Last time a driver and team began to run away with titles we saw the points system change. In 2002 a race win got you 10 points, second got you 6. Schumacher never finished below 3rd claiming 11 of the 17 race victories that year. This was probably the dullest season in F1 with MS grabbing the title with 6 races to go. I know I found motivation a little hard to come by. In 2003 the points system changed to give second place 8 points and despite MS winning 6 GPs and Raikkonen only 1 the WDC went down to the last race. I've no problem with Red Bull dominating a season, but to gain such a lead so quickly is in my mind bad for the sport and the excitement of the championships is nowhere near that of the racing we have seen recently (exception of Valencia). So should the FIA look to restore a more linear points scoring system?
I think this points system is actually ok. It has made 2nd place go for 1st which was the whole plan. I say dont change
Of course not. The points system isn't to blame for Vettel's lead. Pound for pound, Button built up a similar lead (two wins and a third place rather than three wins) under the 10-8-6 system. Any system more or less balances out into victories, podiums and lower placed finishes.
I know it's not responsible for his lead, but it is responsible for a lead that most drivers believe can't be caught. The system was meant to give drivers the incentive to go for 1st rather than settle for 2nd, but now we have drivers talking about writing off a season 50% of the way through never mind thinking about trying to get a race win.
I don't know about that. It's not as if drivers were not bothering to go for 1st place before was it? Every driver wants to overtake and gain a place where possible so I don't think it really has made that much difference to the racing. Every driver wants to gain positions regardless of the points scoring system at the time. It doesn't really matter how big the gaps are between positions. If you have a big gap, like now, it just means that it's easier for the chasing driver to catch up. If you have a small gap then it means that the lead driver doesn't really get too far ahead but, conversely, it takes longer for the trailing driver to catch up. It's the same for everyone so I don't think it makes a lot of difference. It's not the points system that has caused Vettel to create a near unassailable lead, it's his driving and Newey's engineering brilliance. As a slight aside, I wasn't wholly against or for changing the points system for 2010. What I extremely disliked was how massively they changed it by increasing each result by 2.5 times the original. That just seemed silly.
I think the points should be worth only half for the first 6 races, then worth 2/3rds for the next 6 races, and finally full for the remaining races. That way the teams and drivers are not adversely affected by early season cockups, and are encouraged to develop right up to the wire.
They could also avoid early season cockups by building a better car and/or driving better. Why penalise those teams and drivers who have got it right earlier than others?
I understand where you 're coming from Berg but sport isn't about close finishes all the time, it's about who does the best job. As I mentioned before, what you suggest unfairly punishes those who have done a good job and falsely protects those who haven't. EVERY sport has had dominance of one particular team/person over the years. Tiger Woods in Golf, Federer/Samprass in Tennis, Manchester United in Football, Australia in Cricket, Rossi in MotoGP. They did the best job so they reap the rewards, it's the nature of all sporting competition. In 2009 Button drove some of the best races of his life in the early season. Were they unworthy of full points purely because of the calender date?
I agree with Westy. You can't have the last few races of a season (after everyone's scoped out each other's innovations and sorted out their own gremlins) worth more than the first few. You have to reward equally the teams that get it right out of the box and getting it right means reliability as much as speed. Changes to the points system are not really introduced to increase drivers' desire to race (they shouldn't be in F1 if they need any extra incentive), nor to reward the winner more (although I think that's fair) or less. They're introduced to increase the number of points-paying positions to attract more teams, sponsors and money to the sport.
Thats all right genji I am used to people disagreeing with my inventive suggestions. As long as I am not abused I will offer my insight into marketing Bernie's business.
That is a common reaction to such visionary ideas, Bergkamp, unfortunately. Maybe FOTA should do a poll during the summer break to decide which points system should be retrospectively applied. 25pts for the team closest to London. 18pts for the team second closest, 15pts for third closest, etc. Registered HQs, obviously, not factories. 10pts extra for every team with a shop in the city.
I don't agree with Bergs idea either, innovative as it is. Valuing one race in terms of points more than another isn't fair, but right now we exponentially assign more points to first than second, third and so on. In a season with a dominant driver/car this makes all positions other than 1st almost worthless with the gap to the leader increasingly increasing, there is no wonder teams are likely to give up in the next race or so.
if they were to change them I would prefer them to revert to the 9,6,4,3,2,1 with the option of dropping 3 or 4 races, like in the 'old' days. And no way put different points values on different races, the top cars all have different strengths and weaknesses that work better with different tracks, you would justbe giving one team a totally artificial advantage
No change needed. The problem with the Schumi years wasnt just Schumi's dominance, it was the sheer gap in performance between the Ferrari and anyone else and the gaps between teams farther down. You had the same results race in race out. This year even if Vettel wins every race there is still a lot of action elsewhere to keep us interested. The only possible legitimate change would be to allow dropping the worst x number of results. That way you would take out the random element of a driver being taken out of the race by someone else. That wouldn't alter the dominance this year though.
Miggins - that is worse. Currently winner gets 25, fifth 10 (40% of winner), sixth 8 (30% of winner). Your system winner 9, fifth 2 (22% of winner) . sixth 1 (11% of winner). Therefore it would be harder to make up the delta.
Bob Bobbinz: Sssssh! - You are inciting Bernie to re-ignite his mad medals idea! Please keep this discussion quiet! But I think you have raised an interesting debate. It has presented an opportunity for people to express some interesting viewpoints, so here is my take on your fascinating thread: The points system should remain as it is and not be altered simply because of dominance or parity. It should remain consistent and not be altered every few years, so that whatever we have evolves into a tradition, leaving everyone always knowing how it works. In this sense, there was very little wrong with the old 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 system; although I will concede that it did not offer much reward for the efforts of the lower, less well-financed teams who are now seeing a proper incentive under the present system. So, let's keep it as it is. There is no need for a knee-jerk. In the long-run, the best driver/car combination will normally take the laurels and it is absolutely wrong to conceive of any system designed to limit the benefit of going for victories; not that this will ever change: racing drivers always want to win if its remotely possible; something Bernie seems to have forgotten somewhere along the line… However, unlike most who've responded to Bergkamp, I think his proposal actually has merit for originality alone! - and is, in my opinion, actually better than having 'Bernie' medals; a gimmick which would have just made the 2011 season more complicated without any benefit whatsoever.
I'd rather hoped they would introduce a top 10 that was closer to the 2009 system. 1st - 15 2nd - 12 3rd - 10 4th - 8 5th -6 6th - 5 7th - 4 8th - 3 9th - 2 10th - 1 or perhaps... 1st - 12 2nd - 10 3rd - 8 4th - 7 5th - 6 6th - 5 7th - 4 8th - 3 9th - 2 10th - 1 Doesn't matter though, it's all psychological in any case.
