The new points system - a bit of fun

[cos]

So... if we were to apply the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 points sytem retrospectively:

Eddie Irvine would be the 1999 WDC (96 points to Hakk's 88)
Michael Schumacher would be the 1997 WDC (97 points to 89)
Damon Hill would be 1994 WDC (104 points to 96)

Discuss...

[Irv the Swerve]

I always meant to check that up, but never bothered!
Thanks cos!

[Adam43]

They would have driven differently due to the points system...

[x_dt]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
They would have driven differently due to the points system...

Thats for sure. Take the 1983 championship as an example. Under the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system Piquet would have still beaten Prost to the title. But if some other points system had been in use and Nelson had needed to win or finish 2nd in the Kyalami race to seal the title then he would have done just that.

[Bononi]

How many things would be different if we could come back in time...

[ElScOrChO]

Originally posted by cos
Michael Schumacher would be the 1997 WDC (97 points to 89)

Schummy's points were removed at the end of the season
for that stupid move on JV

[cos]

But by the final race of the season he would have been champ anyway, so he wouldn't have made the move...

[Bononi]

ern... and we enter in the twilight zone

[cos]

But just think... if the 'alternate' 94 happened, we could be here discussing how Hill blatantly took of MS at Adelaide to secure himself the title...

[avsfan733]

omg, a little random knowledge and we instantly have a pro/anti TGF thread

[R]

So in all three cases, it would have been the driver who really was only the second best of the season who would have taken the title... let's not hope that happens this year.

[Yoong Montoya]

Originally posted by R
So in all three cases, it would have been the driver who really was only the second best of the season who would have taken the title... let's not hope that happens this year.

Richard Burns in this year's World Rally Championship hasn't won a race this year, but leads the championship by 5 points from Carlos Sainz (1 win) and Marcus Gronholm (3 wins)

Nothing against Richard, he is a good driver, but honestly this sort of championship standing doesn't exactly argue for the current system does it? Why the hell did the FIA use the same system for both anyway? They should have just done it for F1, as F1 has better reliability, at least this year.

[DNQ]

Yeah, I really think we need the system altered to 12-8-6-4-3-2-1 just to favour the winner a little more.

[R]

Absolutely agree.

[climb]

But it would mean a comeback to the past!
Anyways there is not a objectively better system: I think the most clamourours "distorsion" was in 1988, when Prost lost to Senna despite having more points than the brazilian.

[krt917]

Originally posted by DNQ
Yeah, I really think we need the system altered to 12-8-6-4-3-2-1 just to favour the winner a little more.

Absolutey, though I might replace the word 'little' to 'lot'!

Originally posted by climb
I think the most clamourours "distorsion" was in 1988, when Prost lost to Senna despite having more points than the brazilian.

But Senna won more races which, as far as I'm concerned, is the most important thing (this would give Prost 5 - or 6 depending on 1982 which I haven't checked yet - titles so I'm not being anti-Prost when I say that).

As far as I can tell, there have been 11 titles won by a driver who did not win the most races, plus another where the champion had the same number of wins, but fewer second places than his rival. The last time was in '89 - the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system, though not perfect, had NOT allowed this to happen. The new system makes it much more likely.

[cos]

there have been 11 titles won by a driver who did not win the most races, plus another where the champion had the same number of wins, but fewer second places than his rival. The last time was in '89 - the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system, though not perfect, had NOT allowed this to happen. The new system makes it much more likely.

Richard Burns in this year's World Rally Championship hasn't won a race this year, but leads the championship...
...this sort of championship standing doesn't exactly argue for the current system does it?

Going back to rallying for the sake of comparison, in 2001 Burns won the title on the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system even though McRae, Makinen and Gronholm won at least as many races as he did.

[krt917]

That's a good point - with the old system that sort of thing was still possible, as the '01 WRC demonstrated. Personally, I'd have an even bigger gap between 1st and 2nd than 10-6, but I was just trying to demonstrate that the new system is even worse and makes this sort of thing even more likely!

[ralf fan]

I think the guy that finishes first should have a bigger advavtage than 2 pts on the guy finishing 2nd.
This year however if you see calculate the results with the old pts(10 6 4 3 2 1) system the gap is not much :
MS:57pts
JPM:51pts
KR:46pts
RS:38pts

[krt917]

Yes, this season has been more open for other reasons as well (like tyres). Mind you, I can't help but feel that a driver with four wins (in this case Michael) should have a bit of a bigger gap over two drivers with just two (JPM and RS) and one driver who only has one!

[climb]

I wouldn't carry this pro-race-wimmer reasoning to extremes.
After all, Prost in 1988 won anyways a good number of races, and consistency is a good quality itself.


This new system can be criticized, but kept the standigs very close all throughout the season, which is not that bad!

I mean that its philosophy is discutable indeed, but its consequences are rather positive.

[Schummy]

I'm going to put here a post I did in another forum about "wins-is-the-only-thing-that-matter" point systems.

---------------------------------------
Given all the points to the winner (i.e. giving WDC to the driver with most wins) is not a solution, however intuitive it can seem. If wins are spreaded among contenders that system can become meaningless.

For example, let's suppose we have 10 rounds and driver A has 3 wins, more than any other. Let's suppose driver B has 2 wins. Apparently A must win the WDC. But suppose B did 8 second positions and A did 7 lower positions. In this case, B outperformed A in 7 out of 10 races, and A won B in only 3 of 10. I find very unfair A claims the WDC in this scenario.

It is not a rare scenario, if you modify somehow those assumptions you can easily reach realistic situations where "winning-races-is-all" is not the way to follow.

Some people could argue another reason: it would destroy most of the interest in fighting for medium positions if it will not be rewarded in some significant way.

Anyway, all this is just I.M.H.O.
----------------------------------------------------

[Bononi]

Originally posted by climb
I wouldn't carry this pro-race-wimmer reasoning to extremes.
After all, Prost in 1988 won anyways a good number of races, and consistency is a good quality itself.


This new system can be criticized, but kept the standigs very close all throughout the season, which is not that bad!

I mean that its philosophy is discutable indeed, but its consequences are rather positive.

Niki Lauda's philosophy "To finish first, you first have to finish" has been take to extremes by his disciples Piquet and Prost...

[ElScOrChO]

Originally posted by cos
But by the final race of the season he would have been champ anyway, so he wouldn't have made the move...

True

[JFAUSSAN]

we can't all live in the past sure it's fun to think about it but i'm only looking forward to what will happen in the futur with all the new changes comming into effect !!