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”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4 5
  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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:


    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”

  4. 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).

    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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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

  7. 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…

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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?

  14. 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.

  15. 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%

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

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

  19. 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.

  20. mclarenproject4
    11th December 2009, 2:03

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

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4 5

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.