eg. 50 for the win) it all gets a little messy, so I capped the win at 20 points. With this system a driver would be awarded 25% less points for second; 20% again less for third; 15% again less for fourth, 10% again less for fifth, etc etc. Thus a win is worth more and from the first loser down the points diminish proportionally.
    Hope this makes sense!

    1. Or alternatively
      #4 – 7 (=35%)
      This would be to separate #1,2,3 from the rest of the top ten effectively recognising the prestige of the podium.

      #1 – 20 (=100%)
      #2 – 15 (=75%)
      #3 – 11 (=55%)
      #4 – 7 (=35%)
      #5 – 6 (=30%)
      #6 – 5 (=25%)
      #7 – 4 (=20%)
      #8 – 3 (=15%)
      #9 – 2 (=10%)
      #10 – 1 (=5%)

  63. I also agree SUBSTANTIAL points for fastest race lap and POLE. Imagine the last 10 minutes of qualifying on empty tanks. Memories of Senna!

    1. Senna never needed a point for pole position – as someone said earlier, starting first on the grid is reward in itself.

      1. Agree completely with you Keith.
        You fight for pole to start at front and get out of chaos and lead the race. Right now most win from pole so why give them an extra point? In quali everyone is desperate to get it right as it is so important so it doesn’t need extra emphasis.
        Also, I have to vehemently disagree with points for fastest laps. They should be recognised more, maybe give an award for the one who has the most at the end of a season. However, if the championship has one point in it then just fuel the driver extra light, put on right tyres and there you go championship is his. Hardly exciting.
        I don’t really care if we watch a championship race or not but in the end the title should always be decided by the racing not by fixing results with the quickest lap.

        1. They should be recognised more, maybe give an award for the one who has the most at the end of a season.

          They do, actually, it’s sponsored by DHL and it gets very little coverage.

          1. I know but I mean mor coverage but it doesn;t seem to mean anything

  64. Will this be used in other series – rallies, F2, GP2? It usually is whenever the F1 points system changes.

    I’m concerned it may prolong the career of drivers who aren’t good enough, but manage to bag a lucky 9th or 10th. It’s almost inevitable there’ll be a paying driver or two in a 26-car grid – even if people as good as Kovalainen and Heidfeld still haven’t been announced for 2010.

    1. Good point, DTM have usually used the same system as F1 as well.

  65. well if one guy fuels his car light to get the fastest lap point then so can another. So you could have the other guys team mate also fuleing light to counter it. Its hardly less exciting than watching someone lolling round in 9th to get the requisite points is it? and to “vehemently disagree” is getting a little too excited non?

    if you say that a guy who gets pole normally wins then the extra point or 2 means that he does get rewarded more for winning which is what i thought Keith was saying was wrong with the new points system. i dont vehemently disagree with his point though.

    1. LOol I apologise I’m a bit grumpy after a row with the post office :P I have calmed down but I do still disagree with it. The cvhances are that it will be just one contender who simply needs one more point. It can bring some excitement but for a lap and that’s it then it’s over. I just don;t like the idea.

    2. José Baudaier
      12th December 2009, 15:17

      Don’t forget that there will be no refuelling next year, so no one would be able to fuel his car light, unless he knew he had no chance is scoring points and thus went for a chance of fastest lap and DNF with a empty fuel tank.

  66. ” 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.”-Rampante

    All too true, my friend. It’s less and less about the racing, isn’t it?

    “Why does F1 have to constantly fiddle and change rules and regulations between seasons?”-CRM

    Same answer as to the question why do dogs lick their ********? Answer: Because they can.

    “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.”-theRoswellite

    Yes, I’d give this one, should it get voted in, a very short life.

    “The proposed points system is like painting an elephant black and yellow to make it look like a bee.”-Ariel

    This is by far the best line I’ve seen in a comment here. And VERY true. Keith, can we have an award for ‘Comment of the Month’ ? I’ll nominate Ariel right now.

    “All this talk about drivers needing more incentive to win is absolute rubbish.
    Keep in mind that the issue keeps being raised by Ecclestone who failed as an F1 driver.”-Accidental Mick

    Now, now, Mick, let’s be accurate about this. In truth, Bernie failed more as an F1 Qualifier than race driver. (Tongue planted firmly in cheek. :) )
    ]

    And last of all, a word to FiA, as though they’d read this or even consider my remarks, but heck it makes me feel better. I see in the FiA statement (Keith’s link in the article) that a new sub-committee, the Sporting Working Group, has been created within the newly re-formed F1 Commission. The SWG mandate is to “improve the show”. I can’t WAIT to see what this brings. I can only imagine they are sending out even now for some black and yellow paint, specially if the vote is “Yea” on the new points schedule.

    FiA, please remember, it is supposed to be about the racing. Not the “Show” or the “Spectacle” ….. hell, we could have teams of miniature ponies with their tails & manes dyed in team colors and great tall plumes as head-dresses tow the cars to the grid, and that would certainly be show and spectacle. But remember, at long last, it is supposed to be about the SPORT, about the RACING. I have been following Formula 1 since there WAS such a thing, went to my first F1 race at Silversone in ’56, and some of the things I’ve seen in F1 recently have truly brought tears to my eyes. FiA, or F1 Commission, whichever is to actually run the sport now, please remember it was, is, and always should be about the racing. Not the multi-million dollar hospitality suites(ya listening, Bernie?), or the exotic locales, or even about the historic tracks cause even the best history on a dull track brings a bad race. Please keep in mind that you should take premier care of the racing, and everything else will take care of itself.

    Rant over, thanks for reading. And those of you napping can wake up now.

  67. Now the record books are going to be broken for sure. All of the “most points scored in a season without a win”, “most points for runner up”, all of those are going to be broken because of the increase of points. Why can’t they just leave it alone? I guess it will make it just a bit more interesting for us spectators…

  68. What I like is that more drivers are rewarded with points i.e. to tenth place. I like this because we are told points means cash for the teams and I think that those further down the grid can do with as much help as possible considering the obvious disparity between those at the top of the grid and those at the bottom.

    As for the actual points allocated per placing, well I’m not very good at maths, so I’ll have to mull it over for a little longer and if not see how it plays out through the season…

  69. Button says he is in favour of the new points system

    “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.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8408151.stm

    I think someone needs to tell him that second is still worth 80% of a win, or perhaps just point him in the direction of this site.

    1. LOL – Button you dumb ox! Guessing math was not his forte at school. Wow – Great news Jense – revised point system for 2010. One million points for a win, that’s two hundred thousand more than second place!!

  70. I think some people are missing the point . yes first is only 20% more than 2nd and that is the same ratio but if you finish 1st next season you will get more than 3 x as many points as the 5th place man wheras now its 2.2 x. seems to work to me.

    I still think the idea of battling out for fastest lap to gain an extra point adds a layer of intrigue. you are allowed to disagree, that is the point of a blog but you seem to believe that a fastest lap is set and then that is it. its only it when the chequered flag falls so its like a race within a race. Add that to a for and against column in overtakes and grade guys on the same points by that.

    All systems and rules are imperfect, thats why we watch sport.

  71. 15-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

  72. While it does rankle with me that 2nd is worth 80% of the 1st place points haul, it has produced longer seasons in terms of race relevance. Mickey the Shoe really was THAT good!

    I guess with the additional teams, they had to do something for next year. Could end season with 3 or 4 teams without a single point and thus, no fair way to compare them – still might happen, but with 19 rounds, fairly unlikely. If one team does turn out a complete dog of a car next year, which fails to finish a single race, should a team that has only just missed out on points be ranked alongside them?

    If cornered, guess I favour 20 15 12 9 7 5 4 3 2 1. Rewards top 3 and gives the extra incentive to push for the win. Can’t agree with your system Keith. Feel 50 points is too big a number to dish out by comparison to 1. Is 10th out of 26 cars really only worthy of 2% of the winners haul? Bit harsh methinks.

    Oh and the 7th place point thing? Surely a screw up on their part, can’t believe they would publish this tosh. Bunch of amateurs LOL.

  73. The whole point of the new medal system isn’t to revolutionize the value of the points in correlation to each other. Its to allow the new/backmarker teams a better chance at scoring a point. People are looking at it the wrong way if they think that it is meant to be a better system in terms of the winner having more value. Thats not the intent.

  74. I completely agree with the baffling 7th place that gets 5 points, it should be 4 as Keith suggested. This points system doesn’t change much and is annoyingly inconsistent. I’m a bit scared of the 50 pts I don’t know maybe it’s just the size of the number.. I like David A’s suggestion of:

    15-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

    Or we can increase the value even more from 1st-2nd and from 2nd-3rd, after all 3rd is a podium finish and I think it’s worth more points than 4rth position, which would like something like this:

    18-13-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

  75. 2008

    L Hamilton 240
    F Massa 239
    K Raikkonen 188
    R Kubica 180
    N Heidfeld 144
    F Alonso 140
    H Kovalainen 124
    S Vettel 79
    J Trulli 72
    T Glock 61
    M Webber 53
    N Rosberg 48
    N Piquet 45
    D Coulthard 27
    R Barrichello 26
    K Nakajima 22
    S Bourdais 12
    J Button 9
    G Fisichella 1

  76. 2007

    K Raikkonen 271
    L Hamilton 270
    F Alonso 268
    F Massa 228
    N Heidfeld 130
    R Kubica 83
    H Kovalainen 76
    G Fisichella 51
    N Rosberg 47
    A Wurz 33
    M Webber 33
    D Coulthard 32
    J Trulli 22
    J Button 15
    R Schumacher 14
    S Vettel 13
    T Sato 9
    V Liuzzi 8
    R Barrichello 6
    A Sutil 3
    S Speed 2
    K Nakajima 1

  77. i think that fia should make the following:
    15,10,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 this way they make 10 drivers points and make great difference between winner and 2nd.

  78. Michael K. Winnipeg, Canada
    12th December 2009, 22:37

    This is a nice improvment for the points.
    I agree 7th place should get only 4 points and not 5 points. Here is my idea for the points:

    1st-20
    2nd-15
    3rd-10
    4th-8
    5th-6
    6yh-5
    7th-4
    8th-3
    9th-2
    10th-1

  79. It should be something like:
    100% 75% 50% 25% 20% 15% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2%
    If they really want to extend the points to lower scoring teams.

  80. Point are points and changing them is just a part of the show

  81. Why not give the winner 100 points and everyone else who finishes [100 * winner’s race time / that driver’s own race time]. This way the points awarded to each driver would be commensurate with his final position and races should be less “spread out”, more competitive.

  82. keith collantine, i’m afraid your math is incorrect. when you look at percentages you should look at the points of the finishing position as a percentage of the total number of points available for each race. what they’ve done 25,20,15,10,8,6,5,3,2,1 is actually brilliant. the percentage changes from 1st down to 8th compared to the previous points system are +0.7%, +0.5%, +0.4%, -2.3%, -1.8%, -1.4%, +0.1%, +0.6%. this tells you that drivers are encouraged to gun for the 1st place followed by 2nd and 3rd and heavily discouraged from settling for 4th to 6th. 7th position is indifferent from the previous system while 8th is encouraged over 9th and 10th.

  83. Why not follow the champ car example and give additional driver points to the driver who achieves pole position and also to the driver who achieves the fastest lap during the race.

  84. Disgracefully bad points system..

    Anyone with a brain can tell that the best points system
    would be:

    Top 10

    Top 10 would be (16,12,09) . ( 7, 6,5,4,3,2,1)

    .

    Sadly nobody at the FIA has a brain.

  85. To be truly contentious, how about 1 point per finishing
    position based on number of finishers. 20 finishers,
    20 points for a win, minus 1 through the field, and so on.
    Remember Indy some years ago. Six cars ran, six cars
    finished. The win meant nothing and the points should
    have reflected that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.