Hows this for a points system?

[Wrex]

Was just chatting with TimD and we got onto the points system.

He asked what it would be like without a championship, and that led to deciding the championship on victories only. Who ever wins the most races, wins the championship. If equal, it goes to second places and so on.

I dont think it would change that many championship results, and of those that would some would argue it would have been fairer.

I remember reading an article on Autosport about this, and at the time thought it was a stupid idea.

However, with more thought I like it.

Can you imagine the last laps we would have? Not just at the front either. Witness Webbers last minute lunge at Jenson in Germany. While it failed to get the point, it was a noble effort IMO.

Thoughts?

[paddywic]

Interesting,
you say if nobody wins, it goes to second spot results and so on, tricky.

It could be argues that the current system already does this, #

But, if williams won 3 races, the rest of the teams won 1 race or maybe two, are you saying that, even if williams scored less under the current system in terms of points to say Renault, Williams would still win by way of actual race wins??

[Asp]

The problem with such a system is that if there isn't a battle for a lead, we won't be able to watch any battles further down the field as many drivers will wonder if it's worth it - the reason that they chopped the points difference between 1 and 2 this year.
Yes, it may make a difference in the event of a tie/for those lower down the field; but people won't see it like that. It also could be more complicated when deciding the championship positions for lower teams/drivers - the countback system for every place below the top half dozen (or so). I'm getting a headache even thinking about it!

[Peter Mallett]

Surely its that anyway?

Race wins, second, third places etc. decide the winner in the event of a tie.

[climb]

This topic has been discussed when talking about the winning vs consistency dicotomy.
It would be very easy to argue that, for instance, Kimi has undisputably had a better season than Ralf, but according to the new proposal, Ralf would figure out as better, with two wins.
It'a neverending discussion that will never give a definitive virdict.

[climb]

...Furthermore, always looking at the 2003 season: WDC would have already been decided at Monza, which would have been not that good for the sport.

[Don Rennis]

Interesting !

I have thought for many a year that championships are an irrelevancy. Very often the tactics of a good (secure) championship position can spoil good racing.

Even more controversial, why do we need a world champion anyway?

[Bononi]

The new points system proved to be exciting, I don't think just winning will improve this aspect.

[Mr V]

Look at it this way though......Would Fisi be worthy of being above Webber or Button because he got one lucky win and they didn't?

[Bononi]

I think Inigo will say YES !!!!!

[Snrub]

Did Fisi deserve to be above Webber & Button? Yes. Did Jordan deserve to be above Jaguar and BAR? No. The luck was that the performance of the car ment far less than usual.

I really like that the points now go down to 8th. I think it's important to recognize outside of the top teams for more than being lucky in races of attrition.

[krt917]

Umm, this is an idea I've been thinking about for ages. I did a list of past F1 championships that would be changed (yes, I know that drivers and teams might have acted differently, at least in recent times) and I think it came to about 13. Some of them, like 1958 saw changes for the better, whilst others - most notably 1982 - were more debatable.

I certainly feel that wins need to be given far more reward than they are currently, though I'm not sure about having no points system at all. The guy who wins the most races should be the champion - it should not have taken Schuey until Suzuka to wrap up the title given that he won three times as many races as anyone else this season.

[ljakse]

No, I don't like it. We might easily end up with first ten races being interesting, and the rest, just cruises from start to finish. Once (last year) was enough of that for one's lifetime.

IMHO, there just need to be a bit bigger difference beetween 1st and 2nd, (maybe 12pts for 1st) and leave the rest as it is.

[krt917]

But you're assuming that drivers won't bother so much if the championship has been decided. With some drivers, Nelson Piquet springs to mind, that might be true, but I think most of them would race more because they wouldn't have to worry about championship points, positions etc.

Races should be important as they stand and not JUST as part of a 'bigger' picture.

[Redblurr]

Originally posted by Wrex
... Who ever wins the most races, wins the championship. If equal, it goes to second places and so on. ...Thoughts?

Originally posted by Redblurr
How about this for a new score system. No points for WDC only count wins. The second car's (only one can win)points go towards WCC.
Example: So if JB wins a race he is in the WCC title race with 1 win. Sato comes in 8th he gets 1 point - which goes towards Bar's WCC tally.

I posted this last night!

[Adam43]

and others have been saying it for years/decades.

Part of me likes it. Anything that makes a GP an event all on its own is OK by me. However I guess in ome ways points do make a fairer championship and allow for drivers/teams further down the grid to judge themselves (although you coul djust play the count back rule all the way?).

[Super Tourer]

The old argument the FIA used to wheel out re: changing the points was the 'heritage' of F1 and comparing past years.

Now that they have changed the system anyway, I think they could make more changes to reflect the GP weekend as a whole.

For example.

Points score 3-2-1 for the top three qualifiers in both qualifying sessions.

1 pt for fastest lap

1 pt for most laps led.

This would bring more varaibles into the weekend as a whole. Should we gamble light fuel for 3 pts for pole, against a heavier qualifying run but better race strategy, for example.

Do we need to count every score - or count the best 15 races, for example.

[Adam43]

this years championship on count back:

1. M Schumacher (6 wins)
2. Montoya (2 wins, 5 seconds)
3. Barichello (2 wins, 1 second, 4 thirds)
4. R Schumacher (2 wins, 1 second)
5. Raikkonen (1 win, 7 seconds)
6. Alonso (1 win, 1 second, 2 thirds)
7. DC (1 win, 1 second, 1 third)
8. Fisi (1 win)
9. Trulli (1 third, 1 4th)
10. Frentzen (1 third)
11. Button (2 4th)
12. Heidfeld (1 5th, 2 8th, 2 9th)
13. Panis (1 5th, 2 8th, 1 9th)
14. Gene (1 5th)
15. Webber (3 6th)
16. Da Matta (2 6th, 2 7th)
17. Villeneuve (2 6th)
18. Sato (1 6th)
19. Firman (1 8th, 1 10th)
20. Wilson (1 8th)
21. Verstappen (9th)
22. Kiesa (10th)
23. Baumgartner (11th)

I think...

[Dutton]

I am a mix here. Part of me says the no. of wins, followed by the count-back procedure, would be excellent. On the assumption this would be used to determine the entire order, it would get complicated but very interesting. In that respect, I would love it: but that breeds the issue of those not fully "into" the sport being turned-off/not taking a full part. This is an issue for the money men, but also the situation at large: do we really want that? One could argue a superiority-complex/elitist line...but is that a just manner to conduct existence?

It is this, combined with a feeling that there is "more than one way to skin a cat", which makes me wonder if it is really a great aproach. Wins should be awarded more place than they do now, the old 4-point gap was fair enough in my view, the current one too small, but then I am just one little person in this big and wide world.

I am at risk of rambling, so I will now try to abreviate things somewhat. The championship needs to award the two essential aspects of racing, in overall terms, in my opinion: those of SUPREMACY and CONSISTENCY. The latter is self-evident, and by the former I mean he/she - call me in 2050? - whom wins more than the rest. Both are, if not totally equal, then not far off. They who win notably more their rivals deserve decent payment for that feat, but yet one who is more consistently podium level/less at the bottom of the points deserves recognition for doing a fine job,

This year is a fine example. Kimi did an excellent job with the machinery he had, superb consistency. Michael's consistency was not great, by the rather high standards he has set for himself over other years, but did he deserve to be only 2 points ahead of KR come the end? It should've been pretty close, I won't argue that, but only by 2 pts? Is that fair?

I fear with that last paragraph people might get the wrong idea, that I am on some sort of crusade... I am not.

Okay, it has been a while since I started this post, and I ahve had a couple of beers or so in the past. Therefore, I hope that what I have typed is coherent enough (I apologise for things I left out, but now I am tired).


************

Edited for typos.