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 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.

  2. 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).

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. theRoswellite
    11th December 2009, 5:04

    Can we lose that last partial sentence please…thanks.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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 :)

  14. 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

  15. 12pts for a win. Simple. Always has been.

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

  16. 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%.

  17. 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!

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

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.