POLL: What Is Your Favourite/Preferred F1 Points System?

[Liquid]

Simple enough. It's always a contentious subject so let's get some votes on the board. It could be the one you grew up with and are most familiar with, it could be one that you subsequently have enjoyed or it could be one which predates you but you'd like to see brought back.

Note: Dropped scores for counting towards championships is not part of this. This is strictly the points per race for the driver's championship. There was never a race where points counted double.

Discuss.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

There was never a race where points counted double.

So it's Fight Club, is it?

 

[Samus]

I have absolutely no problem with the current system. I was never keen on the 2003-2009 system because it didn't reward a win enough for me.

 

[Famine]

So it's Fight Club, is it?

Never heard of it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Never heard of it.

Well, I can't tell you anything about it.

 

[mustafur]

Each system worked well for it's respective time, Reliability has gotten better over the years so you need more positions that pay points or you would have a massive chunk of grid never scoring, or being in a position where 1 scoring race gives them a season advantage.

 

[Dotini]

I voted for the '61-'90 system, as it was the longest lived and you could compare drivers and constructors rather more easily. Eventually, for financial reasons, I suppose this had to give way to systems which paid points for the lesser positions. As reliability and quality improved down the grid(?), I suppose this was inevitable. The increased number of races as well as the increased points eventually made it impossible to compare points from one era to another.

 

[mustafur]

I voted for the '61-'90 system, as it was the longest lived and you could compare drivers and constructors rather more easily. Eventually, for financial reasons, I suppose this had to give way to systems which paid points for the lesser positions. As reliability and quality improved down the grid(?), I suppose this was inevitable. The increased number of races as well as the increased points eventually made it impossible to compare points from one era to another.

You could say that situation didn't change till 2003, as the 1991 change was just 1 extra point for 1st.

By this time, the Midfield was struggling to score as Reliability was getting much better, the 5th place team(Sauber) was only able to score 7 times with both cars in the entire season where as the next year the 5th place team(BAR) scored 10 times which was more then the 4th place team(Renault) the previous year.

 

[Roger the Horse]

Out of all of those, the current one; but I'd change it if I were in charge. Points would be awarded 120-60-40-30-24-20-17-15-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 so drivers who finish strongly receive a substantial boost points wise while those who finish further down the grid still have their efforts recognised. The constructors points would be based off of Famine's system, but using the same numbers (for this year 120-60-40-30-24-20-17-15-12-11-10) as those used in the driver's championship.

So far, this year's championships would look like this under my system:

Spoiler: Driver's championship

1. Rosberg 120+120+120+120=480
2. Hamilton 60+40+17+60=177
3. Raikkonen 0+60+24+40=124
4. Vettel 40+0+60+0=100
5. Ricciardo 30+30+30+10=100
6. Massa 24+15+20+24=83
7. Bottas 15+12+11+30=68
8. Kvyat 0+17+40+6=63
9. Grosjean 20+24+2+15=61
10. Verstappen 11+20+15+0=46
11. Magnussen 9+10+4+17=40
12. Perez 8+5+10+12=35
13. Sainz 12+0+12+9=33
14. Alonso 0+0+9+20=29
15. Hulkenberg 17+6+6+0=29
16. Button 7+0+8+11=26
17. Ericsson 0+9+5+7=21
18. Wehrlein 5+8+3+3=19
19. Nasr 6+7+1+5=19
20. Palmer 10+0+0+8=18
21. Vandoorne 0+11+0+0=11
22. Gutierrez 0+0+7+4=11
23. Haryanto 0+4+0+0=4

Spoiler: Constructor's championship

1. Mercedes 120+120+40+120=400
2. Red Bull 0+60+120+24=204
3. Williams 60+40+24+60=184
4. Torro Rosso 40+0+30+0=70
5. Renault 30+0+10+30=70
6. Force India 24+24+17+0=65
7. Sauber 0+30+12+20=62
8. Ferrari 0+0+60+0=60
9. McLaren 0+0+20+40=60
10. Haas 0+0+15+17=32
11. Manor 0+20+11+0=31

 

[Liquid]

What do people like about the current system? That it rewards 10 drivers or that the numbers are numerically big?

Personally, I just don't like NASCAR/V8 Supercar points with large, large, large numbers. It makes the numbers somehow less meaningless to me; too much of a good thing. The numbers should be lower to make scoring them seem worthwhile and like an achievment.

For a compromise I'd be interested to see 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 down to 10th. I know there will be people who will hate that because the gaps between positions aren't significant enough to make gunning for position worthwhile.

As for which one I voted for, I went with 10-6-4 because that's the one I grew up with and knew first. I'd be more than happy to see that back.

I do like a point for fastest lap as well.

 

[mustafur]

The numbers are irrelevant for me, the amount of positions are what matters.

The old point system was outdated when they fixed the development of the V8s so the cars became soo reliable it made scoring point's harder then in the older system for cars at the back.

For me if anything I think they should use the Moto GP Point system, atleast this way everyone has the ability to get point's but the points you get are not excessive numerically.

Then the backmarkers have something to fight for instead of exist on the circuit for a race distance hoping for a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

 

[Roger the Horse]

What do people like about the current system?

It rewards more drivers and offers more of a reward for finishing 1st over 2nd than the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system did. Could you imagine running with 10-6-4-3-2-1 today, with most of the cars finishing most of the races? The midfield could easily wind up being decided by a fluke 7th place finish rather than someone consistently scoring points with 9th and 10th placed finishes. In modern F1, if only the top six places scored, it's hard to deny that the vast, vast majority of the points would go to Mercedes, Ferrari, Williams, and Red Bull. Everyone else would be demoted to alsorans.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

What do people like about the current system? That it rewards 10 drivers or that the numbers are numerically big?

That it offers tangible progress for smaller teams. If the sport had any of the pre-2010 systems in place when Virgin, HRT and Caterham joined the grid, it would have been impossible for them to score points. As it stands, they never actually did aside from Bianchi in Monaco, but awarding points down to tenth made it seem possible that they could.

 

[Roger the Horse]

Case in point, under the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system the past 4 season's constructor's championships would have looked like this:

Spoiler: 2015

1. Mercedes 254
2. Ferrari 120
3. Williams 54
4. Red Bull 36
5. Force India 14
6. Toro Rosso 6
7. Lotus 4
8. Sauber 3
9. McLaren 3
10. Marussia 0

Mercedes score more points than the rest of the field combined. Lotus's only points come from Grosjean's podium in Belgium.

Spoiler: 2014

1. Mercedes 249 (259)
2. Red Bull 99 (102)
3. Williams 62 (72)
4. Ferrari 36
5. McLaren 31 (33)
6. Force India 16 (17)
7. Toro Rosso 1
8. Lotus 0
9. Marussia 0
10. Sauber 0
11. Caterham 0

Spoiler: 2013

1. Red Bull 203
2. Mercedes 91
3. Ferrari 89
4. Lotus 85
5. McLaren 12
6. Sauber 7
   
7. Force India 6
8. Toro Rosso 1
9. Williams 0
10. Marussia 0
11. Caterham 0

And here, although a decent fight for second place emerges, poor McLaren. Just 12 points in a season where both their cars were classified in every race.

Spoiler: 2012

1. Red Bull 131
2. McLaren 118
   
3. Ferrari 112
4. Lotus 71
5. Sauber 28
6. Mercedes 23
7. Williams 13
8. Force India 12
9. Toro Rosso 0
10. Caterham 0
11. Marussia 0
12. Hormone Replacement Therapy 0

Several teams switch places here, namely McLaren/Ferrari, Sauber/Mercedes, and Force India/Williams. One wonders if Mercedes would have been keen to continue funding an F1 team producing results as "lacklustre" as these standings might suggest, however.

 

[twitcher]

I voted the current system because it gives hope to the lower place teams, which I think makes for good battles and storylines throughout the season. I also like the fact that the win is rewarded well. In that regard, I'm ok with the 10-6-4 system, but there's nothing in it for the smaller teams.

 

[Com Fox]

I voted for the 2003-2009 system. While 2010 and beyond does award for lesser teams which is a good thing, bigger teams are far less interesting to watch. Though I do like the old system of awarding points to the driver who pulled the fastest lap

Under the current point system only 1 season had the championship been decided at the final race. There is to much of a gap from 1st to 2nd Place IMO. You can just win the first 2 races and you already allowed to be on cruise mode for awhile. If there was a lesser gap it would keep every driver on their toes as if you were leader as you won a few races and then you messed up, so many drivers would catch up to you, so it would still be a battle for 1st but on a different scale as you would be fighting to keep your lead or pounce on the chance the leader messed up.

My ideal point system would be a standard 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 with an extra 1 point for Poll Position and Fastest lap.

 

[twitcher]

I voted for the 2003-2009 system. While 2010 and beyond does award for lesser teams which is a good thing, bigger teams are far less interesting to watch. Though I do like the old system of awarding points to the driver who pulled the fastest lap

Under the current point system only 1 season had the championship been decided at the final race. There is to much of a gap from 1st to 2nd Place IMO. You can just win the first 2 races and you already allowed to be on cruise mode for awhile. If there was a lesser gap it would keep every driver on their toes as if you were leader as you won a few races and then you messed up, so many drivers would catch up to you, so it would still be a battle for 1st but on a different scale as you would be fighting to keep your lead or pounce on the chance the leader messed up.

My ideal point system would be a standard 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 with an extra 1 point for Poll Position and Fastest lap.

Could it be that the reason so many of the recent seasons haven't been close in the final round is because there has so many times been a dominant team and driver? If there were 5 or 6 or more different drivers winning on a regular basis, I think you would really see the current system shine.

 

[Com Fox]

Could it be that the reason so many of the recent seasons haven't been close in the final round is because there has so many times been a dominant team and driver? If there were 5 or 6 or more different drivers winning on a regular basis, I think you would really see the current system shine.

This season, I would agree but for the previous seasons they would either be close right to the end or securing the championship be much more later on which would've made the Championship overall more appealing in the late game.

 

[Barra333]

I quite like the current system - the points gaps are big enough to rewards aggression, but the absolute numbers are small enough not to discourage it and risk a DNF. I think awarding points to roughly half of the grid is about right, as it give most teams something to fight for.
I don't like the idea of a fastest lap point, because all that would happen is that one of the drivers in a top (or even midfield) team who have had a crap race pit with 3 laps to go to get fresh rubber and do a couple of banzai laps on low fuel.

 

[RX-7_FD3S]

I liked the 1991-2002 system better, because it had a decent drop from 1st to 2nd (a victory should be more important than several 2nd-3rd places imo) and I like the low number of cars getting points. It made point something really worth to fight for and was much more rewarding for backrunner when they were getting in the points.

I dont dislike the current system I think it's fair too I just think that getting 10th is nothing special and shouldnt be rewarded by points. Maybe it's the older part in me that is talking.

 

[twitcher]

To carry on from the other thread

Points should be rewards, not participation ribbons. I'm content with points going down to 10th but it should not be extended further; the amount of points is another matter entirely.

Anyway, who's driving where next year again? I thought we had a dedicated "F1 points system" thread.

In that case, why not just get rid of points entirely, hand out trophies to the top 3 drivers, and call it a day?

Why do we need to hand out participation ribbons for 4th-10th?

Edit: or an even better system. “Reward” 1 point for first place, everyone else (the losers) get zero. At the end of the year, add up the points to decide a champion. Any ties would be broken by countback, exact same as they are now.

Pretty silly no?

Points are a measurement device, not a reward.

 

[Liquid]

In that case, why not just get rid of points entirely, hand out trophies to the top 3 drivers, and call it a day?

My point was only that there should be a cut off point and that points shouldn't be awarded to all finishers. It's a mark of achievement, and a goal to work towards, to have finished above the cut off line and that line has changed over time according to reliability to account for the likelihood of ever scoring points; first it was the top five (1950-1959), then top six (1960-2002), then top eight (2003-2009) and now top ten (2010-present). Again, I only want to stress that there should be a cut off point somewhere and that points shouldn't go to all finishers. I'm not arguing whether "points are rewards or measurement devices" because frankly, I don't care. It's needless semantics.

What's the difference between cutting it off at three in your example and cutting it off at ten like they do now? Convention? Because that's what they do at the Olympics?

 

[twitcher]

My point was only that there should be a cut off point and that points shouldn't be awarded to all finishers. It's a mark of achievement, and a goal to work towards, to have finished above the cut off line and that line has changed over time according to reliability to account for the likelihood of ever scoring points; first it was the top five (1950-1959), then top six (1960-2002), then top eight (2003-2009) and now top ten (2010-present). Again, I only want to stress that there should be a cut off point somewhere and that points shouldn't go to all finishers. I'm not arguing whether "points are rewards or measurement devices" because frankly, I don't care. It's needless semantics.

What's the difference between cutting it off at three in your example and cutting it off at ten like they do now? Convention? Because that's what they do at the Olympics?

In this case, the semantics are important.

If we take your position that points are rewards, then I actually agree with you, there should be a cutoff, and we don’t need to be handing out rewards down to last place. However, if this is the route you wish to take, then I would argue that we’re currently handing out participation rewards for 4th through 10th. The only people who need rewards at be end of a race are the top 3, they get nice shiny trophies. Why just top 3? Somewhat because of convention, but also just because. I also proposed that we could reward just the winner, and all the losers go home with nothing.


However, if we take my point of view, that the points are simply a way of keeping track of results over a season, and are not a reward - then we can hand out points down to last place without this “your handing out participation ribbons to last place” counter arguement. You can still have higher finishing positions weighted more heavily in the scoring system, so there’s always motivation to finish in a higher spot.