Race winners could get 25 points in 2010

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 (34%)

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

Advert | Go Ad-free

135 comments on Race winners could get 25 points in 2010

  1. Kosmit said on 10th December 2009, 21:18

    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.

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

  3. Icthyes said on 10th December 2009, 21:24

    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?

    • Icthyes said on 10th December 2009, 21:27

      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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

  6. 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

  7. theRoswellite said on 10th December 2009, 21:39

    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)

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 10th December 2009, 21:50

      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.

  8. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 10th December 2009, 21:48

    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.

    • Scribe said on 10th December 2009, 21:52

      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.

    • DomPrez said on 10th December 2009, 22:10

      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″

  9. DomPrez said on 10th December 2009, 22:06

    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.

  10. Prisoner Monkeys said on 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.

  11. Tommyb said on 10th December 2009, 22:20

    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

  12. Eddie Irvine said on 10th December 2009, 22:22

    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…

  13. 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.

  14. rampante said on 10th December 2009, 22:36

    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.

  15. 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.

    • his_majesty said on 11th December 2009, 2:40

      I hear that

      • Harvs said on 11th December 2009, 4:01

        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

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published.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

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.