Quote:
Originally Posted by P38 in workshop
Anybody else read this? https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/e...ture/10601483/. To my somewhat cynical mind it looks like an attempt to "improve" the image of those teams that don't often get any points as this state of affairs must do little to impress potential partners.A few points on the board gives the impression that they might be less uncompetitive. |
I was curious to see what the argument was. Before reading the article I felt it was financial (which I think in a way it still is), but this section made sense to me...
Quote:
|
At the moment, teams can find themselves losing out in a constructors’ championship battle with a rival if there is a freak race where their competitor lucks into a one-off good result.
|
This makes sense to me. I think it helps create less of a wall for rear of the field battles with respect to points. It might take a bit of the randomness out of the tail end of the field. However it can be exciting as a fan of one of those teams to see them score points while their rivals don't.
I am not a mathematician, but I was graphing out the current vs. potential system to understand the distribution. It's clearly not a linear distribution in that there is a clear bonus for 1st. It's still not linear after that (2nd, 3rd, and 4th seem to get a bump compared to 5th and back. As more points in total will be distributed per race (101 for current and 109 for future) you can say it devalues all of the points somewhat (1st garners 24.8% of points currently per race in the future would only garner 22.9%) but the delta is minor. I overall have no issue with this change and think it might be positive.
If you want to be cynical and want to punish someone like Max (or even Red Bull Racing), then remove such a bonus for 1st and make the distribution much more linear or even all the way back to 20th with a very flat slope! Imagine 1st getting 20 points, 2nd getting 19 points, 3rd 18 points, etc.
Richard