Ralf & Rubens must be very happy with... (10,6,4,3,2,1) merged

[Gerben24]

...the current points system. They would both drop 2 places with the old system where the top 6 drivers scored points with the winner getting 10! There has been a lot of speculation about new regulations. I haven't heard anything about the points system. Is that going to stay as it is? I like the system we have now, because 8 drivers score points. What I don't like is what we have this season, where Alonso has had a very good run at the beginning of the season and now it is very hard to catch him!

Current standing Standing with old points

FA 87 FA 79
KR 61 KR 54
MS 55 MS 37
JT 36 JT 23
JPM 34 JPM 22
RS 32 GF 20
RB 31 NH 18
GF 30 RS 15
NH 28 RB 14
MW 24 JB 11
JB 19 MW 10
DC 19 DC 7
FM 8 Monteiro 4
Monteiro 6 Alex Wurz 4
Alex Wurz 6 FM 3
JV 6 JV 3
NK 5 NK 3
CA 4 CA 2
PdlR 4 PdlR 2
CK 4 PF 1
PF 3 CK 0
AL 1 AL 0
TS 1 TS 0

I had to do this really quickly, there might have creeped in a mistake or 2, be gentle...

[BootsOntheSide]

Under the current system, Alonso's lead is 2 wins and a 3rd; under the old system 2 wins and a 3rd for Kimi would leave him 1 point behind. The issue I suppose is that under the old system a 25-point gap would be closed if Alonso finished 3rd in 1 race and 2nd in all the others, whereas we know that Kimi would need Alonso to aveargea less than 3rd, even if he and JPM get 1-2s in every race. The best answer under the current points system might be to have 12 points for a win, to increase the margin between 1st and 2nd.

It's intersting that under the old system JV and Massa would have the same amount of poins, despite Felipe being faster for msot of the season. I think that encapsulates the problem with only scoring the top 6 - the teams who aren't good enough to consistantly finish there can get their results skewed by a couple of freak races.

[Menelaos]

So, Alonso would be leading by 25 points, and in the 6 remaining races McLaren would be set if they could do 6 1-2s. That would give Raikkonen 6*6=36 points. Now 6 1-2s will give him 6*4=24 points. That's enough for me to dislike this point system, not because my favorite driver is Raikkonen, but because it's stupid having a system that kills the interest of the championship. If we had the old point system it would be far more interesting, so that's the one I'd prefer.

[Menelaos]

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

The best answer under the current points system might be to have 12 points for a win, to increase the margin between 1st and 2nd.

Yes, that's probably a good idea, the whole thing has to be fixed at the end of the year.

[Born Racer]

I agree that the top 8 should score points.

I also agree (this is critical in my view) that the difference in points between a win and second place should be increased.

[Knowlesy]

Why not give 12 points for the win, I've always thought.

Then you keep the gap between first and second place and the top eight can score at the same time.

[FPV GTHO]

I rather the 12 point system, going back to top 6 means that only half of the top teams ever score points

[N I Tram]

12-8 isn't strictly the same margin as 10-6 in practical terms, but it seems like a more logical balance than what we've got now. Points for the top 8 (or more) is ideal in my view, but a victory should be rewarded more. If we were to see final championship standings in whcih Alonso wins the title under 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 but would lose it under 10-6-4-3-2-1, I think that would produce the right winning team but the wrong winning driver.

Looking at the results in more detail, the lists are pretty similar, although the current ones seem to reward slow and steady drivers like Ralf and Rubens. The gap between Webber and Heidfeld under the old system is eye-opening as well.

[Born Racer]

As well as avoiding situations like Raikkonen nearly clinching the championship with 1 win to Schumacher's 6 (?), and Raikkonen's mammoth task to catch up Alonso in this year's championship due to such a small points differential between the top two places, there will be an extra incentive for drivers to challenge for the win.

Right now, in terms of the championship, Alonso would be fine with several 2nd places, but we want to see him scrapping for the top place really and encourage racing.

Do people also think then that if the gap between the top two positions is increased to 4 points (like it was on the old 10-6 system), that we should also have bigger differentials between the points for the remaining six points-scoring positions?

[Menelaos]

I believe it could be 15-10-7-5-4-3-2-1

[Kicking-back]

I like ten points for a win.

It's a good round score.

The ideal number, in fact.

[Knowlesy]

Yes, but who gives a damn about round numbers in reality?

One problem regarding the 12 points for a win system is the imbalance that could cause to the constructors championship. That's something I hadn't really thought about at first.

So perhaps you could do what they do in MotoGP and have just the highest finisher car from each team scoring points. So if mcLaren got a 1-2 for instance, the constructors points would come from the winning driver.

But the casual fans would get migraines...

[BootsOntheSide]

That's not such a big problem when each constructor is only entering two cars though. As it stands you get 14 points for finishing 2-3, which is significantly better than one car winning and the other breaking down/crashing/wearing its tyres out/leaving the pits illegally, and only slightly worse than a 1-4 (which gets 15 points).

[John Turner]

Yes, I like the fact that 8 drivers can now score but also agree with those who want to give a higher value to the winner. Boots suggestion of 12 points is a good one, although Menelaos suggestion is also a good alternative.

[DKGandBH]

I don't see the point in rewarding nearly 1/2 the field with points.

If there were 30 cars, then sure, give points to the top 8 (in whatever fashion you choose)
But with fields of only 20, the "thanks for comming" points should be dropped.
The drivers should have to work for points.

When it was the top 6, it was a real achievement for Minardi / Jordan type teams to score. Now, there is no real enjoyment from getting 1 or 2 points. People will still compare the new points to the old points.

When someone scores 3 points (or more), they are "real" points, and the scoring system should reflect this.

10 7 5 3 2 1

DKGandBH

[Jordi]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

Yes, but who gives a damn about round numbers in reality?

Exactly... we all know to add numbers up. 12 + 12 + 12 = 36

[Dutton]

I have to go with KB with regards the 10pts being good for win. I cna totally agree there is no strict necessity or logic to it, it just seems good IMHO.

i would be perfectly satisfied with 10-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.

[Knowlesy]

But then you have a 3 point gap, which is what we had pre-1991. And that system got some flak for not rewarding the winner enough!

10 points may be a visually satisfying number to some, but most can do basic maths and wouldn't be bothered with 12 points.

You'll be telling me we should be rounding up everyones championship totals to the nearest ten next!

[John Turner]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

You'll be telling me we should be rounding up everyones championship totals to the nearest ten next!

[lucypumablue]

How about points for pole and fastest lap???
I know that doesn't quite fit into the 'magic 10' policy, but I think a max of 12 (for all 3) as opposed to 8 for a 2nd could be a way round things?

[Knowlesy]

But then you could have the second place guy outscoring the race winner.

Pole and fastest lap points are a bit gimmicky really, IMO, although some series can make them work fairly well.

[Menelaos]

I don't like the idea either - sorry I personally just think that you must award the winner with 12pts, and make sure cars run with no fuel in qualies and then everything will be great

[Kicking-back]

Originally Posted by Menelaos

and make sure cars run with no fuel in qualies

They wouldn't be able to start the engine then....

[ralf fan]

I've always been a fan of having the 4 pt gap between the race winner and 2nd place man... yes 12 pts for a win wouldnt be a bad idea... i also like the current 8 points scoring positions system... 12,8,6.....
Points for pole and fastest lap would be a bit false espcially with the current qually system....

[Dutton]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

But then you have a 3 point gap, which is what we had pre-1991. And that system got some flak for not rewarding the winner enough!

..............

You'll be telling me we should be rounding up everyones championship totals to the nearest ten next!

Point One

I was just considering that a 3pt gap would be a compromise for the conflicting forces that actually control these things, since it is still smaller than what they perceived as the "problem" of a 4pt gap whilst being small enough (just one point change of one position) to not cause to many complaints and so on.

Point Two

LMAO. Aye, that is EXACTLY what I will be suggesting next. LOLOLOL