2010 Points System

[zed300]

Proposed 2010 F1 points system.. Confirmed

1st__25.100%...
2nd__20..80%
3rd__15...60%
4th__10...40%
5th__8.....32%
6th__6.....24%
7th__5.....20%
8th__3.....12%
9th__2......8%
10th_1......4%

Will the new system be an incentive to the middle order?
Will it make any difference? ?


2009 F1 points under the new 2010 system..... Actual 2009 F1 points


1 Jenson Button 230.5.................................. 1 Jenson Button 95

2 Sebastian Vettel 203...................................2 Sebastian Vettel 84

3 Rubens Barrichello 183.................................3 Rubens Barrichello 77

4 Mark Webber 175........................................4 Mark Webber 69.5

5 Lewis Hamilton 120.5.................................. 5 Lewis Hamilton 49

6 Kimi Raikkonen 119......................................6 Kimi Raikkonen 48

7 Jarno Trulli 78..........................................7 Nico Rosberg 34.5

8 Nico Rosberg 75.5.......................................8 Jarno Trulli 32.5

9 Timo Glock 63.5..........................................10 Timo Glock 24

10 Fernando Alonso 62...................................9 Fernando Alonso 26

11 Felipe Massa 48.......................................12 Felipe Massa 22

12 Heikki Kovalainen 46..................................11 Heikki Kovalainen 22

13 Nick Heidfeld 44.......................................... 13 Nick Heidfeld 19

13 Robert Kubica 44...................................... 14 Robert Kubica 17

15 Giancarlo Fisichella 26................................15 Giancarlo Fisichella 8

16 Sebastien Buemi 16....................................16 Sebastien Buemi 6

17 Adrian Sutil 13...........................................17 Adrian Sutil 5

18 Kamui Kobayashi 8......................................18 Kamui Kobayashi 3

19 Sebastien Bourdais 6.5.................................19 Sebastien Bourdais 2

20 Kazuki Nakajima 5..........................................20 Kazuki Nakajima 0

21 Nelson Piquet Jnr 1......................................20 Nelson Piquet Jnr 0

22 Jaime Alguersuari 0......................................20 Jaime Alguersuari 0

22 Luca Badoer 0............................................20 Luca Badoer 0 .

22 Romain Grosjean 0.......................................20 Romain Grosjean 0

22 Vitantonio Liuzzi 0........................................20 Vitantonio Liuzzi 0


If you apply it to last seasons results there are, some small changes to the final placings. Mostly affecting the middle order, so I guess there is some incentive.

Also it does give Nelson Piquet Jnr and Kazuki Nakajima some career points for the record books. Ha why not go all the way and give points for getting a drive .

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The new system of points is designed to take the expanded grid into consideration. If you look at it carefully, the ratio of points remains the same. In 2009, the second-placed driver received 80% of the winner's points. In 2010, the second-placed driver will still receive 80% of the winner's points.

And also, Nelson Piquet has career points. Nineteen of them, I believe. He came eighth in China 2008, seventh in France, sixth in Hungary, fourth in Japan and second in Germany.

 

[zed300]

The new system of points is designed to take the expanded grid into consideration. If you look at it carefully, the ratio of points remains the same. In 2009, the second-placed driver received 80% of the winner's points. In 2010, the second-placed driver will still receive 80% of the winner's points.

Yes the ratios are the same until you get to 5th, obviously the graduations become closer, as more placings are available. The 6th-7th graduation is only 4% but the previous and following placements are 8%.

And also, Nelson Piquet has career points. Nineteen of them, I believe. He came eighth in China 2008, seventh in France, sixth in Hungary, fourth in Japan and second in Germany.

You are correct, I forgot he was in 2008 season.

 

[The Outlaw]

Anyone know the latest on FIA's idea/decision to give points for pole position and fastest race lap?

I think giving points to the fastest race lap would really make things interesting, and add another interesting element to strategy and the race itself

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think it was Stefano Domenicalli who suggested it, not the FIA.

 

[Peter]

I don't know, it seems like too much points. I think that this is better:

1st-15 points
2nd-12 points
3rd-10 points
4th-8 points
5th-6 points
6th-5 points
7th-4 points
8th-3 points
9th-2 points
10th-1 point

Anyone else have an idea on a more suitable points system?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I think that this is better:

That completely devalues winning.

 

[Ardius]

Anyone know the latest on FIA's idea/decision to give points for pole position and fastest race lap?

I think giving points to the fastest race lap would really make things interesting, and add another interesting element to strategy and the race itself

I wouldn't like the idea of someone winning the championship by one point because they had more fastest laps, it would benefit the inconsistent but fast teams.
Just leave it as it is already, the winner is the one who is the most consistently at the front or near the front.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Anyone know the latest on FIA's idea/decision to give points for pole position and fastest race lap?

I think giving points to the fastest race lap would really make things interesting, and add another interesting element to strategy and the race itself

That would work if everyone had the same car and engine so it's fair for everybody but since that's not the case, he who has the best car will get most of these points. I know that this driver would also be more likely to win as well but it just seems like a step too far.

 

[Omnis]

Will fewer points be awarded if, for example, a GP is stopped?

 

[daan]

This will screw up the list of total career points and skew it completely in favour of new drivers and make it completely worthless. Before now, the total chance in points for a win was 2 (From 8, to 9, to 10), which didn't really make that much of a difference. Now it will have went form 8, to 25!

Last season alone would get Button up into 33rd place in the all-time points scorers list.

Will fewer points be awarded if, for example, a GP is stopped?

Yes. Half points if the race is stopped before 75% race distance has been completed.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The thing is that teams and manufacturers like points. They like being able to get to the end of the year and say "This is how well we did". If there are less points-scoring positions on offer, there are less opportunities to score points. And that means a greater chance of an end-of-year total of zero, or at least the bare minimum. Teams and manufacturers don't like that.

What if, for example, we have the 2009 points system in place. And Virgin are always just outside the points-scoring places. And no matter how hard they try, bad luck or inexperienced gets in their way, and they end the year on zero points. At the same time, you've got Toro Rosso, who utterly suck in a way that has not been seen since the days of pre-qualifying. They're twenty seconds off the pace on a good day, plagued by constant mechanical failures and idiocy from drivers and team personnel alike, and it's only with a gargantun effort that they manage to get one of their cars home. They, too, have zero points at the end of the year. So in this example, Virgin and Toro Rosso are light years apart ... but on paper, they're identical. At the end of the year - the bottom line, where it counts - neither team scored any points despite the huge performance gap. How could a team like Virgin then go ahead and say "Okay, we can justify staying in the sport"? They can't. It's more noticeable with manufacturers, but the point is that more points-scoring places means a greater spread across the field at the end of the year. And that means teams will have something to show for themselves, and will be more likely to stay in the sport.

 

[Pupik]

This will screw up the list of total career points and skew it completely in favour of new drivers and make it completely worthless. Before now, the total chance in points for a win was 2 (From 8, to 9, to 10), which didn't really make that much of a difference. Now it will have went form 8, to 25!

The die-hard F1 purist in me is really, absolutely, very much, bothered by all this, to be honest. But I shouldn't be surprised.

There's just no way to make comparisons between drivers from different years' with points any longer; you can argue that the old days of (8/9)-6-4-3-2-1(sometimes) made less "distinction" for winning, but keep in mind that only the best 75% of your results counted form a season, to prevent persistent 2nd-place finishes from claiming a title. All of that stopped in 1991, when the gap from 1st to 2nd was 10-6.

Points were also a big deal back when travel money for the top 10 teams was tied into the equation. Otherwise, they had to pay to ship their own cargo, after the first Concorde Agreement. That was enough to get rid of many bottom-grid teams at times (although some awards should go out to Osella and Minardi for playing the game for so long).

All of this is a tad ironic, since F1's entire pack from pole-to-backmarker is closer than ever before (to the point you rarely hear the word "backmarker" anymore...except for Luca Badoer's recent performances), so adjustments like this are not really necessary. I felt an adjustment 12-15 points for a win was about the only change needed, since the field is a little closer than ever before; if 8 cars can still get points.

Is there a link confirming any of this?

 

[daan]

EDIT: In response to Interludes post - But then you're totally devaluing points. If any Tom, Dick or Harry can turn up and get a point, what's the point? Points used to be gold dust for small team and had to be strived for. Minardi were over the moon when they got their first point, and that was for a 6th place finish.

The top 8 got points and that is fine. Points should be precious, not just given out like confetti.

Pupik: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/formula_one/8407119.stm

 

[Ardius]

All of this is a tad ironic, since F1's entire pack from pole-to-backmarker is closer than ever before (to the point you rarely hear the word "backmarker" anymore...except for Luca Badoer's recent performances), so adjustments like this are not really necessary. I felt an adjustment 12-15 points for a win was about the only change needed, since the field is a little closer than ever before; if 8 cars can still get points.

Is there a link confirming any of this?

Closer, yes, but also far more reliable. I'm in favour of the extended points system as long as we have such reliable cars. Look at Force India, they made significant improvements throughout 2008 and 2009 to get back on the pace, only being less than 2 seconds or even 1 second from the absolute pace at some races. But they didn't score points for ages, until they could absolutely dominate a race (Spa and Monza). This is because although they had the speed, the reliability of the cars in front is such that there are rarely retirements other than driver errors. So they could never take advantage of others misfortune and all their hard work had little results.

6 positions (and then 8 positions) worked before because there were far more retirements, it was more common to only see 10 finishers at almost all races, remember when the Williams-Renault package was praised for its impressive all-season reliability? The new teams have little hope with 8 points positions, at least with 10 they can get a little bit more lucky (but it will still be a huge mountain to climb).

I agree that we shouldn't be giving points to everyone just for taking part, because its nice for points to have value. But at the same time we have to consider how reliable the cars are as well as the speed and the difficulty of overtaking.

 

[The Outlaw]

That would work if everyone had the same car and engine so it's fair for everybody but since that's not the case, he who has the best car will get most of these points. I know that this driver would also be more likely to win as well but it just seems like a step too far.

It's not necessarily that simple though for a number of reasons (importance of looking after tire degradation/graining during the race...especially with the new narrower front tires, deciding/strategizing if the fast lap is even worth going after, fuel load, when in time you use the faster tire, traffic, if you can sacrifice on track time to pit for a fresh set of tires and go for a fast lap, etc.) all of which are things that would make the race much more interesting, at least IMO.

 

[Pupik]

Awarding every starting driver points is very NASCAR-like, and it diminishes the value of the points when awarded that way. I'm not trying to make a direct comparison between the two, but I've always felt their 175-170-165... method was nothing short of ridiculous, since it's likely what ruins the sport in certain ways — why race other competitors when you can claim 100 points for an 18th place — and impossible to calculate with any simplicity.

There's also the old 1939 European Championship rules for Grand Prix racing: The lowest scores win, although that was based on the fact that racing cars were far less reliable (which was really the reason for auto racing to begin with) and not everyone competed in every race. It's not perfect, but it makes more sense, given the way Grand Prix racing was conducted in the pre-Championship era.

Since the times have changed, maybe points scoring needs a change, too. But I do not understand why there is such a fuss by the mid-pack teams to overhaul it; mostly, they want to win, or at least, gain a lot of television exposure for their sponsors by winning or getting close to doing so. Battling for 8th place in points doesn't mean much for teams and drivers, for the most part.

 

[Ardius]

I agree that they should never award points to all participants, but I do think its time to extend the points now we are getting 26 cars, all of which will most likely be very reliable, or at least, only the new teams will have reliability problems.

The current rules still don't cause much unreliability, last year it was the BMW's and the Renault's going, and it wasn't very often.

 

[Only_in_f1]

I don't think the points will effect the championship that much. I think I read you'd have to go back 15+ years for it to change the actual champion.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't think the points will effect the championship that much. I think I read you'd have to go back 15+ years for it to change the actual champion.

Yeah, pretty much all of them remain the same. The most recent change would be 1999; Eddie Irvine would have won from Mika Hakkinen. But Irvine would have won under the system introduced for 2003 as well.

 

[zed300]

Ok, it seems that the new points system will have little or no effect on the championship results, but will it give the spectator/fan more excitement, or willingness to watch or travel to race? Bring in the numbers, which is surely the point of the change.

 

[daan]

Seems like the system will be tweaked slightly to award a bigger difference between 1st and 2nd.

Formula 1 has edged closer to a further overhaul of its points structure for the 2010 season after teams approved a new system that will offer greater rewards for winning, AUTOSPORT can reveal.

Just more than one month after the old 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system was replaced with a MotoGP-type format (25-20-15-10-8-6-5-3-2-1), sources have revealed a meeting of F1 think tank the Sporting Working Group in London on Friday approved a further overhaul to reward more for race wins.

Rather than there being a five points different between first and second, teams agreed to expand that difference to seven points - with further tweaks to the points taking place lower down the order.

The new points structure approved by the SWG is: 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1.

The matter still needs to be approved by next month's meeting of the Formula 1 Commission before the FIA World Motor Sport Council can put it into the 2010 regulations, but this is likely to be a formality with teams already having voted in favour of the changes.

More here

 

[Hun200kmh]

Yes I read that also. Apparently they scrapped it, but I still think a point for pole and a point for fastest lap would also work to make a few drivers go the distance to get them.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Regarding Points for Pole and Fastest lap. That's only a good idea if all the cars are equal. They are not so it would not work.

 

[The Outlaw]

Not true.

 

[yeti]

Regarding Points for Pole and Fastest lap. That's only a good idea if all the cars are equal. They are not so it would not work.

Can you explain this?!

C.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Equal cars mean equal chance of Pole and Fastest lap. Therefore it is okay in any motorsport where everyone has the same car therefore equal chance.

In F1 all the cars are different therefore it's just free points for whoever is lucky enough to have the best car. If this happens we would never hear the end of it from any driver who wasn't in the best car.

Obviously the drivers with the best cars will still win most of the races and get most of the points but they do at least have to earn them by completing the race.

 

[daan]

There were 10 different drivers who set a fastest lap in 2009. They can't all have been driving the best car...

www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/11/10190.html

 

[Ardius]

There were 10 different drivers who set a fastest lap in 2009. They can't all have been driving the best car...

www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/11/10190.html

The point is that they don't attempt to score fastest lap, as its a worthless statistic. But if you make it worth points, then the top teams will make more of an effort to score it, making it highly unlikely for the slower teams at that particular race to stand a chance.
Also, before the fastest lap was usually done mid-way through the race by someone on a really low fuel run, with decent tyres. Now it would be done near the end of the race by whoever has tyres left or a late pit stop.

I think really the problem is - what are you attempting to push with a fastest lap point? Making the drivers drive faster? Compete in laptimes during the race? They are already doing these things!
So, is the point a reward for being the fastest? Well, I would have thought the win or a points position is a reward for being the fastest, why hand down potential points to those that weren't consistent enough in the race to finish high up?

I don't think its a worthwhile addition to the points, it doesn't really add anything beyond that extra confusion for the general public. Neither does points for pole position.

 

[zed300]

If you take a look at when and who did the fastest laps last year, a varied list of drivers picked up the fastest laps close the finish, if not on the last lap. Webber had the fastest lap in Japanese GP on the last lap, 2 laps down finishing in 17th. Many drivers had their own fastest laps nearer the finish also.

It may be not worthwhile, but there is an award each year for the most fastest laps in a season.



http://www.formula1.com/results/season/2009/823/6699/fastest_laps.html