Teams considering an even more generous points system for 2010

Posted on | Author Keith Collantine

Button's 2009 winning margin would have been greater still under the new system
Button's 2009 winning margin would have been greater still under the new system

Get your calculators out again – the F1 teams are planning a further change to the 2010 points system to give even more points to those who finish in the lower half of the top ten.

However the revised system, which has already been changed once since last year, would also cut the value of a second place finish, according to Autosport.

Here’s how the second proposal for the 2010 F1 points system compares to the new system announced last month and the two that preceded it:

Finishing position 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1991-2002 10 6 4 3 2 1
2003-2009 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 1
2010 Proposal 1 25 20 15 10 8 6 5 3 2 1
2010 Proposal 2 25 18 15 12 10 8 6 4 2 1

The teams want to offer points to recognise finishes further down the order which is fair enough. But are they being too generous? Under the new plan a sixth-placed finish, which was worth a tenth of a win in 2002, will be worth almost a third of a win this year.

This graph shows the percentage value of each finishing position on the above table, and it’s clear to see how each new version of the system has become more generous:

F1 points systems, 1991-present with both 2010 proposals (click to enlarge)
F1 points systems, 1991-present with both 2010 proposals (click to enlarge)

Although the value of second place has been cut, the difference between it and a win is still nothing like as wide as it was in 2002.

Under this latest proposal it would be even easier for a driver who’d won several races at the start of the year to cruise to the title by picking up minor points finishes later in the season.

Whereas the original points system planned for 2010 would have increased Jenson Button’s winning margin over Sebastian Vettel to 27.5 points, this would increase it even further, to 33.5 points.

Here’s how the 2009 championship standings would have looked using the latest 2010 points system:

Driver Points
Jenson Button 239.5
Sebastian Vettel 206
Rubens Barrichello 191
Mark Webber 170
Kimi Raikkonen 124
Lewis Hamilton 123
Nico Rosberg 94
Jarno Trulli 82
Fernando Alonso 73
Timo Glock 68.5
Heikki Kovalainen 58
Felipe Massa 56
Nick Heidfeld 51
Robert Kubica 47
Giancarlo Fisichella 24
Sebastien Buemi 20
Adrian Sutil 15
Kamui Kobayashi 10
Sebastien Bourdais 8.5
Kazuki Nakajima 5
Nelson Piquet Jnr 1
Jaime Alguersuari 0
Luca Badoer 0
Romain Grosjean 0
Vitantonio Liuzzi 0

See the actual points here: Final 2009 F1 championship standings

Happily the teams have avoided over-complicated changes like giving a point for pole and fastest lap, which would only lead to some rather unsatisfactory ways of deciding the world championship anyway.

What do you think of the latest change to the points system? Is it better or worse than the original plan for 2010?

New points system for 2010

71 comments on “Teams considering an even more generous points system for 2010”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3
  1. 25 17 12 9 7 5 4 3 2 1 Best of the best

  2. CounterStrike
    25th January 2010, 17:50

    10-6-4-3-2-1 Best of the best

  3. Absolutely no need for such a radical overhaul of the points system. I thought 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 was fine for a 26 car grid, but if there has be to be change why make it so mental going all the way up to 25 points?

    What if Campos and USF1 do drop out? Then we will be left with a daft points system giving points all the way down to first place when there is only two more cars on the grid than last season!

    I guess people who don’t like the new points system will just have to live with it, but bringing in points for pole and fastest lap will be going a step too far!

  4. F#@K the points, just race!!!

  5. I’m a fan of any point system that leads to several drivers having a chance to win the WDC at the end of the year.
    I just don’t want to see any of them run away with it too early in the season.

  6. Well, I don’t understand why do you think awarding points to the pole or fastest laps is that messy anyway… I think that a system that gives up on the magic number 10 for wins and ends up with a format in which the champion could score over 300 points during a season is much more complicated to me…

    Anyway, I agree with many of the posts before mine that the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 was the best, and it could be adapted to a 10-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 if it were to reward the top 8…

    I don’t believe that 8 drivers scoring points out of 26 is too few, in fact, I always thought that 8 drivers scoring out of 20 was too many…

    Let’s not forget that the system in which only the top 6 scored was applied when the grid had 26 cars and worked quite well…

    1. Well, I don’t understand why do you think awarding points to the pole or fastest laps is that messy anyway

      Here’s why: Four mistakes F1 must avoid

  7. José Baudaier
    25th January 2010, 19:55

    If it was to increase the distance between the first and the second, it should be increased the distance between all positions, not decrease it. Anyhow, at least the infamous 7th position anomaly was fixed.

  8. Toooooooooooooooo many points!

    It just looks rediculous, like some 2-bit superbike championship.

    13 teams = 26 drivers = 12, 9, 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1,

    8 places get points.

    The idea of giving points to 1/3 of the field is rediculous, doesn’t encourage development in the mid-table teams, and stagnates the sport. Moreover, it means we will always have the same teams at the top, unless a team writes off a whole year and spends 14 months developing it’s car (See Honda/Brawn 2009 car).

    1. Dude – it’s “ridiculous”! – are you a Ferrari fan?!

      1. Whatever that meant, haven’t you ever seen typos before this…? Grow up mate! I’m sure there are a lot of Ferrari fans who are better at English than many McLaren followers… It doesn’t mean anything, so, keep it healthy here…!

  9. I like this sytem much more than prop.1. Now a driver can win 3 race’s and blow an engine in the 4th and still be sure of being number one.

  10. I kinda like that option 2 has a more significant drop in points between first and second ( I kinda agree with bernie that the winner of the most races should be champion and this would almost make sure the points could reflect that)

    option 2 would also make it so chasing teams/drivers placing 4-6 would lose less ground in the points fight ( but it would also make it better for leading teams that want to dial it down a notch for reliability to end up in those spaces)

    at any rate it will certainly influence the strategies

    whatever is chosen will definitely impact strategies.

  11. The 2nd 2010 proposal is definitely a big improvement on the firt one, and a big improvement on the 2003-2009 system too for that matter (where the Championship went to the most reliable taxi driver).

    Like others, I still think the 1991 system of 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 is the best. If you want to have more points scoring positions without screwing up the historic 10 points (or 9) for a win, introduce half points with
    10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1.5, 1, 0.5 or go even further down to the back of the field with quarter points.

  12. It’s a waste of time, I wish it would stay as last years points system. It would be more satisfying for the driver to actully score points that way.

    When compared to last years results, it just shows how pointless the exersice really is, if it was brought in last year, with all the changes to the points system, the championship would have been exactly the same result for all the major players.

    This is just a cheap way to try and drum up some interest before the 2010 season kicks off.

  13. hmm, proposal 2: penalise 2nd place while rewarding 4th-8th
    makes sense doesn’t it? let the slowest points finishers get more points to encourage their mediocreness lol
    how about proposal 1 whilst amending 7th place from 5 to 4 points

  14. How about giving the top 7 finished points and stuff the rest. & is a lucky number :)

    Points: 10-7-6-4-3-2-1
    Gaps: 3-2-2-1-1-1

    Schumachers loves prime numbers not odd numbers so if he wins the 8th title he has to make it 11th tile before his son comes and beats him.

    This is the only way to get him into a taxi-driver mode :)


  15. What about…

    15, 10, 7, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

  16. Isn’t the obvious solution to reduce the gaps by 1 each time? -6, -5, -4 -3 etc
    rewards the winner most, 2nd quite well, 3rd OK etc – and goes to 10th in a smooth transition

    So 25(-6) 19(-5) 14(-4) 10(-3) 7(-2) 5(-1) 4(-1) 3(-1) 2(-1) 1


  17. Better than previous proposal… but I’d still don’t like the obliteration of the old records it brings…
    However, I always thought 9-6 was the best system, and this is closer to that than 10-8, so an improvement in that sense

    1. “but Id still dont like the obliteration of the old records it brings”
      – EXACTLY my point!

  18. I don’t understand why everyone appears to be supporting a change in the points system which will allow a driver to run away with the Championship right from the first two or three races in.
    Haven’t we all agreed that close racing and a close Championship is much better, leaving the final race as the decider?
    So if this proposal goes ahead, we will have to hope that there are lots of rainy races and that none (and I mean none) of the teams have it easy all season. Any team and driver who do a Brawn in 2010 will romp home to victory…..

    1. But conversely, Jenson won a bunch of races at the start of last season and was barely ahead. Fighting hard for first won’t happen if points for 2nd place is so close to 1st

    2. In fact, a system with a greater difference between 1st and 2nd always carries the risk of a superior team winning the championship with many races to go (Brawn-2009 was nothing compared to Ferrari-2004, Williams-1992 or McLaren-1988), but if, in the team, the drivers are on the same level, you still can have a fantastic season (1988 is the supreme examplem with Senna winning 8 races to Prost’s 7)

      I think the system used from 2003 to 2009 makes the title fight last artificially longer (like Kimi in 2003, runner-up by only two points with a lone win, compared to Micheal’s six) and, worst of all, makes the drivers settle for second instead of fighting for the lead…

  19. lol my heads going to explode with this constant tinkering…

  20. I thot 2003- 2009 was fine. There was an urgency just to score that final point in 8th. It was fine the way it was.

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3

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.