[JackTimQSR]

The FIA ought to get several of the best mathematical brains in the world and pay them to derive a system where drivers that win have an advantage.

Why bother, when they have you offering advice on an internet forum?

[accelieda]

Under the old system they would have been covered by FOUR points.

Yes but in terms of points percentage compared to a win, it is closer with the new system in direct comparison

OLD SYSTEM (10 points for a win)
4 POINT GAP = 40%

NEW SYSTEM (25 points for a win)
9 POINT GAP = 36%

[Snitiendumurn]

Formulae is still motor racing. Rallying is not, it is motor SPORT.

motor racing = motor sport

And to clarify: drifting is neither racing nor sport.

[TobaccoNUE]

A case can be made for any point system.

BUT: Massa has won nothing yet he heads the points table!

Definitely something is still ridiculous.

Massa beat Vettel in Bahrain, out drove Alonso 2 races in a row

Vettel has scored a DNF

There is nothing wrong (yet) with the points system.

[cmruloah]

I think the new system is quite good. The older systems where only the top 6 scored points worked better when there were more DNFs.

For a point system that really rewards wins, try this: Championship is scored by number of wins, then 1 point for each car beaten in each race. Points only serve as a way to score between drivers with the same number of wins.

[Seerseraxlils]

Obviously we all have our own [irrelevant] views that will shift nothing. So we just have to accept whatever the FIA toss up.

[Seerseraxlils]

motor racing = motor sport

And to clarify: drifting is neither racing nor sport.

Motor racing is not motor sport, it is motor RACING. And rallying or dragsters or any other variation is motor SPORT.

[TobaccoNUE]

It is clear that having now to deal with a gazillion points per race is not the answer either - looking back it would not have changed much at all.

The point is: how do they derive these systems? Is it done scientifically using algorythms - I doubt that. Or do they sit around a table and just "decide".

I do think that race wins ought to count first. So maybe the driver with the most wins and then the points should count.

This would put Massa at most fourth.

The FIA ought to get several of the best mathematical brains in the world and pay them to derive a system where drivers that win have an advantage.

Massa at the top without a win or even a pole position is just ridiculous.

What races let alone algorithms have you been watching? We've had 3 different winners.

[JackTimQSR]

Motor racing is not motor sport, it is motor RACING. And rallying or dragsters or any other variation is motor SPORT.

According to whom? And in what way is what you categorise as motor racing, rather than motorsport, not sport?

[Snitiendumurn]

Maybe F1 could go the NCAA route and replace the whole point system with a poll of reporters.

[Natashasuw]

A case can be made for any point system.

BUT: Massa has won nothing yet he heads the points table!

Definitely something is still ridiculous.

Consistency will always be rewarded, no matter the points system.

See: 1982.

[Seerseraxlils]

According to whom? And in what way is what you categorise as motor racing, rather than motorsport, not sport?

The definition decided by the doyan of great publications, Motorsport magazine. I agree with it. I read it about thirty years ago as a kid.

Look you are entitled to think what you want and to disagree with me, but going around in circles with you asking me a question I have already answered is also ridiculous.

[Seerseraxlils]

Consistency will always be rewarded, no matter the points system.

See: 1982.

1982 was a very unusual and tragic year and nobody could want a repeat.
Rosberg did win a grand prix.

Consistency alone should NEVER be rewarded with a championship win. Winning and consistency, yes.

Anyway, the champion this year is not going to be someone that has won nothing and will likey be the driver who wins the most grands prix.

[bZEUWO4F]

1982 was a very unusual and tragic year and nobody could want a repeat.
Rosberg did win a grand prix.

I take it that you share the exact same sentiment about 1958.

Consistency alone should NEVER be rewarded with a championship win. Winning and consistency, yes.

I have to disagree here. I think consistent driving should be awarded. If somebody wins 6 or 7 races in a season (i.e. the most wins in that season) and then fails to perform well at the other races, he should suffer because of it. A driver always needs to be top of his game. Winning races should certainly give the driver the advantage of not needing to push hard for a win in later rounds, because of work done earlier in the year. Winning and consistency of course will be rewarded and is the best recipe for taking the world championship (Mansell in 1992). But there are many scenarios were a champion has either been consistent and won most races (Hawthorn, Rosberg and Lauda 77 to name just 3), or won most GPs in a season but failed to bring up the goods at races he didn't win (Moss/Brooks 1958, Clark 1964 and Prost 1983).

Not trying to put words in your mouth dude but: are you saying that in the former situation, those drivers didn't deserve the title? If it was down to most wins throughout season, teams could put all of their effort into an A-spec car, sweep up the competition, and feck development for the later stages in the year. Brawn had to do this due to budget but did so well in the first half that they could take the title down to the wire. And fair dues

But F1 is a development race as much as anything, and consistent driving is something I value as much as the ability to win a race, particularly if the car isn't at race winning pace. Different strokes for different folks though. If we were competing team managers, we would have a completely different approach

[Gorlummm]

Consistency alone should NEVER be rewarded with a championship win. Winning and consistency, yes.

So to get this clear, in your view, a point system is obsolete?

[Seerseraxlils]

What races let alone algorithms have you been watching? We've had 3 different winners.

Three different race winners and the driver that has not won a race yet is leading the championship

But anyway for me the championship is secondary to winning grands prix. Isnt winning races what its all supposed to be about?

Actually its not - its about winning the championship.

[Seerseraxlils]

So to get this clear, in your view, a point system is obsolete?

thats your interpretation. No.

A properly designed point system is not obselete. The problem is we have no idea how the system is derived and nobody with any standing asks.

Whats the alternative? To the current one, a PROPER one formulated by mathematicians who have studied the situation we have in racing.

[Seerseraxlils]

I take it that you share the exact same sentiment about 1958.



I have to disagree here. I think consistent driving should be awarded. If somebody wins 6 or 7 races in a season (i.e. the most wins in that season) and then fails to perform well at the other races, he should suffer because of it. A driver always needs to be top of his game. Winning races should certainly give the driver the advantage of not needing to push hard for a win in later rounds, because of work done earlier in the year. Winning and consistency of course will be rewarded and is the best recipe for taking the world championship (Mansell in 1992). But there are many scenarios were a champion has either been consistent and won most races (Hawthorn, Rosberg and Lauda 77 to name just 3), or won most GPs in a season but failed to bring up the goods at races he didn't win (Moss/Brooks 1958, Clark 1964 and Prost 1983).

Not trying to put words in your mouth dude but: are you saying that in the former situation, those drivers didn't deserve the title? If it was down to most wins throughout season, teams could put all of their effort into an A-spec car, sweep up the competition, and feck development for the later stages in the year. Brawn had to do this due to budget but did so well in the first half that they could take the title down to the wire. And fair dues

But F1 is a development race as much as anything, and consistent driving is something I value as much as the ability to win a race, particularly if the car isn't at race winning pace. Different strokes for different folks though. If we were competing team managers, we would have a completely different approach

I am not trying to detract what has occurred already. Remember the drivers at the time always race to win of course but they also race according to how the championship is won. It is not their fault.

This is why I disagree with taking the current system and trying to apply it to past seasons, even though the changes were minimal.

BTW Alain Prost ended up with SEVEN title wins and Schumacher FIVE, Senna TWO with Hakkinen ONE and Irvine ONE. The least favorable was that James Hunt lost to Lauda and the Austrian won FOUR titles using the current system.

I would like to discover how the system is derived. Without that we, as fans, can have no idea.

Why 25 points? Why not 26 or 24?

[dexterljohnthefinanceguy]

I have to disagree here. I think consistent driving should be awarded.

I agree.

[Goksiodiffeli]

Why bother, when they have you offering advice on an internet forum?

Oh what a surprise, dunnell making another personal attack.