F1 points system
Discussion
can anyone explain why with 22 riders on a grid, there are only points given for the top 8? after that, what order do the rest come in, do they feature at all in the F1 halls of fame? Thats alot of money to come nowhere, unlike most other sports where the top 75% get rewarded for their hard work.
The sport had a cunning plan around this, their idea was to hold more than one race. Infact have a whole season of racing, then at the end they total up the points. Usually most teams score at least some points and the positions are ranked on a leaderboard. The drivers get paid by the teams who are funded by sponsors and prize money (based on said ranking)
HTH
HTH
Jetl3on said:
my ignornace of the rules cant decide if that is a wind up 
why such a small number of points for a small percentage of the field in relation to the number of participants?
Your question is completely valid, please ignore the Troll.why such a small number of points for a small percentage of the field in relation to the number of participants?
As for the reason? Not sure but most FIA events seem to be scored in a similar fasion.
Other events score things very differently - Most bike racing (Superbikes, MotoGP, etc) and many of the US series - NASCAR etc.
I'm not sure that it really makes a huge difference in the final leaderboards though but a win is really worth going for in, for example, Moto GP - 25 points vs 20 for second place. Then again the size of the field is much bigger in other events so it's probably a similar percentage of the field that will score points...
Well it used to be points only down to 6th place which was changed as I understand it to try to differentiate between some of the lower teams.
As TV money and pitlane position is allocated according to the team's finishing position in the previous year, having five teams all scoring 'nil point' is perhaps not so fair in deciding who deserves what.
But as I understand it there was a desire to make sure the feat of scoring a championship point remains something of a big deal.
Lower end teams celebrate getting into the points as it is a hard thing to accomplish. Getting a point for 15th place would devalue that a great deal.
Maybe the logic is that if you award points to 15th from 20 starters, slow teams would still get points simply for finishing within 8-10 laps of the leader, taking the focus away from outright speed and towards total reliability??
As TV money and pitlane position is allocated according to the team's finishing position in the previous year, having five teams all scoring 'nil point' is perhaps not so fair in deciding who deserves what.
But as I understand it there was a desire to make sure the feat of scoring a championship point remains something of a big deal.
Lower end teams celebrate getting into the points as it is a hard thing to accomplish. Getting a point for 15th place would devalue that a great deal.
Maybe the logic is that if you award points to 15th from 20 starters, slow teams would still get points simply for finishing within 8-10 laps of the leader, taking the focus away from outright speed and towards total reliability??
Just out of interest here are the points if F1 was Moto Gp and rewarded finishes down to 15th.
Lewis Hamilton 228
Felipe Massa 207
Robert Kubica 191
Nick Heidfeld 173
Kimi Räikkönen 168
Heikki Kovalainen 162
Fernando Alonso 131
Jarno Trulli 106
Timo Glock 101
Mark Webber 98
Nico Rosberg 91
Sebastian Vettel 88
David Coulthard 65
Nelson Piquet Jr. 60
Kazuki Nakajima 60
Jenson Button 48
Rubens Barrichello 47
Sébastien Bourdais 41
Giancarlo Fisichella 21
Takuma Sato 8
Adrian Sutil 5
Anthony Davidson 1
The only real differences are that Heidfeld and Raikkonen swap, Vettel suffers from the Moto GP points and Coulthard jumps up the table.
Of course it is totally irrelevant as teams would have approached the races differently.
Lewis Hamilton 228
Felipe Massa 207
Robert Kubica 191
Nick Heidfeld 173
Kimi Räikkönen 168
Heikki Kovalainen 162
Fernando Alonso 131
Jarno Trulli 106
Timo Glock 101
Mark Webber 98
Nico Rosberg 91
Sebastian Vettel 88
David Coulthard 65
Nelson Piquet Jr. 60
Kazuki Nakajima 60
Jenson Button 48
Rubens Barrichello 47
Sébastien Bourdais 41
Giancarlo Fisichella 21
Takuma Sato 8
Adrian Sutil 5
Anthony Davidson 1
The only real differences are that Heidfeld and Raikkonen swap, Vettel suffers from the Moto GP points and Coulthard jumps up the table.
Of course it is totally irrelevant as teams would have approached the races differently.
F1 history and records has become increasingly overpowered by stats.
Many still bleat on about the number of points scored by different drivers in different decades. They class this as a valid measure of ability / acheivement regardless of the increasing numbers of rounds per year.
To go to Moto GP points systems (much better IMO) would make these records instantly obsolete.
Many still bleat on about the number of points scored by different drivers in different decades. They class this as a valid measure of ability / acheivement regardless of the increasing numbers of rounds per year.
To go to Moto GP points systems (much better IMO) would make these records instantly obsolete.
The points system changed several years ago when Shuey was winning everthing. The idea was close up the 'runners up' positions to make it a little more exiting. The points went from 9 for a win , to 6, 4, 3, 2 and 1 point for sixth. It does make you wonder how the old points system would have effected the championships since the change. Anyone?
Personally, I'd like to see 12 points for the win, a point for fastest lap, and 2 points for pole position with everthing else remaining as is. It would liven up the races a bit with some of the less fancied teams (Toyota?)going gung ho for the pole and a couple of points, and then slowing up proceedings during the race.
Personally, I'd like to see 12 points for the win, a point for fastest lap, and 2 points for pole position with everthing else remaining as is. It would liven up the races a bit with some of the less fancied teams (Toyota?)going gung ho for the pole and a couple of points, and then slowing up proceedings during the race.
This is supposed to be the pinnacle of professional motorsport(?!), not a politically correct primary school sports day where there are 'no losers'. There is no right to anything. Toro Rossos joy at winning in Monza was all the more exagerated by the years of going away from race weekends with nothing.
Edited by Plug550 on Tuesday 30th September 14:01
Plug550 said:
This is supposed to be the pinnacle of professional motorsport(?!), not a politically correct primary school sports day where there are 'no losers'. There is no right to anything. Toro Rossos joy at winning in Monza was all the more exagerated by the years of going away from race weekends with nothing.
1 win in years and trillions spent is hardly a decent recent on investment though. Edited by Plug550 on Tuesday 30th September 14:01
Even giving points up to 12th or half the grid makes more sense than this format.
Return on investment? Just ask Toyota and Honda about that. in any case, they're not in the least bit interested in being awarded some losers points at the end of each race - they both want to win, desparately. Then Toro Rosso go and pinch a win on one tenth of the 'investment' of the manafacturers - they must be gutted (as well as embarrassed).
I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning. There is nothing to be gained by giving every Tom Dick & Harry points down to the last finisher. As already mentioned, the loot gets distributed down through the field according to the constructors championship, with the added bonus of free frieght to all points scorers. So even at the back of the grid, there is an occasionally interesting sub-championship to see if anyone misses out on this bonus.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning. There is nothing to be gained by giving every Tom Dick & Harry points down to the last finisher. As already mentioned, the loot gets distributed down through the field according to the constructors championship, with the added bonus of free frieght to all points scorers. So even at the back of the grid, there is an occasionally interesting sub-championship to see if anyone misses out on this bonus.
Plug550 said:
Return on investment? Just ask Toyota and Honda about that. in any case, they're not in the least bit interested in being awarded some losers points at the end of each race - they both want to win, desparately. Then Toro Rosso go and pinch a win on one tenth of the 'investment' of the manafacturers - they must be gutted (as well as embarrassed).
I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning. There is nothing to be gained by giving every Tom Dick & Harry points down to the last finisher. As already mentioned, the loot gets distributed down through the field according to the constructors championship, with the added bonus of free frieght to all points scorers. So even at the back of the grid, there is an occasionally interesting sub-championship to see if anyone misses out on this bonus.
It just seems incredible you can spend so much, put in so much effort for next to no reward, preserve the integrity of the sport by all means, but im only talking about half the grid getting something in return, cant be detrimental and fits in with your comment, not every tom dick and harry. I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning. There is nothing to be gained by giving every Tom Dick & Harry points down to the last finisher. As already mentioned, the loot gets distributed down through the field according to the constructors championship, with the added bonus of free frieght to all points scorers. So even at the back of the grid, there is an occasionally interesting sub-championship to see if anyone misses out on this bonus.
The lesser known quantities can participate on much smaller budgets and challenge for honours with the big boys, as they get something from their 10th place finish, whatever it may be, just seems Ecclestone made these rules to keep the little boys at bay, kind of elitist.
What do I know, im a biker.
Edited by Jetl3on on Tuesday 30th September 15:35
Jetl3on said:
Plug550 said:
Return on investment? Just ask Toyota and Honda about that. in any case, they're not in the least bit interested in being awarded some losers points at the end of each race - they both want to win, desparately. Then Toro Rosso go and pinch a win on one tenth of the 'investment' of the manafacturers - they must be gutted (as well as embarrassed).
I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning. There is nothing to be gained by giving every Tom Dick & Harry points down to the last finisher. As already mentioned, the loot gets distributed down through the field according to the constructors championship, with the added bonus of free frieght to all points scorers. So even at the back of the grid, there is an occasionally interesting sub-championship to see if anyone misses out on this bonus.
It just seems incredible you can spend so much, put in so much effort for next to no reward, preserve the integrity of the sport by all means, but im only talking about half the grid getting something in return, cant be detrimental and fits in with your comment, not every tom dick and harry. I'm sorry, I don't understand your reasoning. There is nothing to be gained by giving every Tom Dick & Harry points down to the last finisher. As already mentioned, the loot gets distributed down through the field according to the constructors championship, with the added bonus of free frieght to all points scorers. So even at the back of the grid, there is an occasionally interesting sub-championship to see if anyone misses out on this bonus.
The lesser known quantities can participate on much smaller budgets and challenge for honours with the big boys, as they get something from their 10th place finish, whatever it may be, just seems Ecclestone made these rules to keep the little boys at bay, kind of elitist.
What do I know, im a biker.
Edited by Jetl3on on Tuesday 30th September 15:35
Regardless whether the scoring system remains as-is or changes to MotoGP format, the team championship order will remain largely the same with the possible exception (as said earlier) that it will be easier for smaller teams to score the odd point via reliability rather than outright speed, which is not what F1 is about.
I don't see a problem with the scoring as it is, with possible exception of a point each for fastest lap (provided you finish in the top 10, as in GP2) and pole position.
IainT said:
Jetl3on said:
my ignornace of the rules cant decide if that is a wind up
why such a small number of points for a small percentage of the field in relation to the number of participants?
Your question is completely valid, please ignore the Troll.why such a small number of points for a small percentage of the field in relation to the number of participants?
Jetl3on said:
......just seems Ecclestone made these rules to keep the little boys at bay, kind of elitist.
What do I know, im a biker.
For a change I don't think we can blame Bernie for this. The F1 championship has been running since 1950 and until a couple of years ago points were only awarded down to 6th place. And in the early days, points were awarded for the fastest race lap.What do I know, im a biker.
But yes, Ecclestone does want to keep it elitist. For the first 30 years or so, you could buy a car from a manufacturer and be a private entrant. A guy called stirling Moss did OK on that basis.
But then the FIA decided that you had to build your own car. However, when you look at the current grid, some of the cars from the 'smaller' teams have borne a striking similarity to others further up the grid (or maybe their 'old' cars) and run the complete engine/gearbox assembly provided by a major manufacturer.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff