What is the reasoning for the current point system?

[Richard]

Maintaining a "tight battle" should have no basis on the point system ...

Actually that is exactly how the points are determined in every league in every sport.

Just because Hamilton has won the most races doesn't mean he's the best. It just means he happens to have a very fast car and he is slightly better than his team mate.

If we're going to extrapolate 4 races to the whole season, then how can a driver/car/team with a 25% DNF rate should be deemed the best, that's frankly appalling in this era.

[Powershift]

Maintaining a "tight battle" should have no basis on the point system ...

Actually that is exactly how the points are determined in every league in every sport.

Just because Hamilton has won the most races doesn't mean he's the best. It just means he happens to have a very fast car and he is slightly better than his team mate.

I also find it odd that a driver/car/team with a 25% DNF rate should be deemed the best. That's frankly appalling in this era.

Really? The NBA and NFL do no such thing, neither does the MLB, maybe american sports leagues have a different view than european ones.

This is not about Hamilton, regardless of how much his detractors seem to loathe him, this is about a driver who has outclassed his teammate(and the rest of the field) 3 out of 4 races and still lags behind in the standings.

a 25% DNF rate in a season with new engines, ERS & transmissions is not "odd" as you put it, that is co-witnessed by the field in general whereas in only 1 race(25% haha) has more than 75% of the grid finished the race.

[beelsebob]

Maintaining a "tight battle" should have no basis on the point system ...

Actually that is exactly how the points are determined in every league in every sport.

While I don't agree with Powershift, I can't agree with this either. Pretty much every sport in the UK goes by a system where you either win, or you get nothing. Every team sport tends to go by a win being worth 3, and a loss being worth 0.

Just because Hamilton has won the most races doesn't mean he's the best. It just means he happens to have a very fast car and he is slightly better than his team mate.

If we're going to extrapolate 4 races to the whole season, then how can a driver/car/team with a 25% DNF rate should be deemed the best, that's frankly appalling in this era.

Again, I disagree. If we're extrapolating over a whole season, a driver in the WDC suffering a 25% breakdown rate actually shouldn't have any affect on his position in the standings ideally, but unfortunately, that's not really possible to implement, as it's impossible to tell what was caused by a driver and what wasn't.

A quick note, I forgot about "that funny thing at the end with double points". It would actually be possible to win 15 out of 19 races and lose the WDC this year.

[beelsebob]

Maintaining a "tight battle" should have no basis on the point system ...

Actually that is exactly how the points are determined in every league in every sport.

While I don't agree with Powershift, I can't agree with this either. Pretty much every sport in the UK goes by a system where you either win, or you get nothing. Every team sport tends to go by a win being worth 3, and a loss being worth 0.

Just because Hamilton has won the most races doesn't mean he's the best. It just means he happens to have a very fast car and he is slightly better than his team mate.

If we're going to extrapolate 4 races to the whole season, then how can a driver/car/team with a 25% DNF rate should be deemed the best, that's frankly appalling in this era.

Again, I disagree. If we're extrapolating over a whole season, a driver in the WDC suffering a 25% breakdown rate actually shouldn't have any affect on his position in the standings ideally, but unfortunately, that's not really possible to implement, as it's impossible to tell what was caused by a driver and what wasn't.

A quick note, I forgot about "that funny thing at the end with double points". Carrying the extrapolation to the extreme, It would actually be possible to win 15 out of 19 races and lose the WDC this year.

[Stradivarius]

a 25% DNF rate in a season with new engines, ERS & transmissions is not "odd" as you put it, that is co-witnessed by the field in general whereas in only 1 race(25% haha) has more than 75% of the grid finished the race.

Taking those new rules into consideration should make Rosberg's 100% finish rate (on the podium) more impressive to the same extent that it excuses Hamilton's 25% DNF rate. If Hamilton continues to perform better than Rosberg, there is no reason to belive that he won't finish ahead of him in the championship and thus I don't see the big problem. If Hamilton, however, continues to retire from 25% of the races so that he ends up with fewer points, the performance of the "package" (which is what the points really judge) is simply not good enough, by definition.

I think this is actually a very simple matter. The point system defines what results are best. You may have a very strong feeling that 3 victories and one DNF is better than 1 victory and 3 second places, but that is nothing more than a subjective opinion. The fact is, the way I see it anyway, that the point system defines 1 victory and 3 second places to be better and this is something the teams and the drivers are aware of before they even start the season. The aim should hence be to optimize their points based on the actual system, not based on what they feel would be the right system.

So far, there is no doubt that Hamilton has performed better than Rosberg, but the driver isn't everything in f1. That is why Alonso and Vettel are no where near Rosberg and Hamilton in the standings, and that is why Rosberg is still ahead of Hamilton. Rosberg is leading the championship, but we can't say that he has performed better than Alonso, Vettel or Hulkenberg (or Hamilton) because he has more points. We can, however, say that the entire package has performed better than those including Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel and Hulkenberg. It has finished all the races and never been lower than 2nd.

It isn't Hamilton's fault that his car let him down in Australia, but it is impossible to have a point system that compensates for whatever problems the drivers might have with their cars, whether it is related to performance or to reliability. A driver gets 0 points if he spins off the track on the first lap, and he gets 0 points if his engine blows up. The driver gets his points based on the performance of the entire package, and that cannot be changed no matter how you choose the point system.

[beelsebob]

Stradivarius, you are absolutely 100% factually correct.

However - you are missing the point of this thread. The point of this thread is not "wha wha wha, Hamilton isn't winning, he should be". It's "what do people think is a reasonable way to define a points system, because the current points system seems to give some odd results".

The fact that Hamilton is not winning is merely being presented by some people as an example of where they think the current points system ascribes more value to reliability than it should, and less value to winning repeatedly than it should.

It brings up an interesting point though. I wonder - should the points systems be different for the WDC and WCC. That is, clearly the WCC should reward reliability. You need to build a car that can finish consistently high up to be the best constructor in my mind. Meanwhile, to be WDC, you (in my mind) need to win lots, and I don't overly care about whether your car blows up, as it has no bearing on you as a driver. With that in mind, does it make sense to use Bernie's medals system for the drivers championship only, while retaining points (possibly tweaked to be more linear) for the constructors?

[Phil]

It brings up an interesting point though. I wonder - should the points systems be different for the WDC and WCC. That is, clearly the WCC should reward reliability. You need to build a car that can finish consistently high up to be the best constructor in my mind. Meanwhile, to be WDC, you (in my mind) need to win lots, and I don't overly care about whether your car blows up, as it has no bearing on you as a driver. With that in mind, does it make sense to use Bernie's medals system for the drivers championship only, while retaining points (possibly tweaked to be more linear) for the constructors?

That's an excellent point - one I'd agree with. As it is now, I think the points are too drastic on DNFs. Especially in the scenario that a team is dominating, a DNF can sway the championship to the point where a driver despite the most wins could lose his WDC lead to a more consistent finisher. This, I think is something the 25-point system was here to address in the first place - some feeling that there should be more emphasis on "wins" than to finish (and be happy) with cosistent points.

I think it would make sense for the constructors to maintain the 25-point system, but for WDCs, I think half points (making a DNF half as bad if you may) to make more sense. That's just my view.

[beelsebob]

It brings up an interesting point though. I wonder - should the points systems be different for the WDC and WCC. That is, clearly the WCC should reward reliability. You need to build a car that can finish consistently high up to be the best constructor in my mind. Meanwhile, to be WDC, you (in my mind) need to win lots, and I don't overly care about whether your car blows up, as it has no bearing on you as a driver. With that in mind, does it make sense to use Bernie's medals system for the drivers championship only, while retaining points (possibly tweaked to be more linear) for the constructors?

That's an excellent point - one I'd agree with. As it is now, I think the points are too drastic on DNFs. Especially in the scenario that a team is dominating, a DNF can sway the championship to the point where a driver despite the most wins could lose his WDC lead to a more consistent finisher. This, I think is something the 25-point system was here to address in the first place - some feeling that there should be more emphasis on "wins" than to finish (and be happy) with cosistent points.

I think it would make sense for the constructors to maintain the 25-point system, but for WDCs, I think half points (making a DNF half as bad if you may) to make more sense. That's just my view.

How would you go about deciding what position a DNFer finished in, in order to give them their half points?

[turbof1]

What about the system where every driver was forced to discount their worst position? So the system were only your best 18 positions counts.

I personally would also sneak in the rule that your top finish doesn't count, for obvious reasons .

[beelsebob]

What about the system where every driver was forced to discount their worst position? So the system were only your best 18 positions counts.

I personally would also sneak in the rule that your top finish doesn't count, for obvious reasons .

I think that's actually a remarkably good idea. Discarding your top and bottom 1 or 2 finishes would really help get rid of lucky or unlucky races. I don't think though that the FOM would like the idea, because it lowers the chance that the championship will be close near the end, because the second place driver will usually have to discard an important win, while the leader often will get rid of their unlucky retirement.

[johnsonwax]

Really? The NBA and NFL do no such thing, neither does the MLB, maybe american sports leagues have a different view than european ones.

Sure they do. Finish reasonably high and you go to the playoffs where all of your previous progress is erased and you're back on a fairly level playing field. If you struggled in the first half of the season and excelled in the 2nd half, you can still go on to win the championship, even against teams that were much more competitive across the entire season. As many as half the teams can make the playoffs. Even NASCAR is running a playoff system like this now.

Playoffs guarantee that the sport is competitive until the end because by definition they aren't decided until the end. Just ask Peyton Manning.

[Just_a_fan]

What about the system where every driver was forced to discount their worst position? So the system were only your best 18 positions counts.

I personally would also sneak in the rule that your top finish doesn't count, for obvious reasons .

There is a precedent for this sort of system of course. My view is that only taking, for example, the best 18 races from the season is the fairest way as it gets around the issue of a driver being penalised for a team issue e.g. a mechanical failure.

As mentioned previously, Bernie won't like it because it increases the chance that the title is decided before the last couple of races. That reduces the price he can charge for those last few races. After all, that's the real reason he wanted the extra points at the tail end of the season - to ensure every race is meaningful.

[turbof1]

What about the system where every driver was forced to discount their worst position? So the system were only your best 18 positions counts.

I personally would also sneak in the rule that your top finish doesn't count, for obvious reasons .

I think that's actually a remarkably good idea. Discarding your top and bottom 1 or 2 finishes would really help get rid of lucky or unlucky races. I don't think though that the FOM would like the idea, because it lowers the chance that the championship will be close near the end, because the second place driver will usually have to discard an important win, while the leader often will get rid of their unlucky retirement.

The FOM would disagree because whoever finishes in first, second and thirth in the last race would need to discount that finish in any case. Hence why I would sneak that into the rules .

[beelsebob]

Really? The NBA and NFL do no such thing, neither does the MLB, maybe american sports leagues have a different view than european ones.

Really? You don't have 3-1-0 scoring systems? Pretty much every sport in the UK gives 3 points for a win, 0 for a loss, and 1 for a draw.

[hollus]

It is not that they don't have a 3:1:0 system, it's that they don't have draws at all!

Anyways, on topic: in my opinion any system based solely on wins would lead to absolute mayhem. People starting in P10 would make suicidal dashes for a hypothetical gap in turn 1, everybody but the first 2-3 would take a whacky strategy hoping for a lucky safety car, and the leading car would have to drive into the distance to defend because the car in second would have absolutely no reason to brake before the leader in the last lap, no matter whether they run out of tarmac or not. Actually a good way to win would be to be third entering the last lap...