2003 points system Vs 2002 points system

[Adam43]

Originally posted by hakkiman
The new points system is achieving what it was introduced to do.

In that it is a cynical attempt to make things closer!

Michael desevers to be leading and IMO by just 2 points would be a fair reflection.

IMHO Ralf doesn't deserve the number of points he has. the old system would be fairer here too.

[krt917]

Spot on Adam

PS. I had a lok at this recently; does anyone know how many titles have been won by a driver who DID not win the most (or equal most) races?

[Red]

Not sure, but the most notorious was Keke Rosberg's WDC from 1982. 1 win. 6 podiums total. Thath's not exactly conclusive, since the 1982 was... I don't know ho to qualify it, but we all know that that WDC should go to Gilles. Or Didier. It didn't happen.

[Irv the Swerve]

I don't think it matters too much what the system is so long as everyone knows about it and can judge their races accordingly. For example, this year settling for second place in a race is almost bearable because the difference in points is not so great.

[Red]

Originally posted by Irv the Swerve
I don't think it matters too much what the system is so long as everyone knows about it and can judge their races accordingly.

Of course it doesn't. That's the rules? Ok then, that's the rules.

My deep and strong resent though is that actually the 10-6-4-3-2-1 points system came after 50 (or so) years of experience. THEN!!!!!! 10-8-6-etc point system came in a blink of an eye, and just because the "fans" demanded more "show". Geez. It is obvious that the current system does NOT promote show. It is obvious that the current point system does not respect the sport. (would it be too much to actually call it a "system"? It is not a system, it is just a... patch.... solving only ONLY one problem - ie Michael Schumacher could not win the championship last year by Magny Cours, but that's it)

[Mania]

I agree with Red on this one. Also, I think the winner should be rewarded for the victory by more than just two points...there should at least be a 4 point difference.

One way to look at the new point system is to concede that Michael and Ferrari are unbeatable unless you change and manipulate the rules!

[Red]

Originally posted by Mania
One way to look at the new point system is to concede that Michael and Ferrari are unbeatable unless you change and manipulate the rules!

YES!!! You just hit the nail on the head!!!!!! (that's the reason why I don't actually go ballistic on that issue.... ) Cheers Mania

[Schummy]

10-6-4... system didn't resulted by 50 years of experience. First there was 8-6-4... and 1 point for pole (or fastest lap). Then they added that point to the winner and thus we had the 9-6-4... system, that was the most "classic" F1 system. In the middle of 80s, FIA's infamous president Ballestre promoted the 10-6-4... system that brought some critics from purists. But 10-6-4... was not a "consensus" type of evolution for F1 scoring system.

I don't like 10-8-6... , but I dodn't dislike it, I just would prefer 11-8-6... FIM bikes uses a similar system to current F1's and it works pretty well there. As I am not much F1-centered, I tends to like others point systems as well.

About team points, indeed I think the old 10-6-4... system was not appropiate, because it just promotes ONE car. If you win, your team cannot lost whatever ridiculous race your teammate does. In fact almost always team winner is the same of car winner. So much for a "team" effort!

Even being current system not entirely appropiate, it is not so bad for team classification: 1st and 4th position scores the same as 2nd and 3rd. It is not really "scandalous", if we are going to count *teams* and not who has the best first driver. Actually I'd prefer a different point system for drivers and teams, because they are different purpose calssifications.

[Irv the Swerve]

A point for pole and a point for fastest lap seems like a good way to be - well not now that qually is a strategy based game as well as the race, but in the old days yes.

The more you think about everything to do with F1, the more you realise tht there are many things that could be changed to make the "show" better, not just the points system, also the tyres, the cars, the engines, the refuelling etc...

I agree with Schummy about the teams clssification being a different system to the drivers though, that makes sense because there are two point scorers for each entity in the championship. What about the constructors getting half of the points the their drivers get in the race. For example if Kimi wins in Monaco and DC comes 3rd, Mc would get 8 points in the constructors, whereas if Mick was 2nd and Rubens retired, the red lads would get 4. That way, retirements hit the team hard. I know there would be a bit of fluffing about with half points but thats becasue I haven't really though it through yet.

[Fish_Flake]

The new points system is too generous to those who do not win. If they're going to give points to the top eight, the winner should receive twelve.

[Snrub]

No points system will ever be truely just. Racing is often about luck rather than driver merit. I think that it's important to recognize the accomplishments of those further back and thus I like that points are now awarded further down. The old system was all or nothing. You won or you got squat. On the same token F1 usually doesn't have a close finish so strongly rewarding the guy who won might be more just than in other series.

NASCAR's is the worst point system. Positions hardly even matter, it practically just rewards for simply finishing.

[Red]

Originally posted by Schummy
10-6-4... system didn't resulted by 50 years of experience. First there [..]

That's precisely what I meant. They tried other systems, they didn't quite work. Perhaps 10-6-4 wasn't the best, but what's the point to try, again, so small gaps between wins and podiums when they already tried it and it didn't work?

[GP Racer]

One thing the new rules accomplish is it gives the lesser teams a chance to get into the points, thereby creating some better racing in the mid-field. A car thats in 9,10,or 11th place will push it pretty hard now to get to 8th and some points. At least you can get some "honorable" mention on TV and 10 seconds of fame if you can get to 8th or better.For whatever it means, teams like Minardi have to be loving this system, because I think Justin will get them some points this season, while the top teams I'm sure do not.

All things said, I think its worked out pretty well.

[krt917]

Originally posted by Irv the Swerve
The more you think about everything to do with F1, the more you realise tht there are many things that could be changed to make the "show" better, not just the points system, also the tyres, the cars, the engines, the refuelling etc...

Spot on!

Incidentally, there are - I think - 11 titles in the past that have been won by the driver who has NOT won the most (or equal most) races. Red got one - 1982, though I think that this was a particularly odd year with 11 drivers winning and noone had more than two victories (it also wasn't Keke's fault that Didier and Gilles had there accidents of course) - can anyone think of the other 10? There are 2 or 3 that really stand out...

...And NONE of them were under the old 10-6-4 points system, so I reckon that didn't work too badly!