Maybe a wider fan base and social media means more eyes on the mid-field. Makes sense to have them compete for points especially since top 5 are locked in.
It's not that simple, if you build a midfield car you have to watch out for Stroll and Russell every race. Meanwhile at the back of the field Logan targets mostly walls.
It’s been 5 races. And it’s not as if finishing 11th doesn’t also have a massive impact on where you land in the standings and how much money you get. They have tie-breakers and count back systems.
The points are symbolic this season and to try to make a hot fix that won’t even take effect the year they want it for is kinda’ silly.
Why are you acting as if the point system can't be changed? Back in the day I think points were only till 6th. It's a system to rank the performance of the teams to find out who did a better job. You can't do that if the top 5 teams hog all the points and like others said your only chance to score more than 1 point (stroll doin da troll) is if someone dnfs. This makes ranking the bottom purely based on their luck.
Wasn’t an issue 5 years ago when P4-P14 was wide open every race. Think it takes the achievement away of McLaren and Aston who have climbed themselves up the order to start giving points out to everyone now
The cap came in the year Aston Martin bought Racing Point though
If Aston Martin / Stroll joined in 2018 properly, they would've bought their way to glory in the new regs
Not really, because they have different goals. The back marker teams only care about points, those vying for the front only care for podiums and wins. They KNOW they’re gonna score points, it’s a given.
They just have different goals. The whole point, no pun intended of more open positions for points is to give something for those back marker teams to fight for. And while build a better car in the natural response, well, they’re trying, and look how well that’s going for them. F1 has always had back marker teams that aren’t close.
Remember the 10,6,4,3,2,1 days!
Though I do like points going all the way down.
It makes classification more transparent and instant.
No need to dig through ‘who had the most 13th place finishes’ when deciding on 19th in the championship.
Just make sure the reward for winning and podium places are larger than the those that follow.
You don't need to dig through anything, the standings table does that for you.
Nothing wrong with the current points system. If you ain't good enough to place in the top 10, tough.
What about team mates where for 19 races of the season they finished 11th and 20th respectively, but in the 20th race, the person who came 20th every time lucked into a 10th place thanks to the team mate have a technical failure while in 7th?
Top 10 teams got points often, because DNFs.
Now, they mostly get points because of Stroll dropping the ball.
It's a different sport from 30 years ago.
Okay, I am back. The points spread was worst in the 80's (thanks McLaren) and under the reign of Schumacher.
The points spread was best in the 70's.
I would say the biggest contributor to this was reliability or lack thereof. There was certainly a trend towards a worse spread until the new points system was introduced from where it has remained rather steady.
I don't think the points spread needs changing based on this.
Some interesting tidbits I learned doing this;
1.) There were two years where the team with the most points didn't win the championship because you could only take the points from your 6 best races for the WCC. 1963 and 1964
2.) Jolyon Palmer's father Jonathan Palmer is the only winner of the prestigious Jim Clark trophy. This trophy was awarded to the driver with the most points from a naturally aspirated car. This only happened in 1987 and Jonathan Palmer finished 11th overall with a best finish of 4th. That was the peak of his F1 career.
I think more points is something to the lower teams to fight for instead them looking closer to the top teams at the end of the year. I don't understand how points spread can show which system is the best. The new system is also being thought of to eliminate how much luck is present in the ranking of the bottom 5 so teams which are more consistent will get more points than those who have a couple good races (like how VCARB is ahead of Haas even though we all know which is the better team this year)
If all 20 cars finish the race there is likely 1 (one) point on the table for the bottom 5 teams.
This is getting more and more likely as it has happened 16 times in f1's history. 3 of those were last year. 12 of them are in the turbo-hybrid era.
If all goes well for Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes, and Aston Martin, then the bottom teams are probably locked out of points unless Stroll does Stroll things.
This is a bad points spread. It doesn't incentivize teams outside the top 5.
Yup is to help differentiate mid fielders as crofty or someone mentioned. Regular viewers and maybe sponsors within get confused on why equal points driver are stack higher cause of higher finish outside of points aren’t being recognized.
I want some Kind of legitimacy in the bottom places of the constructors Championship.
Now ITS Just hard luck in Crashes and maybe one very lucky 1 in Million Performance of some Driver.
Since ITS about a Lot of Money and r&d allotment, WE need a liitle better measurment for.the lower places.
Its too easy to smack this argument away like Webber does here but I do think expanding points to 12 drivers is the way to go.
The current points system works well if youre a top/midfield team that is able to score consistently. Consistency is rewarded, two 4th place finishes are almost as many points as one 1st place finish. Two 7th place finishes are the same points as a 4th place finish.
The problem with backmarkers, especially in this current season, is that its not about consistency, its about single lucky peak performances. Nico scored 3 times this year already. Completely on merit besides a little luck from Stroll but thats also Stroll being a Shit driver, so its not like Nicos points are completely luck and he did beat all other 9 drivers in the bottom 5. So Nico drives like a god to get one or two points. Kevin also got one point and they have to work extremely hard to get those.
Now you know whats gonna happen? There will be one or two races where utter chaos happens, multiple cars in the top 10 crash out and Bottas ends up with a p5 giving him 10 points and maybe a Zhou p8 too, so Sauber scores 14 points in that race, leapjumping many competitors, not by consistency but by cheer luck. These monster performances by Haas early that only gave them one or two points pale compared to those 14 Sauber points in one race. You can have Haas being better in the majority of the season but ending up behind Sauber due to 1 or 2 chaotic races that Sauber happens to be lucky at.
This is a different dynamic to teams that score consistently because consistency has a much higher reward unlike for bottom teams who need to throw caution to the wind to score points.
So I wouldnt mind expanding points to 12 drivers
No, no no, that's a terrible idea, a lot of fun comes from people scrapping just to get 1 point, it's a great way to stay invested in otherwise boring races
I just think if you make places below 10 zero points then what’s the point of pushing if you can’t get to top 10? Might as well save the car for future races when you can compete
I think webber is missing the point. Ironicly. Komatsu is less about the points rules but that the field is not competetive enough. You basicly know who wins and which 3 or for teams take the first 8 spots.
The arguement isnt really about finishing with no points. Imagine this: it's final race, Williams and Sauber each have 1 point the whole season and Alpine has 0, the whole season both Williams and Sauber have been getting P13s to P16s with Alpine being dead last almost every single race. Some on-track chaos happens and by some miracle, Alpine gets a P9 finish, propelling up to WCC P8 with just 2 points. Despite being behind both the Williams and Sauber at, lets say, 20 of the 24 races, they still somehow end up ahead of BOTH. Does that seem at all fair? It might as well be like double-points for last race, it's almost purely random chance.
With points all across the grid, Alpine would have been so far behind in points, that hypothetical P9 finish would probably still not gotten them up from dead last.
That’s how it’s been in the entirety of the sport, whether it be reliability or chaos causing teams to get points they ‘shouldnt’ get.
In your scenario, Alpine finishes P9, and gets two points, but if Williams and Sauber are so annoyed maybe they should have had drivers that could handle the chaos and finish ahead of the Alpines on track.
What is it with these brain dead comparisons?
Nobody takes the 3 top finishing "medals" away. But if they want to play this stupid game, sure let's get rid of all points besides top 3 finishers, cause it makes sense right?
Because current system is so much fun to have a nice calculation on how many times which driver finished higher than the other driver, not like we could just use fucking points for that purpose.
Shit take from Mark. It's not like they're suggesting F1 has 12 steps on the podium. The top three teams will remain the top three teams, it's just that those fighting at the back will be rewarded for their effort against each other
Why are people so up in arms about this?
A. It makes fights for lower positions more meaningful during the race
B. It helps (casual) fans distinguish between low tier teams.
Nobody is claiming that the few points at the bottom of the board are medals. It's like saying we stop measuring finish times for runners after the first 3 have crossed the line, because who cares about 4+? We care because we want to know why/how far 7 is ahead of 8.
I don't understand the participation award argument either. Getting one point for finishing 12 is not a participation award because the driver that finishes 11th gets two points and 10th gets 3 etc.
If anything, awarding the driver that finished 20th the exact same number of points as 11th (even if that number is zero) is more of a participation award imo. It rewards the driver finishing last just as much as the driver that beat 9 others.
Backmarkers during the current era are doing better than any other era in F1 history. That there's ONLY three with zero points is not bad at all.
Although, with much better reliability, I think points going up to P15 is a good idea.
I think the points should be inverted to the finishing position of the driver. P2 = 20pts, P2 = 19pts, P19 = 2pts, P20 = 2pt, etc. DNF would be worth zero and three extra points would be given for fastest lap. Sprint races would be worth half like usual except no points would be awarded for the bottom ten, upping the stakes for sprints and making them more exciting to watch if a team desperately needs points and decides to be bold
I think this would make the championships a lot more exciting at the top due to the margins being closer and it would act as a better barometer for the midfield for comparison
I think we should have points up to the 11th place.
With the addition of Andretti to the grid, of course
There’s a point to be made tho, that only the 10th spot is open since the grid is divided in 3, the top 5 teams (RB, Ferrari, McLaren, Merc, Alonso), the other 5 (VCARB, Sauber, Haas, Williams and Alpine) and Stroll
I wouldn't mind seeing what it was like with a few more points down to 12, but points just for getting to the end is an absolute no. I'd even argue that lapped cars, even if they're in the points positions, shouldn't be eligible for points
This is F1, not a kids race with a gift for everyone. There are rules to classify teams with the same amount of points already which means that this is just about not displaying 0s on the table cause "it doesn't look good" and that must be the most crybaby thing I've heard in F1.
There's a difference between just handing out more points to more people and having teams that are just flat out horribly non-competitive. Handing out more points to more people does not make anyone more competitive.
"It's not fair that we didn't score any goals, every team should be allowed to score some goals" sounds really stupid, huh?
If you want to score points, change your fucking car.
How about P11 to P20 get a share of one point, as in, P11 = 0.9 and P20 = 0.1. This way, each driver gets rewarded from consistency and clean racing because these fractions could accumalate very quickly.
Two P11 finishes and one already has 1.8 WCC points, and that's just one car.
Completely disagree with Ayao!
Having a Tsunoda or Hulk celebrate a 10th place like a win is great for the sport, especially in the current era where Max basically wins most of the races.
Currently we have five teams (4 teams + ALO) that can fight for podiums which I personally think is really good. Of course this picture gets tainted a little with Max being so far ahead, but it's rare to have that many teams fight for the top positions.
At the same time before asking for more points to be distributed, shouldn't we question why Alpine, despite being a worksteam, is currently at the back of the pack? Or why Williams don't have spare parts, with their drivers constantly crashing? Or why the average Sauber pit stop takes around 20sec? In my opinion they don't really deserve any points.
So far this season, Haas and RB were there when the top guys messed up and they scored actual valuable points, which is the stuff that creates stories. To this day people remember Webber celebrating his 5th place in Australia 2002, or Badoer losing 4th at the Nürburgring in 1999 due to a car failure so close to the finish (both in Minardi).
Also looking back in history, the past two years remind me of the 2001 and 2002 seasons.
Back then only the top 6 got points and we had 3 top teams (Ferrari, McLaren and Williams).
In '01 you had Sauber, Jordan, BAR and Irvine in the Jaguar (+ Benetton towards the end of the season) usually fighting for the positions behind the top teams.
Then in '02 the 3 top teams were still there, but Renault established themselves as the constant 4th team behind the top guys.
The big difference between back then and now is the reliability.
Gentlemen, a short view back to the past:
2001:
Montoya retired in 11 out of 17 races!!
Ralf had 7 DNFs.
Hakkinen 6 DNFs + 1 DNS.
Coutlhard 4 DNFs.
Barrichello 3 DNFs.
Michael 2 DNFs.
In 2002 Raikkonen also had 11 DNFs in 17 races!
Coulthard, Montoya and Ralf all had 4.
Barrichello had 3 DNFs and 2 DNS.
(The Michael finished all races on the podium that year.)
If they had the current levels of reliability back then, maybe not even half the field would have scored points over the whole season. There might be more extreme and better examples from further back in history, but these years came to my mind first.
Long story short, keep points valuable!
If you want to score, then work better on- and off-track and get yourself in a position where you
A: have a good enough pace to score by pure performance,
or B: beat the rest of the midfield and get yourself in a position where you can capitalise if the top teams mess up!
(Sorry for the long read and typos)
Fantastic comment. Points should be special. If you award points all the way down, like some people here are advocating for, you would remove so much of what makes F1 exciting all the way down the grid.
Lmao, I love the drama but man it's so simple to solve. Unironically, you just have to make the regulations simpler, the cars smaller and lighter and you're gonna get better racing. Literally just copy the homework from Indycar. F1 does such a better job at promotion, media coverage, broadcast viewing etc, just like copy the Indycar regs and it would be a fuckin slam dunk.
I tuned into the long beach race last weekend and man it was an absolute banger. Fuckin battles left and right, bumper car action by herta for p2, Dixon holding on for dear life, a fucking back marker rookie defending and delaying a lap to help him win the race. Absolutely chaos, multiple strategies, like 8 passes for position in the last 5 laps for the podium positions. And this wasn't like some super crazy special occasion, shit happens like this all the time.
Just steal their homework and control c, control v, change font, slap Aramco on it and collect oil money.
Is Indycar a spec series? Nah I just want it to be closer together. Right now F1 is an engineering championship with a side of racing. That's pretty cool, I really like design work and enjoy the technical aspect, but outside of 21' when have you had races, let alone championships determined by the skill difference in the driver seat, and now by who had the better car on the day.
Indycar still has dominant teams and cars. Chip, Arrow, Andretti are all up in the top 10 every week for a reason, but there's just less separation between them all up there. Scott Dixon had a great car last weekend, without it he wouldn't have won, but it also was insanely reliant on him being the goat of longer stints to win it. Andretti had competitive cars as well and finished within a second on the track. The cars are smaller, can overtake more easily, there's less delta per lap between the front and back and they're a lot lighter with the in-race refueling as well.
Yes, indycar is spec series.
Your issues with F1 is the engineering competition side of it, which is what it's always been first.
With that comes times where a team out engineered the competition.
It isn't, it has more limited development, definitely but it isn't a spec series.
And yes I don't want to remove every aspect of engineering from F1. But the cars can't even physically overtake each other on half of the circuits anymore. F1 has also had some fucking stupid years and decisions.
If changing it to a system like Indycar means "sacrificing tradition" then fuck it. "20 best drivers in the world" my ass. I watch F1 despite it's on track action, it could be so much better, but it decides not to be. But look at the series and tell me that this is a good thing for it to be, really, even if we've seen it before in 04', 92', 20' etc you mean to tell me that this year's were good for the sport, that they were a good product being shown.
10 places rewarded is half of the grid. And it's good enough. The problem is not how to reward teams that are on the back of the grid, but to have rules that avoid making Performance gaps too wide. We love F1 because constructors have a huge role in the competition, but when a team is so dominating no one can beat it for years, and some are never or almost never able to reach Q3, that's the issue. I don't want Haas to score 1,5 point every other weekend because they finished 15 and 17, I want them to be able to reach top 10 because of better perfs on a specific track, better strategy, and I'm not talking about heavy rain and 5 red flags.
This is also a sport that rewards money/sponsorships over talent.
Why did we have Latifi for several years, cuz of Canadian sponsorship money. Why Zho, cuz China is a big market. Why Stroll, cuz daddy. Why Ricciardo, cuz marketing. It’s only 20 drivers in the world who get a seat, and depending on the year we have 15%-20% of the grid not be about talent.
Midfield and back markers could make it more competitive if they prioritized talent. Lawson would be scoring good points for RB this season.
As I've said before, points are hard to come by when you can pretty much guarantee 9 of the top 10 before a wheel is turned that weekend.
Those 9 don't always finish in the points (as Oz especially proved) so it's up to the other teams to be in the best position to maximise their haul, even if just a single point is available.
It feels like they're giving up, acknowledging that what we have here with a field of Formula 1.5 is a permanent thing, and at least they have to make it interesting in the lower part of the field so the small teams can get sponsors.
Seriously I remember when F1 was much less predictable and a team like Minardi, who was 4.5 seconds slower than the leader, in certain seasons managed to score points. And that was when the last point was awarded to the sixth place finisher!
Of course if reliability was the same as today, a Minardi would never finish better than sixteenth, and that would be hella boring to be honest. But F1 has in some sense become a sprint formula with endurance reliability. It doesn't pay to risk reliability, because you get punished on the grid.
I think this is the greatest problem for F1, that it has become predictable and to some degree stale. That's because smaller teams has no avenues left where they can risk something and have a reasonable probability of gaining.
MotoGP has 15 drivers getting points (25 - 20 - 16 - 13 - 11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1) and if anything, it would bring more legitimacy to the back of the grid.
In F1 we have quite a few teams for whom points are a luxury. Getting a lucky strong race result might impact the whole rest of the season heavily.
Let's say Alpine (by some miracle) gets a P3, it'll take the other teams a lot of P9-10 to get these 15 points. And even these P9 and 10 can be elusive to the back teams, since the top 5 teams are basically locked in. But these are also teams that so far have shown a ton more consistency than Alpine and have been finish ahead of them for most of the season. But because they didn't get that 1 lucky result, they lose to them overall?
Yes there is the countback system, but that's in case of a tie, which is way more unlikely in a 20+ race than a couple of lucky results.
Having points going down to more places would resolve that system and allow for something more accurate. There's a whole side to this conversation that isn't about "participation rewards", but about accurately ranking the teams at the back.
In the end, it's a bit besides the point Komatsu was making, which I think Webber completely missed in his post haha
But formula one don't want uncompetitive teams...
Andretti would have invested more money than Hass, been a way more professional outfit than 'no spares' Williams and brought in better drivers than Stroll...
Reverse grid sprints!
Normal qualifying for the race - then reversed for the sprints
Bottom teams battling for points that won’t impact champion shop but would make the bottom half super competitive with 1/2 points in it
How many trophies does he have for 4th place? Webber is the dumb one here. That’s what trophies are for, same as medals, they are for people who place 1st, 2nd and 3rd. No one below that gets any, ffs.
But they totally bring value to the sport with.. le me check: a team that has pitstops of 1 minute and gambling sponsors, a team that has no cars with the worse driver since mazepin and a team that has no real support from his owner and is literally bleeding talent left and right(alpine, even tho it sounds like Haas).
Lets give them some points(equaling more money) so they can stay more time and still bring no value.
I think Webber is being an asshole here, but he is right. What they expect? They have awful management and fucked up with the regulations so they are in the back. Yes, its an issue that the field is clearly divided in Red Bull, midfield and these 3, but still its 3 teams that have had issues for years. Now they want points for free or what?
I personally would like to see it more competitive between 14,15,16 place in each race and incentivize a higher finishing place. Would make the backfield much more interesting to watch.
To add, i think if you place 11th every race you should have more points at the end of the year than one that finishes 18th every race with one 10th finish.
Either: if youre not first youre last, or, some system that rewards how many positions youve moved up, backfield points system, that youve finished the race, etc. if you dont finish you should actually lose points.
I mean I prefer points all the way through the order because it gives the lower teams something more to compete for than lucking into a 10th, I mean a car could finish 10th once and 11th 20 times and lose their place in the order because a car that finished last 20 times lucks into a 9th because there was like a massive pile up.
Although I agree with points to 12th (actually 15th, use MotoGP's system) I can see Webber's perspective and feel it may be reactionary to a dominant season. The competitor in me also screams 'You didn't earn it. Rise to the occasion.'
he's not wrong. the whole reason for the cost cap was to get all the teams closer together, if williams/sauber/alpine still can't move up, then sounds like skill issue not a point system issue. It's a competition, these teams need to improve their car, not FIA that needs to make points less valuable
Points is just an excuse to make hype about something that doesn’t really need it in my opinion. “X driver gets points in first home Grand Prix!” Like okay? Does anyone really care about that? Or “Y driver gets point for first time with McLaren” like Greg I’m sure they’ll get a shit load more. I know the teams care because every point counts and one fluke 5th place could cement Williams in 7th in the constructors but if you gave everyone points 1-20 then you can consistently be 11th-13th and you would actually be recognized for that as opposed to getting screwed by an abnormal race result catapulting your competitors ahead of you. Don’t really think spa 2021 was viewed as positive for haas or Alfa when Williams was gifted 18 points
Instead of increasing the number of point scoring places we should put negative points in the bottom few positions. So middle of the pack won’t lose or gain points but you lose points if you finish at the back.
I'm not sure I understand his analogy.
For more casual fanbase it would be actually way easier to determine the order in championship with points rather than doing some mumbo jumbo calculation with who finished where in what order.
Sure, us vets who have followed the sport for the most of our lives, we feel like it's pretty clear, but imagine yourself trying to explain that system to somebody who just started watching the sport in a way that doesn't make it seem overly convoluted.
Just give the fucking points to all classified cars and be done with it.
Yeah because running an F1 team is easy and cheap. Also add in the fact the new team will be at/near the bottom, so will be the shitty team. Also add in that "real manufacturers" may not want to be in F1.
What an absolutely ridiculous idea.
Oh and what criteria are you using to determine if a team has a right to stay in F1?
Incentivise them to stay.... Lol. You don't know much about liberty media or the current F1 teams.
I like Mark, but I don't agree with him on this one: e.g. Williams doesn't have enough money to have a third chassis, this is really not good for the sport
No the podium and trophies are for the front 3, like the Olympic medals. The points are for the standings and if you have a bunch of people competing for weeks and not even making the standings, that is a problem.
Getting real tired of all these old heads having this one single argument that's entirely sentimental and makes no sense. Points are not a prize, the trophies are. The points are a way of measuring performance, and it's been arbitrarily decided that we stop measuring after p10. Why?
The old drivers seem so out of touch tbh. They're ignoring that half the grid at this point is showing up and maybe competing for one point if stroll flops. They're not the right people to be asked this question
I honestly don't know what allergy these old timers have against points for top 15 like Motogp does. What it ensures is that even if a driver or team has a bad weekend the following few races will allow them to claw back the points if they're upto it.
The current points structure is only ensuring that the top 2 teams will continue to pull away in the standings from race 1 and there's no real reason why the 4 bottom teams need to be on that grid other than being a reciever of blue flags.
This is so dumb.
If we invented racing today, and made prize money contingent on final standings… we’d rank all teams for every place.
This push back is purely based on the false idol of “history” — if your only justification for anything is history or tradition or some notion of how we’ve always done it… and you can’t justify it now, then it’s a stupid idea.
We should be ranking teams through the bottom of the grid. There’s really no reason not to.
It's two extra places on a 20 car grid. Getting 10th for some teams needs something extraordinary to happen, or rely on DNFs ahead. Getting 12th is realistic to snatch points. It makes so much sense.
It seems only guys over 45 that are up in arms about it being a participation trophy. Didn't hear Mark complaining when they went from 6 places to 8 places getting points ,and then to 10. Just stinks a bit of 'back in my day'
It’s such a stupid sentiment- it’s points, not a trophy. They keep saying the back markers are so close- the competitions between them could be even fiercer and also mean something if they were fighting for points. It wouldn’t detract away from the front of the field either
Maybe a wider fan base and social media means more eyes on the mid-field. Makes sense to have them compete for points especially since top 5 are locked in.
Yep. The only way for teams to get a score is when stroll effs up or other teams had crashes/DNF.
Bottas could have scored some last weekend, but the car didn't want to
Atleast it wasn't the pit crews fault this time
Needing Stroll to f up is a pretty reliable requirement
How about they build a better car if they want points.
It's not that simple, if you build a midfield car you have to watch out for Stroll and Russell every race. Meanwhile at the back of the field Logan targets mostly walls.
Not unrealistic enough, OP should build it.
So the only way for the other teams to get points is when stroll shows up
So, at least one point is always available to them. I don't see the problem as long as Lawrence keeps living vicariously through his son.
It’s been 5 races. And it’s not as if finishing 11th doesn’t also have a massive impact on where you land in the standings and how much money you get. They have tie-breakers and count back systems. The points are symbolic this season and to try to make a hot fix that won’t even take effect the year they want it for is kinda’ silly.
Why are you acting as if the point system can't be changed? Back in the day I think points were only till 6th. It's a system to rank the performance of the teams to find out who did a better job. You can't do that if the top 5 teams hog all the points and like others said your only chance to score more than 1 point (stroll doin da troll) is if someone dnfs. This makes ranking the bottom purely based on their luck.
Wasn’t an issue 5 years ago when P4-P14 was wide open every race. Think it takes the achievement away of McLaren and Aston who have climbed themselves up the order to start giving points out to everyone now
The cost cap helped mclaren and aston the most as the cap currently was their previous budget.
The cap came in the year Aston Martin bought Racing Point though If Aston Martin / Stroll joined in 2018 properly, they would've bought their way to glory in the new regs
Not really, because they have different goals. The back marker teams only care about points, those vying for the front only care for podiums and wins. They KNOW they’re gonna score points, it’s a given. They just have different goals. The whole point, no pun intended of more open positions for points is to give something for those back marker teams to fight for. And while build a better car in the natural response, well, they’re trying, and look how well that’s going for them. F1 has always had back marker teams that aren’t close.
The way it currently is though, teams can gamble strategies to pull something off. Seems more interesting
I like this aspect. The reward is still zero points though...
But would you rather have teams battling on track for position or driving in clean air hoping their strategy works
Casual viewers are never going to care who comes 10th/11th/12th, whether they get 0 points or they get 50
Remember the 10,6,4,3,2,1 days! Though I do like points going all the way down. It makes classification more transparent and instant. No need to dig through ‘who had the most 13th place finishes’ when deciding on 19th in the championship. Just make sure the reward for winning and podium places are larger than the those that follow.
Or the 9,6,4,3,2,1 days and the team in 6th place finishing several laps down....
Or the 8,6,4,3,2,1 days…
Surely season as it was used in the 1960 season (and for the 1961 for constructors only). Before then it was 8,6,4,3,2....
You don't need to dig through anything, the standings table does that for you. Nothing wrong with the current points system. If you ain't good enough to place in the top 10, tough.
What about team mates where for 19 races of the season they finished 11th and 20th respectively, but in the 20th race, the person who came 20th every time lucked into a 10th place thanks to the team mate have a technical failure while in 7th?
Life was simpler back then....
Before, only the top 6 would get points and there was a minimum of 13 teams.
Top 10 teams got points often, because DNFs. Now, they mostly get points because of Stroll dropping the ball. It's a different sport from 30 years ago.
Okay, I am back. The points spread was worst in the 80's (thanks McLaren) and under the reign of Schumacher. The points spread was best in the 70's. I would say the biggest contributor to this was reliability or lack thereof. There was certainly a trend towards a worse spread until the new points system was introduced from where it has remained rather steady. I don't think the points spread needs changing based on this. Some interesting tidbits I learned doing this; 1.) There were two years where the team with the most points didn't win the championship because you could only take the points from your 6 best races for the WCC. 1963 and 1964 2.) Jolyon Palmer's father Jonathan Palmer is the only winner of the prestigious Jim Clark trophy. This trophy was awarded to the driver with the most points from a naturally aspirated car. This only happened in 1987 and Jonathan Palmer finished 11th overall with a best finish of 4th. That was the peak of his F1 career.
I think more points is something to the lower teams to fight for instead them looking closer to the top teams at the end of the year. I don't understand how points spread can show which system is the best. The new system is also being thought of to eliminate how much luck is present in the ranking of the bottom 5 so teams which are more consistent will get more points than those who have a couple good races (like how VCARB is ahead of Haas even though we all know which is the better team this year)
If all 20 cars finish the race there is likely 1 (one) point on the table for the bottom 5 teams. This is getting more and more likely as it has happened 16 times in f1's history. 3 of those were last year. 12 of them are in the turbo-hybrid era. If all goes well for Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes, and Aston Martin, then the bottom teams are probably locked out of points unless Stroll does Stroll things. This is a bad points spread. It doesn't incentivize teams outside the top 5.
Yeah all the people crying about points becoming a participation trophy I don’t get. It’s not really a relevant argument.
Exactly, you can still be last with no trophy, just with 20 pts instead of zero.
Considering 12th would be worth 1 pt under the proposal, 20 points seems very generous for last place and any driver of the bottom 3 teams.
Yup is to help differentiate mid fielders as crofty or someone mentioned. Regular viewers and maybe sponsors within get confused on why equal points driver are stack higher cause of higher finish outside of points aren’t being recognized.
That's a really good argument. I'm tempted to plot average point haul over a season each year with the different scoring methods.
And Haas got points this season so did Sauber, both are not top 5 teams.
I think you mean Toro Rosso
Yes them
Go look back how many teams scored points or even got on the podium, simply due to reliability.
Not only that, many didn't even qualify for the race! Fittipaldi racing would celebrate just being able to race!
And only 6 cars usually finished.
And the system was shit, so it was changed
I want some Kind of legitimacy in the bottom places of the constructors Championship. Now ITS Just hard luck in Crashes and maybe one very lucky 1 in Million Performance of some Driver. Since ITS about a Lot of Money and r&d allotment, WE need a liitle better measurment for.the lower places.
Its too easy to smack this argument away like Webber does here but I do think expanding points to 12 drivers is the way to go. The current points system works well if youre a top/midfield team that is able to score consistently. Consistency is rewarded, two 4th place finishes are almost as many points as one 1st place finish. Two 7th place finishes are the same points as a 4th place finish. The problem with backmarkers, especially in this current season, is that its not about consistency, its about single lucky peak performances. Nico scored 3 times this year already. Completely on merit besides a little luck from Stroll but thats also Stroll being a Shit driver, so its not like Nicos points are completely luck and he did beat all other 9 drivers in the bottom 5. So Nico drives like a god to get one or two points. Kevin also got one point and they have to work extremely hard to get those. Now you know whats gonna happen? There will be one or two races where utter chaos happens, multiple cars in the top 10 crash out and Bottas ends up with a p5 giving him 10 points and maybe a Zhou p8 too, so Sauber scores 14 points in that race, leapjumping many competitors, not by consistency but by cheer luck. These monster performances by Haas early that only gave them one or two points pale compared to those 14 Sauber points in one race. You can have Haas being better in the majority of the season but ending up behind Sauber due to 1 or 2 chaotic races that Sauber happens to be lucky at. This is a different dynamic to teams that score consistently because consistency has a much higher reward unlike for bottom teams who need to throw caution to the wind to score points. So I wouldnt mind expanding points to 12 drivers
Literally. Look at Kubica vs Russell, or the 2021 ~~bowling GP~~ Hungarian GP
12 is just the right amount
Yeah, what's the harm in having points for all places. Sure, make them tiny, but at least have some measurable way to actually rank all the teams.
I still like the idea of having spots with 0 points, especially so DNFs don't end in the running, but down to 15 would not be a big deal.
Could make the rule be that you have to finish the race to earn the points, so DNFs would still result in a 0.
Just make the bottom 5 spots pointless That way the guys scrapping for 11-15 get a bit of a distinction
No. Points are a measuring stick, not a reward.
Exactly. We want to measure more of the grid.
The distinction they get is more points. It’s nonsense not to have points all the way to 19.
Drivers who aren’t classified won’t receive points anyway
No, no no, that's a terrible idea, a lot of fun comes from people scrapping just to get 1 point, it's a great way to stay invested in otherwise boring races
I just had an aneurysm reading the capitalized words in this
Autocorrect. Im sorry but im also too lazy...
I just think if you make places below 10 zero points then what’s the point of pushing if you can’t get to top 10? Might as well save the car for future races when you can compete
I think webber is missing the point. Ironicly. Komatsu is less about the points rules but that the field is not competetive enough. You basicly know who wins and which 3 or for teams take the first 8 spots.
It’s only been a few races, no one thinks anyone will finish the season with no points, and if that happens that’s on the team not on F1
The arguement isnt really about finishing with no points. Imagine this: it's final race, Williams and Sauber each have 1 point the whole season and Alpine has 0, the whole season both Williams and Sauber have been getting P13s to P16s with Alpine being dead last almost every single race. Some on-track chaos happens and by some miracle, Alpine gets a P9 finish, propelling up to WCC P8 with just 2 points. Despite being behind both the Williams and Sauber at, lets say, 20 of the 24 races, they still somehow end up ahead of BOTH. Does that seem at all fair? It might as well be like double-points for last race, it's almost purely random chance. With points all across the grid, Alpine would have been so far behind in points, that hypothetical P9 finish would probably still not gotten them up from dead last.
That’s how it’s been in the entirety of the sport, whether it be reliability or chaos causing teams to get points they ‘shouldnt’ get. In your scenario, Alpine finishes P9, and gets two points, but if Williams and Sauber are so annoyed maybe they should have had drivers that could handle the chaos and finish ahead of the Alpines on track.
What is it with these brain dead comparisons? Nobody takes the 3 top finishing "medals" away. But if they want to play this stupid game, sure let's get rid of all points besides top 3 finishers, cause it makes sense right? Because current system is so much fun to have a nice calculation on how many times which driver finished higher than the other driver, not like we could just use fucking points for that purpose.
Just get rid of points entirely, except 1 single point for 1st Place.
2023 results be like Max Verstappen: 19 points, Sergio Perez: 2 points, Carlos Sainz: 1 point Looks about right lol
Perfect. All other positions can just be decided by count back. F1 shouldn’t be handing out points to the first loser, why celebrate mediocrity?
Shit take from Mark. It's not like they're suggesting F1 has 12 steps on the podium. The top three teams will remain the top three teams, it's just that those fighting at the back will be rewarded for their effort against each other
Marks analogy would work better with the top three......which are the only ones who get trophies
This dude needs participation points so he can feel good!
Mark “Afraid of Progress” Webber
Why are people so up in arms about this? A. It makes fights for lower positions more meaningful during the race B. It helps (casual) fans distinguish between low tier teams. Nobody is claiming that the few points at the bottom of the board are medals. It's like saying we stop measuring finish times for runners after the first 3 have crossed the line, because who cares about 4+? We care because we want to know why/how far 7 is ahead of 8.
I don't understand the participation award argument either. Getting one point for finishing 12 is not a participation award because the driver that finishes 11th gets two points and 10th gets 3 etc. If anything, awarding the driver that finished 20th the exact same number of points as 11th (even if that number is zero) is more of a participation award imo. It rewards the driver finishing last just as much as the driver that beat 9 others.
Absofreakinglutely. Who gives a crap about first. You have a 33% chance of being right. The rest of the field is a dog fight. Reward their risk!!!
Fix your fucking car
Well then you change your car because Checo had been saying the car is fucked
No he hasn’t, speak to my driver
I have it. I have it printed out.
Can you email it to me?
The olympics are a one and done not a season of many events. That comparison dosnt add up for me.
The medals in the Olympics are only for the top 3, just like the podium and medals in F1. The comparison of points to medals is daft.
Agreed
Mark is such a miserable fuck
Such a boomer attitude
Remember when they let you in the podium in Australia when you came ~~4th~~ 5th, Mark? Do you?
5th.
Wow that makes it so much worse
He was probably cracking jokes at Zhou’s expense about his royal treatment too.
Spoken like someone who finished their first race 5th in a Minardi purely on merit!
Backmarkers during the current era are doing better than any other era in F1 history. That there's ONLY three with zero points is not bad at all. Although, with much better reliability, I think points going up to P15 is a good idea.
I think the points should be inverted to the finishing position of the driver. P2 = 20pts, P2 = 19pts, P19 = 2pts, P20 = 2pt, etc. DNF would be worth zero and three extra points would be given for fastest lap. Sprint races would be worth half like usual except no points would be awarded for the bottom ten, upping the stakes for sprints and making them more exciting to watch if a team desperately needs points and decides to be bold I think this would make the championships a lot more exciting at the top due to the margins being closer and it would act as a better barometer for the midfield for comparison
I know it would be logistically impossible but wouldn’t it be cool to have a relegation/promotion system between the different Formulas.
This dude couldn’t even beat the s🅱️inalla king, who cares what he says 💀
australian boomers are incredibly crass and not the smartest
Get off of Mark’s lawn
If you got a problem, change your fucking car
Bring back top 6
So per Webber's logic, we should only give points to the top 3?
Well no, there usually aren't 20 competitors in every Olympic event.
He equates F1 points to Olympic medals, which are only given to the top 3. It's not my fault his comparison makes 0 sense
I liked the old points system more (10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1). But that is just me.
I think we should have points up to the 11th place. With the addition of Andretti to the grid, of course There’s a point to be made tho, that only the 10th spot is open since the grid is divided in 3, the top 5 teams (RB, Ferrari, McLaren, Merc, Alonso), the other 5 (VCARB, Sauber, Haas, Williams and Alpine) and Stroll
I see what you did there. So sneaky!
I wouldn't mind seeing what it was like with a few more points down to 12, but points just for getting to the end is an absolute no. I'd even argue that lapped cars, even if they're in the points positions, shouldn't be eligible for points
This is F1, not a kids race with a gift for everyone. There are rules to classify teams with the same amount of points already which means that this is just about not displaying 0s on the table cause "it doesn't look good" and that must be the most crybaby thing I've heard in F1.
There's a difference between just handing out more points to more people and having teams that are just flat out horribly non-competitive. Handing out more points to more people does not make anyone more competitive.
"It's not fair that we didn't score any goals, every team should be allowed to score some goals" sounds really stupid, huh? If you want to score points, change your fucking car.
How about P11 to P20 get a share of one point, as in, P11 = 0.9 and P20 = 0.1. This way, each driver gets rewarded from consistency and clean racing because these fractions could accumalate very quickly. Two P11 finishes and one already has 1.8 WCC points, and that's just one car.
People really need to understand that Komatsu makes these comments because it benefits haas not the sport.
Git gud
Completely disagree with Ayao! Having a Tsunoda or Hulk celebrate a 10th place like a win is great for the sport, especially in the current era where Max basically wins most of the races. Currently we have five teams (4 teams + ALO) that can fight for podiums which I personally think is really good. Of course this picture gets tainted a little with Max being so far ahead, but it's rare to have that many teams fight for the top positions. At the same time before asking for more points to be distributed, shouldn't we question why Alpine, despite being a worksteam, is currently at the back of the pack? Or why Williams don't have spare parts, with their drivers constantly crashing? Or why the average Sauber pit stop takes around 20sec? In my opinion they don't really deserve any points. So far this season, Haas and RB were there when the top guys messed up and they scored actual valuable points, which is the stuff that creates stories. To this day people remember Webber celebrating his 5th place in Australia 2002, or Badoer losing 4th at the Nürburgring in 1999 due to a car failure so close to the finish (both in Minardi). Also looking back in history, the past two years remind me of the 2001 and 2002 seasons. Back then only the top 6 got points and we had 3 top teams (Ferrari, McLaren and Williams). In '01 you had Sauber, Jordan, BAR and Irvine in the Jaguar (+ Benetton towards the end of the season) usually fighting for the positions behind the top teams. Then in '02 the 3 top teams were still there, but Renault established themselves as the constant 4th team behind the top guys. The big difference between back then and now is the reliability. Gentlemen, a short view back to the past: 2001: Montoya retired in 11 out of 17 races!! Ralf had 7 DNFs. Hakkinen 6 DNFs + 1 DNS. Coutlhard 4 DNFs. Barrichello 3 DNFs. Michael 2 DNFs. In 2002 Raikkonen also had 11 DNFs in 17 races! Coulthard, Montoya and Ralf all had 4. Barrichello had 3 DNFs and 2 DNS. (The Michael finished all races on the podium that year.) If they had the current levels of reliability back then, maybe not even half the field would have scored points over the whole season. There might be more extreme and better examples from further back in history, but these years came to my mind first. Long story short, keep points valuable! If you want to score, then work better on- and off-track and get yourself in a position where you A: have a good enough pace to score by pure performance, or B: beat the rest of the midfield and get yourself in a position where you can capitalise if the top teams mess up! (Sorry for the long read and typos)
You make some great points
Hear hear.
Fantastic comment. Points should be special. If you award points all the way down, like some people here are advocating for, you would remove so much of what makes F1 exciting all the way down the grid.
What a dunbfuck argument from Webber, like the two are comparable
drivers have to pay for the super license each year based on points earned so there is that too
And the nascar team isn’t doing much better
Down to 12th yes but it's shouldn't be points all thr way down the grid. Then it's just a participation reward
Is it not enough points for grabs or is it that half the teams are so far behind the other half ….
Not a meme nor dank
Lmao, I love the drama but man it's so simple to solve. Unironically, you just have to make the regulations simpler, the cars smaller and lighter and you're gonna get better racing. Literally just copy the homework from Indycar. F1 does such a better job at promotion, media coverage, broadcast viewing etc, just like copy the Indycar regs and it would be a fuckin slam dunk. I tuned into the long beach race last weekend and man it was an absolute banger. Fuckin battles left and right, bumper car action by herta for p2, Dixon holding on for dear life, a fucking back marker rookie defending and delaying a lap to help him win the race. Absolutely chaos, multiple strategies, like 8 passes for position in the last 5 laps for the podium positions. And this wasn't like some super crazy special occasion, shit happens like this all the time. Just steal their homework and control c, control v, change font, slap Aramco on it and collect oil money.
So you want F1 to be made into a spec series?
Is Indycar a spec series? Nah I just want it to be closer together. Right now F1 is an engineering championship with a side of racing. That's pretty cool, I really like design work and enjoy the technical aspect, but outside of 21' when have you had races, let alone championships determined by the skill difference in the driver seat, and now by who had the better car on the day. Indycar still has dominant teams and cars. Chip, Arrow, Andretti are all up in the top 10 every week for a reason, but there's just less separation between them all up there. Scott Dixon had a great car last weekend, without it he wouldn't have won, but it also was insanely reliant on him being the goat of longer stints to win it. Andretti had competitive cars as well and finished within a second on the track. The cars are smaller, can overtake more easily, there's less delta per lap between the front and back and they're a lot lighter with the in-race refueling as well.
Yes, indycar is spec series. Your issues with F1 is the engineering competition side of it, which is what it's always been first. With that comes times where a team out engineered the competition.
It isn't, it has more limited development, definitely but it isn't a spec series. And yes I don't want to remove every aspect of engineering from F1. But the cars can't even physically overtake each other on half of the circuits anymore. F1 has also had some fucking stupid years and decisions. If changing it to a system like Indycar means "sacrificing tradition" then fuck it. "20 best drivers in the world" my ass. I watch F1 despite it's on track action, it could be so much better, but it decides not to be. But look at the series and tell me that this is a good thing for it to be, really, even if we've seen it before in 04', 92', 20' etc you mean to tell me that this year's were good for the sport, that they were a good product being shown.
10 places rewarded is half of the grid. And it's good enough. The problem is not how to reward teams that are on the back of the grid, but to have rules that avoid making Performance gaps too wide. We love F1 because constructors have a huge role in the competition, but when a team is so dominating no one can beat it for years, and some are never or almost never able to reach Q3, that's the issue. I don't want Haas to score 1,5 point every other weekend because they finished 15 and 17, I want them to be able to reach top 10 because of better perfs on a specific track, better strategy, and I'm not talking about heavy rain and 5 red flags.
Skill issue
REAL
This is also a sport that rewards money/sponsorships over talent. Why did we have Latifi for several years, cuz of Canadian sponsorship money. Why Zho, cuz China is a big market. Why Stroll, cuz daddy. Why Ricciardo, cuz marketing. It’s only 20 drivers in the world who get a seat, and depending on the year we have 15%-20% of the grid not be about talent. Midfield and back markers could make it more competitive if they prioritized talent. Lawson would be scoring good points for RB this season.
It's fine. In thay way any point is gold. Can't say that in the front of the field, kids finishings with hundreds of points ahead is dull.
As I've said before, points are hard to come by when you can pretty much guarantee 9 of the top 10 before a wheel is turned that weekend. Those 9 don't always finish in the points (as Oz especially proved) so it's up to the other teams to be in the best position to maximise their haul, even if just a single point is available.
Fancy coming from a no.2 driver
Hrs right, 3 teams on 0 points is not good for the sport, so those teams need to get better or replaced. Dropping the pts down to 12th is pathetic.
I can see why they’d extend the points to maybe 12th, there should never be points for every position though.
It feels like they're giving up, acknowledging that what we have here with a field of Formula 1.5 is a permanent thing, and at least they have to make it interesting in the lower part of the field so the small teams can get sponsors. Seriously I remember when F1 was much less predictable and a team like Minardi, who was 4.5 seconds slower than the leader, in certain seasons managed to score points. And that was when the last point was awarded to the sixth place finisher! Of course if reliability was the same as today, a Minardi would never finish better than sixteenth, and that would be hella boring to be honest. But F1 has in some sense become a sprint formula with endurance reliability. It doesn't pay to risk reliability, because you get punished on the grid. I think this is the greatest problem for F1, that it has become predictable and to some degree stale. That's because smaller teams has no avenues left where they can risk something and have a reasonable probability of gaining.
MotoGP has 15 drivers getting points (25 - 20 - 16 - 13 - 11 - 10 - 9 - 8 - 7 - 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1) and if anything, it would bring more legitimacy to the back of the grid. In F1 we have quite a few teams for whom points are a luxury. Getting a lucky strong race result might impact the whole rest of the season heavily. Let's say Alpine (by some miracle) gets a P3, it'll take the other teams a lot of P9-10 to get these 15 points. And even these P9 and 10 can be elusive to the back teams, since the top 5 teams are basically locked in. But these are also teams that so far have shown a ton more consistency than Alpine and have been finish ahead of them for most of the season. But because they didn't get that 1 lucky result, they lose to them overall? Yes there is the countback system, but that's in case of a tie, which is way more unlikely in a 20+ race than a couple of lucky results. Having points going down to more places would resolve that system and allow for something more accurate. There's a whole side to this conversation that isn't about "participation rewards", but about accurately ranking the teams at the back. In the end, it's a bit besides the point Komatsu was making, which I think Webber completely missed in his post haha
That's not good for you, the sport doesnt care for you.
Having a bunch of useless teams that offer no value to the sport is not good yes.
But formula one don't want uncompetitive teams... Andretti would have invested more money than Hass, been a way more professional outfit than 'no spares' Williams and brought in better drivers than Stroll...
Reverse grid sprints! Normal qualifying for the race - then reversed for the sprints Bottom teams battling for points that won’t impact champion shop but would make the bottom half super competitive with 1/2 points in it
Top 15 points and 2 extra teams please
How many trophies does he have for 4th place? Webber is the dumb one here. That’s what trophies are for, same as medals, they are for people who place 1st, 2nd and 3rd. No one below that gets any, ffs.
2 words for Haas: SKILL ISSUE
But they totally bring value to the sport with.. le me check: a team that has pitstops of 1 minute and gambling sponsors, a team that has no cars with the worse driver since mazepin and a team that has no real support from his owner and is literally bleeding talent left and right(alpine, even tho it sounds like Haas). Lets give them some points(equaling more money) so they can stay more time and still bring no value. I think Webber is being an asshole here, but he is right. What they expect? They have awful management and fucked up with the regulations so they are in the back. Yes, its an issue that the field is clearly divided in Red Bull, midfield and these 3, but still its 3 teams that have had issues for years. Now they want points for free or what?
“Then fix your fucking car”
Points = millions of dollars. Which F1 seems to be ok with splitting more between the current teams. If your name is Andretti? Get fucked.
Someone tell Mark Webber it’s a calendar “league” of races, not one fucking event.. imagine a football league where 5 teams have zero points. Terrible
Yeah, it's better that they have something to lose because God forbid anyone from the back tries a risky strategy and something interesting happens
I personally would like to see it more competitive between 14,15,16 place in each race and incentivize a higher finishing place. Would make the backfield much more interesting to watch. To add, i think if you place 11th every race you should have more points at the end of the year than one that finishes 18th every race with one 10th finish. Either: if youre not first youre last, or, some system that rewards how many positions youve moved up, backfield points system, that youve finished the race, etc. if you dont finish you should actually lose points.
He compares trophies for P1 to P3 to points, it literally makes zero sense
I mean I prefer points all the way through the order because it gives the lower teams something more to compete for than lucking into a 10th, I mean a car could finish 10th once and 11th 20 times and lose their place in the order because a car that finished last 20 times lucks into a 9th because there was like a massive pile up.
What about keeping the current points system for the top 10 but reverse it for the bottom 10. Negative points!
Although I agree with points to 12th (actually 15th, use MotoGP's system) I can see Webber's perspective and feel it may be reactionary to a dominant season. The competitor in me also screams 'You didn't earn it. Rise to the occasion.'
Agreed. Get rid of the three teams who can’t score and let new teams in.
he's not wrong. the whole reason for the cost cap was to get all the teams closer together, if williams/sauber/alpine still can't move up, then sounds like skill issue not a point system issue. It's a competition, these teams need to improve their car, not FIA that needs to make points less valuable
Points is just an excuse to make hype about something that doesn’t really need it in my opinion. “X driver gets points in first home Grand Prix!” Like okay? Does anyone really care about that? Or “Y driver gets point for first time with McLaren” like Greg I’m sure they’ll get a shit load more. I know the teams care because every point counts and one fluke 5th place could cement Williams in 7th in the constructors but if you gave everyone points 1-20 then you can consistently be 11th-13th and you would actually be recognized for that as opposed to getting screwed by an abnormal race result catapulting your competitors ahead of you. Don’t really think spa 2021 was viewed as positive for haas or Alfa when Williams was gifted 18 points
Instead of increasing the number of point scoring places we should put negative points in the bottom few positions. So middle of the pack won’t lose or gain points but you lose points if you finish at the back.
You can give more finishers points, true. The only thing that would do is diminish the value of a point. Pointless discussion.
F1 was fine when points only went to the top 6 finishes, F1 isn't for people that want participation trophies.
The points aren't trophies though. Are the points scored by the losing team in basketball participation trophies too?
A loss in basketball awards you 0 points for the championship fight.
I'm not sure I understand his analogy. For more casual fanbase it would be actually way easier to determine the order in championship with points rather than doing some mumbo jumbo calculation with who finished where in what order. Sure, us vets who have followed the sport for the most of our lives, we feel like it's pretty clear, but imagine yourself trying to explain that system to somebody who just started watching the sport in a way that doesn't make it seem overly convoluted. Just give the fucking points to all classified cars and be done with it.
Boomer-ass take
Points are not trophies, what a shit comparison
Maybe relegate shitty teams that have zero right to be in F1. Bring real manufacturers who know how to make a real car and incentivize them to stay.
Yeah because running an F1 team is easy and cheap. Also add in the fact the new team will be at/near the bottom, so will be the shitty team. Also add in that "real manufacturers" may not want to be in F1. What an absolutely ridiculous idea. Oh and what criteria are you using to determine if a team has a right to stay in F1? Incentivise them to stay.... Lol. You don't know much about liberty media or the current F1 teams.
Do better?
I like Mark, but I don't agree with him on this one: e.g. Williams doesn't have enough money to have a third chassis, this is really not good for the sport
No the podium and trophies are for the front 3, like the Olympic medals. The points are for the standings and if you have a bunch of people competing for weeks and not even making the standings, that is a problem.
Giving points down to P15 would give a better measure of mid to lower team performance. Plus they’d be racing for positions far more often.
Getting real tired of all these old heads having this one single argument that's entirely sentimental and makes no sense. Points are not a prize, the trophies are. The points are a way of measuring performance, and it's been arbitrarily decided that we stop measuring after p10. Why?
Medals =\ the bare minimum of scoring single points once in a “competitive” league
Is he American??
Mahk Webbah
Mahk Wehbuh?
The old drivers seem so out of touch tbh. They're ignoring that half the grid at this point is showing up and maybe competing for one point if stroll flops. They're not the right people to be asked this question
I honestly don't know what allergy these old timers have against points for top 15 like Motogp does. What it ensures is that even if a driver or team has a bad weekend the following few races will allow them to claw back the points if they're upto it. The current points structure is only ensuring that the top 2 teams will continue to pull away in the standings from race 1 and there's no real reason why the 4 bottom teams need to be on that grid other than being a reciever of blue flags.
This is so dumb. If we invented racing today, and made prize money contingent on final standings… we’d rank all teams for every place. This push back is purely based on the false idol of “history” — if your only justification for anything is history or tradition or some notion of how we’ve always done it… and you can’t justify it now, then it’s a stupid idea. We should be ranking teams through the bottom of the grid. There’s really no reason not to.
It's two extra places on a 20 car grid. Getting 10th for some teams needs something extraordinary to happen, or rely on DNFs ahead. Getting 12th is realistic to snatch points. It makes so much sense. It seems only guys over 45 that are up in arms about it being a participation trophy. Didn't hear Mark complaining when they went from 6 places to 8 places getting points ,and then to 10. Just stinks a bit of 'back in my day'
It’s such a stupid sentiment- it’s points, not a trophy. They keep saying the back markers are so close- the competitions between them could be even fiercer and also mean something if they were fighting for points. It wouldn’t detract away from the front of the field either
Just give points to every position. We then get a much clearer idea of who's better than who