New points scoring system – My suggestion

This topic contains 11 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  Matthijs 3 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
  • #134046


    I’d like to suggest a new points scoring system to F1. One in which everybody who gets classified (completes over 90% of a race) would get points. This would make the competition in the top closer, even though the gaps would seem bigger (gap between Vettel and Alonso would be equal to 4 wins and a 7th place when it actually was equal to 5 wins, a second place and a 4th place) It would also make consistency and reliability a bigger factor, as you can see from consistent drivers like Perez and Bottas being higher up than they actually were and Sauber being ahead of Force India. It would also make the competition between the backmarkers better as it is no longer based on a single race finish.

    This is my suggestion for points for each position:


    This is what the 2013 standings would have looked like:

    Vettel 833
    Alonso 613
    Webber 526
    Hamilton 525
    Räikkönen 484
    Rosberg 467
    Grosjean 391
    Massa 359
    Button 325
    Perez 287
    Hulkenberg 268
    Di Resta 234
    Sutil 199
    Ricciardo 188
    Gutierrez 174
    Bottas 161
    Vergne 156
    Maldonado 151
    Bianchi 95
    Pic 93
    Chilton 92
    van der Garde 88
    Kovalainen 18

    Red Bull 1359
    Mercedes 992
    Ferrari 972
    Lotus 893
    McLaren 612
    Sauber 442
    Force India 433
    Toro Rosso 344
    Williams 312
    Marussia 187
    Caterham 181

    Tell me what do you think.



    What about 9-6-4-3-2 or 9-6-4-3-2-1 or 10-6-4-3-2-1?



    “It would also make consistency and reliability a bigger factor”

    I’d rather it wasn’t really. And I don’t think I like all positions getting points. Not least because I find it weird that the driver who finishes last will more often than not get several points. I just like the idea that the top ten is a more elite finishing position, and you aren’t rewarded unless you reach it. If it wasn’t for the amazing reliability of recent years I’d actually rather see a couple fewer positions earning points.



    That’s a lot of maths, but not a bad system. You only really see changes in the standings once you get towards the mid-rear of the grid, while the top performing drivers would have retained their positions (as far as 2013 standings go).

    I don’t think it’s a bad idea, it’s a much better idea than arbitrarily giving double points. Also, considering 2014 will probably bring back unreliability as a much bigger factor, consistency/reliability will be a bit more important from next season onwards…



    @davidnotcoulthard Why the first one? It is neither historical (9 points were never given when 2 was the smallest amount) nor sensible (going from 6th to 5th increases your points by 2, but from 5th to 4th only 1).



    Those “make the 2nd come first *at the end of the year*” point systems don’t work. F1 had it for plenty of years. And got rid of it. The win should the the goal in a race not the second place.




    That would mean there is virtually no advantage for a driver to overtake first place: why risk 43 points to gain 7?

    I’ve always like the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system as it encourages drivers to go flat out for the race win, not the ‘Checo be careful, we needs these points’ mentality.



    With that system back to 2003 we would have 3 changes in result, Hamilton would have won the 2007 title, and Alonso would have take 2010 and 2012. Strangely the 2007 Championship still would have been decided by just 1 point.

    Personally I preferred the 10-8-6… system as it gave a bit of a chance to the slower teams, but still kept the points in some historical perspective, but as that is skewed now anyway I don’t see any problem with the current 25-18-15.. system (minus double points of course).



    I would like to see the 2003-2009 system come back. I always assumed the current system was introduced because there were more teams in 2010 but I’m not sure that’s actually true. The way I see it at the moment though is that, excluding Marussia and Caterham, more drivers score than those who don’t (10 vs 8). It should be the reverse but I suppose they have to count the two backmarker teams.

    The 1991-2002 system encourages a ‘race-to-win’ attitude but there aren’t enough scoring positions for me.



    ” I always assumed the current system was introduced because there were more teams in 2010 but I’m not sure that’s actually true.”

    I think it is a combination of that and increased reliability making the chance of slow teams happening upon a points score that much slimmer.



    10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 was easily the best point system




    10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 was easily the best point system

    Why? First of all, it did not award the 1st place as well as all other scoring systems ever did, second it only awards 8 drivers, where an average of 18-20 cars finish the race.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.