Point System

[Giblet]

After such a good close battle last year with title contenders I can't beleive everyone at Ferarri is complaining about the points system, saying Massa should be leading the championship.

They say they are not being rewarded for their wins, but they seem to keep missing a key point, that Massa didn't finish a race, and for that they are being punished for their DNF, and for his going off the track and losing a key podium position.

The whole points system is in line with the current state of ever increasing reliability in F1. The bias of being punished for DNF vs. rewarded for winning is skewed to the point that finishing is paramount to success.

If you qualify your car in the top 4 and your car can finish the race, then you can challenge for the lead, and if you win, you get more points then everyone else.

I suspect that the reliability issues for Massa's car at least wont last, as Ferarri are more then excellent in this department. Raikkonen is a little harder on his car, so it might still be hard for him.

[mx_tifoso]

They say they are not being rewarded for their wins, but they seem to keep missing a key point, that Massa didn't finish a race, and for that they are being punished for their DNF, and for his going off the track and losing a key podium position.

At what 2007 Gp did Massa have a DNF? I believe it was KR in the Spanish Gp that suffered the DNF.

I somewhat agree with the current point system, although it doesnt seem "fair" to me that even if you have won the most GP's you can still be trailing in the DC, such as Massa having won 2 GP's and being 3rd, and Hamilton having had only podiums, and being the leader in the DC. Although I agree with reliability being rewarded, as I'm sure Ferrari will get back to their reliable ways soon enough, hopefully for Monaco.
I believe it would be "better" if their was a larger gap between a race winner and 2nd place in the points system. Race wins should reap a bigger reward than a simple podium.

[modbaraban]

That's what I posted before.

12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 would be perfect IMHO

[mx_tifoso]

12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

With the above points system up until Spanish GP:

2007 FIA Formula 1 Drivers Championship Standings

1. Felipe Massa- 31 pts
2. Fernando Alonso- 30 pts
3. Lewis Hamilton- 30 pts
4. Kimi Raikkonen- 24 pts
5. Nick Heidfeld- 15 pts
6. Robert Kubica- 8 pts
7. Giancarlo Fisichella- 8 pts
8. Nico Rosberg- 5 pts

2007 FIA Formula 1 Constructors Championship Standings

1. Mclaren-Mercedes- 60 pts
2. Ferrari- 55 pts
3. BMW-Sauber- 23 pts
4. Renault- 11 pts

[Tom]

That 12 pts for a win system seems to work, in that Massa who won most races would lead, followed by consistant podium Lewis and 1 win+scattered results Alonso equal.

The trick is to make the points difference enough to make drivers battle hard amongst each other all race, yet not let one driver or team run away with the champ with a few wins and some of DNFs over a consistent challenger.

[Giblet]

Sorry, my mistake.

For some reason I thought Massa had a DNF early. Pretty lame for someone who follows as close as I thought I did.

[mx_tifoso]

The trick is to make the points difference enough to make drivers battle hard amongst each other all race, yet not let one driver or team run away with the champ with a few wins and some of DNFs over a consistent challenger.

If you see my previous post you can see how no driver/team would precisely "run a way with the championship with a few wins and some DNF's". By precisely I mean that even though it is possible (nothings ever impossible) it would probably be unlikely.

Massa has 2 wins, and I believe that it should be rewarded. But since he had some bad races and finished 6th and 5th, respectively for Oz and Malaysia, he would be a mere one point ahead of Alonso/Hamilton leading the F1 DC.

Alonso having 1 win, a 5th place, and 2 podiums would be second in the championship, I see that a bit fairer as well.

For Hamilton, with very consistent podium finishes (4/4) he would be 3rd in the standings.

Raikkonen would be a prime example as well of how this "different" point system would be better suited for the DC/CC, Raikkonen has 1 win followed by 2 third place podiums, and most recently a DNF, reliability being rewarded and DNF's giving a bad hit towards a drivers championship hopes, thus Raikkonen being in 4th place.

And had Heidfeld finished in the position he qualified* (7th) he would have been 4th in the standings still, but with 17pts instead of 15, enabling him to move in closer on Raikkonen and 3rd place in the standings within a few races, should Raikkonen have a few more bad results.
*Spain
-----------
A quick question; what position was Heidfeld in when he retired? I cant seem to recall. So that I can factor in the race position before retiring, providing he did not drop back, and the amount of points he would have collected in Spain. For Raikkonen as well.

[pRo]

12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1

With the above points system up until Spanish GP:

2007 FIA Formula 1 Constructors Championship Standings

1. Mclaren-Mercedes- 60 pts
2. Ferrari- 55 pts

Not good enough for Montezemole, who nagged that Ferrari should be leading the constructors championship, cause they have won three out of four races.

[bizadfar]

Why did they really change it? 2002 schumacher/ferrari dominance?

and our reward was we got a exciting 2003 season.

But with more rule changes such as engine lasting etc etc it makes it backfire and LESS exciting than even 2003 season.

"oh i will save engine, and put up with 2nd or 3rd"

Rolling and tumbling eyes at dumb arse Mosely.

That 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 is perfect. Either that or BACK to 2002 system. I'm sick of driver (I don't care which one) making such a big lead and only get 2 points more than lazy CONSERVATIVE driver.

[ds.raikkonen]

....and our reward was we got a exciting 2003 season.
That 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 is perfect.

Crazy would be an appropriate word for it...remember the Australian & Brazilian GPs thta year? Massa has won more races than any driver, but that does nt neccessarily mean he shu lead the championship, he also finished 6th & 4th...whereas Hamilton has finished 3rd,2nd,2nd,2nd...thats not bad either...even so im with the new points system, the winner shud be awarded more points.

[Ciro Pabón]

However, giving more points to winner, wouldn't make the championship boring in those years when it is not so competed?

More points to the leader of a race means that if somebody dominates three or four races in the beginning, everybody would be resigned to contemplate this guy as the new champion in the month of April...

BTW, this would be even more attractive to Ferrari or any future dominant team. Ferrari, for several years, had started the season with a "supercar", when compared with the rest of the field. This probably means that engineers wouldn't have another Christmas at home! Everybody would try to get a KO in the first round...

I've already posted a simple graph showing that, in F1, winner gets 25% of total points, while in CART gets 12%. Indy distributes even less points to the winner, and NASCAR, the "ultra-competitive" championship, gives only 4% of total points to winner.

At NASCAR they have the interesting concept of "finals": the guys that "make the cut" (the first 15?) at a certain date, start afresh: all of them are given the same points on that date, and then the championship is decided only between them. That, I guess, helps to mantain public interest in the championship until the last race. On the other hand, this could be construed as pure marketing...

[mini696]

I dont agree... the points system in F1 is already biased towards the race winner.

F1 rewards 1st place more than any other series. The closest is IRL where only 1st and 2nd have the same %gap as F1 yet the other places are closer.

F1 should bring in a "Fastest lap" point to stop the leader cruising at the end.


F1----------Diff to leader---------Diff to previous place
10----------0%---------------------0%
8-----------20%--------------------20%
6-----------40%--------------------25%
5-----------50%--------------------17%
4-----------60%--------------------20%
3-----------70%--------------------25%
2-----------80%--------------------33%
1-----------90%--------------------50%
No Bonus'


Nascar----Diff to leader---------Diff to previous place
180--------0%---------------------0%
170--------6%---------------------6%
165--------8%---------------------3%
160--------11%-------------------3%
155--------14%-------------------3%
146--------19%-------------------6%
142--------21%-------------------3%
138--------23%-------------------3%
Lead a lap = 5
Lead most laps - 5


Champcar ---Diff to leader------Diff to previous place
31------------0%-------------------0%
27------------13%-----------------13%
25------------19%-----------------7%
23------------26%-----------------8%
21------------32%-----------------9%
19------------39%-----------------10%
17------------45%-----------------11%
15------------52%-----------------12%
Most laps gained = 1
Fastest Lap = 1
Pole in quali rnd1 = 1
Pole in quali rnd2 = 1


IRL---------Diff to leader---------Diff to previous place
50----------0%---------------------0%
40----------20%-------------------20%
35----------30%-------------------13%
32----------36%-------------------9%
30----------40%-------------------6%
28----------44%-------------------7%
26----------48%-------------------7%
24----------52%-------------------8%
Pole = 3
Lead most laps = 1

[modbaraban]

However, giving more points to winner, wouldn't make the championship boring in those years when it is not so competed?

For competativeness of the 2003 season you should thank Ferrari+Bridgestone and not the new point system. Next season was dominated by Ferrari and the current point system couldn't help a bit. You shouldn't improve competition massing up the rules.

[ds.raikkonen]

...and NASCAR, the "ultra-competitive" championship, gives only 4% of total points to winner.

At NASCAR they have the interesting concept of "finals": the guys that "make the cut" (the first 15?) at a certain date, start afresh: all of them are given the same points on that date, and then the championship is decided only between them. That, I guess, helps to mantain public interest in the championship until the last race. On the other hand, this could be construed as pure marketing...

And even then Jeff Gordon is leading by 250+pts..thats amazing!