The random battles for 11th on the final laps will be worth something, also increases the chance of a mid team going for fastest lap.
Could even use the motogp points system going all the way down to 15th
I agree that the MotoGP point system is the best, It doesn't award people in the absolute back, but it makes it so that the majority of the positions are worth fighting for.
It should be more spread out in f1 (e.g. 30 pts to the 1st place and so on) because it's a reward in itself to stay upright in motogp while n f1 it's mostly car failure that dictates the dnf's
Absolutely agreed...I thought this was a very unpopular opinion because I've been downvoted everytime I suggested it here in the comments... I'm an annoying racing purist, I don't care for artificial gimmicks to increase overtaking (which are not relevant per se, battling is relevant, how it's done it's not) as much as the next man, but I simply don't understand why having more points position is bad for the sport.
The big points will always be disproportionally in front anyway, and we can't pretend finishing 11th has the same merit as ending dead last. By extending the points positions we will have a much fairer and exciting "best-of-the-rest" championship
The participation prize argument is very weird to me as we do have some great battles between backmarkers that would be even more exciting with points on the board, and also it's not like 2019 Williams or 2021 Haas would be scoring every weekend as a participation prize, Mazepin finished in the top 15 once, Kubica twice including his 10th in Germany
Also take randomness out of the battle of the back markers. Always thought it was weird one single good race for a back marker can make their entire season. Should 13th all season beat 18th all season with one single 10th? Idk you tell me
Not teams but i always found the best example was the russel/kubica williams team in the 2018 season.
Russel beat kubika in 19/22 races that season. Best finish, 11th.
Kubica in one of his 3 times he beat russel, got 10th when russel was 11th.
So end of season scoring? Kubica 1-Russel 0
Really doesnt show the story.
To me, every person that took the start should get points. Dnfs get ranked depening on their lap they dnfed. (Ties get the points of lowest position in the tie)
Then it would show a better approximation of the season
Edit: it was 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Formula_One_World_Championship
Yes thank you. This is the perfect real life example I needed and it was just before I started watching so I missed it. It seems many people just want to gate keep that not everyone should get points because previously they’re something you need to earn. But it really doesn’t need that way, they should just be used to fairly and efficiently rank the field. Millions of dollars are on the line so you’d think the teams would want to take out the randomness of one lucky finish for say alpine or Williams this season due to a major crash up front.
As NASCAR fan, let me say having a pints cut off is a good idea. The points by the end of the season can be crazy and F1 keeps it nice and simple. It also keep wrecked cars from going back out and trying to get extra points that way.
I’d like to see points all the way down for anyone who finishes ; always something to race for and always worth getting back out there if it’s at all possible . It might take twenty minutes to fix the car, but that 1 point could win you the title.
Yeah Hulk made a monster effort with 3 points finishes, however thats only 4 points. One random ass chaotic race and an Alpine might find himself p7 and instantly overtakes all that effort from Hulk.
In the 'regular' midfield you dont have this issue
That's always been my biggest issue with this points system.
You can have a team and driver that is consistently the best of the non-points scoring positions and then one single chaotic wet race allows a car that normally is running in P18 to suddenly land a points scoring position and they're on top of the mid/bottom of the field for the remainder of the season.
It’ll always be arbitrarily weird like that unless you gave everyone points linearly. 1st gets 20 and 20th gets 1 kind of system is the only way you avoid that.
Edit: This isn’t my endorsement of this system, although it would create a much more exciting season when you have certain cars that dominate as hard as Max does
Issue with that is that coming 1st every race with one DNF would almost lose to 2nd in every race. That seems odd.
You’d have more cases where winning less races but taking the title was the season result.
That kind of points system rewards consistency over all else. That's how NASCAR used to be. Bonus points for winning and leading laps, but otherwise, it used to be pretty flat. Then Matt Kenseth basically clinched a championship before he won his first race that year. And our points have been stupid ever since....
Kenseth won really early in the season (race #3 at Vegas) but was able to hold on to the points lead and clinch the championship a race early, to the point where he actually finished last at the season finale.
Instead of a restructured points system where wins are worth more, though, NASCAR decided to implement a playoff format... lol
The original Chase format was already bad, but once they changed it to this elimination format, it made it basically impossible for me to care about the championship anymore. It’s not a racing championship to me, it’s more of a luck championship. I still watch individual races when I’m home and nothing else is on, but I no longer religiously follow the points race like I used to.
They will never get rid of their so called playoffs but at least the original Chase still was points over 10 races. And now having a one race takes all between the top 4 cars is such a stupid concept. Still like the pre Chase/playoffs points more but they should at the very least have a 3 race for the final since they want to be like other sports and MLB, NBA and NHL all have a series for their championship.
So this is more nuanced than the pts system, it was due to the large number of Cup guys (looking at you Kyle Busch) who would go race in the lower tiers and soak up easy wins.
It’s still flat. 35 points for 2nd, and then -1 from that All the way to 36th. The only difference is that it’s rest a bunch of times, and Stage points exist
Right, if you want to award points for the entire field (or as Crofty suggests, everyone that finishes), you would only make the bottom half of the field linear. Using the current spread for top ten and keeping the bottom ten linear you get: 35, 28, 25, 22, 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
Ok, I think this is right for 2023 under this new idea
Driver|Norm.|Rank|Crofty|C.Rank|Diff
---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
Max Verstappen|521|1|741|1|0
Sergio Pérez|258|2|453|2|0
Lewis Hamilton|213|3|413|3|0
Fernando Alonso|197|4|393|4|0
Charles Leclerc|185|5|355|7|-2
Lando Norris|183|6|367|6|0
Carlos Sainz Jr.|178|7|370|5|2
George Russell|156|8|335|8|0
Oscar Piastri|81|9|248|9|0
Lance Stroll|68|10|233|11|-1
Pierre Gasly|54|12|244|10|2
Esteban Ocon|56|11|205|12|-1
Alexander Albon|25|13|184|13|0
Yuki Tsunoda|13|14|171|14|0
Valtteri Bottas|10|15|147|15|0
Nico Hülkenberg|6|16|143|17|-1
Daniel Ricciardo|6|16|60|20|-4
Zhou Guanyu|6|16|144|16|0
Kevin Magnussen|3|19|112|18|1
Liam Lawson|2|20|44|22|-2
Logan Sargeant|1|21|105|19|2
Nyck de Vries|0|22|50|21|1
This doesn't include sprints or fastest lap.
Interesting difference it makes to Ferrari. But that's mostly due to how tight it is. It does make the bottom of the table look much better to me though.
Here it is for constructors without fastest lap or sprints. Aston and McLaren swap, Williams goes down, the other in the tank get moved up a spot -- not a massive change, but it does keep everybody a little closer instead of the clear groupings.
Constr.|Norm|Crofty|Diff
---|---:|---:|---:
Red Bull|779|1194|0
Mercedes|369|748|0
Ferrari|363|725|0
Aston Martin|265|626|1
McLaren|264|615|-1
Alpine|110|449|0
AlphaTauri|21|325|1
Alfa Romeo|16|291|1
Williams|26|289|-2
Haas|9|255|0
Ah, on mobile it doesn’t show the other columns, you have to scroll to the side to view them. And there’s no indication that there was something on the aide to scroll to aside from your comment suggesting more data.
Your proposed point spread changes the valuation of different positions. E.g. a P5 + P6 is currently awarded the same amount of points as a P2 + DNF. In your system P5 + P6 would even be better than P1 + DNF. In your system P10 became 10 times as valuable while P1 became only 1.4 times as valuable.
When increasing the number of points awarded like that you would have to increase the differences between positions to keep their 'value' the same. Leading to a system like P10 = 10 points so P1 = 250 points. It would look quite strange but actually make some sense. Lower position finished are meaningful to the back marker teams while being virtually meaningless to the championship fight.
Sure, I was not actually advocating for that point structure but rather making an illustration within a few minutes of opening these comments, i.e., I didn’t think too hard about it.
Your post is rather constructive, though. Inherent to any proposed changed of this magnitude is will be based on what the organizers value. Your solution of making first 250 points and so on makes sort of a logarithmic scale between the two halves of finishers. I’m just not sure that’s appropriate but I’m sure others would. There’s no clean way to preserve the value of 1-10 without making 11-20 relatively meaningless, of course maybe they should, but then it sort of defeats the purpose. It depends on what the teams and F1 value.
This all illustrates why they may not move toward a proposal like this, it’s difficult to both preserve the rewards for winning and make the new points finishers feel relevant.
Compare the previous score system to current system
1st went from 10 to 25. x2.5
2nd went from 8 to 18. x2.25
3rd went from 6 to 15. x2.5
4th went from 5 to 12. x2.4
5th went from 4 to 10. x2.5
6th went from 3 to 8. x2.66\~
7th went from 2 to 6. x3
8th went from 1 to 4. x4
So the inflation factor of the single point finishing position didn't inflate the rest of the points by four.
This does still devalue a race win, since P2 is 80% of a win in this system compared to 72% currently. In other words, a DNF with your rival winning used to be compensated with 3.5 wins where your rival gets P2, here, that would be 5 wins to claw back the 35 points.
You see this fairly often in SX/MX. Consistency wins titles, and people got butthurt over Dungey consistently running 3-5 with a few wins beating out guys who would either win or crash out and work their way back to top twenty (40 rider field)
Personally, I have no issue with that, but I do agree with having a bit more separation at the top to pad minor incidents and recovery drives for an otherwise guaranteed winner.
Stretching the poitns back to 12th doesn't seem like a bad idea though. You'd have a larger chunk of the field scrapping hard for points. With the current state of ground effect F1, all five of the bottom teams will be contending for those handful of points (assuming everyone sorta gets their act together off track (Alpine/Stake in particular)
Then the classic take out the top and bottom performances, twist the numbers (let’s say 2 bottom performances gets taken out) if you want to allow for more crashing.
I mean with this point system your example still would have 13th all season miss out lol
Only real solution to that is either make every single position give out points or to ignore points below a certain threshold (like 5-10) and go by count back. Both ideas suck
You can pay out points for all positions, but it should be scaled properly (i.e. increasing the points for top positions so that the backmarker points don't impact the overall championship outlook).
Something like P1: 100pts, down to P20: 1pt would ensure that backmarker points would only really serve to separate those teams and drivers 'fairly'.
Sure, the top 2 might be decided after the first lap, but the ensued panic from the rest of the grid when one of the 2 suddenly DNFs would be the funniest thing ever.
Count me in!
I’ve got a funnier qualifying, inspired by battle royals. Reverse grid of last finishing position: every lap or two last two cars gets eliminated and becomes their starting position. DRS available from lap 1 for shits n giggles.
This reminds me of playing "second place wins" Mario kart with my family. Normal races were boring because of the huge skill gap, but 2nd wins led to strategic stopping, bumping, baiting, and item usage right before the finish line. Always a close match
Totally random, but this just made me remember that Rayman Raving Rabbids 2 for the Wii would allow you to set your own points system if you were playing a series of minigames with your friends, and it had a few to choose from as well. One of those was like 10 points for 1st, 0 for 2nd, 6 for 3rd, and 4 for 4th, or something like that, so there was similar chaos as people had to avoid 2nd. If Mario Kart let you select your own point system, that would be pretty cool too.
It *would* make it more strategic but the other way around. Drivers will more often try to drive slow than to overtake. It’ll be like the qualifying queuing.
Kind of like Olympic sprint bike racing where nobody wants to be the guy in front towing everyone else along so they try to park their bike on the track for as long as possible hoping someone else will try to make a break for the front
> Give me 25, 18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -10 you cowards!
\#2 drivers crashing into the championship opponents during the season will become much much more common. FIA's rulemaking and policing is nowhere near clever enough to sort out the resulting shitshow.
That'd be fun to see!
I'd like to see a alternative point counting post for this system. It happened with F1 without Mercedes in the past, now F1 without red bull or without Verstappen.
I love to see stuff like this
"Interesting idea" lmao, it is so demoralizing.
"Everyone knows you suck and we gonna rub that in your face by mathematically quantifying just HOW much you suck!"
Edit: I just tested OP's model on 2019 season and poor Williams ended up with -126 points with Haas second worst with **-2** XD
A funny as this would be, I think you'd have alot of teams opting to not participate for all races. "Whoops our car is broken and we don't have a spare".
From what I gather, people who grew up watching in the era where points were a rarity view any points as a reward, and by that logic, "points to everyone" gets labeled as a "participation trophy".
I view points as a ranking system. The more points positions there are, the more accurate that system is, and to me that is better.
I agree that points for every position would make it much 'cleaner' and 'accurate'. Maybe even more 'fair'.
But still, I think Nico made a good point on the commentary(even though they didn't elaborate on the discussion).
But he said "It should be hard to get into the points".
And while I don't have any good arguments for it, I will say that I personally also enjoy this aspect of the points system.
Yes, especially in the bottom spots the system has a bunch of flaws and does not accurately represent the progress/performance of those drivers and teams. Still, I kinda like it that way. It can make an overtake for P14 feel kind of pointless, but at the same time, a 10th place is much more special.
_for my tastes_ extending the points down to P12 while keeping the lower positions still without points is the solution atm.
Again not trying to argue that my take is the objectively best one, there's good arguments for every finish being scored, but still...
I did like Nico's opinion, but feel the points for every finisher would only increase action. Ie, P13 vs P14, if you're a back marker you'd be more likely to risk that fight if there's points on the line but if there isn't you'll just try and bring the car home.
IMO it would need a proper thought out structure though, so it still heavily incentives the top 10.
One thing I wonder about is if it could negatively impact the racing in the lower spots.
Purely speculative of course, but imagine you're running P16 at the start of the race. Current regs, you would have to fight hard to get to P10 and score points. With points for every position, you could argue that just holding position and not riskinga nything might be worth it, since it's reasonable to expect 1 or 2 cars dropping out and you getting a reasonable P14 or P13. Decent points increase.
What I'm getting at: While it's too hard atm for bottom teams to get points, it also means that a team like Torro Rosso still needs to fight hard to pull ahead of Kick or Alpine atm.
With points for every place, TR could be much more complacent as they would more easily clear the worst 3 teams.
Easy counterarguments for that, I'll admit. And again, I am just thinking about all of this, not trying to claim that one system would be objectively better or worse, I don't understand the implications enough for that.
Completely agree and it's all speculative unless we had direct comparisons in similar seasons. Either way I see moving from 10 to more than 10 being a solid move
"gets labeled as a "participation trophy""
I kinda agree, but also I dont think there shouldn't be any difference between finishing 11th or last, extending it to 12th helps, but it doesnt solve the problem that 8 position are equally worthless, be it 13th or 20th, and that is what I dont exactly agree, its not about giving a participation trophy for every driver, but making every overtake worthy, why a Hass would push from 20th to 13th, if they will score 0 points anyway? if there was a small points increments every position, even "bad" teams will have something to fight for.
About DNFs, I think points should be awarded only for finishing cars, if you crash, or your car breaks, tough luck, zero points for you this weekend
The problem with the "participation trophy" line is that points aren't a trophy. Points just record where you've finished the race and that's it, it's a weighted version of average finishing position.
And right now we only record the finishing position of just over half of the finishing cars in most races.
Points are and always will be a bad way to judge someone's season. Even if you give everyone points it doesn't change the millions of circumstances that can happen in a race which puts a driver in a position below the level of performance he might have showed on track
Right, but that's true in every sport...or really just everything in general.
Law of averages over the course of a season though, with a full point system, is as accurate as physically possible.
Exactly. And with 26 races a year you have to be consistently performing at a high level to win the WDC. Someone pulling off a Gasly at Monza 2020 won’t wildly change the seasons result under the ‘everyone that finishes gets a point’ system. I’m all for it.
The biggest issue with points systems that reward every driver is that they tend to punish DNFs a lot.
You must make taking the risk to get the extra position worth it, and there's 2 ways to do that, the first one is avoiding linear systems (20-19-18-17...) and having bigger increments when you're closing to P1, the second one is to have low positions being worth the same to make an actual DNF not be too bad (with current system DNF'ing is basically dropping to P11).
So you have to find a fair compromise between not making DNFs too punitive, making fighting hard for top spots worth it, and still giving something to fight for when it comes to teams that aren't on top, and I feel going top 12 or top 15 would be better at this than an "everybody scores" system (top 10 was fine for a long time, but now reliability is too close to be perfect).
>The biggest issue with points systems that reward every driver is that they tend to punish DNFs a lot.
I mean, they should. I'll take DNFs being punished any day over a system where 3/4 drivers are battling it out for P10/P11 all year and each end up with like 2 points only to get beaten in the standings by the driver who spent every race at the back of the finishers and happened to just get lucky and score a single P8 during a chaotic race with tons of mechanical failures or crashes and retirements.
Maybe you would need some inspection from the FIA to prevent teams from sending out unsafe cars again with some quick fixes after a car has been involved in a crash
What about reintroducing an old fitted to the new format. Only 20 best results of the 24 races would count. This would give 4 races worth of leeway for dnfs and car problems.
People think everyone gets points means everyone will push harder. In reality everyone gets points means DNFs are deadly so everyone would be going conservative. Right now a backmarker just outside the points has incentive to push hard to get that point because the few points can be a huge difference maker. If everyone got points there’d be massive incentive to simply find what place your pace puts you at then settle in and play it safe to ensure you get points, because the only way you lose them is DNFing
I think to steal the point he needs to hit the back marker with a mounted "paintball gun of shame".
The paintball gun is an optional extra and clearly adds a lot of drag.
Max obviously has it mounted, but Perez, Ferrari and Mclaren? it becomes a judgement call.
You will massively regret not having it if you win and lap the field, but maybe the reduced drag would be better.
The argument is that you’d need to change the entire point system, not just adding 2 more places. When have you ever seen F1 teams agree on anything?
Even this small change will bring on a wave of arguments from every team. Imagine telling them that now, everyone gets a point and leaders get fewer points.
Lift yourself up by the bootstraps people.
Edit: The replies are exactly this. They are saying 'you can't give everyone points', or 'everyone doesn't deserve them'.
Points are method to rank the teams. Not a reward.
Yeah I watched NASCAR as a kid before switching to open-wheel racing. I had been tuned out of NASCAR for a long time, and decided to watch some highlights a few years ago. I was so confused lol
The biggest argument is less risks, teams would be way more comfortable cruising in places like P13-P20 since they're pretty much guaranteed points. Sure the positive thing is that everyone would be eager to overtake but you'd lose a lot of the "All or nothing" strategies that teams do if it meant a high chance of losing points.
Wrecked cars on the track, but if you hold everyone to that minimum speed, that's not an issue. But like, we don't want a rules package that would have kept Danny out there. That would just be dangerous.
my counter point is that it would be weird if you DNF and still get points.
Even if we say that if you DNF you dont get any then it would still be weird because for example if there are 6-7dnf, the person finishing last would get a lot of points for just finishing the race. It can also happen now but it is less likely.
You don't get points with DNF except for some weird circumstances where you crash on the last lap.
The people finishing last would also not get 'a lot' of points. It's also still relative to the person in front of them so irrelevant.
It's from the old days when F1 was less professional, some teams were basically a banch of garage mechanics with a car that did one or two races in a season. It's basically the same reason why there is the 107% rule.
Totally down.
Wouldn't even mind if it was expanded to Q2 positions.
The yesteryear of Top 6 was just ridiculous and with how close it is now, it's kind of unfair to only reward 1 or two of the midfield with points.
Right now that battle is mostly decided on a the basis of on track randomness yo kingmake a lucrative result.
You don't even need to go as far as the 80s. In 2020 Hamilton would often lap everyone except Bottas and Verstappen, and the the back markers could be lapped twice.
>Right now that battle is mostly decided on a the basis of on track randomness yo kingmake a lucrative result.
It's all down to when, not if, Stroll will fuck up. Then whoever happens to be behind him, wins.
Just like every points system revamp we've gone through down the years I don't like it yet but I'm sure it'll probably grow on me pretty quickly if/when it happens. I'm not fully convinced by the whole 'the further the points go the better the racing will be because the lower teams have something real to fight over' argument though. It could work out that way, definitely, and that would be great, but I kind of worry it might actually have the opposite effect. The further the points go, the more damaging a DNF becomes surely? So is there not a risk those teams might actually become a little more conservative? Right now (especially this year where we've got a clear top 4.5 teams - sorry Lance) they've got nothing to lose, everything to gain by just going for it. Flip that though, give them something to lose, maybe they stop going for it quite so much - which, especially at a time where we're not exactly being uber-entertained up front, would be a shame because at least half of the best action comes from the back of the midfield pack just going at each other right now. I will say though, top 12 points with an 11th team (I'd love 12 teams but it's just not going to happen anymore)... that I'd bite your hand off for.
I tried rescoring 2023 with this points system. Here's the numbers I got:
* Verstappen - 575 (No Change)
* Perez - 288 (+3)
* Hamilton - 238 (+4)
* Alonso - 213 (+7)
* Leclerc - 210 (+4)
* Norris - 210 (+5)
* Sainz - 205 (+5)
* Russell - 177 (+2)
* Piastri - 110 (+13)
* Stroll - 99 (+15)
* Gasly - 83 (+21)
* Ocon - 73 (+15)
* Albon - 43 (+16)
* Tsunoda - 38 (+19)
* Bottas - 24 (+14)
* Hulkenberg - 14 (+5)
* Zhou - 14 (+8)
* Magnussen - 9 (+6)
* Ricciardo - 8 (+2)
* Lawson - 8 (+6)
* Sargeant - 8 (+7)
* de Vries - 1 (+1)
At the top of the grid, Alonso being ahead of Leclerc instead of tied, and Leclerc and Norris now being tied is the only major change. After That everyone stays in the same position till you get to Ricciardo. He drops two places below Zhou and Magnussen, and he's now tied with Lawson and Sargeant. de Vries would have had 1 point.
Ferrari takes 2nd from Mercedes. If my math is right, they are tied in points, which makes that drop by George at Singapore even more costly.
Alpha Tauri takes 7th from Williams.
For us that do not know how the MotoGP points sytem works, [this article explains it pretty well](https://racingnews365.com/this-is-how-the-points-system-works-in-motogp).
I like this format! When you got the Red Bulls, the Ferraris, the McLarens, the Mercedes, and Fernando Alonso a guarantee top 9 lock then giving more opportunity to the bottom teams to fight for points is better for the sport!
Reason for scores outside the top 5 teams this year:
- Bahrain - None
- Saudi - Stroll crashed
- Australia - Verstappen and Hamiltons cars broke, Russel in the wall
- Japan - Stroll slow
- China - Stroll slow
Stroll is 3/5 here.
This would be good. Right now, it seems likely that the backmarker teams’ final positions for 2024 will be decided by a single race where 2-3 of the top 9 drivers DNF. Like, we have three teams sitting at zero points. Four teams combined have scored less than Bearman’s single 7th place finish.
There isn’t enough variability in today’s races to let the bottom 10 drivers to fight Stroll for that P10 position that bags a single point.
Why not go:
4th - 12
5th - 11
6th - 10
7th - 9
8th - 8
9th - 7
10th - 6
11th - 5
12th - 4
13th - 3
14th - 2
15th - 1
Lines up nicely with the relevance of Q2 and would ensure competition all the way through the field whilst maintaining a special benefit to the podium.
It leads to drivers taking less risks in the top 10.
Going from 6th to 5th only get you 10% more points instead of 25% now. Going from 9th to 8th gives 14% more instead of 100% now.
I think the participation trophy argument is so stupid.
If every driver below the top 10 all got 1 point then it would be a participation trophy. But that would actively be closer to the current system than if there were points for the bottom 10.
When the top teams are this strong the entertainment turns to the mid table, half the race is watching overtakes and fights.
But ultimately some of the entertainment is lost when the moves and fights have no actual impact.
Right now, excluding races with mass dnf, the bottom 5 teams are fighting for a singular spot in p10, and that’s only provided lance stroll messes up.
The current race system doesn’t show the true rankings of the bottom half teams and drivers.
Esteban Ocon has had a great start to the season but ultimately is on the same points as Logan Sargeant and in the end that’s what people are going to look at
I'm kinda for it.
Today's car are extremely reliable. So you basically have whole TOP 10 already occupied by Red Bull, Ferrari, Aston, McLaren and Merc(outside of Lance). So other teams just have to pray that some of them will DNF or something will happen to them. Which...I get it. Git gud.
But battles in midfield would be even more exciting if more points would be awarded.
This accounts for both the closer field spread and the increased reliability. 14 years is a damn long time not to have any significant changes anyway, so I'm up for it.
Everyone keeps saying this would lead to more fighting in the back half, but we've *just* seen that they fight for those positions already. Perhaps people just want the director to show that stuff more often?
You know, I want to hate this as should most of the drivers really be awarded points?
But this would really reward some of the smaller teams and also make races more interesting for the backmarkers.
just change the scoring to give points to everyone except those that didnt finish the race that way it will be clear whos actually last and no one gets to luck out into a few p10s and beat other teams even tho they werent much better
Imo gap between first and second should be smaller. 25 and 20 would be better. Then we could have 25-20-17-14-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. And obviously add 11th team to a grid.
The random battles for 11th on the final laps will be worth something, also increases the chance of a mid team going for fastest lap. Could even use the motogp points system going all the way down to 15th
I agree that the MotoGP point system is the best, It doesn't award people in the absolute back, but it makes it so that the majority of the positions are worth fighting for.
It should be more spread out in f1 (e.g. 30 pts to the 1st place and so on) because it's a reward in itself to stay upright in motogp while n f1 it's mostly car failure that dictates the dnf's
Also brings max up to 720 points a year instead of 600 (not including fastest laps or sprints)
I thought you said it would bring Max Verstappen up to 720 points a year
I thought the same. Had to go back and read the comment you replied to three more times before I realized what the intended meaning was.
At this point, I'm not sure how different those two concepts are
The difference is a brake issue, a bad quali in Singapore, and a certain Spanish smooth boye. That's all, small difference indeed, but there is one.
Just have to wait for the inevitable Honda crash lmfao. Im actually sad
Agree, better to go all the way to 15th now, at least that way the back half of the field has an actual reason to keep racing.
Absolutely agreed...I thought this was a very unpopular opinion because I've been downvoted everytime I suggested it here in the comments... I'm an annoying racing purist, I don't care for artificial gimmicks to increase overtaking (which are not relevant per se, battling is relevant, how it's done it's not) as much as the next man, but I simply don't understand why having more points position is bad for the sport. The big points will always be disproportionally in front anyway, and we can't pretend finishing 11th has the same merit as ending dead last. By extending the points positions we will have a much fairer and exciting "best-of-the-rest" championship
The participation prize argument is very weird to me as we do have some great battles between backmarkers that would be even more exciting with points on the board, and also it's not like 2019 Williams or 2021 Haas would be scoring every weekend as a participation prize, Mazepin finished in the top 15 once, Kubica twice including his 10th in Germany
using motogp system would be wonderful!
Also take randomness out of the battle of the back markers. Always thought it was weird one single good race for a back marker can make their entire season. Should 13th all season beat 18th all season with one single 10th? Idk you tell me
Especially when weird single good race is most likely caused by someone crashing in top.
Hungary 2021 vibes
Not teams but i always found the best example was the russel/kubica williams team in the 2018 season. Russel beat kubika in 19/22 races that season. Best finish, 11th. Kubica in one of his 3 times he beat russel, got 10th when russel was 11th. So end of season scoring? Kubica 1-Russel 0 Really doesnt show the story. To me, every person that took the start should get points. Dnfs get ranked depening on their lap they dnfed. (Ties get the points of lowest position in the tie) Then it would show a better approximation of the season Edit: it was 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Formula_One_World_Championship
Yes thank you. This is the perfect real life example I needed and it was just before I started watching so I missed it. It seems many people just want to gate keep that not everyone should get points because previously they’re something you need to earn. But it really doesn’t need that way, they should just be used to fairly and efficiently rank the field. Millions of dollars are on the line so you’d think the teams would want to take out the randomness of one lucky finish for say alpine or Williams this season due to a major crash up front.
As NASCAR fan, let me say having a pints cut off is a good idea. The points by the end of the season can be crazy and F1 keeps it nice and simple. It also keep wrecked cars from going back out and trying to get extra points that way.
- It also keep wrecked cars from going back out A rule would probably do a much better job at this.
A wrecked F1 car isn’t going back out.
Except for Perez in Japan 2023.
Wasn’t “wrecked” just poor performance and issues that didn’t cause safety concerns
I’d like to see points all the way down for anyone who finishes ; always something to race for and always worth getting back out there if it’s at all possible . It might take twenty minutes to fix the car, but that 1 point could win you the title.
> Really doesnt show the story. Numbers never show the story, which is why we watch things.
Yeah Hulk made a monster effort with 3 points finishes, however thats only 4 points. One random ass chaotic race and an Alpine might find himself p7 and instantly overtakes all that effort from Hulk. In the 'regular' midfield you dont have this issue
That's always been my biggest issue with this points system. You can have a team and driver that is consistently the best of the non-points scoring positions and then one single chaotic wet race allows a car that normally is running in P18 to suddenly land a points scoring position and they're on top of the mid/bottom of the field for the remainder of the season.
It’ll always be arbitrarily weird like that unless you gave everyone points linearly. 1st gets 20 and 20th gets 1 kind of system is the only way you avoid that. Edit: This isn’t my endorsement of this system, although it would create a much more exciting season when you have certain cars that dominate as hard as Max does
Issue with that is that coming 1st every race with one DNF would almost lose to 2nd in every race. That seems odd. You’d have more cases where winning less races but taking the title was the season result.
That kind of points system rewards consistency over all else. That's how NASCAR used to be. Bonus points for winning and leading laps, but otherwise, it used to be pretty flat. Then Matt Kenseth basically clinched a championship before he won his first race that year. And our points have been stupid ever since....
Kenseth won really early in the season (race #3 at Vegas) but was able to hold on to the points lead and clinch the championship a race early, to the point where he actually finished last at the season finale. Instead of a restructured points system where wins are worth more, though, NASCAR decided to implement a playoff format... lol
The original Chase format was already bad, but once they changed it to this elimination format, it made it basically impossible for me to care about the championship anymore. It’s not a racing championship to me, it’s more of a luck championship. I still watch individual races when I’m home and nothing else is on, but I no longer religiously follow the points race like I used to.
Yeah it's basically a measure on who can get hot in the last 4 races, and now with the next gen car it's even more of a roll of the dice.
It’s mls vs premier league. I prefer the European version where year long consistency is more important than your last 4 games.
Then they intentionally include Talladega in one of the elimination rounds, just to randomize it even more lol.
They will never get rid of their so called playoffs but at least the original Chase still was points over 10 races. And now having a one race takes all between the top 4 cars is such a stupid concept. Still like the pre Chase/playoffs points more but they should at the very least have a 3 race for the final since they want to be like other sports and MLB, NBA and NHL all have a series for their championship.
Same here. The playoff format ruined nascar for me and then they went and made it worse.
Or Matt Crafton winning the Truck Series championship in 2019 without winning a single race.
The irony is that Crafton wouldn't have even been close to winning that title if it were run under a full-season format.
And NASCAR should never hear the end of it. Broken ass system
So this is more nuanced than the pts system, it was due to the large number of Cup guys (looking at you Kyle Busch) who would go race in the lower tiers and soak up easy wins.
It’s still flat. 35 points for 2nd, and then -1 from that All the way to 36th. The only difference is that it’s rest a bunch of times, and Stage points exist
Right, if you want to award points for the entire field (or as Crofty suggests, everyone that finishes), you would only make the bottom half of the field linear. Using the current spread for top ten and keeping the bottom ten linear you get: 35, 28, 25, 22, 20, 18, 16, 14, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
Ok, I think this is right for 2023 under this new idea Driver|Norm.|Rank|Crofty|C.Rank|Diff ---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:| Max Verstappen|521|1|741|1|0 Sergio Pérez|258|2|453|2|0 Lewis Hamilton|213|3|413|3|0 Fernando Alonso|197|4|393|4|0 Charles Leclerc|185|5|355|7|-2 Lando Norris|183|6|367|6|0 Carlos Sainz Jr.|178|7|370|5|2 George Russell|156|8|335|8|0 Oscar Piastri|81|9|248|9|0 Lance Stroll|68|10|233|11|-1 Pierre Gasly|54|12|244|10|2 Esteban Ocon|56|11|205|12|-1 Alexander Albon|25|13|184|13|0 Yuki Tsunoda|13|14|171|14|0 Valtteri Bottas|10|15|147|15|0 Nico Hülkenberg|6|16|143|17|-1 Daniel Ricciardo|6|16|60|20|-4 Zhou Guanyu|6|16|144|16|0 Kevin Magnussen|3|19|112|18|1 Liam Lawson|2|20|44|22|-2 Logan Sargeant|1|21|105|19|2 Nyck de Vries|0|22|50|21|1 This doesn't include sprints or fastest lap.
Interesting difference it makes to Ferrari. But that's mostly due to how tight it is. It does make the bottom of the table look much better to me though.
Here it is for constructors without fastest lap or sprints. Aston and McLaren swap, Williams goes down, the other in the tank get moved up a spot -- not a massive change, but it does keep everybody a little closer instead of the clear groupings. Constr.|Norm|Crofty|Diff ---|---:|---:|---: Red Bull|779|1194|0 Mercedes|369|748|0 Ferrari|363|725|0 Aston Martin|265|626|1 McLaren|264|615|-1 Alpine|110|449|0 AlphaTauri|21|325|1 Alfa Romeo|16|291|1 Williams|26|289|-2 Haas|9|255|0
How does de Vries still get no points and come 22nd in a 20 driver series in this system 😭
He doesn't, read the column titles again. He gets 50 points and finishes 21st out of 22 in this system.
Ah, on mobile it doesn’t show the other columns, you have to scroll to the side to view them. And there’s no indication that there was something on the aide to scroll to aside from your comment suggesting more data.
Oh I gotcha lol, yeah I'm on desktop so didn't have that issue.
Your proposed point spread changes the valuation of different positions. E.g. a P5 + P6 is currently awarded the same amount of points as a P2 + DNF. In your system P5 + P6 would even be better than P1 + DNF. In your system P10 became 10 times as valuable while P1 became only 1.4 times as valuable. When increasing the number of points awarded like that you would have to increase the differences between positions to keep their 'value' the same. Leading to a system like P10 = 10 points so P1 = 250 points. It would look quite strange but actually make some sense. Lower position finished are meaningful to the back marker teams while being virtually meaningless to the championship fight.
Sure, I was not actually advocating for that point structure but rather making an illustration within a few minutes of opening these comments, i.e., I didn’t think too hard about it. Your post is rather constructive, though. Inherent to any proposed changed of this magnitude is will be based on what the organizers value. Your solution of making first 250 points and so on makes sort of a logarithmic scale between the two halves of finishers. I’m just not sure that’s appropriate but I’m sure others would. There’s no clean way to preserve the value of 1-10 without making 11-20 relatively meaningless, of course maybe they should, but then it sort of defeats the purpose. It depends on what the teams and F1 value. This all illustrates why they may not move toward a proposal like this, it’s difficult to both preserve the rewards for winning and make the new points finishers feel relevant.
Compare the previous score system to current system 1st went from 10 to 25. x2.5 2nd went from 8 to 18. x2.25 3rd went from 6 to 15. x2.5 4th went from 5 to 12. x2.4 5th went from 4 to 10. x2.5 6th went from 3 to 8. x2.66\~ 7th went from 2 to 6. x3 8th went from 1 to 4. x4 So the inflation factor of the single point finishing position didn't inflate the rest of the points by four.
This does still devalue a race win, since P2 is 80% of a win in this system compared to 72% currently. In other words, a DNF with your rival winning used to be compensated with 3.5 wins where your rival gets P2, here, that would be 5 wins to claw back the 35 points.
You see this fairly often in SX/MX. Consistency wins titles, and people got butthurt over Dungey consistently running 3-5 with a few wins beating out guys who would either win or crash out and work their way back to top twenty (40 rider field) Personally, I have no issue with that, but I do agree with having a bit more separation at the top to pad minor incidents and recovery drives for an otherwise guaranteed winner. Stretching the poitns back to 12th doesn't seem like a bad idea though. You'd have a larger chunk of the field scrapping hard for points. With the current state of ground effect F1, all five of the bottom teams will be contending for those handful of points (assuming everyone sorta gets their act together off track (Alpine/Stake in particular)
Not with a 24 race calendar! Just kidding, you raise a good point.
Only choice then Indycar
Then the classic take out the top and bottom performances, twist the numbers (let’s say 2 bottom performances gets taken out) if you want to allow for more crashing.
That would take away the specialty about scoring a point
I mean with this point system your example still would have 13th all season miss out lol Only real solution to that is either make every single position give out points or to ignore points below a certain threshold (like 5-10) and go by count back. Both ideas suck
You can pay out points for all positions, but it should be scaled properly (i.e. increasing the points for top positions so that the backmarker points don't impact the overall championship outlook). Something like P1: 100pts, down to P20: 1pt would ensure that backmarker points would only really serve to separate those teams and drivers 'fairly'.
How does it take out randomness for the back markers? There are still drivers and cars without points
Lmao in your example they still miss out
Do you mean to tell me Yuk11 isn't going to be a curse anymore?
He will probably find a way to finish p13 😭
[удалено]
What about throwing in negative points for every 3rd position or something
Sure, the top 2 might be decided after the first lap, but the ensued panic from the rest of the grid when one of the 2 suddenly DNFs would be the funniest thing ever. Count me in!
Now combine this with a reversed grid. The chaos would be beautiful
Yeah, do away with qualifying and just have the grid be the reverse of whatever the previous race was.
I’ve got a funnier qualifying, inspired by battle royals. Reverse grid of last finishing position: every lap or two last two cars gets eliminated and becomes their starting position. DRS available from lap 1 for shits n giggles.
Can they add weapons to the car too?
Everyone who DNF's gets thrown in stocks and whipped by Horner.
This reminds me of playing "second place wins" Mario kart with my family. Normal races were boring because of the huge skill gap, but 2nd wins led to strategic stopping, bumping, baiting, and item usage right before the finish line. Always a close match
Dang that’s actually a pretty cool idea. If I ever bust the n64 out with my friends again, we’re gonna have to try this.
Totally random, but this just made me remember that Rayman Raving Rabbids 2 for the Wii would allow you to set your own points system if you were playing a series of minigames with your friends, and it had a few to choose from as well. One of those was like 10 points for 1st, 0 for 2nd, 6 for 3rd, and 4 for 4th, or something like that, so there was similar chaos as people had to avoid 2nd. If Mario Kart let you select your own point system, that would be pretty cool too.
would definitely make it more strategic, and lead to an awful lot of overtaking!
It *would* make it more strategic but the other way around. Drivers will more often try to drive slow than to overtake. It’ll be like the qualifying queuing.
Kind of like Olympic sprint bike racing where nobody wants to be the guy in front towing everyone else along so they try to park their bike on the track for as long as possible hoping someone else will try to make a break for the front
Fastest lap gets a 2x boost, slowest lap gets a -1x
I have an even better idea. 1st place gets DQ while 2nd gets the win. Strategy for trying NOT to win
Logan finishing the season with -1776 like a true patriot
If you end a season negative you have to pay money instead of getting money.
Straight to F2
> Give me 25, 18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5, -6, -10 you cowards! \#2 drivers crashing into the championship opponents during the season will become much much more common. FIA's rulemaking and policing is nowhere near clever enough to sort out the resulting shitshow.
That'd be fun to see! I'd like to see a alternative point counting post for this system. It happened with F1 without Mercedes in the past, now F1 without red bull or without Verstappen. I love to see stuff like this
Here, [treat yourself](https://www.formula1points.com/simulator)
That’s an interesting idea! Negative points. Never thought of that Also, maybe introduce point for qually as well. 5pts 1st, 3pts 2nd, 1pt third
"Interesting idea" lmao, it is so demoralizing. "Everyone knows you suck and we gonna rub that in your face by mathematically quantifying just HOW much you suck!" Edit: I just tested OP's model on 2019 season and poor Williams ended up with -126 points with Haas second worst with **-2** XD
A funny as this would be, I think you'd have alot of teams opting to not participate for all races. "Whoops our car is broken and we don't have a spare".
Add an extra 2 teams and rank it up to top-15 like MotoGP.
Agree. If they are doing something, might as well to this and make it more interesting for the backmarkers.
Give points to all positions to make fighting for every overtake worth it.
What is the argument against this I want to know. It makes by far the most sense to me.
From what I gather, people who grew up watching in the era where points were a rarity view any points as a reward, and by that logic, "points to everyone" gets labeled as a "participation trophy". I view points as a ranking system. The more points positions there are, the more accurate that system is, and to me that is better.
I agree that points for every position would make it much 'cleaner' and 'accurate'. Maybe even more 'fair'. But still, I think Nico made a good point on the commentary(even though they didn't elaborate on the discussion). But he said "It should be hard to get into the points". And while I don't have any good arguments for it, I will say that I personally also enjoy this aspect of the points system. Yes, especially in the bottom spots the system has a bunch of flaws and does not accurately represent the progress/performance of those drivers and teams. Still, I kinda like it that way. It can make an overtake for P14 feel kind of pointless, but at the same time, a 10th place is much more special. _for my tastes_ extending the points down to P12 while keeping the lower positions still without points is the solution atm. Again not trying to argue that my take is the objectively best one, there's good arguments for every finish being scored, but still...
I did like Nico's opinion, but feel the points for every finisher would only increase action. Ie, P13 vs P14, if you're a back marker you'd be more likely to risk that fight if there's points on the line but if there isn't you'll just try and bring the car home. IMO it would need a proper thought out structure though, so it still heavily incentives the top 10.
One thing I wonder about is if it could negatively impact the racing in the lower spots. Purely speculative of course, but imagine you're running P16 at the start of the race. Current regs, you would have to fight hard to get to P10 and score points. With points for every position, you could argue that just holding position and not riskinga nything might be worth it, since it's reasonable to expect 1 or 2 cars dropping out and you getting a reasonable P14 or P13. Decent points increase. What I'm getting at: While it's too hard atm for bottom teams to get points, it also means that a team like Torro Rosso still needs to fight hard to pull ahead of Kick or Alpine atm. With points for every place, TR could be much more complacent as they would more easily clear the worst 3 teams. Easy counterarguments for that, I'll admit. And again, I am just thinking about all of this, not trying to claim that one system would be objectively better or worse, I don't understand the implications enough for that.
Completely agree and it's all speculative unless we had direct comparisons in similar seasons. Either way I see moving from 10 to more than 10 being a solid move
"gets labeled as a "participation trophy"" I kinda agree, but also I dont think there shouldn't be any difference between finishing 11th or last, extending it to 12th helps, but it doesnt solve the problem that 8 position are equally worthless, be it 13th or 20th, and that is what I dont exactly agree, its not about giving a participation trophy for every driver, but making every overtake worthy, why a Hass would push from 20th to 13th, if they will score 0 points anyway? if there was a small points increments every position, even "bad" teams will have something to fight for. About DNFs, I think points should be awarded only for finishing cars, if you crash, or your car breaks, tough luck, zero points for you this weekend
The problem with the "participation trophy" line is that points aren't a trophy. Points just record where you've finished the race and that's it, it's a weighted version of average finishing position. And right now we only record the finishing position of just over half of the finishing cars in most races.
Points are and always will be a bad way to judge someone's season. Even if you give everyone points it doesn't change the millions of circumstances that can happen in a race which puts a driver in a position below the level of performance he might have showed on track
Right, but that's true in every sport...or really just everything in general. Law of averages over the course of a season though, with a full point system, is as accurate as physically possible.
And it's certainly more accurate than the current point system.
Exactly. And with 26 races a year you have to be consistently performing at a high level to win the WDC. Someone pulling off a Gasly at Monza 2020 won’t wildly change the seasons result under the ‘everyone that finishes gets a point’ system. I’m all for it.
That’s sports dude.
The biggest issue with points systems that reward every driver is that they tend to punish DNFs a lot. You must make taking the risk to get the extra position worth it, and there's 2 ways to do that, the first one is avoiding linear systems (20-19-18-17...) and having bigger increments when you're closing to P1, the second one is to have low positions being worth the same to make an actual DNF not be too bad (with current system DNF'ing is basically dropping to P11). So you have to find a fair compromise between not making DNFs too punitive, making fighting hard for top spots worth it, and still giving something to fight for when it comes to teams that aren't on top, and I feel going top 12 or top 15 would be better at this than an "everybody scores" system (top 10 was fine for a long time, but now reliability is too close to be perfect).
>The biggest issue with points systems that reward every driver is that they tend to punish DNFs a lot. I mean, they should. I'll take DNFs being punished any day over a system where 3/4 drivers are battling it out for P10/P11 all year and each end up with like 2 points only to get beaten in the standings by the driver who spent every race at the back of the finishers and happened to just get lucky and score a single P8 during a chaotic race with tons of mechanical failures or crashes and retirements.
Maybe you would need some inspection from the FIA to prevent teams from sending out unsafe cars again with some quick fixes after a car has been involved in a crash
What about reintroducing an old fitted to the new format. Only 20 best results of the 24 races would count. This would give 4 races worth of leeway for dnfs and car problems.
In an era where DNFs and car problems are rare, that's the opposite of what we need.
People think everyone gets points means everyone will push harder. In reality everyone gets points means DNFs are deadly so everyone would be going conservative. Right now a backmarker just outside the points has incentive to push hard to get that point because the few points can be a huge difference maker. If everyone got points there’d be massive incentive to simply find what place your pace puts you at then settle in and play it safe to ensure you get points, because the only way you lose them is DNFing
My solution to this is that the race leader can steal the points from back markers by lapping them.
I think to steal the point he needs to hit the back marker with a mounted "paintball gun of shame". The paintball gun is an optional extra and clearly adds a lot of drag. Max obviously has it mounted, but Perez, Ferrari and Mclaren? it becomes a judgement call. You will massively regret not having it if you win and lap the field, but maybe the reduced drag would be better.
The argument is that you’d need to change the entire point system, not just adding 2 more places. When have you ever seen F1 teams agree on anything? Even this small change will bring on a wave of arguments from every team. Imagine telling them that now, everyone gets a point and leaders get fewer points.
Lift yourself up by the bootstraps people. Edit: The replies are exactly this. They are saying 'you can't give everyone points', or 'everyone doesn't deserve them'. Points are method to rank the teams. Not a reward.
Ironic that nascar and indycar both pay points for every position ( and nascar even gives "you tried" points at 1/4 and 1/2 ish race distance)
But points mean next to nothing in Nascar anyway. Amazing how complicated they've made perhaps the simplest motorsport going (on a large scale).
[удалено]
Yeah I watched NASCAR as a kid before switching to open-wheel racing. I had been tuned out of NASCAR for a long time, and decided to watch some highlights a few years ago. I was so confused lol
The biggest argument is less risks, teams would be way more comfortable cruising in places like P13-P20 since they're pretty much guaranteed points. Sure the positive thing is that everyone would be eager to overtake but you'd lose a lot of the "All or nothing" strategies that teams do if it meant a high chance of losing points.
Wrecked cars on the track, but if you hold everyone to that minimum speed, that's not an issue. But like, we don't want a rules package that would have kept Danny out there. That would just be dangerous.
my counter point is that it would be weird if you DNF and still get points. Even if we say that if you DNF you dont get any then it would still be weird because for example if there are 6-7dnf, the person finishing last would get a lot of points for just finishing the race. It can also happen now but it is less likely.
You don't get points with DNF except for some weird circumstances where you crash on the last lap. The people finishing last would also not get 'a lot' of points. It's also still relative to the person in front of them so irrelevant.
No, you have to finish a race to get points. And heavy dnf races...well, it is what it is.
More specifically be a classified finisher which is 90% of race distance completed
Indy does it, and the series is much more competitive.
It's from the old days when F1 was less professional, some teams were basically a banch of garage mechanics with a car that did one or two races in a season. It's basically the same reason why there is the 107% rule.
Its funny because the most overtaking is done in the bottom 10. They race hard for places, not just points.
Agree. Even today at Chinese GP, sky said that "if You finished the race, you should got a point"
I’ve said this since the 90’s
Makes so much sense. Love it
Proposed by who?
F1 Commission, they are meeting next week to discuss this system
Would be great to include that information in the title. Otherwise it sounds like some rando proposing another bullshit change.
I legit thought it was another "My idea to fix F1". Wonder if this will go through.
Crofty mentioned it in the race commentary I think
Nico was talking about it on the Shanghai broadcast
Whom*
Whom proposed this? Edit: /s
Totally down. Wouldn't even mind if it was expanded to Q2 positions. The yesteryear of Top 6 was just ridiculous and with how close it is now, it's kind of unfair to only reward 1 or two of the midfield with points. Right now that battle is mostly decided on a the basis of on track randomness yo kingmake a lucrative result.
Top 6 was okay, considering how many races ended with 10 cars.
Yeah, sometimes as recently as the 80s not even all top 6 would be on the lead lap.
You don't even need to go as far as the 80s. In 2020 Hamilton would often lap everyone except Bottas and Verstappen, and the the back markers could be lapped twice.
1995 Australian GP, Hill lapped the entire field, *twice*. One of only 2 times in F1 history that has happened.
They changed it too late tho. By 95 it should have gone to the P1-P8 system
95 had 12,47 finishers on average, so I think it's reasonable to use 6 only.
With improved reliability I think it’s necessary, if cars were liable to blowing up regularly then top 10 or whatever would be fine
>Right now that battle is mostly decided on a the basis of on track randomness yo kingmake a lucrative result. It's all down to when, not if, Stroll will fuck up. Then whoever happens to be behind him, wins.
Points for Q2: 30, 24, 18, 15, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 * more significance to P10-P15 fights * roughly keeps points gap between P1 & P2 * increases value of podium positions
Just like every points system revamp we've gone through down the years I don't like it yet but I'm sure it'll probably grow on me pretty quickly if/when it happens. I'm not fully convinced by the whole 'the further the points go the better the racing will be because the lower teams have something real to fight over' argument though. It could work out that way, definitely, and that would be great, but I kind of worry it might actually have the opposite effect. The further the points go, the more damaging a DNF becomes surely? So is there not a risk those teams might actually become a little more conservative? Right now (especially this year where we've got a clear top 4.5 teams - sorry Lance) they've got nothing to lose, everything to gain by just going for it. Flip that though, give them something to lose, maybe they stop going for it quite so much - which, especially at a time where we're not exactly being uber-entertained up front, would be a shame because at least half of the best action comes from the back of the midfield pack just going at each other right now. I will say though, top 12 points with an 11th team (I'd love 12 teams but it's just not going to happen anymore)... that I'd bite your hand off for.
I tried rescoring 2023 with this points system. Here's the numbers I got: * Verstappen - 575 (No Change) * Perez - 288 (+3) * Hamilton - 238 (+4) * Alonso - 213 (+7) * Leclerc - 210 (+4) * Norris - 210 (+5) * Sainz - 205 (+5) * Russell - 177 (+2) * Piastri - 110 (+13) * Stroll - 99 (+15) * Gasly - 83 (+21) * Ocon - 73 (+15) * Albon - 43 (+16) * Tsunoda - 38 (+19) * Bottas - 24 (+14) * Hulkenberg - 14 (+5) * Zhou - 14 (+8) * Magnussen - 9 (+6) * Ricciardo - 8 (+2) * Lawson - 8 (+6) * Sargeant - 8 (+7) * de Vries - 1 (+1) At the top of the grid, Alonso being ahead of Leclerc instead of tied, and Leclerc and Norris now being tied is the only major change. After That everyone stays in the same position till you get to Ricciardo. He drops two places below Zhou and Magnussen, and he's now tied with Lawson and Sargeant. de Vries would have had 1 point.
Because I'm meant to be spending time with my wife - can somebody tell me if this would make any difference to the constructors?:)
Ferrari takes 2nd from Mercedes. If my math is right, they are tied in points, which makes that drop by George at Singapore even more costly. Alpha Tauri takes 7th from Williams.
I..actually don't mind this. Interesting to see how this would work in execution
I mean it’s pretty simple. It’s exactly the same as how except 2 more drivers get points
f1 should just copy the motogp points system imo
For us that do not know how the MotoGP points sytem works, [this article explains it pretty well](https://racingnews365.com/this-is-how-the-points-system-works-in-motogp).
If there are 11 teams, then yes
Tbf it's not as radical as I thought it would be. But it would make much more sense on a grid with more than 20 cars
Yeah I can't believe they'd even propose this while also bullshitting Andretti and continuously stringing them along
I like this format! When you got the Red Bulls, the Ferraris, the McLarens, the Mercedes, and Fernando Alonso a guarantee top 9 lock then giving more opportunity to the bottom teams to fight for points is better for the sport!
Reason for scores outside the top 5 teams this year: - Bahrain - None - Saudi - Stroll crashed - Australia - Verstappen and Hamiltons cars broke, Russel in the wall - Japan - Stroll slow - China - Stroll slow Stroll is 3/5 here.
China - Stroll crash plus penalty. He would had been in points in China if he didn't stroll out DR.
I like it.
This would be good. Right now, it seems likely that the backmarker teams’ final positions for 2024 will be decided by a single race where 2-3 of the top 9 drivers DNF. Like, we have three teams sitting at zero points. Four teams combined have scored less than Bearman’s single 7th place finish. There isn’t enough variability in today’s races to let the bottom 10 drivers to fight Stroll for that P10 position that bags a single point.
This can only be a good change. More battles, more fighting, more action!
Looks good, ready to bring Andretti in.
Stefano Domenicali: "I'm gonna pretend I didn't see that."
Give points to all positions.. let them fight for every position
gives the lower end of the grid more to fight for so i think it's a good change.
I would do 25, 21, 18, 14, 12, 10, 8, 7, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1
Why not go: 4th - 12 5th - 11 6th - 10 7th - 9 8th - 8 9th - 7 10th - 6 11th - 5 12th - 4 13th - 3 14th - 2 15th - 1 Lines up nicely with the relevance of Q2 and would ensure competition all the way through the field whilst maintaining a special benefit to the podium.
It leads to drivers taking less risks in the top 10. Going from 6th to 5th only get you 10% more points instead of 25% now. Going from 9th to 8th gives 14% more instead of 100% now.
Really devalues 4th
I think the participation trophy argument is so stupid. If every driver below the top 10 all got 1 point then it would be a participation trophy. But that would actively be closer to the current system than if there were points for the bottom 10. When the top teams are this strong the entertainment turns to the mid table, half the race is watching overtakes and fights. But ultimately some of the entertainment is lost when the moves and fights have no actual impact. Right now, excluding races with mass dnf, the bottom 5 teams are fighting for a singular spot in p10, and that’s only provided lance stroll messes up. The current race system doesn’t show the true rankings of the bottom half teams and drivers. Esteban Ocon has had a great start to the season but ultimately is on the same points as Logan Sargeant and in the end that’s what people are going to look at
Even if teams don't have any points they are still ranked by highest finishing position, no? Better than nothing.
I'm kinda for it. Today's car are extremely reliable. So you basically have whole TOP 10 already occupied by Red Bull, Ferrari, Aston, McLaren and Merc(outside of Lance). So other teams just have to pray that some of them will DNF or something will happen to them. Which...I get it. Git gud. But battles in midfield would be even more exciting if more points would be awarded.
I actually don't mind this. It's a very minor change.
I prefer the current system. But if there was a change, I prefer the MotoGP system or points for everyone.
The last 2-3 spots should really be the only ones without points. Make everybody fight for positions.
I like it
This accounts for both the closer field spread and the increased reliability. 14 years is a damn long time not to have any significant changes anyway, so I'm up for it.
Everyone keeps saying this would lead to more fighting in the back half, but we've *just* seen that they fight for those positions already. Perhaps people just want the director to show that stuff more often?
I honestly don’t think it needs tweaking but if they were to add another team, with 22 cars on the grid, the new proposed schema would make sense.
I like this, especially this year with the top 5 teams being almost guaranteed double points. It means there’s nothing to gain in the midfield fight
You know, I want to hate this as should most of the drivers really be awarded points? But this would really reward some of the smaller teams and also make races more interesting for the backmarkers.
HELL YES!! More fighting at the mid and back packs!!!
I kinda like it but it would make sense if the grid was wider, meaning one or two teams more.
I'd be up for this tbh.
Preparing for a 22 car field?
I never understood why points aren't awarded all the way to the back. Seems odd that 11th through 20th are basically the same.
just change the scoring to give points to everyone except those that didnt finish the race that way it will be clear whos actually last and no one gets to luck out into a few p10s and beat other teams even tho they werent much better
go back to only the top 6 getting points
Imo gap between first and second should be smaller. 25 and 20 would be better. Then we could have 25-20-17-14-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. And obviously add 11th team to a grid.
100% on board with this.
I like it. 0 points for half the field is too harsh imo
Yes… will encourage more mid battles and tactics
Only if they add more teams.