planetf1.com

Doesn't the points system in this thread disprove that somewhat, if Kimi had not gone on his little adventure in Brazil he would have been WDC whereas with the present system he was nowhere near being in contention

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st

Well with the medal system fault could be pit entirely at the fault at McLaren for Hamilton not winning the WDC, they lost him 3 wins which would easily have made him WDC

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st

Vettel - 5, 3, 2
Hamilton - 4, 0, 3
Alonso - 3, 5, 5
Button - 2, 3, 0
Webber - 2, 1, 1
Raikkonen - 1, 3, 3
Rosberg - 1, 1, 0
Maldonado 1, 0, 0

I think that's right. I just did the winners because I'm lazy, and I'm on my kindle.
I think this system is awful, seeing as consistency is unrewarded and multiple DNFs don't really effect your standings

_________________
VI LXXVII XIV

But he did make the mistake and the WDC stayed the same. Plus it is introducing in a biased argument because you are forgiving one drivers mistakes and not excusing any other drivers.

If you go through what could have happened and change the points system practically every WDC in history could swap hands.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

There's clearly a marked difference between the two systems where in one he nearly wins the WDC and in the other he has no chance of being the WDC, one system clearly is more rewarding to mediocrity, not meaning that Kimi himself is mediocre by the way

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st

But in the end the WDC didn't change hands.

And as for mediocrity. Who is the better driver? They guy that wins 50% of the races and crashes out of the other 50% or the guy that finishes 2nd in 100% of the races.

It's called a championship and it's to decide who was the best over a season NOT the best in a handful of races. It's not rewarding mediocrity, in Kimis case it would have been rewarding consistency which it highlights is something Seb and RBR didn't have.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

Yeah well had Lewis won it we could blame Red Bull for Vettel not winning the title, he had an uncosistent car with mechanical failures.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas

Cheers! I was more interested in the standings between the non-winning drivers, but that's quite a task of course.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas

If we're taking as single highest finish, i could probably work it out. I'll just finish this race on F1 2012 and get to work!

_________________
VI LXXVII XIV

Drivers World Championship (medals system)
c: Vettel - 5, 3, 2
2: Hamilton - 4, 0, 3
3: Alonso - 3, 5, 5
4: Button - 2, 3, 0
5: Webber - 2, 1, 1
6: Raikkonen - 1, 3, 3
7: Rosberg - 1, 1, 0
8: Maldonado - 1, 0, 0
9: Perez - 0, 2, 1
10: Grosjean - 0, 1, 2
11: Massa - 0, 1, 1,
12: Kobayashi - 0, 0, 1 (5th)
13: Schumacher - 0, 0, 1, (6th)
14: Hulkenberg - 4th (5th)
15: Di Resta - 4th (6th)
16: Senna - 6th
17: Vergne - 8th
18: Ricciardo - 9th
19: Petrov - 11th
20: Glock - 12th (14th)
21: Pic - 12th (15th)
22: Kovalainen - 13th (14th)
23: d'Ambrosio - 13th (N/A)
24: Karthikeyan 15th
25: De La Rosa 17th
Key:
Xth = highest finish
(Xth) = second highest finish

_________________
VI LXXVII XIV

That seems to be a bit like someone playing with a gun and it accidently going off the bullet narrowling missing someones head then saying ah well no harm done.

Racing is supposed to be about winning any system that greatly devalues wins and just encourages cruise and collect driving is not really racing.

I don't know of any points system in recent times where in winning half the races means you're guaranteed the WDC, you have to go back to the drop rounds system of 20 years ago for that, but it does raise an issue of if one driver wins 10 races and the other driver none, who deserves to be WDC?

I don't believe in the medal system, a points system is better, however i do believe the current system leans too much towards consistency rather than winning races and podium finishes. The present system basically came into being after the 2004? season which Schumacher dominated and was champion by September ending up with 13 wins, it's basically to try and stop drivers dominating with race wins therefore in my opinion to help in part mediocre results.

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st

Without reliability issues and a team issue Hamilton would have won more races than Vettel

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st

Yes racing is about winning. But F1 is a championship the WDC isn't about winning a race or two it's about winning a championship. . It's not about best in 1, 2 or 6 races it's about the best over 16, 17, 19, 20 races. That's why consistency needs to be rewarded too. Because it's about who is best over 19 races (2013) and consistency is as important as winning over a long season.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

Not if we also decide to give an advantage to Vettel as well.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas

But we're not talking of just being good in a few races, you mentioned winning 10 races as not justifying as being worthy in itself of being WDC which i find to be a bit ridiculous really, there has to be a balance between the two and i think it errs a bit too much towards cruise and collect.

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st

The advantage of him being gifted 2 wins due to Hamilton retiring whilst in the lead?

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st

I can make lots of imaginary scenarios where Vettel would've won a lot more races. But he didn't, and neither did Hamilton.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas

How does it Err towards cruise and collect?

The points difference between1st and second is larger than any other consecutive positions.

1st is more than twice what fifth is, the mid way of points positions and infinitely more than finishing in the middle of the field.

1st has the bigger points advantage over any other position.

And why is it ridiculous? It's a championship which last year was over 20 races. Not 10. It's to see who is the best over a full season not 10 tracks. It's about winning the championship, not individual races.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."

In ye old points system 2nd place would score you 60% of the first place, now it scores 72% of first place, 3rd place scored 40% of first place now it scores 60% of first place, so in todays terms a 3rd place position rewards you as much as a 2nd place position use to, and all the other placings below have moved up percentage wise as well.

This has been done to keep the scores closer and to improve the show as can be seen in the thread opener, the closer you keep the points the more open the WDC and in this scenario Kimi nearly wins the WDC in the 3rd/4th best car simply by consistent points finishes behind only 1 win and 6 podiums, not normally a good enough stat for a WDC campaign.

This is of course is only my own personal preference and i'm sure the majority of fans are more than happy with the current system being employed.

Edit: Just looking at this points system, by finishing 5th in every race you become WDC

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st

What is imaginary about me saying that reliability problems cost Hamilton wins?

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st

You'd have to work n reliability losses for everyone, not just Hamilton.

_________________
Copper Masked Sunrise
http://www.justgiving.com/CIN-Mystery-P ... 00b9467dcb
https://www.facebook.com/BadExcusesBand

I could say not having a 20s per lap faster and bullet proof car cost Vettel as many as 15 wins!!

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas

I think you can define having a breakdown whilst leading a race as being a win taken away as opposed to other instances you might be considering

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st

...and i say you're missing my point completely

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st

The fact of the matter is, Hamilton did retire from the lead a few times. Yes, if he didn't he would have stood a better chance of being WDC, but he did. This, however, has nothing to do with the points system, official or otherwise.

_________________
VI LXXVII XIV

In the imaginary land where Lewis had a more reliable car he might've won a couple more races. Yes I agree.

My point is that (simplified) each driver has a speed X, drives a car that has the speed Y and the reliability Z. Hamilton's XYZ combination resulted in a fourth place in the WDC. You're saying that if his combination had been XY(Z++) he'd won a couple more races and I'm saying you can't have him at XY(Z++) while all the other drivers keep their own old XYZ. Especially since car speed often comes at the expense of reliability and vice versa.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas

The retirements would only have been critical in the medal system which is the point i was making, as far as points systems are concerned they would have made little difference as there was far to many things that went wrong

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place

2014: Currently 1st

Picking up on Pokerman's point about wanting to reward wins more: twenty years ago I devised a revised points table to correct the 'unfair' official awards: 1958 when Hawthorn won with 2 wins to Moss's four; 1967 when Hulme's two wins beat Clark's four, 1986 when Prost won on points when Mansell's package was clearly superior, etc.

My table was not as well thought-out as DWilD's here, but was more equitable than the then-FIA systems.

Wins are so difficult/impossible to achieve for most F1 drivers: I gave 20 points for a win, 10 for second, 5 for third, then 3,2,1 and revived one point for fastest lap (Hi Sebastian and Stirling Moss). Most title winners remained as offically awarded, but the skewed awards were eliminated.

Imo as several posters wrote here, winning must be made worthwhile fighting hard for. This is supposed to be racing. I was at that 1983 Kyalami finale when Nelson Piquet visibly slowed, dropped to third place and cruised in, knowing he had enough points to take the tile. This ruined the race. The crowd atmosphere was negative and noticeable.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com

[quote="POBRatings"]Picking up on Pokerman's point about wanting to reward wins more: twenty years ago I devised a revised points table to correct the 'unfair' official awards: 1958 when Hawthorn won with 2 wins to Moss's four; 1967 when Hulme's two wins beat Clark's four, 1986 when Prost won on points when Mansell's package was clearly superior, etc.

My table was not as well thought-out as DWilD's here, but was more equitable than the then-FIA systems.

Wins are so difficult/impossible to achieve for most F1 drivers: I gave 20 points for a win, 10 for second, 5 for third, then 3,2,1 and revived one point for fastest lap (Hi Sebastian and Stirling Moss). Most title winners remained as offically awarded, but the skewed awards were eliminated.

Imo as several posters wrote here, winning must be made worthwhile fighting hard for. This is supposed to be racing. I was at that 1983 Kyalami finale when Nelson Piquet visibly slowed, dropped to third place and cruised in, knowing he had enough points to take the tile. This ruined the race. The crowd atmosphere was negative and noticeable.[/quote]

I can see some people's point of view when it comes to wins, but to penalise people like Prost, Raikkonen (2012), and Keke Rosberg because they have better consistency than rivals who are faster but break down/crash more is just as if not more 'unfair' imo.

I think a more rounded table would be to have the podium places seperated by, lets say 5, while the gap between 3rd and 4th being bigger. Something like this:

1st - 25pts
2nd - 20pts
3rd - 15pts
4th - 8pts
5th - 6pts
6th - 4pts
7th - 2pts
8th - 1pt.

This way, being high up throughout the season is highly rewarded, wins are still worth grabbing if you can. Thoughts?

_________________
VI LXXVII XIV

I have my own points system, which I have used for the last few years. Info on it is here: http://8enginerule.wordpress.com/point-system/

I am going to be keeping up with it this season and showing the top 5 or 10 after every race using this system

I have posted about my own point system before (see post above). I have no posted what the Championship would have look liked 2009-2012 using my point system. Check it out here: http://8enginerule.wordpress.com/2013/05/06/what-if/

I am still using this system for the 2013, and will be updating that table on my blog after each race

So, did all of this mean Kimi is double world champion?

Send this to the FIA. Stat.