The new points system which was surprisingly proposed by the F1 Commssion yesterday will be used in F1 in 2010. A statement from the FIA read:
Due to the expanded grid of 13 teams, and further to the recommendation of the F1 Commission, a new points system will be in place for the 2010 season.
As discussed yesterday, the new system extends the points down to tenth place without changing the relative value of finishing first, second or third.
Other questionable changes include how the points scale increases unevenly, with a two-point jump from eighth to seventh, but only a one-point gap between seventh and sixth.
It has all the hallmarks of an ill-conceived and hastily-taken decision. If only the FIA had taken time to read the lukewarm response the proposal received here yesterday, with less than one-third of fans calling it an improvement:
Read more: Race winners could get 25 points in 2010
Image (C) Toyota F1 World
DanThorn
11th December 2009, 15:36
I can understand the need to extend the points down to 10th with the expansion of the grid, but 20 compared to 25 is the same percentage as 8 was to 10, so it hasn’t addressed the issue of giving more reward to winning at all. I’m all for changing the points system but only if it addresses all the issues, which this doesn’t seem to do.
Robin
11th December 2009, 16:28
Dan it is such a hasty decision! we are not used to this in F1 at all. It is absolutely bizarre how a decision like this that directly affects the whole sport can be made in such a rushed and amateur fashion
HounslowBusGarage
11th December 2009, 15:37
Do you think FOTA were consulted?
Xanathos
11th December 2009, 17:40
I’m sorry to tell you, but the decision was made by the F1 Comission in which FOTA is heavily involved.
This decision was basically made by the teams.
Steve
11th December 2009, 20:46
I still can’t believe such a massive shake-up of the points system has actually happened… but if the teams are all for it, I trust their opinions over my own.
Xanathos
11th December 2009, 21:14
This shake-up is not massive at all, as Keith’s article yesterday showed. It hardly changes anything at all.
Brian
11th December 2009, 15:43
if they wanted to expand the points down to 10th, they could have done it very easily. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and there you go, top ten drivers.
thestig84
11th December 2009, 15:47
I hate the new system but im afraid your idea is worse the winner only getting 3 more points than 4th would be massively devaluing a win
Brian
11th December 2009, 19:00
I know, but I don’t like the idea of someone running away with the points. I want every race and every point to mean something. The last race of the year should be the most heart pounding one of the year instead of just a parade.
James
11th December 2009, 22:00
Have you been under a rock for the last 5 GP finales?
Ed
11th December 2009, 15:47
Ridiculous!
If they wanted to keep the ratios, but extend the amount of drivers that got points, they should have used 15-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1
And this is even without mentioning the historical disruption this will result in…
thestig84
11th December 2009, 15:51
Your suggestion looks pretty good.
It does look like another badly thought through change. Another fiddle with the sport we love that will no doubt mess up the history books, not work in the races and get changed 2 years down the road.
Football fans are so lucky…their rules get left alone and they can get on with just enjoying the sport!
luigismen
11th December 2009, 16:11
I agree that was the suggestion I did
Robert McKay
11th December 2009, 18:09
I very nearly agree – I’d do this but have 16 for a win.
16-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1.
Second gets 75% of the winner’s points, so you have increased the value of the win.
Dominic
11th December 2009, 18:52
The new points are stupid!
it shoule be either…
1) 15-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1
2) 12-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1
I’m very dissapointed with the news and hope it changes back at some point before march!
Sear
11th December 2009, 20:49
The ’15-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1′ system Ed suggested sounds a lot more desireable to me than the actually adopted system.
Ratboy
12th December 2009, 18:58
I think this is the method they use in the BTCC and maybe the WTCC,
Anyway 2009 BTCC chamionship went down to the last race with a choice of three drivers that could of won it,
So i’d of preferred this system but oh well
Robin
11th December 2009, 15:49
Wow this was quick… usually they take weeks and months to make these decisions!
mp4-19b
11th December 2009, 15:56
That is the FIA specialty! They make wrong decisions quickly.
David A
11th December 2009, 17:41
Yeah, this is undoubtedly the worst decision they’ve made in years.
Anonymous
12th December 2009, 8:42
In F1 you have to be quick :)
It’s not final, an appeal is possible before the new season starts.
Anonymous
12th December 2009, 8:48
A good revision to this:
25-15-10-7-6-5-4-3-2-1
The top three finisher will truly have a ladder points to it.
Harvs
12th December 2009, 10:44
that is a stupid points system Anonymous! the reward for first is too high!
if a driver hads the win to his team mate then an extra ten points (the same amount as thrid) is way over the top.
Im very very DISAPOINTED with this new points system. F1 points are less valuable now individulally,
if you finished 10 for all races you wouldnt even get the same amount of points as a guy who won one race and then crashed into the wall for the other 17.
Hardly seems fair
Filipe
12th December 2009, 15:53
If you finished 10th last year you would be behind too.
Salty
11th December 2009, 15:51
The WMSC statement didn’t actually confirm the points allocated for each position, merely confirmed that the top ten will be allocated points next year. Am guessing that the rogue 7th place will be corrected.
mp4-19b
11th December 2009, 15:55
10-6-4-3-2-1
Nuff said!
Xanathos
11th December 2009, 17:47
Why not suggest 8-6-4-3-2 and 1 for fastest lap, like in the good old times of 1950??? Or adopt the points system of the 1930s????
Icarus
11th December 2009, 17:49
I hated that system, when it was in place.
Leon
12th December 2009, 11:29
Yep…… keep it simple.
This is all manipulation by Ecclestone, aided and abetted by the team principals to try to give the impression to people who don’t understand the subtleties of F1 that there are no losers. Thereby conning sponsors into spending more money ‘because our guy is in with a chance’.
When in reality he probably hasn’t a hope in hell of a podium or anything of value.
ILoveVettel
11th December 2009, 15:56
That 7th place thing is just crazy…. It just does not folow any pattern….
Lustigson
11th December 2009, 16:00
Indeed. Very, very silly.
Bullfrog
11th December 2009, 15:58
There’s still plenty of time to change it. Remember earlier this year:
17 March: Medals introduced, driver with most wins is World Champion.
25 March: Old system brought back.
29 March: Australian Grand Prix.
Ciaran
11th December 2009, 16:36
Dont forget that the medals system was universally hated, while this new points system has more support behind it.
three4three
11th December 2009, 16:05
Overall this makes sense as there will be more cars on the grid, but they do need to sort out that 7th place oddity. Like Bullfrog says above, there’s still plenty of time.
dsob
11th December 2009, 16:07
oh goodness, let’s not even mention history, and the disruption to driver career points tally sheets. There have been many changes in the last 20 years that make career points a joke in driver comparisons. This one really doesn’t make the joke any bigger.
I think with a larger grid, an alteration to the points system may have been in order. However, this appears to be a hasty and ill-thought change. It leaves the percentages fairly intact while simply increasing the numbers to facilitate points further down the grid, without placing an additional emphasis on finishing first. So basically it is no change at all, unless you are a team that regularly finished close to but out of the points last season, as this coming season you prolly will get some points.
As we do not and will not ever know the intent of FiA in this change, it is either a total success, or a colossal mistake. But only FiA can judge the result.
In another section of comments on articles, I answered a few postings with some thoughts of my own, and while these things are now a few hours old, I’ll post them again here, as I believe they are still relevant.
—————————————————-
All too true, my friend. It’s less and less about the racing, isn’t it?
Same answer as to the question why do dogs lick their b0ll0cks? Answer: Because they can.
Yes, I’d give this one, should it get voted in, a very short life.
This is by far the best line I’ve seen in a comment here. And VERY true. Keith, can we have an award for ‘Comment of the Month’ ? I’ll nominate Ariel right now.
Now, now, Mick, let’s be accurate about this. In truth, Bernie failed more as an F1 Qualifier than race driver. (Tongue planted firmly in cheek. )
And last of all, a word to FiA, as though they’d read this or even consider my remarks, but heck it makes me feel better. I see in the FiA statement (Keith’s link in the article) that a new sub-committee, the Sporting Working Group, has been created within the newly re-formed F1 Commission. The SWG mandate is to “improve the show”. I can’t WAIT to see what this brings. I can only imagine they are sending out even now for some black and yellow paint, specially if the vote is “Yea” on the new points schedule.
FiA, please remember, it is supposed to be about the racing. Not the “Show” or the “Spectacle” ….. heck, we could have teams of miniature ponies with their tails & manes dyed in team colors and great tall plumes as head-dresses tow the cars to the grid, and that would certainly be show and spectacle. But remember, at long last, it is supposed to be about the SPORT, about the RACING. I have been following Formula 1 since there WAS such a thing, went to my first F1 race at Silversone in ‘56, and some of the things I’ve seen in F1 recently have truly brought tears to my eyes. FiA, or F1 Commission, whichever is to actually run the sport now, please remember it was, is, and always should be about the racing. Not the multi-million dollar hospitality suites(ya listening, Bernie?), or the exotic locales, or even about the historic tracks cause even the best history on a dull track brings a bad race. Please keep in mind that you should take premier care of the racing, and everything else will take care of itself.
Rant over, thanks for reading. And those of you napping can wake up now.
Jim
11th December 2009, 17:13
dsob, your comment is music to my ears. You just summed everything perfectly. But if you want to emphasise a word, useitalics! Sorry, I’m a grammar Nazi :)
LewisC
11th December 2009, 18:06
Hear hear.
Ariel
11th December 2009, 20:43
Heh. Glad you liked my analogy. I totally agree with you, F1 should be about racing, first and foremost; all the other stuff should just be a plus, never a replacement.
Leon
12th December 2009, 11:38
No no no ….. I like elephants painted to look like bees….LOL !!!
Bloody brilliant Ariel !
IDR
12th December 2009, 7:09
Agree on the “comment of the month award”, but for this case, my vote goes for your comment, dsob.
wasiF1
11th December 2009, 16:33
I didn’t like the new system,they should at least look at some blogs to see what the fans then approve it.
wasiF1
11th December 2009, 16:35
In other changes agreed for 2010, experienced former F1 drivers will assist a panel of permanent race stewards at all Grands Prix.
Any guess who are those driver’s?
-A-
11th December 2009, 17:08
I think it was a good idea to extend the range down to 10th place, but the sequencing, especially the large gap between the first three positions and the rest, seems somewhat overdone to me. It’ll be interesting to see how this influences the competition next year.
dan
11th December 2009, 17:10
I agree with the 7th place points. It will make 8th want 7th, and 6th want 5th, rather than settling for what they are on (as a few people have mentioned will happen).
dan
11th December 2009, 17:10
though I disagree with the percentages of 1st:2nd:3rd.
inc0mmunicado
11th December 2009, 17:17
The points thing is only a ruse….did anyone else hear about the “FIA World Championship Commissioners” and the “FIA F1 Ambassabors”? Sounds like Max has a new job already waiting for him…
And all this is after DiMonte announces he’s stepping down from FOTA…
Pete Walker
11th December 2009, 17:23
I can live with it but they’ve got to change 7th place to four points, as Keith says. The gaps have always increased as you go up the order, not see-sawed.
PJA
11th December 2009, 17:39
While I am not in favour I thought they would have at least corrected the problem with seventh and eighth places.
It all seems a bit rushed to me, the first suggestion they would make a change like this was yesterday and now it is already confirmed, last year when Ecclestone and the FIA tried to introduce medals it seemed to be rumoured for quite a while before they said a medals system would be used, although they obviously had to back down a week before the season started, this time everyone seems have agreed on it without any dissenting voices.
Hakka
11th December 2009, 17:41
This is broadly a non-issue. It’ll mess up some points-based records, but those aren’t important anyway because points are only a means to various ends (championship positions) and not the end in itself. So it’s scaled a little bit and the tail is extended to accommodate the larger number of entries. It’s good to see very little time was wasted by the FIA on this non-issue. As long as this points system remains fixed, well-understood, and applied fairly from the beginning through the season end, it’s all good.
The more important decision is with regards to the race stewards – the introduction of ex-racing drivers and permanent stewards is a laudable step by the FIA and Todt.
theRoswellite
11th December 2009, 18:15
Hakka…”It’ll mess up some points-based records, but those aren’t important anyway because points are only a means to various ends (championship positions) and not the end in itself.”
Exactly…the FIA should extend everyone the courtesy of going back and recalculating every drivers points since day one, 1950, using the new system (this wouldn’t actually take all that long), then if someone wants to make comparisons between drivers of different eras they could look at an updated table…this is not to suggest that such an activity is time well spent.
And Hakka scores again with the real change…ex-drivers as permanent stewards. One would hope the really excellent choices would tend to remain and the others…not so much!
Robbie
11th December 2009, 18:18
Considering that there’s no refuelling next year, which means that the fastest person in the front will most likely race ahead and win and if that happens through the whole year and seeing how many points they’re going to get, next year’s season isn’t going to be as competitive as I hoped. One or two people will dominate it.
Tiomkin
11th December 2009, 19:21
The change should make no difference to past races. You cannot compare different seasons like for like, because the cars/tyres/engines/rules/tracks were different. So what if they score more points? It’s impossible to to compare them anyway.
It’s just the changeable nature of F1, for better or worse.
Leaf
11th December 2009, 19:41
Hey, I’ve got an idea. Instead, lets impliment a medal system! Oh, already suggested? Never mind. Oh, wait…..Lets try to leave politics and drama out of the sport for this year and see what it’s like just to watch racing every other weekend! Oh, right, that would be too hard. I know, lets support the new Sports Car World Championship!
ccolanto
11th December 2009, 19:56
I wonder what the 2009 championship would look like with these points. I think Vettel would have a better chance, especially when button had some DNF’s and low ranking results near the end of the season.
Anyone want to give it a go?
HounslowBusGarage
11th December 2009, 20:33
Ccolanto, Keith did the analysis on this thread yesterday https://www.racefans.net/2009/12/10/new-f1-points-system-proposed-for-2010/
And no, it doesn’t make much difference.
SpideR-OnE
11th December 2009, 21:05
I think the FIA changed the scores in order to present the driver had a chance to catch up with the scores of drivers and teams who already hold leading positions in Formula One records
driver
1 Michael Schumacher 1369
2 Alain Prost 798,5
3 Ayrton Senna 614
4 Rubens Barrichello 519
5 David Coulthard 517
teams
1 Ferrari 3718,5
2 McLaren 3265,5
3 Williams 2519,5
4 Lotus 1368
5 Renault 950
So probably for the scoring was changed so the FIA can boast records for slain in F1
dj
11th December 2009, 21:28
They should have gone the other way 3_2_1. The % would be fair, everyone 4th to last still in the hunt
slr
11th December 2009, 21:41
I think this is wrong, I thought they were trying to improve racing. This points system will make drivers more lazy. In the 90s, 26 cars raced together and only the top 6 got points.
HounslowBusGarage
11th December 2009, 22:22
Yes, but weren’t the teams racing for ‘support’ money beyond the points system? So if Team A got better positions overall that Team B, they earned more money from the organisers. No?
Prisoner Monkeys
11th December 2009, 22:41
Just read a pretty interesting article over at Autosport about what, exactly, the points change means for Formula One. Under the new system, every championship since 1999 would have been won by the people who won them. In fact, 2007 and 2008 would have been won by the same one-point margins that they were under the old system, and 2003 would have been decided by just four points. 1999 would have seen Eddie Irvine crowned World Champion, but he also would have been awarded that title under the 2003 system, when the value of second place was increased. So aside from the number of points awarded, it’s not a super-dramatic change.
Noelinho
12th December 2009, 0:01
I am disgusted.
Pink Peril
12th December 2009, 0:01
At least it’s better than the medal proposal…
DMW
12th December 2009, 1:16
One effect may be to lessen the pressure on pay-driver hacks and allow teams to employ them more freely: the lower teams can hope to compete for a higher constructors ranking even with a guy who finishes consistently several places behind his teammate. This will allow the new teams to hire drivers with rich dads to help fund the teams.
sumedh
12th December 2009, 5:22
7th place should be given 4 points instead of 5. Otherwise, the system is good. I approve.
Mike-e
22nd January 2010, 22:13
my sentiments exactly
Alex 3
12th December 2009, 5:53
The old saw about pleasing all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time comes to mind here.
What does it matter if there is a slight ineqity between 6th and 7th vs 7th and 8th in the grand scheme. The back of the pack will be an ever changing field so it will balance out.
Personally I would add 5 points for pole, 5 points for most laps lead and 5 points for fastest lap a la NASCAR so to speak. It will shake up the point system so that all these ridiculous comparisons of the old vs the new are meaningless.
It is not life and death here folks. It’s motor racing.
jampot
12th December 2009, 7:03
Agree with most of the comments here with the simple addition of points for overtaking, pole position, fastest lap.
Polak
12th December 2009, 7:05
This system doesn’t need too much backing because it doesn’t really change anything. The fight for the championship stays the same, unless of course it comes down to 9th and 10th place finishes making a difference and even that is close. Did some math for 2009 and these are the results of 09 v 1010 points.
But: 95 v. 231
Vet: 84 v. 203
Bar: 77 v. 187
So Vettel scored 88% of Button’s points using both systems and Rubens scored 81% of Button’s points. The new point system should have no notable impact on the championship fight, but it will have some more competition in the lower ranks.
I think it is an improvement over the old system because the lower drivers can have more competition. It may not solve all problems but I don’t think it causes any harm
Leaf
12th December 2009, 7:07
Just an idea. I have always thought F1 should award some point value for: 1) pole position, and 2) fastest race lap.
AndrewT
12th December 2009, 8:47
full ist, i hope it won’t be distorted…
1 BUT 95 1 BUT 230,5
2 VET 84 2 VET 203
3 BAR 77 3 BAR 183
4 WEB 69,5 4 WEB 175
5 HAM 49 5 HAM 120,5
6 RAI 48 6 RAI 119
7 ROS 34,5 7 TRU 78
8 TRU 32,5 8 ROS 75,5
9 ALO 26 9 GLO 63,5
10 GLO 24 10 ALO 62
11 MAS 22 11 MAS 48
12 KOV 22 12 KOV 46
13 HEI 19 13 HEI 44
14 KUB 17 14 KUB 44
15 FIS 8 15 FIS 26
16 BUE 6 16 BUE 16
17 SUT 5 17 SUT 13
18 KOB 3 18 KOB 8
19 BOU 2 19 BOU 6,5
20 NAK 5
21 PIQ 1
AndrewT
12th December 2009, 8:53
it did, sorry…
01 BUT 95 – 01 BUT 230,5
02 VET 84 – 02 VET 203
03 BAR 77 – 03 BAR 183
04 WEB 69,5 – 04 WEB 175
05 HAM 49 – 05 HAM 120,5
06 RAI 48 – 06 RAI 119
07 ROS 34,5 – 07 TRU 78
08 TRU 32,5 – 08 ROS 75,5
09 ALO 26 – 09 GLO 63,5
10 GLO 24 – 10 ALO 62
11 MAS 22 – 11 MAS 48
12 KOV 22 – 12 KOV 46
13 HEI 19 – 13 HEI 44
14 KUB 17 – 14 KUB 44
15 FIS 8 – 15 FIS 26
16 BUE 6 – 16 BUE 16
17 SUT 5 – 17 SUT 13
18 KOB 3 – 18 KOB 8
19 BOU 2 – 19 BOU 6,5
– 20 NAK 5
– 21 PIQ 1
AndrewT
12th December 2009, 9:12
sry for that, gain and again -.-
picture link, hope it works…
Mike-e
22nd January 2010, 22:11
i dont see why it matters that a couple of midfield drivers were switched around? surely only the top 3 really matter, and realisticly the top 1.
and surely the incentive for the midfield teams is to be more consistently doing well.
Dennis
12th December 2009, 15:30
That 7th place is just weird. It’s like “oh we need 3 more cars that could get points, let’s just paste a few underneath”. Very odd indeed! I’d like to have a point for the fastest lap too. I don’t care for points for pole though, that’s qualification and not racing. Either way, I can see where the’re coming from with this system but I don’t really care about it since it doesn’t change enough. There was nothing wrong with the old system. I like the 15-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 idea as well. Not because of the “incentive to win”(the’re all competative enough, that’s the reason why they made it to the top of racing in the first place) but because it sorts out all problems the new proposed system is bringing up. That 7th place oddity needs to go!
Icthyes
12th December 2009, 22:38
A completely unnecessary, ill-thought, ruination of F1. Let’s just give everyone a trophy for turning up and be done with it, the way things are going.
Daffid
13th December 2009, 11:15
Jensen Button:
“It’s a great idea. It’s nice that you get five points over second for winning. That’s important because we all love winning races. I won six races this year and I got just two more point”
Is he really so thick that he can’t see that relatively you get no more points? Dear God, I can’t believe they’ve ruined the historical records at a stroke.
Mike-e
22nd January 2010, 22:05
i’m fairly sure that at periods in f1 history the winner didn’t get 10 points. I’m fairly sure that at some point in the 70’s or 80’s the winner got 8 points….
GeeMac
14th December 2009, 6:53
It’s a poor decision. Another knee-jerk reaction by the FIA and the F1 supremos.
The reward for winning is far too high (as strange as that sounds!) and flies in the face of the FIA’s earlier view that a driver who is consistently good should win the WDC.
I’m curious, would Button have won the WDC earlier in the year based on the new points system?
Olly
14th December 2009, 11:13
I don’t really see the problem with the new points system as most of the ratios are still the same.
It doesn’t really what points system they use, the best most consistent driver will still win the championship.
Perhaps they could look at the Indycar points system which seems to work very well where they give points all the way through the field, that way even the cars at the back have a good reason to carry on racing each other.
Steve
14th December 2009, 16:26
Please email all the teams and FOTA and complain about the 7th place thing (5 pts when it should be 4)
I would prefer 15,12,10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1 but that aint going to happen, so if we’re going to get
25,20,15,10,8,6,5?!!?,3,2,1 … lets get that 5 changed..
email williams, mclaren, FIA, FOTA, force india, USf1, asap!
get it done people , otherwise we’re stuck with this sea-saw system
Steve
Laurence Smith
16th December 2009, 12:48
How about
10, 6, 4, 3, 2.5, 2, 1.5, 1, 0.5 ?
– It maintains 10 points for a win for history’s sake
– Big gap between 1st and 2nd place to encourage people to go for the win
– Point awards extended to 9th place
Richard
17th January 2010, 19:08
It will make a big difference if you have a few DNF’s. Therefor finishing will become more important than racing.
Mike-e
22nd January 2010, 22:01
the easiest way to ammend the 7th place thing is just make 7th worth 4 points.
25(-5) 20(-5) 15(-5) 10(-2) 8(-2) 6(-2) 4(-2) 3(-1) 2(-1) 1.
seems it would be more fair.
Free Online Movie Streaming
12th February 2010, 1:44
I admire the valuable information you offer in your articles. I will bookmark your blog and have my children check up here often. I am quite sure they will learn lots of new stuff here than anybody else!