planetf1.com

F1's Strategy Group is discussing the potential of awarding points all the way down to 20th. Or a compromise to as far as 15th. Other discussions include awarding points for fastest lap and/or pole position.

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13725 ... ll-20-cars

Personally I think the points system we've had this decade is perfect for modern F1. I don't support any of these changes. Awarding points for all competitors feels like an American way of doing things (not bashing US racing, I follow both Indy and NASCAR), I love how F1 has always had a cut-off point.

And I'm not convinced that racers battling for positions like 14th & 15th are going to race harder. If anything, right now drivers in 14th, 15th, etc. have nothing to lose. With this change they might become more conservative and just bring the points home.

Awarding points for pole would, in my opinion, just widen the gap between the front guys and the chasing pack. As if the front runners don't have enough advantages already. And there are any amount of issues I have with points for fastest lap. A meaningless stat that should stay that way.

_________________
I don't rely entirely on God

I rely on Prost



FA#14

Of all the things people complain about in F1, the points system seems the least devisive. In fact i'm not sure I have ever seen anybody even suggest it should be changed, other than occassional calls for points for pole or fastest lap, neither of which I would support.

Groan, this doesn't surprise me, a further devaluing of race wins and even more emphasis on consistency and finishing races, promoting mediocrity over meritocracy.

Scoring points in F1 should be an achievement not something given out like green shield stamps.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

They also were looking to abolish qualifying, it's a worry how little they seem to know about F1 as a sport, it being seen as a vehicle just to maximise profit like say the WWE.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

https://www.crash.net/f1/news/900610/1/ ... tegy-group

Also a discussion about a sprint race. I hope they leave points alone, and really hope they don't introduce a sprint race. The sprint race just seems a bit pointless, I don't understand what purpose it would serve. I also don't get how they could make it exciting.

Well enjoy F1 while you can before it becomes something alien to what F1 was.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

Without knowing the point distribution you don't know that they are devaluing race wins. Not like when they cut the win margin in half to bring Schumi back to the pack and keep the WDC chase past August. For all we know they may even make the 1 - 2 gap greater... We just don't know.

Since when is consistency mediocrity? Lewis just had the longest record of point scoring races in F1 history broken... Does that remarkable record of consistency mean that Lewis is mediocre?

I agree with the mcdo that rewarding fastest lap is ridiculous and points for like positions only serves to further reward those in the fastest cars.

My choice... Keep things as they are.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

The last 2 points changes have devalued race wins and what does Lewis Hamilton have to do with anything, he after all had the most wins, seriously?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

Hasn't the last one increased the value of a win? Previously you got 80% of the winners points for finishing second, currently it is 72%.

Do you EVER read entire posts, or just see the words Lewis or Hamilton and get defensive. iF... Again IF... You read my post you will see the relevance in the mention of Hamilton's remarkably consistent record of consecutive point scoring races... Brought up as you basically put down consistency. In NO way was I critical of Lewis Hamilton so Relax, poker.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

Well as an american F1 fan, I agree that just awarding points to everyone will make teams complacent with just scoring those bottom of the barrel points and not want too push for more. Imo it’s similar to handing out participation trophies in youth sports now a days. There is no place for that in any sport.

The idea itself maybe related to the whole money distribution system based on points scored but that’s not going to move teams up the ladder in terms of prize money awarded. They will still end up where their level of performance is at seasons end.

_________________
PF1 pick 10 2016: 7th (1 win, 4 podiums), 2017: 17th (3 podiums)
Awards: Sergio perez trophy & Podium specialist
PF1 pick 3 2015: constructors 2nd, singles 5th
Autosport Gp 2016/17 - 5th
F1 Oracle 2017: 2nd (6 wins), 2016:5th (2wins)

I'd have separate points for 11-20 (using 25,18,15 etc). These points would be deciding in the event of a tie at the end of the season, and also possibly affect prize money.

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===

I have no problem with the current points structure and don't think points should be awarded for qualifying or fastest lap or leading a lap. What is this NASCAR????

FIA needs to work on the aero packages, reducing turbulence, and making it easier to follow and pass.

_________________
Mission WinLater

The only change I would make to the points is like the good old days, you drop races. I would make it your best 17 or 18 results of the 21. If this was in practise, Bottas, Ricciardo and Verstappen would all still be in with a legitimate title shot. As it stands, we only have 2 title challenges at the moment which is a lot to do with bad luck for the others.

I couldn't disagree more! If it is a twenty race season score twenty races. Why create a "manufactured" champion? Being able to throw out your worst 3 or 4, would serve no real purpose that I can see. That and it could penalize a very consistent driver/team.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15

I have posted my comment in planetf1.com regarding this subject, so I just copy and paste it here:

Why not just make the F1 scoring system like Golf?

You finish first you get 1 point, you finish second you get 2 points, you finish third you get 3 points, and so on until the last person on the track.

At the end of the season, driver with the lowest points is the World Champion!

_________________
too fast to slow down

Scoring right now is an excitement, an accomplishment. It's exciting to see who will score points.

I actually welcome this idea. I think it would be a better way to calculate constructor payments at the end of the season. Plus I think the current system favours 1st place too much, and is pushing the gap out between the top teams and the mid pack. Plus it doesn’t really reward consistency.

Should just go;
1 100
2 90
3 80
4 60
5 50
6 40
7 35
8 30
9 25
10 20
11 15
12 10
13 8
14 7
15 6
16 5
17 4
18 3
19 2
20 1
If you DNF, you get 0. 5 bonus points for Pole, Most laps led and Fastest lap.

Oh FFS, really... yeah let's give points for pole. Until someone closes out the Championship on a Saturday and they realise it was a stupid idea...

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."

I disagree with the proposal. I also didn't want to see points down to 10th when it was brought in, but this is a whole different level of bad. Soon it'll be like those other series where drivers finish the season with 3000 points. Points should be awarded for success, not for making it to the end. Teams should celebrate getting into the points because it's hard, and changing it so every team gets points entirely devalues that. F1 is supposed to be the top, and you're supposed to have to work for recognition at the top. I don't see how this would change anything for the better, except to stop people like Alonso moaning that he doesn't want to finish the race because he's in the bottom few drivers.

_________________

I really don't see what the problem is that they are trying to fix. And awarding points for pole might be fine in a spec series, but all it will do in F1 is hand the best car an even bigger advantage. Very odd reasoning IMO

What about retirements?

_________________

It's remarkable, isn't it?

Anyway, I wouldn't change the points system at all. It's the perfect balance between not handing out enough points (which was the case when only the top six scored points, and arguably still even when just the top eight were rewarded with points) and handing out too many points. It actually really frustrates me when F1 does this where they try to fix aspects of the sport that aren't broken, that very few are asking to even be looked at, whilst areas that do need to a lot of work don't appear (at least publicly, anyway) to be getting the attention they require.

_________________
Pick 10 | 1st x3, 2nd x3, 3rd x7
2018: 5th | 2017: 6th | 2016: 8th | 2015: 2nd | 2014: 15th | 2013: 17th | 2012: 11th

I would actually bring back 9-6-4-3-2-1. End of story. You want points? Shed some serious sweat.

_________________
The end is near

That's the trick to devalue second place also to the rest of the placings, once you get past third place the points gaps are narrowed.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

It still was missing the point I was trying to make as in Hamilton didn't win merely because of consistency of points finishes.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

That's the problem of were are their reference points coming from with them being an American company?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

One word, terrible, also I guess you give points to drivers who don't finish the race?

So someone wins 5 race and then doesn't finish that's 25 points if he come lasts.

Someone has 6, 4th place finishes he has 24 points so he is ahead, again I will say the more you value consistency the more you devalue race wins.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

So in old money that's merely 10-9-8-6-5-4-3.5-3-2.5-2, terrible

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

Yep, getting in the points should be an achievement not a gift just for finishing.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

While I don’t have a problem with the current system it does have a big flaw in how it determines who finishes ahead when there are more than 1 teams that finish the year with no points.

Currently it goes to which team had the single highest placing over the course of the year. Which means that 1 team could score multiple 12th finishes and lose out to another team that never did better than 15th but ends up with a single 11th place finish at a season finale with high attrition.

I know most on here only care about the top teams and the drivers at the front of the field but whatever scoring system is in place, in any sport, should seek to be fair throughout the field. A situation like this, but not as extreme, came up not long ago between Caterham and Marussia. (I think)

I disagree that giving points further down the devalues points or makes them like participation trophies. Points are there to determine team and driver placing come the end of the year and should reflect the performance of the team/driver over the course of the year.

This whole bit about giving points outside the top ten meaning teams wouldn’t try as hard is crap and disrespectful to all of the people who work at the teams further down the grid. Any racing series is going to be populated by people who are passionate about racing and few are apt to be the type to shrug and call it good just because they’re going to get points as long as they finish. They’re involved in their own battles with the other teams near their own performance level and trying beat them with the resources available to them.

_________________
{Insert clever sig line here}

Well I disagree it's always a big thing when a driver scores his first points in F1, if you are going to give points for merely finishing races then it's no big thing, imagine how many points finishes Chilton would have had, the perennial last place man just keeping himself out of trouble, it very much becomes participation points.

Anyway I would see points for the top 20 being something like this:-

Top 10

50-40-35-30-25-20-18-16-14-12

11-20

10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1

The top 10 improvement differential then being:-

2-2.2-2.3-2.5-2.5-2.5-3-4-7-12

Always you tend to have a diminishing of the race wins and also higher placed finishes when you expand a points system.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place
2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)

Since there's only 20 cars on the grid and a few cars retire on average, I think 10 points positions is ideal. There was a time with 24 cars and few reliability problems that I think it could have been looked into more. These days, I think the midfield are close enough that every team at some stage of the season have the chance to score points. Maybe if the number of cars increase, they should look into changing it but it's fine as it is.

_________________
"Always believe you will become the best, but never believe you have done so"

IF (big IF) pole position has to have points, hand them out to drivers who convert pole to a win. Extra point(s) available, but have to be earned on Sunday.

I remember the normal grid with 26 cars, and even a time when there were 36 cars trying to get on it. Back then, the points system was fine, but perhaps to easy or fair for the tastes of some? (Not meaning you, Schumi.)

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi

Even then you usually got around the same number of point scoring teams as we do now.

It is perfect the way it is. I wouldn't change a thing.

I don't understand what's wrong with the current system. This reminds me of when they tried to "fix" qualifying a couple of years ago.

Maybe this examination of changing how points are awarded is to placate the Formula B teams? It is no secret they are very unhappy with the distribution of funds. And for those teams, almost every race weekend is one of crashing or finishing in top 10. They have less money to throw around, yet they are the ones who must take more risks.

By giving those teams a more reasonable method to earn points, the uneven distribution of funds may be less visible, and less of an embarrassment to Formula One.

It is also a way around the reluctance by the big teams to share.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.

I fail to see a problem with the current points system. I'm curious what problem this is supposed to address, but I think it's a terrible idea. You shouldn't get points for finishing last or close to last. I could see a case for going back to 9-6-4-3-2-1, but I see no reason at all to extend it beyond ten places -- and really, I like the current system. The top ten seems a reasonable place to cut it off. Awarding more points helps nothing; all it does is devalue the points at the top.


Reliability is so much better than it used to be that I don't feel bringing this back would make sense. It really was a rule for a different era.

_________________

Pick 10: 1 win, 8 podiums | 2016: 22nd | 2017: 21st | 2018: 3rd |
[size=85]Top Three: 9 wins, 26 podiums | 2016: 9th [6th] | 2017: 16th [6th] | 2018: 4th [4th] |