A new point system for F1.........

[J.McClane]

Anyone else out there (probably the older F1 fans, like myself) think that F1 now is very borin'?

So why not a new point system to bring back a little more excitement?

Award 10 points to the winner of the race and 9 for 2nd, 8 for 3rd......and so on down to 10th place.
The lesser the gap between points the closer the title will be. Why should the winner get 4 more points that 2nd place man anyway?

And maybe even award points for qualifyin' too.

This way we might see championships go right till the last race rather then have them end just over halfway in.

[f1manoz]

There has to be a gap between 1-2-3 to award the driver for coming on the podium.

15-12-10 for 1-2-3 may be good......

[fordtc87]

Awarding only 1 point difference from first to second is boring. Then what is the point in winning? Soon you'll have a series like NASCAR where the second place car can score as many points as the winner. IMO I think that F1 has the best point system. It rewards the winners and the losers go home empty handed. Seems right to me!

[Valve Bounce]

If we want excitement, why not have a random selection where the for some races the winner gets maximum points while for others, the last car get's the maximum points. Just roll the dice to see whether it comes up odds or evens.

Valve

[racer69]

I'd say just leave it how it is. If you finish tenth (which is just about half way down the order) then you don't deserve points.

[DNQ]

I like the F1 system the way it is now, it's been like it for years, it works, it works well, and it makes a point mean something. Ferrari are the best by far...therefore they deserve the most points.

[kdr]

unfortunately the current system, with the current ferrari, mclaren, williams domination...means that able drivers are dropped as some midfield teams scramble around looking for a holy grail winning formula. points = money, publicity and justification for going racing to the board and to the shareholders.

meanwhile the others dump exciting young prospects in the hope that "oldtimers" can nurse a car into sixth place due to some accidents or retirements at the sharp end.

[Wrex]

Although I'm in favour of a change in the points system, the pro's & cons of it all are so complex a change is almost impossible.

As for the 10,9,8.... model suggested, let me give you an hypothetical to demonstrate the unfairness of this.

Williams/BMW come up with a car that is the superior of the Ferrari in 2003. Montoya leads Schumacher across the line in Melbourne, Sepang, Brazil, San Marino & Spain. IN the following race, Montoya (while leading again) blows an engine and Schumacher wins this one race.

Points
Current
Montoya 50 points
Schumacher 40 points

new points
Schumacher 55 points
Montoya 50 points

Montoya could lead Schumacher 1-2 across the line for the next five races and still be equal to Schumcher in the championship.

Schumacher 100 points
Montoya 100 points

Not exactly fair is it. 10 wins (1 failure) v 1 win.

[Jukebox]

Quite an imagination you have there......

[Wrex]

I did'nt say it was realistic

[Jukebox]

you do have a point there anyway what made me laugh is that the 'Williams/BMW come up with a car that is the superior of the Ferrari in 2003. Montoya leads Schumacher across the line in Melbourne, Sepang, Brazil, San Marino & Spain' thing....

I think the current points allocation structure are more than appropriate

[Kex]

Yeah they should keep the points system as it is.

[Mal]

I do belive the American idea of a point for Fastest Lap and a point for Pole is worth considering. Perhaps even the new CART system where qualifying is over two day and the fastest onm each day get a point and a guaranteed front row spot!

[Valve Bounce]

I accept the current system is the best method for a 22 to 24 car grid. WREX, I think Jukes would have been happier if you swapped the drivers around for your example.

Valve

[alchemy]

I think they should award points for having the best looking ‘Brolly Bird’……

[Spritle]

Consider this:

In 1999 when JPM won the CART Championship his numbers were:

(7) poles, (9) podiums, (7) wins, (2) 2nd, (1) 4th (3) no points

Dario Franchitti's numbers that season were:

(2) poles, (11) podiums, (3) wins, (4) 2nd, (4) 3rd, (4) no points

BUT both drivers ended up the season tied for points and JPM ONLY won by virtue of his greater number of wins.

If my math is correct Juan would have won the championship easily, (and rightly so IMHO), if CART had the F1 points system instead of one which rewards drivers points for everything except just showing up.

Don't get me wrong, I don't intend this as a knock on CART, which I thoroughly enjoy, but rather a knock on North American sports. In many schools, EVERYBODY is given a trophy and some programs will not even allow a winner or print standings of teams for fear of hurting the loser's feelings. RUBBISH!!

I realize kids sports and professional sport are miles apart but giving that many "rewards" of points in motorsport just takes away from the real goal of racing: TO WIN!

Keep the F1 points the way they are. They reward success and hard work and that's the way it should be. If Williams or McLaren field a better car in 2003 you will have Ferrari to thank for raising the bar. If the results gave the WDC to a slower, less successful vehicle, the bar would remain in the same place and that stagnation would hurt F1 a lot more than this "temporary" dominance of Ferrari.

[neilap]

I feel the top ten should be rewarded with points. The top three should be given the bulk of the points and separated the way it is now. I would like to see something like 15 12 10 8 6 5 4 3 2 1. This would almost ensure that all the teams would get something to fight for. If not for failures only three teams would ever score points in F1. In a perfect world this would be fine but since some teams have a budget of 20 billion dollars while others only have a "lowly" 50 million it’s not fair to the teams who can’t afford to win. It is this mentality has cost the F1 grid two teams in two years. Nothing would be taken away from the winners and the less fortunate would also have a reason to race. Who can honestly say that Minardi comes to races to score points? They compete only for the love of the sport. For this they have my respect and for this they too should be rewarded.

[Dani Filth]

for the Williams and McLaren to be "closer" in points .. the MotoGP(Superbike) system is good .. you need 5 wins to ensure a 1 race win difference ...

[JohnSSC]

Anyone who has seen what the NASCAR model can provide, i.e a season "champion" who managed to win only one or two races out of a 30-plus race schedule (Labonte, some years ago) can see the folly of that system.

F1 is fine as is. A point for pole may make things interesting and maybe 1 point each for 7th and 8th, but there should be a reward for winning the thing and those extra points between first and second are a good incentive.

The fact that over time one or another team dominates does not mean we should change the points system to accomodate those unwilling/unable to compete.

[Yoong Montoya]

The only thing I would change would be to award 9 points for a win instead of 10. Other than that, the scoring system is fine the way it is. If you don't finish 6th or higher you don't score points. Period.

[Lee Janotta]

I've not heard anything better than the current system, though I do see merrit in the idea of a small points bonus for qualifying.

Can anyone _please_ explain to me the system that was in place in 1988?

[The Other Chris]

the system in place up until 1991 actually consisted of 9 points for the winner and then 6,4,3,2,1 for the other 5. the big difference was that only your eleven highest scores counted, so if you had 12 point scoring finishes you would have to drop the lowest one.

[Lee Janotta]

Ah, so winning counted more than consistency? Hmm... Not so very weird, then... Thanks for the clarification.

[Wrex]

As I mentioned earlier, I favour a change.

I've never been a fan of artificially closing up a championship, awarding points for qualifying or fastest laps. Any change in the system should'nt greatly effect the calculation of past championships (maybe a few of the close ones) either. The driver/car which is consistantly the fastest should win. The current system meets this requirement.

However, looking down the order to the bottom half of the grid, we rarely see the real story. A driver with a one lucky race will fair better than another faster more consistant driver that just was'nt lucky in a freak race.

Unfortunately this year Mark Webber is the prime example. But had Mark not finished in Melbourne due to a failure, Yoong would be the man with the point and would be higher than Mark in the championship. Could anyone here find fairness in that?

My proposal - 20 15 11 8 6 5 4 3 2 1

The top 10 are rewarded (less than 50% of the starting grid). The benefits:

This wont change the outcome at the top (the last 5 championships would have had the same winner)

Will bring a fairer championship at the bottom (and to teams where the travel money can make or break them so they will be racing)

Will encourage teams to keep racing despite a setback.

More cars on track, more racing right through the grid & a fairer championship. Sounds right to me.

[Valve Bounce]

Actually, the way some of these suggestions have been developing, maybe this thread should be joined with the wish list one thread.

Valve