Teams considering an even more generous points system for 2010

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

Advert | Go Ad-free


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

  1. CounterStrike said on 25th January 2010, 14:37

    This points system is unfair on people like Senna & Prost. Imagine a Button or Webber ending up with more career points than the golden four,Hakkinen & the others.

    And what about Schumi? He could hugely benefit(I doubt he’ll score one though) to further increase his tally.

    I say stick on to good old 10-6-4-3-2-1.

    • Dennis said on 25th January 2010, 15:53

      I don’t see how it’s unfair to past drivers. If you want to compare their carreers you’re going to have to recalculate to the current value anyway. It’s harder work to compare them, but one point now has less value than it had then (or the other way around, might be easier). So when Senna won, instead of 10, you recalculate to 25, which is the current value of the win, nothing unfair about that in my opinion. By that logic it would be unfair to come up with any kind of change whatsoever because it might give someone a slight advantage. That way we’ll never move forward (or backward, depending on how you look at it). That argument is not valid.

      I think this point system is better than the one they used before this and I can imagine why they want to change it. The smaller teams get more chances to score some points and there simply are more cars on the track, so you need more places to score points. I think this system is definetly an improvement to the previous proposal since the value of a win increases. Other than that, I don’t think it’s going to matter that much.

  2. Rob R. said on 25th January 2010, 14:43

    I wonder how many championships will be decided by one point now…

  3. CounterStrike said on 25th January 2010, 14:45

    Kovi would have been the 1982 WDC by a long way.This points system reflects poorly on the past champions.

  4. Icthyes said on 25th January 2010, 14:47

    Makes morse sense than the first proposal, but ut’s still ridiculous. It makes F1 look like a less prestigious series by counting down from 25 points, and is quite confusing to remember.

    I recognise that with the level of competition and reliability the points system needed to be extended down to 10th, but they keep going about it the wrong way. In my opinion it should either be 20, 16, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 (doubling the previous system and inserting 3 and 1), or even better, keep it 10 for a win and introduce half points, so: 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.5, 1, 0.5. Okay, it looks a little ugly at the bottom, but it’s a great compromise in preserving the old system whilst adapting it to meet new demabds.

    See, no matter how we change the points system, the final results of last year stay pretty much the same in terms of order. But the problem with giving 25 or any number over 10 for a win is that a retirement when a championship rival wins is even more of a punishment, and in future if a leader gains a big points gap this way then they may be tempted to ease off and cruise to the title, and that’s boring racing. It’s not so much the gap between the points positions, but the number of points.

    I think this is just another cynical move to artificially raise interest when it’s the racing that should be being improved.

  5. iceshiel said on 25th January 2010, 15:25

    Also in the same Autosport article:

    “The SWG also talked at length about the possibility of introducing a rule that would force drivers to make two mandatory pit stops during a race, but this was not approved either. F1 drivers will therefore only need to make a single pit-stop in 2010 so as to ensure that they run on both types of tyres made available.”

  6. 25 17 12 9 7 5 4 3 2 1 Best of the best

  7. CounterStrike said on 25th January 2010, 17:50

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

  8. 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!

  9. Daniel said on 25th January 2010, 18:06

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

  10. Brian said on 25th January 2010, 19:13

    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.

  11. Daniel said on 25th January 2010, 19:28

    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…

  12. José Baudaier said on 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.

  13. 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).

    • paul barton said on 26th January 2010, 12:24

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

      • 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…!

  14. Andreas said on 25th January 2010, 20:09

    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.

  15. rmonster said on 25th January 2010, 20:13

    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.

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.