Right now we are enjoying one of the closest championship fights between multiple drivers Formula 1 has ever seen.
The change in the points system this year makes it easy to overlook just how closely-fought the title race is at the moment.
Apply last year’s points system to this year’s championship and we’d have the top five drivers separated by a mere eight points:
2010 standings under 2009 points
| Position | Driver | Points |
| 1 | Lewis Hamilton | 65 |
| 2 | Mark Webber | 63 |
| 3 | Sebastian Vettel | 61 |
| 4 | Jenson Button | 59 |
| 5 | Fernando Alonso | 57 |
| 6 | Felipe Massa | 39 |
| 7 | Nico Rosberg | 36 |
| 8 | Robert Kubica | 35 |
As has been noted here before, the new points system is doing little to make the championship closer. The reason these drivers are so close is because they’ve had similar results over the course of the year:
| Driver | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | 9th | 10th |
| Mark Webber | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Lewis Hamilton | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sebastian Vettel | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jenson Button | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Fernando Alonso | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
But there is one significant difference. Under last year’s points Lewis Hamilton, with two wins, would be leading the world championship instead of Mark Webber, who has won four races.
The points system was partly changed to increase the gap between first and second place and that appears to have worked. It’s an improvement too, as it makes sense that the driver who’s won the most races should be leading the world championship.
The closest championship in years
Putting this year’s championship standings into last year’s points also allows us to see how much closer this year’s championship is than many previous seasons have been.
At the same point last season the top five were covered by 38 points. Rubens Barrichello, second in the championship at the time, was 16 adrift of leader Jenson Button.
Delve into the history books and it’s hard to find a championship that was as close as this year’s is after 12 races, taking changes in points systems into account.
Even in 1982 – a tremendously close championship – after 12 races the top five were separated by 15 points. And this was in the days when just nine points were awarded for a win.
At this stage in 2007 and 2008 the top four drivers were covered by 15 and 16 points respectively. But this year we have five drivers from three teams – Red Bull, McLaren and Ferrari – in the mix
Will it stay this close?
At the Hungaroring the close positions in the championship were not reflected in the performance of the cars. Red Bull were up to 1.2 seconds faster than Ferrari and another half a second faster than McLaren.
Is this the shape of things to come for the final seven races, or just a one-off? Will the Red Bull drivers, who’ve taken pole position for all but one of the races so far this year, cruise to the championship?
Or was this a freak result on a track which suited the RB6 perfectly, as Fernando Alonso suggested:
It was more Red Bull that, maybe, was under-performing a bit in Germany and over-performing in Hungary due to the characteristics of the Hungarian circuit. It has medium-high speed corners, not many straights, that was a perfect circuit for Red Bull and we knew that.
Fernando Alonso
Red Bull’s rivals will be pinning their hopes on the new front wing tests being introduced at the Belgian Grand Prix. This seems to be a response to the extreme deflection observed on the RB6’s front wing in recent races which helps it to generate levels of downforce far beyond what its opponents can achieve.
Will this finely-poised championship last until the final round? Has the new points system had a good or bad effect – or none at all? Have your say in the comments.
*old money.
Actual championship standings
| Position | Driver | Points |
| 1 | Mark Webber | 161 |
| 2 | Lewis Hamilton | 157 |
| 3 | Sebastian Vettel | 151 |
| 4 | Jenson Button | 147 |
| 5 | Fernando Alonso | 141 |
| 6 | Felipe Massa | 97 |
| 7 | Nico Rosberg | 94 |
| 8 | Robert Kubica | 89 |
| 9 | Michael Schumacher | 38 |
| 10 | Adrian Sutil | 35 |
| 11 | Rubens Barrichello | 30 |
| 12 | Vitaly Petrov | 17 |
| 13 | Kamui Kobayashi | 17 |
| 14 | Vitantonio Liuzzi | 12 |
| 15 | Nico Hulkenberg | 10 |
| 16 | Sebastien Buemi | 7 |
| 17 | Pedro de la Rosa | 6 |
| 18 | Jaime Alguersuari | 3 |
| 19 | Heikki Kovalainen | 0 |
| 20 | Karun Chandhok | 0 |
| 21 | Lucas di Grassi | 0 |
| 22 | Jarno Trulli | 0 |
| 23 | Bruno Senna | 0 |
| 24 | Timo Glock | 0 |
| 25 | Sakon Yamamoto | 0 |
Read more: Points system surprises Button
Image (C) Red Bull/Getty images
zecks
6th August 2010, 11:04
hmm it makes me wonder if team orders would have been used on massa if the old points system were in place.
Mike
6th August 2010, 22:50
They probably would have, but there argument about Alonso being waaay ahead might not have worked quite as well.
newnhamlea1 (@newnhamlea1)
6th August 2010, 11:06
I disagree with this statement;
‘It’s an improvement too, as it makes sense that the driver who’s won the most races should be leading the world championship.’
If you won the most races but performed poorly in all of the other races then I do not think it makes sense for the winner of the most races to be at the top. It should be about who performs the most consistantly.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
6th August 2010, 11:13
I think you need a balance between the two. Based on their results, would you say Hamilton should be in front of Webber?
newnhamlea1 (@newnhamlea1)
6th August 2010, 11:25
I agree with you in this case but in other cases, not so.
Ben Curly
6th August 2010, 12:17
There were no “other cases”, so if you think it’s unfair please provide an illustration.
For example, a driver finishes 2nd in three races in the row. Very solid drive gives him 54 points. To get ahead of him you will need at least one win, and another 30 points on top of that. It means you have to be first in two races and then get at least P7 (55 points), or take one win once and two P3’s (56 points).
Is it unfair? Well, in my opinion 1-3-3 is greater result than 2-2-2 and 1-1-7 is even better, so yes, we have a very good balance with this point system.
Old pointscoring system would produce a very different outcome. A result of 2-2-2 would give you 24 points and put you ahead of two drivers who actually won (1-1-7 and 1-3-3 would be worth only 22 points).
Patrickl
6th August 2010, 11:40
What they did now was to take 2 points away from second place. That’s just ridiculous.
They didn’t (just) make the gap bigger between p1 and P2, they undervalued P2 relative to ALL other positions.
The old scoring system had roughly 20% between the positions. Starting with 25 for P1 they could have done that even better (25-20-16-13-10). What’s wrong with that?
Now there is 28% between P1 and P2 and then only 17% between P2 and P3.
Patrickl
6th August 2010, 12:00
BTW what I’m saying is that they should not have taken 2 points away from P2, but added some to P1.
For instance, 30-20-15 makes a whole lot more sense than 25-18-15
matt90
7th August 2010, 10:35
I agree. A 7 point gap between 1st and second is good, but there should be more than 3 points seperating 2nd and 3rd.
Icthyes
6th August 2010, 14:14
You could make a case for it.
Hamilton has never finished below 6th apart from retirements. Webber meanwhile has finished below 6th three times. They both have six podiums, but Mark has only one 2nd place compared to Lewis’ three. And whilst Webber has 133 points from his podiums to Hamilton’s 119, that reflects the fact that there’s less than half the points advantage between 2nd and 3rd compared to 1st and 2nd.
None of which means Webber shouldn’t be leading over everyone else, because that’s the rules of the Formula; but the new system does reward consistency less over victories combine with more minor placings.
Personally I think they’re both rubbish and we should have the pre-2003 system. That would be a close championship!
andyc
6th August 2010, 14:16
The 2010 standings under the 2009 system gives you the wrong man on top, just like it was in 2008.
Mike-e
6th August 2010, 20:25
you mean 2007 surely? raikkonen didn’t deserve that championship at all. Anyway, its a bit brash to just come and state your dislike for hamilton. I could come on here and state how much i hate schumacher and alonso and how there hasnt been a worthy world champion since 1993…..
if you think about it…. there really hasn’t.
schu?
hill?
villeneuve?
ok…. maybe hakkinen deserved it.
schu again 5 times??? ha not a chance
alonso? no
raikkonen?
hamilton? maybe
button? no
where has all the flair and guts gone? seemed to die with senna in 94.
PeriSoft
6th August 2010, 20:53
Last time I checked, F1 was about beating the other drivers and teams in a pattern that makes sense given the current points system.
The only defining factor in whether someone deserves the world championship is — wait for it! — whether they win the world championship! If you score the most points, you win. See how that works? If the points system is wacky, then the driver who best calibrates his driving to the wacky points system wins.
If you want a sport where ‘flair’ and ‘guts’ decide the winner, World Wrestling Entertainment might be more your speed.
Hamish
6th August 2010, 22:31
What a ridculous comment. Albeit some of the abovementioned Im not the hugest fans of they seized the opportunity given the circumstances and came out on top.
Im not fussed either way about the points situation, all drivers are subject to the same and they all know the system. If they don’t make the most of it, well clearly thats their fault.
Mike
6th August 2010, 23:12
Mike-e that’s a bit silly,
“raikkonen didn’t deserve that championship at all. Anyway, its a bit brash to just come and state your dislike for hamilton”
… Are you doing the same thing to Raik?
In the end, The guy with the points deserves it, I mean, if you use the word deserve, you should probably consider my mum as the winner, she survived raising me, surely she deserves it more than some young guy who thinks he can drive fast.
….. Ok… Who would have deserved to win in all those years?
Daniel
8th August 2010, 12:32
I agree Keith, but there is a better way to compare years: Take the number of points of each driver, divide by the value for a win and then multiply by 10.
If you use this method then the ratios between the points for different years are maintained. i.e. If a win is worth comparatively more in a year then that difference is maintained.
Damon
6th August 2010, 11:46
“It should be about who performs the most consistantly.”
NO, NO, NO.
RaulZ
6th August 2010, 12:00
As Patrick says, the points gap between positions are proportionately the same, but 2-3 positions gap.
So that, as before, who performs the most constantly would win as before. But as the real change was between 2-3 positions then I’d say that the driver who performs the most constantly and podiums with 2nd place would win the championship.
So, YES, YES ,YES.
That’s the way Alonso will win. Apart of the fact that HE IS FASTER THAN FELIPE. :) that’s something that everybody knows at this moment.
luigismen (@luigismen)
6th August 2010, 14:30
I confirm that I understood the message
wasiF1
6th August 2010, 12:05
There should be a balance between the driver who wins races & the driver who performs consistently.But a win is a win so there should be more preference to the driver who wins most races.
David BR
6th August 2010, 12:33
I kind of agree with newnhamlea1. If you want wins to decide, then Bernie’s olympic-style medal system works much better. But once you’ve decided on a distribution of points, the question of ‘fairness’ strikes me as meaningless. Formula 1 is full of factors other than the particular driver that determine race results, especially mechanical failures. The points system therefore more accurately reflects an essential component, consistency, whether of the driver or the car, and doesn’t fetishize wins – which are great but often, very often! down to considerable doses of luck. I’m happy for the championship to be won by someone overcoming bad luck in qualifying, say, to drive through the field to finish 4th. For me more exciting than seeing the fastest car at the track being driven by driver A or B from pole to first place.
Personally I prefer the simplicity of the previous points system, the bigger numbers involved seem to confuse absolutely everyone with little real gain in the end.
Daniel
8th August 2010, 12:44
To get a measure of whether a point system is fair apply this test:
1) Imagine 2 drivers are level on points.
2) Imagine one driver has a DNF and the other wins.
3) How many races does it take of that driver winning and their opponent finishing second does it take to overhaul that points difference?
In the 10, 6, 4… system it was 3 (more precisely 2.5).
In the 10, 8, 6… system it was 5.
In the 25, 18, 15… system it is 4 (more precisely 3 and 3/25).
The 10, 8, 6… system was clearly unfair. A season where one driver can win 15 of 19 races and still lose the championship is ridiculous.
xtophe
6th August 2010, 12:54
Well, apart from winning 4 races, webber has been rather consistent. With 2 racewins less under his belt, Hamilton isn’t really far behind. The point system rewards winning, but it doesn’t really take away anything to being consistent.
BasCB (@bascb)
6th August 2010, 12:59
I think that the points system is pretty much OK. The difference between a win and second could be larger, but it is better than last points system to make a regular race winner stand out in the crowd.
Sure, it could be better (small gap between 2nd and 3rd and funny distribution from 6-8), but it is a step in the right direction.
Icthyes
6th August 2010, 14:02
I actually disagree with this notion too.
Apart from one or two races, McLaren always had the second or even third-best car, and yet were leading the championship because of their drivers’ consistent performances (and of course, a bit of luck). Rarely were they ever in a position to win, and yet found themselves at the top despite only winning 4 races to Red Bull’s 5 (as it was before the last race). To me, that says they did the better job and deserved to be leading the championships.
Ronman
8th August 2010, 10:54
I think the points system as it stands now is almost perfect…. it does mess up with the history and the records, and if past championships were to be looked into with the new points system, i believe many drivers would loose their crowns and others more deserving drivers would earn their glory.
however, some in the thread above mentioned that the new system devalues 2nd place.
my response is: there is nothing to devalue in the 2nd positions. races are held to be won. no one grows up dreaming to be Vice champion or 2nd place.
Ayrton Senna said it best. 2nd Best is the first looser.
so in that context there should be a big gap between 1st and second, and then a closer gap even between 3rd and the rest of the point scoring divisions. the hell with consistency, you should be consistently winning if you want the crown, not consistently second best and sometimes consistently lucky…
two more things, I think a point for Pole would be interesting… but just for the drivers title, and it would push for more banzai flying laps i think..
on a more pedantic note, someone should add up all the scoring systems, determine an average and apply it to the past 60 championships and see what happens… it should be interesting…
demos12
6th August 2010, 11:09
I think that the new points system has had a positive effect, the effect that Bernie ecclestone wanted to have, as the driver with the most wins is leading the championship, whereas under the old system he would not be, so it should be encouraging drivers to win, making the sport better
Paul F
6th August 2010, 11:10
Team orders, team orders, team orders, team orders!
While I don’t agree that the driver who has won the most races should absolutely deserve to lead the championship per se, it does feel like Webber deserves the lead more than Lewis at this point – which vindicates the new points system in my opinion. I’m a LH supporter.
Great article Keith.
sumedh
6th August 2010, 11:16
The new point system has definitely worked. Webber leads over Hamilton, and he wouldn’t have last year.
But, I don’t understand the FIA’s decision to change its tests midway through the season. The Red Bull and Ferrari wings have legitimately passed the FIA’s tests and hence are legal.
And now, the FIA changes its own tests!! It is almost as if the FIA wants to purposely make the wings illegal!!
Patrickl
6th August 2010, 11:44
Same thing happened several tiems before.
When teams knowingly put stuff on their car that contravenes 3.15 (in spirit) they can expect 3.17.8 to catch them out.
One might ask why teams would go so low as to build a car they know is against the rules and hope they won’t get detected.
BasCB (@bascb)
6th August 2010, 12:49
That is because they are certain they will be detected and found out, but often it takes a while for rivals and/or the FIA to do that, so in the mean time they can use those parts.
I read in an analyses, that one of the reasons Red Bull mechanics have been working all night at almost every GP is because they had to adjust/replace parts that did NOT make it through FIA scrutineering.
Still they seem to have enough parts that do the job, so the risk pays off.
sumedh
6th August 2010, 13:52
Teams go “so low”???
There is nothing to be ashamed of pushing the rules to the limit.
It is common sense that every FIA rule is designed to reduce car speed, and every designer wants to build a faster car. So, it is no wonder that all the cars are built on the edge of the rules so as to lose as little speed as possible while fulfilling all the FIA criterion.
There is nothing “low” about being caught by the FIA. It only means that you are indeed trying hard to beat the opposition.
Patrickl
6th August 2010, 14:02
This is not about pushing the limit, but about knowngly going OVER the limit knowing that even when you get caught you won’t get a penalty.
FIA should stamp this nonsense out and actually check the cars in a windtunnel (or some other comprehensive test) to make sure they don’t cheat.
bananarama
6th August 2010, 14:33
Double/Blown/Whatever diffuser away and especially f-duct away, that would be the first steps for that. These things weren’t foreseen when making the rules and they are basically against the spirit in which they were written.
Lets tae away the ground effect altogether, it was a total cheat by Lotus when they invented it, so by your standards it shouldn’t be allowed and would never have been invented in the first place. Also every kind of wings on the cars. And lightweight materials that didn’t exist when the rules were written, they can’t be allowed either.
Why not prohibit the teams to have engineers in the first place .. the team managers and drivers have to build the cars and if for some reason one of them has a new idea, they have to fire that person.
bananarama
6th August 2010, 14:37
I just want to add that I don’t mind the tests being changed to stop things that are illegal but weren’t detected before. I just think the catch-up-game is part of what makes F1 what it is.
Patrickl
8th August 2010, 10:21
F-Duct and Blown diffuser is clever. These are not banned by the regulations.
Moving bodywork is illegal per 3.15.
Completely different things.
Daniel
8th August 2010, 12:52
Except all bodywork moves. It is for the FIA to define what they tolerance they mean by immovable, they do this through specifying tests.
Swampie
6th August 2010, 11:45
The issue with the wings is that the *rules* say that they have to be rigid, and a certain height off the ground – full stop. However, in practice, they will flex a little, so they devised a test which was designed to balance the strict “no flexing” rule, against the real world situation (1cm flex with 50kg weight).
However, what has happened is that teams have then developed their wings to meet the tests, rather than to meet the rules. (Kind of like people who learn exam papers to pass an exam, but don’t properly understand or know the subject of the exam) Therefore, if the FIA (in private) thinks that the wings are against the rules, but the current tests aren’t actually sufficient to show this, then they’re within their rights to change the tests. After all, it’s not the tests which define the rules, it’s the rules which lead to a certain list of tests.
Bertie
6th August 2010, 11:46
I think the solution that Red Bull has found is clearly very clever. However, the rules were put in place to stop cars having too much downforce and to stop the associated danger that comes from having a car so low. In the rules they state they don’t want the car to be lower than a certain amount. The test is designed to ensure this happens. The rules also clearly states that the test will be changed if they so need to be. So it is pretty simple what they should if they are following the rules. I think if anything it shows the different styles that teams approach innovation. Mclaren, for example, with the F-duct checked beforehand that in theory it was kosher. Whereas Red Bull tend to slap parts on (that pass the tests) and hope they don’t get noticed. Both strategies have their merits. One way keeps the stewards on side and increases the likelihood of it being declared legal. The other, means you get to run on a part on car that perhaps wouldn’t have been allowed at the expense of it being more likely to be declared illegal.
John M
6th August 2010, 17:54
There’s an old saying in racing:
“It ain’t cheating if you don’t get caught.”
Engineers will push the limits of the rules as far as they can conceive. This can involve pushing them to/past the edge of legality, or more typically finding the loopholes (e.g., double diffuser). It’s the nature of the sport, where you’re looking for even the tiniest edge to eke out fractions of a second. Playing it safe is never going to win races.
Praveen Titus
11th August 2010, 20:19
That’s right, as long as that illegal thing isn’t able to be detected by the FIA it’s legal, technically. The Red Bull RB6s do have something in them that their rivals aren’t even close to figuring.
Red Bull is going to continue to be the fastest car on the grid unless the others come up with a really bright idea. After all, it’s the work of Adrian Newey who designed the all-conquering McLaren MP4/4 Hondas of 1988.
Richard C
6th August 2010, 11:18
Interestingly under both systems the driver presently 5th (Alonso) could be leading the championship if he won the next race – and other drivers scores went his way.
Bernard (@bernard)
6th August 2010, 12:10
Yeah and Yamamoto could win the championship if he wins the next 7 races and the others fail to score…
BasCB (@bascb)
6th August 2010, 12:50
Now, that would be a suprise winner, but very much deserved if he would get the HRT so far up the grid!
ciaran
6th August 2010, 11:33
Under the 10-6-4-3-2-1 scoring system it still would be very close
The standings would be
Webber 53
Hamilton 49
Vettel 45
Button 43
Alonso 43
Massa 23
Rosberg 19
Kubica 18
There would be 10 points between 1st and 5th but the driver who has won the most races (Webber) would be leading the championship.
Mike-e
6th August 2010, 20:31
surely we should go back to this? (ciaran’s post) this reflects the results much better….
Tom M in Australia
9th August 2010, 5:12
Exactly. The 10-6-4-3-2-1 system was perfect. There’s no good reason not to go back to it.
Dan Thorn
6th August 2010, 11:37
With the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system the championship would be as follows:
Webber: 53
Hamilton: 49
Alonso: 43
Button: 43
Vettel: 42
I like the new points system. It rewards a win more, but with points down to tenth it still rewards consistancy and gives midfield teams a better chance to score points and compete, which is a good thing. The 2009 system rewarded consistancy far too much.
Dan Thorn
6th August 2010, 11:38
Dang, Vettel would have 45. Also I was beaten to it. Fail.
Mike-e
6th August 2010, 20:32
hahaha :)
nice
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
6th August 2010, 11:45
And people said the new points system would be detrimental to the sport. I even heard one know-it-all (not anyone here) claim that it would be better to reduce the number of points-scoring positions because people down in tenth would have to work harder all race instead of cruising to a single point.
It just adds fuel to my belief that Formula 1 fans are idiots.
Patrickl
6th August 2010, 12:04
In a sense it’s true though. The current system gives more points for lower positions.
It does reward consistency in finishing even more than the previous system did.
But then indeed, as is your point, it’s not that much worse that you really notice it.
iBlaze
6th August 2010, 13:10
“I even heard one know-it-all (not anyone here) claim that it would be better to reduce the number of points-scoring positions because people down in tenth would have to work harder all race instead of cruising to a single point.”
Haha, well actually I think the opposite is true and people down in tenth are fighting MORE now that it’s worth something. The Schumacher/Barrichello incident is testament to that.
Overall I think the new points system is working, I just wish the big gaps in the numbers weren’t so misleading to everybody who is used to the old system. But I’m sure, as with everything, we’ll adjust in time.
Icthyes
6th August 2010, 14:21
Last year, some of the best battles we saw were over positions that don’t even give points now.
Let’s not forget actual position also counts when drivers/teams are tied and their final placing needs to be determined on countback.
So I disagree they’re going for it more (except perhaps 11th placed drivers), because every extra position was always important.
Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys)
7th August 2010, 2:53
Yes, but this guy who made the original suggestion believed that if points were only awarded to the top six, drivers as low as tenth would push harder so that they could get a single point. He was completely ignoring the fact that overtaking is difficult because of the way aerodynamics are constructed, and was under the impression that there was no overtaking in races because drivers were content to take a single point.
Icthyes
6th August 2010, 14:31
Except they were right, in a way.
We’ve always seen exciting battles for meaningless positions, with drivers going for as high a place as possible. In that sense your “idiot” is wrong because drivers have always worked hard to get that extra place, no matter if was 7th or 17th. Where you’re wrong is in the same vein; apart from 10th, there’s very little extra excitement or action in the battles for positions below 8th, and that’s only a psychological thing because if it’s easier for one small team to get a point, it’s easier for all of them, and therefore we’re back to square one.
Logically following your argument, we should award points down to something silly like 18th, MotoGP-style.
Any points system rarely makes anything more than the tiniest bit of difference, except in very specific situations (like the one we have now, or Senna’s first world championship). Since F1 is supposed to be about the best, I would rather only a few get points rather than just get so many more points than the others. And it would so easier to compute than the nonsense we have now.
wasiF1
6th August 2010, 11:58
The last three years have given us a very good championship where the champions had to fight with the grid to win the crown.I hope it continues this season as well.
I think it will a Red Bull driver to win it not sure who will but I want Webber to win it.
Lee
6th August 2010, 12:34
the thing i hate about the new scoring system is that it will completely distort the overall all time points totals list. In far more of a way than the very small increases in points available for wins over the years. I believe back in the day you got 8 for a win, then up to 10 and finally 12.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
6th August 2010, 12:44
The overall points total always have been a meaningless way of comparing drivers.
Lee
6th August 2010, 13:47
Agreed in part, in that it like most historical tables dont help with comparing drivers directly to one another, however I wouldn’t say they are totally meaningless. They give a relatively good indication of overall success throughout a divers career when looked at beside the number of seasons a driver competed for.
We dont have very many ways of comparing drivers from different eras, all F1 fans know this, however it is one of the most discussed topics between fans so the historical stats tables obviously mean something to many of us even if their overall relevance can be questioned.
The way the points system is now will totally distort that method of comparison.
Patrickl
6th August 2010, 14:06
Seasons haven’t had the same number of races and the point scoring system has been completely different through time too.
Getting 6 or 8 points for P2 is pretty different too.
The 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 systems in total gives 50% more points than 10-6-4-3-2-1.
claudioff
6th August 2010, 18:38
Yeah. I took the data below, overall points per driver, from wikipedia:
Michael Schumacher__1407
Alain Prost_________ 798.5
Fernando Alonso_____ 718
Rubens Barrichello__ 637
Ayrton Senna________ 614
Kimi Räikkönen______ 579
David Coulthard_____ 535
Nelson Piquet_______ 485.5
Nigel Mansell_______ 482
Jenson Button_______ 474
Barrichello better than Senna, Raikkonen, Piquet and Mansell? I Don´t think so.
jsw11984 (@jarred-walmsley)
6th August 2010, 20:49
And Alonso?, doubt it
claudioff
6th August 2010, 23:07
Alonso already has more points than him…
James_mc (@james_mc)
7th August 2010, 1:31
TBH in these lists they should re-calculate the old scores according to the new system.
Daniel
8th August 2010, 12:58
You forgot Fangio.
BasCB
10th August 2010, 15:33
Maybe that can be seen as an extra plus of the new points system, as it makes it obvious that comparing points between historical drivers to determine who’s best is nonsense!
The differences in amount of races per season, points counted towards the championship and added to that the actual difference between points awarded for different results through the decades of F1 were not easily recognized just by watching at the points.
To compare i think you would have to look at percentages of races won and average race positions.
Todfod
6th August 2010, 12:35
Red Bull has been the key to this years tight championship battle. We know Ferrari and Mclaren are going to be up there, but to have a third team that is quicker, definitely spices things up.
I do not see it being a 5 way battle all the way to Abu Dhabi. Jenson’s luck seems to have run out, and he should return to his usual average performances. Nonetheless, a 4 way battle definitely seems to be on the cards.
Nitpicker
6th August 2010, 12:42
I wonder that instead of changing the point system to the current 25-18-15 etc, why didn’t they just revert to the old 10-6-4-3-2-1?
There is an argument that positions down to 10th should be awarded points because we have more cars on the track. But we repeatedly see drivers battling for position down in 13th and 14th in the dying laps. I don’t think any additional motivation is needed. Hopefully F1 won’t end up like Indycar/NASCAR where points are awarded to merely making it to the end in last place.
Patrickl
6th August 2010, 14:07
I though that was to help the teams in the back to get a point and therefore win free transportation.
Icthyes
6th August 2010, 14:34
Then they should just change the rules regarding that; preferably by getting rid of it, since it’s the teams struggling for pace because of finances who need free transport the most.
Darren
6th August 2010, 13:21
I wish a pole position would be rewarded with a point or 2. Maybe even a fastest lap point could add a new dimension to races as sometimes its boring to watch cars being ‘turned down’ when they have positions in the bag. It also gives incentives to lower teams when they are on low fuel to put in a few quick ones to grab a bonus point.
Alastair
6th August 2010, 13:49
Fully agree, I’d love to see a point for pole and a point for fastest lap. In fact I think Brundle mentioned he’d support it too during the commentary.
slr
6th August 2010, 20:35
A point for fastest lap I am for. But a point for pole position, should not happen. Would you really want to see the world championship decided in qualifying. I don’t about you, but to me, that just sounds wrong.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
6th August 2010, 22:56
Points for pole position and fastest lap are both bad ideas. Having world championships decided in qualifying sessions, or because someone ignored the race and bolted on a set of soft tyres right at the end to set fastest lap, would not be good for the sport.
Daniel
8th August 2010, 13:01
Agree with Keith. I want people to choose strategy in qualifying based solely on trying to win the race. Everything you do should be about winning the race. Points for other things reduce the meaning of the race result.
Tom M in Australia
9th August 2010, 5:22
Agree with Keith. Pole position is already enough of a reward. And fastest lap is not a significant achievement in the context of a race (the purpose of a “race” being defined as being ahead of your competitors, not faster but behind).
John H
6th August 2010, 13:37
Problem is, you cannot accurately compare points systems like this because the very fact last year’s system is not in place this year has an effect on the overall outcome.
You drive to get more points than the others. That’s always been the same in F1. How you go about it is up to you and might be different this season to the last.
Patrickl
6th August 2010, 14:09
I doubt the points system has any measurable effect on the race outcome.
It might have an effect on incidental cases, but that’s it. Drivers will fight for position no matter what.
Daniel
10th August 2010, 5:32
Really? It never makes a difference?
Let us imagine it is the last race of the season. You lead the championship by 5 points from your nearest rival. Your rival is ahead of you in the race, they are currently first and you are second. If the difference in points between first and second is only 4 points, surely you won’t push to get past. If on the other hand the difference is 6 points, you’d have a go.
Think of Hamilton in Brazil in 2008. The points system had a massive impact on how he drove at different points in the race.
Also, Button drove rather conservatively last year after he’d built up a big lead. He was more or less content to pick up points, he wouldn’t have been driving like that if we had a medals system.
Kav
6th August 2010, 13:39
I wish we still used last years system. It hasn’t really changed anything, but at least we could really appreciate how close the season is. Raikkonen and Hamilton winning by 1 point wouldn’t have been as amazing if it were 4 or more points with the new system.
andyc
6th August 2010, 14:10
I think we should go back to 10-6-4-3-2-1 or even 9-6-4-3-2-1. Even with 30 cars on track.
Steph90 (@steph90)
6th August 2010, 14:30
What they should have done is use this system in 08 tyhen I might have been happy :P Just kidding.
It’s working. There’s not really thatn much in it. Consistency is still important which is good but it hasn’t been that radical. It’s just bigger numbers, rewarding down to 10th which doesn’t mean much considering that’s 4 more points places and 4 more cars (if you include the fact that Toyota left) and the good little tweak of a win wins a bit more. So I can’t really whinge.
William Wilgus
6th August 2010, 15:34
“it makes sense that the driver who’s won the most races should be leading the world championship.” — Keith
That was my point over the last couple of year in these comments. If I remember correctly, your and most other’s argument last year was that ‘consistency’ was the most important factor.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
6th August 2010, 15:44
Nope I’ve always preferred putting the emphasis on whoever wins the most races leading the championship.
I would be quite happy if the did away with points entirely and just ranked the drivers based on their results. For example:
jose
6th August 2010, 16:56
and they could get gold, silver and bronze medals …….. ……. ……
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
6th August 2010, 17:16
No, that’s a rubbish idea. Whoever would have come up with that… :-)
Steph90 (@steph90)
6th August 2010, 17:28
Ranking would be an easy and straightforward way of doing it. Clearly F1 would never use it :P In all seriousness though, I do like the idea of ranking drivers.
Anthony
7th August 2010, 3:07
Then 2009 would have been a very boring season….
andyc
7th August 2010, 16:14
I think 2009 was boring with every possible points system. I’m in for a medal system.
William Wilgus
7th August 2010, 15:08
Yes, that’s exactly what I’d like to see, Keith.
JCCJCC
6th August 2010, 15:37
It’s hard to know how close is the championship, we all where watching F1 for many years with victories valuing only 9/10 points. Scaling this differences to the older system is important, but you couldn’t simply calculate using the older point systems, because the proportion of the points is different.
If you want a comparision factor with the older scale, you should divide the points by 2.5 (that means multiplying by 4 and divide by 10).
The point system would by something like:
10 – 7.2 – 6 – 4.8 – 4 – 3.2 – 2.4 – 1.6 – 0.8 – 0.4
This way we keep the proportions of the current point system. And we see that the value of the 3rd place is now the same as it was in the 90-02 point system, and the 2nd place is something between the 90-02 and the 03-09
And the WDC classification is something like this:
Webber 64.4
Hamilton 62.8
Webber 60.4
Button 58.8
Alonso 56.4
Massa 38.8
Rosberg 37.6
Kubica 35.6
Schumacher 15.2
Sutil 14
Barrichello 12
Petrov 6.8
Kobayashi 6.8
Liuzzi 4.8
Hulkenberg 4
Buemi 2.8
De La Rosa 2.4
Alguersuari 1.2
WCC
Red Bull 124.8
McLaren 121.6
Ferrari 95.2
Mercedes 52.8
Renault 42.4
Force India 18.8
Williams 16
Sauber 9.2
Toro Rosso 4
P.S.: Sorry for my crapy english
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
6th August 2010, 15:42
Your English – and your maths – look pretty good to me!
Interesting to see the difference between first and fifth is still eight points.
Mike-e
6th August 2010, 20:45
then your maths is a bit naff too keith.
Turns out 3rd place isn’t the same as it was in 90-02…. 3rd place is actually equal to what 2nd place was worth in 90-02….
Mike-e
6th August 2010, 20:47
and webber has entered himself into the championship twice this year… i guess using a young german boys skin as a disguise :s
Maksutov
7th August 2010, 15:25
“Your English – and your maths – look pretty good to me!”
haha… that is funny
DaveW
6th August 2010, 16:10
“At the Hungaroring the close positions in the championship were not reflected in the performance of the cars.”
Is that a useful guide to the future at this point? There is no reason to think that the reliability-discounted on-track performance of RBR will change going forward. They are not any more within reach than they were before, in terms of VMM or Ferrari being a threat to win on pace, and their net points gains thus should not be any different. Separately from the car, and more relvantly, the results more so reflect the performance of the drivers, and this is, after all, a driver’s championship we are primarily discussing. At the risk of inflaming the border police here, you can plainly see that Ferrari has been a one-driver team for a while, and RBR often usually a one-driver team at any given race, whereas McLaren usually gets a decent performance from both. However slow Button has become vis a vis Hamilton, he just doesn’t stuff it up.
It would be interesting to tote up the points RBR have left at the track due to daft driving and strategic errors (which one can never lay solely at the feet of the pit wall—ask Lewis Hamilton would agree.) At this point in the season, it might be interesting to do a negative-points total, as another way of comparing the drivers and predicting the outcome of the WDC. I would do it but my employers have other ideas for my time today. (When I win the lottery I swear spend 100% of my time here.)
WelshChris
6th August 2010, 16:40
I thought that the asterisk was to allow you to add “until the outcome of the FIA/Ferrari hearing that is…”
Raymond
6th August 2010, 16:46
The new points system has done little more but punish the 2nd placed drivers in races
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
6th August 2010, 22:59
I disagree: they’ve been over-rewarded since 2003 and they still are.
Xanathos
6th August 2010, 16:50
“At this stage in 2007 and 2008 the top four drivers were covered by 15 and 16 points respectively.”
Hey, give the 2008 championship some credit :)
After 9 races there were four drivers within 2 points
Michael Griffin
6th August 2010, 17:21
Let’s see, Alonso won in Bahrain because of Red Bull reliability, and in Germany thanks to his teammate. Button won in Australia thanks to Red Bull reliability, and in China down to his own decision making capabilities. Hamilton won in Turkey because of the handbags between the Red Bull drivers, and in Canada down to the mess Red Bulls made of their tyre strategy.
The main reason, to me at least, why the title race is so close is down to Red Bulls unique ability to find ways of losing races.
Todfod
7th August 2010, 6:38
Completely agree. Red Bull are their own worst enemy. Honestly, if Red Bull doesn’t win the WDC and WCC they should be ashamed of themselves.
weng
6th August 2010, 17:50
i suggest points to be given to every finisher.. this way would make the championship a bit more exciting as teams at the lower end of the board would have something to fight for as well.. at the moment they are just being ignored.. ohh jccjcc, u have a typo, theres two webbers..
i used to bet with my friends for a can of beer if our drivers get pole.. then three cans if our driver wins the other hehe.. so if my driver gets pole and wins i get four cans of beers..
slr
6th August 2010, 18:45
When the new points system was introduced, my first reaction was “There is no reason to do this”. Months later, I feel the same way. I understand there needs to be a balance between consistancy and race wins, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the driver with the most race wins must be champion.
Last year Button won more races than anyone else, but most of his other results were fairly mediocre. That’s why some questioned wheather he deserved the championship.
Yes there needs to be a balance between consistancy and race wins. But if the leader of the championship has just one or two race wins less than one of his rivals, then it shouldn’t matter.
In 2008, Hamilton won five races, Massa won six, but nobody seems to care that Massa won more races.
There was nothing wrong with the previous points system. For me, there was no good reason to change it. Previous championships have shown, that it offered a good balance between consistancy and race wins. This current system does well with balancing the two factors, but the old did a better job, in my opinion.
Anthony
7th August 2010, 3:31
In fact, it was the opposite. Remember the 2008 Belgian Grand Prix was -given- to Massa…. I feel either Raikkonen or Hamilton deserved it more.
slr
7th August 2010, 10:22
It doesn’t matter how Massa won that race, the fact is, he won it. That is what counted to the championship. Race wins are not always given to the driver who deserved them the most.
Steph90
7th August 2010, 23:07
Anthony you could also say that about Hung 08. It only matters who wins as slr says
Namesis
6th August 2010, 20:15
I have to say this has been a good year to watch. With the rbr crashing (and not bad for a 2nd driver) and the fers fiasco and the addition of new teams (a second race)things have not been boring. points are close and that makes racing exciting.
Very nice recap Keith
sam crawford
6th August 2010, 23:07
Webber 53
Hamilton 49
Vettel 45
Button 40
Alonso 42
The old old scoring system would actually split them a whole lot more than most think.
claudioff
7th August 2010, 2:38
just a crazy idea. Why not use the same criteria used in the qualifying? The four first races qualify 15 drivers/cars. The next 10 races qualify the next 10 best drivers/cars. By that time the teams would have a similar level of development. The last 5 races would be used to decide the driver championship (The constructor championship could use all races). I know at least one stock car league that uses a similar formula. It is no much diferent from the football world cup.
Stathis
7th August 2010, 4:29
I think the current points system is ok. But I think the gap between 2-3-4th position is’nt quite right.
The points system I would have like would have been like this…
1st 30 points
2nd 20
3rd 15
4th 12
5th 10
6th 8
7th 6
8th 4
9th 2
10th 1
With this system. First place is highly rewarded. and there is a sufficient gap which slightly reduces from 2nd down to 4th hence rewrding the podium finishers. and the 4th placed and downward have a consistant points placing down to 10th.
Steve
Stathis
7th August 2010, 4:35
Oh, I also would like the idea of drivers being rewarded for poles and fastest laps. For example, 2 points for a fastest lap in the race. This would encourage drivers to push until the end when their car is low on fuel and potentially able to squeeze out the fastest lap time due to their car being at the lowest weight. It also puts pressure on the driver if they are struggling with fuel consumption. If they need to conserve fuel then they may not be able to push for that fastest lap hence gaining 2 points. Where as a car behind who has enough fuel may not be able to catch the guy guy in front but could benefit with an extra 2 points if they were to get the fastest race lap.
Also I think a pole position time should be rewarded with a point.
Why only 1 point for pole and 2 for fastest race lap ? Because I believe its Sunday (race day) that deserves the biggest reward. If your fastest on Sunday rather than Saturday then you should be rewarded higher.
Steve
David
7th August 2010, 5:23
There was a time when there were non-championship F1 races with no points for anyone. I wonder what the incentive was: to entertain the crowds, to get prize money, for the sheer pleasure and challenge of competing?
Perhaps back in those days winning individual races was more the aim and championships were of less importance. Hard to comprehend such an attitude these days but I do think that winning individual races is more important than pacing yourself over a season. That’s why I favour the gold medal idea.
Of course, the soap opera that is F1 would have less appeal that way…
alex
7th August 2010, 6:27
interesting fight for 9th place between Shumacher, Barichello and Sutil. They’re all going to want to stay in the top 10.
Kimster
7th August 2010, 11:27
Keep the current pointsystem but also provide:
– 1 point for pole
– 1 point for fastest lap
Steph90 (@steph90)
7th August 2010, 12:11
I think it’s worth a look at and I like the idea of a flap getting a bit more worth but not a point personally.
A pole shouldn’t get any reward at all because being on pole is a reward in itself.
There’s also the issue of a title being decided by pole or a flap. That’s not the most exciting way of doing things I think.
rob
7th August 2010, 16:21
I would like to see a medal-based system introduced. Kimi still would have in 2007, Massa in 2008, Button in 2009, and now Webber would be on top.
rob
7th August 2010, 16:22
*Kimi still would have won in 2007
Eric
7th August 2010, 17:19
i reckon if they where racing for money they would be knocking each other off the track, or at least really trying to pass one another.
1st 500,000
2nd 250,000
3rd 100,000
and so on.
the drivers championship winner would be the one who received the most cash at the end of the season.
Stathis
7th August 2010, 17:27
Not sure if racing for money would work. Drivers are paid according to how good they are generally.
If a driver wins many races, or punches above his weight in a slower car, teams will notice and that driver would be offered a lucrative deal for the next season or more.
So really, drivers are already being paid more for delivering more victories when you think about it.
Matt G (lotus fan)
7th August 2010, 18:22
I wonder which world chamion has got their title with the least number of wins? So they got their title by consistantly scoring high but not neccaseraly winning a lot of races. I know this may be hard to work out as the point system has changed a few times and the number of races in a year changes too. I though this would be the best place to ask the question as the level of F1 knowledge on this site is very impressive.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
7th August 2010, 22:25
The two world champions with the fewest number of wins are Mike Hawthorn (1958) and Keke Rosberg (1982) who both won their championships with one race victory.
Daniel
16th August 2010, 0:45
Minoia won the 1931 European Championship (the forerunner to F1) without ever winning a race. The Championship consisted of only 3 races, he had a 2nd, 3rd and a 6th; and ended up tied on points with another driver who had a win a second and a DNF. Minoia won based on furthest distance driven being the tiebreaker. The points system was completely different to what we have now.
KDegale
9th August 2010, 14:26
I enjoy the new points system. Only thing that I’m worried about is that the championship deciding race will be in Abu-Dhabi. We really need the atmosphere of Brazil to decide the champonship.
sagi58
9th August 2010, 14:55
Not sure what the discussions of “woulda, coulda, shoulda” scenarios such as this comparison between the different point systems actually accomplishes. This is the one we have; thus, I would think that it’s better to discuss the possibilities and probabilities with its framework!
Also, that teams are waiting for these “front wing tests” is ridiculous. Are they hoping that Red Bull’s wins be rescinded? How could the F.I.A. justify that without showing favouritism towards the teams who didn’t have the ingenuity of this design or the ability to play catch-up? Would anyone be contesting this design IF Red Bull wasn’t leading the pack? Would anyone else be in such a rush to copy the design IF they weren’t in front? Rather than strangle the ingenuity of engineering designs such as this, the F.I.A. needs to rethink its budget cap and its ban on in-season testing.