Jenson Button says he expected F1’s new points system would make winning races more important in 2010:
It’s still really close at the top, which is quite surprising in some ways. I don’t think I was the only one who thought that the new points system would reward the fastest drivers more than those who are simply more consistent. But we’ve seen in the first three races that consistency still counts for a lot.
Jenson Button
If anything I’m surprised at his surprise. Aside from the slight increase in the value of a win, it was clear when the new points system for 2010 was revealed it would make it easier for drivers who finish in the lower half of the top ten to stay in the hunt for the title.
That’s exactly why I described it as a “more generous” points system the first time I wrote about it:
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.
Teams considering an even more generous points system for 2010
When a world champion says something like this it makes me wonder how thoroughly people in F1 think through major decisions like changing the points system.
It doesn’t merely alter how many points you get for each position, it changes the nature of the sport. Giving more points for lower positions encourages teams to take a conservative, points-gathering approach.
Button added:
I’m told that the championship order at the front would still be unchanged if we were using last year’s scoring system, which is interesting.
Jenson Button
That’s largely true, although Button would be slightly worse off, again because of the slight increase in the value of a win. Also, Jaime Alguersuari and Nico Hulkenberg would be yet to score this first F1 points:
2010 points standings
| Position | Driver | Points |
| 1 | Felipe Massa | 39 |
| 2 | Fernando Alonso | 37 |
| 3 | Sebastian Vettel | 37 |
| 4 | Jenson Button | 35 |
| 5 | Nico Rosberg | 35 |
| 6 | Lewis Hamilton | 31 |
| 7 | Robert Kubica | 30 |
| 8 | Mark Webber | 24 |
| 9 | Adrian Sutil | 10 |
| 10 | Michael Schumacher | 9 |
| 11 | Vitantonio Liuzzi | 8 |
| 12 | Rubens Barrichello | 5 |
| 13 | Jaime Alguersuari | 2 |
| 14 | Nico Hulkenberg | 1 |
2010 points standings using 2009 system
| Position | Driver | Points |
| 1 | Felipe Massa | 16 |
| 2 | Fernando Alonso | 15 |
| 3 | Sebastian Vettel | 15 |
| 4 | Nico Rosberg | 14 |
| 5 | Jenson Button | 13 |
| 6 | Robert Kubica | 13 |
| 7 | Lewis Hamilton | 12 |
| 8 | Mark Webber | 9 |
| 9 | Adrian Sutil | 4 |
| 10 | Michael Schumacher | 3 |
| 11 | Vitantonio Liuzzi | 2 |
| 12 | Rubens Barrichello | 1 |
Read more: Massa takes title lead – full championship points after Malaysia
David
8th April 2010, 10:26
Vettel has had mechanical problems in 2 of 3 races and yet is equal 2nd in the championship because of his win. I’d say it’s doing its job.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
8th April 2010, 10:32
I’m not sure what you mean by that, but Vettel would have been joint second under last year’s points as well.
Einar AI
8th April 2010, 10:38
Disagree. The whole point (seemingly) of bringing this new points system was to benefit the race winners. Vettel, with the same results as he had this year (according to Keith), would still be “equal 2nd” in the championship. In this respect, the points system is not quite doing its job.
However, I believe that as the championship progresses, a slight advantage increase to the race winners would be accumulated (especially in the case if there are 2-3 frequent winners) and the points system would work. I.e. if one driver records 1-2 victories more than his closest rival, the innovation of the new points system would not be negligible.
That said, I’d like to see the new points system in relation to 2009 standings. I remember that Keith did a comparison with the unedited 2010 points system (25-20-15 etc) but I’m not sure for the final one?
Einar AI
8th April 2010, 10:40
Yeah sorry agree with Keith. His message didn’t come up while i was typing.
Scribe
8th April 2010, 11:10
No, the whole system was always designed to spread the points around. At the time it seemed merley a ploy to help the new teams luck a points finish. It was tweaked on Fota’s suggestion to reward race winners. Originally 25 20 would have exactly the same as last year on the podium, but an even more rewarding lower down.
Regardless, p4 to 6 do very well out of the new system.
2 Minutes To Midnight
8th April 2010, 13:59
The new points system WILL eventualy do it’s job. If F1 used 2010 points system in the past then:
-Prost will be 7 times WDC (1983, 1984, 1988)
-Damon Hill will be 2x WDC (1994)
-Michael Schumacher will be 6x WDC (1994 is excluded)
-Ayrton Senna will be 2x WDC (1988 excluded)
– James Hunt is not a WDC if the 2010 are used, Niki Lauda is, and still a 3x WDC. (only this time, he won 3 of those titles with a Ferrari)
– Carlos Rueterman should been a 1981 WDC if the 2010 points are used
-Nelson Piquet will only be 1x WDC (1981, 1983 excluded)
-And finally Eddie Irvine wil be a WDC in 1999 if the new points are used.
-Mika Hakkinen will be 1x WDC.
See, there are lot of changes by the new points system I believe.
Joey-Poey
8th April 2010, 22:47
Many of those different results have more to do with the 80’s rule of “best finishes” in which lower scores were dropped. Not necessarily because of the differences in point awarded.
TommyB
8th April 2010, 13:01
Button has won one race this year and been useless in the other 2 and is still right up there in the championship, I’d say a win is pretty important.
Lee
8th April 2010, 14:56
We can’t really get a proper reading of whether it’s doing it’s job because we’ve had three different winners and in the races they didn’t win they’ve had very average results. So it’s bound to even out at this stage.
VXR
9th April 2010, 15:01
Yes, winning is all that matters. Button hasn’t exactly been “useless” in the other two races either, unless of course you think that everyone behind him in the points table is equally, or perhaps more “useless” ?
Robert McKay
8th April 2010, 10:40
The truth is the new system is not all that different to the old one, just with a strangely large approximately x2.5 “inflation factor” tagged on.
I think the scary thing is how easily someone like Button has apparently gotten confused with this and expected the world turned upside down, or something.
It’s really no surprise to me that having had three different winners in the first three races and with most of the big teams having had to deal with some sort of problem in at least one of the opening races, that we have a close-looking table.
If Vettel had done what the car should have done in the first three rounds he’d be well out in front in both systems – it’d just look a lot more in the 2010 scoring…
ajokay
8th April 2010, 10:41
I think the only way a points system could really work, and really reward going for the position ahead of you, is if each points paying position is worth double (or near double) what the one below it is worth.
1-2-4-8-15-30-50
or something along those lines.
PeterG
8th April 2010, 11:08
If you just add up the race positions, you will see that the drivers that won are higher ranked then based on their consistency in race results.
Massa deserves to be on top because he has consistently good results. (The stars marks drivers that have a win).
Rosberg would be second if worldchampionship was only based on consistency.
1 Felippe Massa 12
2 Fernando Alonso 18 *
3 Sebastian Vettel 22 *
4 Nico Rosberg 13
5 Jenson Button 16 *
6 Lewis Hamilton 15
7 Robert Kubica 17
8 Mark Webber 19
9 Adrian Sutil 35
10 M Schumacher 37
11 Vitantonio Liuzzi 36
12 Rubens Barrichello 30
13 Jaime Alguersuari 33
14 Nico Hulkenberg 45
15 Heikki Kovalainen 46
16 Sebastien Buemi 49
17 Karun Chandhok 53
18 Pedro de la Rosa 54
19 Bruno Senna 55
20 Jarno Trulli 58
21 Timo Glock 58
22 Vitaly Petrov 59
23 Luca di Grassi 62
24 Kamui Kobayashi 67
PeterG
8th April 2010, 11:11
Funny enough I now see that Button would be 1 places higher based on consistency. So he is the only one that the new points systems does not work for at the moment :D
TommyB
8th April 2010, 19:08
That would be silly IMO because one retirement will lose you the title. Also retiring after someone else would mean you get more points and if that won the title that would be silly.
jsw11984 (@jarred-walmsley)
6th August 2010, 20:52
You forgot to Star Webber and with four wins, i’d say he was fairly important
John H
8th April 2010, 11:17
“When a world champion says something like this it makes me wonder how thoroughly people in F1 think through major decisions like changing the points system.”
hear hear.
To think Rosberg won the DWC with just 44pts by the way!
John H
8th April 2010, 11:20
Changing the race win from 10pts to 12pts was easily the best thing to do by the way, although I think we’ve had this debate many times on f1fanatic. Obviously such an approach is way too simple and logical for F1.
PeterG
8th April 2010, 11:17
If you would double the points like ajokay says:
512-256-128-84-32-18-8-4-2-1
The result would be:
1 Fernando Alonso 576
2 Sebastian Vettel 576
3 Jenson Button 524
4 Felippe Massa 392
5 Robert Kubica 320
6 Mark Webber 262
7 Nico Rosberg 192
8 Lewis Hamilton 160
9 Adrian Sutil 32
10 M Schumacher 17
11 Vitantonio Liuzzi 10
12 Rubens Barrichello 5
13 Jaime Alguersuari 2
14 Nico Hulkenberg 1
PeterG
8th April 2010, 11:20
Pfff some typing.
It must be: 512-256-128-64-32-16-8-4-2-1
LewisC
8th April 2010, 11:25
Exponential points. Now there’s a great system.
By that system Schumacher would have scored 7176 points in 2004 :D
ajokay
8th April 2010, 11:27
Double 8 is 16, not 18. Whether that’s a typo or whether it’s been carried through into the points, I don’t know, but that championship order I think better shows everyone’s performance currently.
Yes Massa has been consistant, and I don’t think consistancy should be discredited, but he still hasn’t won a race, and so shouldn’t really be atop the table.
You also get a bigger gulf between the podium regulars and the guys who end up regularly in the lower half of the top 10.
Joe
10th April 2010, 6:06
By that logic, if you won 1 race and retired the rest of them and someone else got 2nd at all races while the winner of the other races was banned, the guy who had one fluke win would be WDC, now that’s silly.
Red Andy
8th April 2010, 11:52
How about a Fibonacci sequence, where each position is worth the sum of the two before it? So 89 for a win, followed by 55-34-21-13-8-5-3-2-1 for the top 10. That would leave the championship (my maths permitting) as follows:
Alonso 110
Vettel 110
Button 97
Massa 94
Kubica 76
Webber 60
Rosberg 60
Hamilton 50
Sutil 13
Schumacher 9
Liuzzi 7
Barrichello 4
Alguersuari 2
Hulkenberg 1
jose
8th April 2010, 12:08
This could be seperate, called The Fibonacci Trophy
Enigma
8th April 2010, 12:32
That’s an amazing idea! I think it would be quite an okay points system.
What about square numbers? 100-81-64-49-36-25-16-9-4-1?
matt90
8th April 2010, 13:35
There should be many seperate mathematical trophies, so drivers out the running in normal points system can say ‘I’m just focussing on winning the fibonacci cup.’ This means if an inconsistent driver doesn’t win the proper championship he might be better rewarded in these lol
Disjunto
8th April 2010, 14:37
amusingly, I prefer this points system to any others mentioned.
Consistent racing (Massa) is nearly equal to inconsistent + win (Button), but consistent + win is way ahead :D
Lehonardeuler
8th April 2010, 15:35
Fibonacci sequence is another form of exponential function, but with a different multiplier: it’s about 1.61, so point gaps smaller than in a base-2 exponential.
The bad thing on these functions is that they don’t have round numbers. Except for this, I think they are all way better than any post-2002 points system.
Lehonardeuler
8th April 2010, 15:41
There’s a (potential) problem with: The championship could be decided as soon as half races were run (there’s mathematical proof of it).
In 2004, the WDC would have been decided in round 9 (close guess), in June.
Lehonardeuler
8th April 2010, 16:06
typo: There’s a problem with a base 2 exponential:…
Enigma
8th April 2010, 16:25
In any points system that doesn’t change throughout the races the championship can be won in the first race after the half.
Sirko
8th April 2010, 11:25
What about new teams? This points system was made for them too, but some of them aren’t even able to finish the race.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
8th April 2010, 14:07
If you don’t finish the race you don’t score points. Sounds fair to me.
Sirko
8th April 2010, 18:15
It is an example that it’s too early to make conclusions about points system. I don’t know what’s wrong with Button, because I remember him saying that he likes new points system. Perhaps he’s annoyed by Nico’s stability.
wasiF1
8th April 2010, 11:31
The new points system will work well if we have the situation that we are having now that each race is favoring one team at a time.
Bahrain-Ferrari
Australia-Mclaren Mercedes
Malaysia-Red Bull Renault
China-?? Hope it is Mercedes this time around.
But to me the new point system doesn’t make any sense other than the fact that now points can be score up to 10th place.
Chalky
8th April 2010, 11:58
I was so used to the old point system and I could instantly work out where drivers would be after a race and what they would require before to change places.
Now I’m stumped. Points are something I find little interest in and that’s a shame as I cannot relate the value to an achievement. A driver with 30 points after 4 races was easy for me to understand. Now I find it harder to work out.
Maybe I’ll get used to it as the years progress, or maybe I’m getting too old for change.
It could also explain why Bernie thought up the medal system. The older you get the simpler you need it.
Icthyes
8th April 2010, 13:42
Hear, hear. The points system has made things more confusing, when I thought the overall agenda was to make things less so?
Osvaldas
8th April 2010, 12:21
I don’t like new points system, because it is a bit confusing with such big numbers. The best points system was before 2003. Points had bigger value.
Enigma
8th April 2010, 12:24
What about this one? Makes absolutely no difference for top 10, but everyone in top 20 gets points. It would give even more motivation to the new teams and would make the fight for points even more interesting.
1 – 250
2 – 180
3 – 150
4 – 120
5 – 100
6 – 80
7 – 60
8 – 40
9 – 20
10 – 15
11 – 12
12 – 10
13 – 8
14 – 7
15 – 6
16 – 5
17 – 4
18 – 3
19 – 2
20 – 1
Robert McKay
8th April 2010, 12:31
Does it really though? If you get a point by pretty much turning up, if they do gown that far, then will anyone be interested if (A) you’ve not had to work for it, unlike when, say, it was a novely that a Minardi scored a 6th, and (B) you get a whole 1/250th of a win?
Robert McKay
8th April 2010, 12:32
“go down” not “do gown”….d’oh :-D
Cole
8th April 2010, 19:25
I kinda like this. Never really understood why finishing 11 scores the same as 18. Even for the new teams would be better to have a winner of the new ones instead of all of them with zero.
Schumi_the_greatest
8th April 2010, 12:26
somone else has briefly mentioned this already but the 1st 3 races have seen alot of mixed results
mclaren and ferrari finishing in the lower half of the points in malaysia for example, red bulls unreliability in bahrain and australia means that not 1 driver has really scored big points in every round.
no matter what points scoring system you used the results from the 1st 3 races this year would leave a close championship at this point
PJA
8th April 2010, 13:06
I think this shows that Button didn’t really look at the new points system in much detail, he just saw that a win earned 25 points and thought great it rewards winning more.
In fact at the time it was introduced he said something along those lines as I remember commenting on it at the time, my original comment is on page 2, I don’t know how to link to a specific comment though
https://www.racefans.net/2009/12/10/new-f1-points-system-proposed-for-2010/comment-page-2/#comments
The quote from Button
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8408151.stm
Enigma
8th April 2010, 13:16
You can get a link to a certain comment by clicking on the date next to the name of the author.
vettelfan
8th April 2010, 16:18
Exactly. I think this is just a case of Button not looking into the points system that much.
sato113
8th April 2010, 13:09
wither way, look at how tight this championship is after 3 races! when was the last time it was this close?
Alex
8th April 2010, 13:19
Whatever point system they come up with, losing points trying to overtake is always more costly than winning points by overtaking. I know I would rather get 1 point than crashing trying to get 2.
Sirko
8th April 2010, 18:27
What about Lewis, who tried to overtake Alonso in Australia?
Patrickl
8th April 2010, 20:03
Hamilton lost 2 points trying to gain 2
Although realisticly he probably could have passed Massa for a third time again so he was going for 5 extra and lost 2.
Alonso in Malaysia also tried to gain 2 points on Button and lost 2.
claudio
8th April 2010, 13:51
As far I can remember no “not-deserving pair of car/driver” has won the championship because of a bad point system. The best championships in a long time was 2007/2008 not because of the point system, but because McLaren and Ferrari drivers had, through the whole championship, good chances of winning it. The point system, alone, will never solved antagonic requirements:
1) At final, to reward the best car/driver;
No one here wants penalize good drivers, like inverted grids, heavier cars, etc., so if you have the best car/driver/race you will have more points.
2) To avoid early ending.
This requirement implies in small diference between the positions, like, 10-8-6-..
3) To induce great races through all championship.
The previous requirement implies in processional races, so let´s spread the points, however it could imply in early ending…
In my opinion the point system sould have, as in other leagues, a likewise f1 qualifying system. The inicial races would classify the 10 best drivers. The last races would decide the champion. The main reason for such system is that is expected a more equilibrium between the teams by the end of year. (I am pretty sure that this is not the first time this idea is written here)
Karan
8th April 2010, 14:44
I think we are going to see some tears come Brazil/Abu Dhabi…
PeterG
8th April 2010, 14:57
We could give championship points for place 11 on the grid? For the best of the rest trophy?
Hamilton, Barrichello and Petrov would be more then happy so far.
Paul A
8th April 2010, 15:29
The weakness of F1 points systems over the years has been lack of _driver_ points for a brilliant race combined with mechanical failure (not driver error) towards the end of a GP. Reliability should only count negatively in the _constructor_ points. Recent examples might include Vettel and certainly Alonzo’s engine blow-up.
Perhaps the solution lies in adding a relatively modest amount of points for positions at, say, the three quarter distance?
PJA
8th April 2010, 17:27
It all well and good saying that a certain driver/car combination is the fastest but they were let down by reliability, because they may have sacrificed reliability for some of that speed. If their main focus was on finishing the race perhaps they may not have been the quickest combination on track.
I think it would be impossible to come up with a system to award points to the driver for a brilliant race because the car is so important in F1. What you would essentially be trying to achieve is to rank the drivers, which can only be a matter of opinion that is guaranteed to create plenty of debate as to who is best.
Wateva
8th April 2010, 15:32
I think generous points system is alright. Otherwise we would have seen Button win the championship alot earlier last season. And also this keeps alot of people in the mix, which is better than having one driver absolute cream everyone. I mean looking at the RBR cars’ pace, if the points system wasnt generous, it would be very difficult for everyone to fight. I like how Kubica is also in the mix, a point system which majorly rewards the winner, he wouldnt have a chance.
Hallard
8th April 2010, 15:38
“If anything I’m surprised at his surprise.”
Really? Im surprised at your surprise at his surprise…
OK I’ll stop now ;)
CRM
8th April 2010, 15:41
The new points system is a perfect example of the people in charge of F1 changing the rules for the sake of change.
I really hate the way the value of a win has been massively extended and points are awarded all the way down to tenth. There was absolutely no need whatsoever for such a drastic change to the points system. If winning a race needed greater rewards then 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 or soething along those lines would have done fine.
The only good thing about it is that it has got rid of Bernie’s mental medals idea. But that is the only good thing.
Sumedh
8th April 2010, 15:58
I think it was essential to give points all the way down to 10th.
And with 1 point to 8th finisher, there was no way we could have managed that with the old system.
So, the new system is good.
But I agree with Button. Consistency was supposed to take a backseat this year. Strangely it hasn’t.
Nico and Felipe are right up there without winning.
But I expect it to change as the season progresses. Don’t forget 2 out of 3 races have been wet – thus lottery races. The start of the European leg should coincide with 1 team gaining the upper hand.
John H
8th April 2010, 18:01
Why was it essential??
If you tell me that it’s because the new teams get points, then that doesn’t really wash because those points have now been devalued.
-A-
8th April 2010, 16:23
I’m quite okay with the new points system for now. The value of the win was increased, and as it was seen with Vettel’s first top score result last weekend, it’s nicely double-edged in that you lose a lot more point if you miss out on winning a race, however, if you manage to score later on and opponents finish lower down, you can also make up quite a lot of points with one good race. At the same time, it’s obviously going to be important to still get in a moderate finish in the top ten if you’ve had a problematic race, as that consistency could, once again, play a decisive role in the championship.
Anything like that, in my opinion, would be better than the medal-like system we thankfully seem to have dodged for the time being…
JohnBt
8th April 2010, 16:44
Don’t we prefer the WDC to be won by a few points not a huge margin. What would happen if the tiltle is wrapped up with 5 or 6 races left. All teams somehow will suffer from some issues, be it reliability or wrong strategies. Dogfight is good!
PJA
8th April 2010, 17:11
I think most people would ideally like the Championship to go down to the wire, though if it is the driver/team you support who dominate it doesn’t seem that bad.
However I think a close title fight should be down to the drivers and teams being evenly matched rather than due to a manipulation of the points system. If one driver totally dominates, winning virtually every race I would expect the title to be wrapped up with 5 or 6 races left.
Rob R.
8th April 2010, 16:58
The absolute worst thing about it is that we could potentially get a title decider where someone just needs to score a 10th place to win the title. Compare that to some of the tense deciders we’ve had in recent years….
matt88
8th April 2010, 17:17
Todt should restore the old lovely 10-6-4-3-2-1 points sequence. Period.
SoLiD
8th April 2010, 17:55
I like the new points!
It also will have benefits when a top driver is lower in the pack, he will fight harder for points as he will get there starting from P10, and every point counts!
Looking back with the new point system is fun for once,but useless. You start the season with clear point rules and drive by them.
What if Lewis in 2008 only needed 6th position, he might have done his race a bit different. Just one example there :)
Daniel
8th April 2010, 19:49
this new system punishes heavily those who retire… reliability and caution not to crash became even more important…
Patrickl
8th April 2010, 19:52
What’s this nonsense about the points system doing anything?
It’s essentially the same system as last year but then multiplied by 2.5.
With one minute difference that P2 gets 2 points less than it should (2.5*8=20 and not 18) and 2 extra positions score points. Big deal!
Realisticly there just isn’t any difference.
Here a list of the new points system and the old points times 2.5 side by side:
25 25
18 20
15 15
12 12,5
10 10
8 7,5
6 5
4 2,5
2 0
1 0
If anything, it rewards “finishing” with a total of 6 points extra for the lower 5 positions and 2.5 points less for the top 5.
Damon
8th April 2010, 20:06
“If anything I’m surprised at his surprise. […]
When a world champion says something like this it makes me wonder how thoroughly people in F1 think through major decisions like changing the points system.”
There’s nothing to be surprised at Keith. He doesn’t need to care for the new points system that much.
I’ve got no idea why so many people have lulled themselves into thinking that changing how much you score for a win or decreasing the number of points for a second place relative to the points given to the winner would influence the drivers’ performance on the track. Whereas it simply DOES NOT MATTER.
Everybody is going as fast as they can already.
Even if there were 100 points for the winner and only 5 points for a second place – it wouldn’t suddenly make the second guy go faster.
You do your best, and what points you get – you get.
Enigma
8th April 2010, 21:28
Well it does make difference if it’s 100-5 or 10-8. If they’re closely together and into last corner the driver in 2nd position has a very small chance of overtaking, that might end in crash, he will surely risk 5 points for 100, but probably not 8 to get 10.
The winner-awarding system does make a bit of a difference in certain cases, but overall it’s not much of a change to the drivers’ performances.
Icthyes
8th April 2010, 20:16
I dislike the new system, but now see it has some benefits, particularly with retirements.
Under the old system, if you retired it would take you 5 races to recover the gap if you came first and your rival second. Under the new system, you only need to do it four times (and also have three extra points).
Also, imagine a driver is 10 points behind with three races left. Suddenly he retires from the lead and his rival gets the win. His championship is over. But under the new system, although it is still a big task, he can claw back the 35-point deficit over two races (total of 50). In the next two races, he finishes first and second whilst his rival retires and then only manages 7th. The WDC is won in a situation not possible in the previous year.
That said, I still don’t like the new system. There’s far too much weight at the bottom for my liking. I would change it to 25-19-14-10-7-5-4-3-2-1 (or, in terms of points gaps, 6-5-4-3-2-1-1-1-1-1), if we have to keep 25 at the top. I would much rather 20-16-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1, though, which doubles last year’s and puts 3 and 1 in (or maybe even 20-15-etc. for a bigger win margin). But I would still be happier with the old system, and the one before that even more so.
There’s just no pleasing some ;-)
Stevo
8th April 2010, 20:29
How about points equalling your finishing position and 30 for a retirement, and the man with the least points is leading
Massa-12
Alonso-18
Vettel-35
Button-16
Rosberg-13
Hamilton-15
Kubica-18
Webber-19
Sutil-47
Schumacher-46
Fer no.65
8th April 2010, 22:28
Keith, could you do the stadings with pre-2002 point system? how would that be?
Magnificent Geoffrey
9th April 2010, 0:28
I’m just going to drop in and say that I don’t like this new points system for two reasons:
1) What was wrong with the previous system? I can completely understand the arguments of those who claim that it either didn’t award race winners enough or placed too much emphasis on consistency, but I’ll say this: does anyone feel that any of the World Champions crowned between 2003-2009 were undeserving in the year they won their title? Because I honestly feel that each season’s champion was the best driver of each of those years (‘cept maybe Kimi in ’07 – but I always felt Kimi had deserved at least one World Championship by that point anyway).
2) Even though the points system is simply a currency used to determine a winner and that it’s simply an means to an end, I always felt it was appropriate that Formula 1 awarded small numbers of points to the top finishers of each Grand Prix. Compared to NASCAR, MotoGP and other major series who have always used large numbers of points in their respective systems, the idea that in Formula 1 you could run a small team like a Minardi, try your absolute best for an entire season and score just 1 measly little point after a opportunistic 8th place just seemed symbolically appropriate for what is supposed to be the most challenging and prestigous world-wide racing series on Earth. I just feel that this new system, with more positions paying points and awarding so much more ‘points’ than ever before does three things:
– it completely disregards the sport’s history and makes historical comparisons impossible
– makes super-close title deciders which are won by just 1 or 2 points extremely unlikely (think how awesome title deciders in ’03, ’07, ’08 were!)
– decreases the symbolic value of the smaller points for the smaller teams.
I fully believe that with this new system we’ll still end up after Abu Dhabi with a champion who we’ll all agree is deserving of the Driver’s title. However, I’d still argue that this was one of the areas that didn’t need ‘fixing’ or ‘spicing-up’ at all and the fact that it’s been changed leads me to think there’s zero chance of it being changed back and I supposed I’ll just have to get used to it.
Chaz
12th April 2010, 17:17
The mathematics of the points system…
Palle
13th April 2010, 9:38
I like the new points system, but yes it makes historical comparisons impossible. However with more teams competing, You need to hand out some more points.
I like Claudios thoughts about what we want to avoid and what we want to promote. I could add that the points system must reward the brave fighter, who dares to challenge and consequently has a DNF every now and then.
How about introducing some of the principles from Tour de France: Other competitions in the big WDC: It could be a throphy for most overtakings, starting lowest and ending highest, points for fastest lap, points for qualifying positions.
And maybe a driver should be awarded some kind of reasonable point compensation if he falls victim to another pilots error. Not that this should cause the finishers not to have their points, but as a kind of extra points. But the risk is that this causes less overtaking as the challenger will be the only one loosing points if it ends in a DNF to both cars.
Enigma
13th April 2010, 19:40
@Palle Historical comparisons are possible, but it takes some time to recalculate everything.