Championship points

Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • Author
  • #258283

    The 10-6-4-3-2-1 system was perfect in my book. If we were using that system Hamilton would be on 30 and Rosberg would be on 28 which is probably a more accurate reflection of the balance of power between the two this season to date.

    I didn’t mind the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system either, though the gap between 1st and 2nd always felt a bit narrow to me. On that system Rosberg would have 34 and Hamilton would have 30, so we would be in the same boat as we are now.

    Iestyn Davies

    I wonder if it was changed due to the Ferrari dominance of 2002, with the aim of prolonging the title battle (sounds like the double points change). But then in 2003 it was then a very tight championship (but 3 cars could win, not 1).

    On the BBC F1 page they have calculated some statistics using all the years of F1 under the 25 for a win system – interesting to see what the records look like under that circumstance.


    “I wonder if it was changed due to the Ferrari dominance of 2002, with the aim of prolonging the title battle (sounds like the double points change).”

    I thought that was exactly why and was a well-established reason. Maybe also because reliability was improving so the slower teams found it harder to pick up the lucky points which they used to.

    Theo Parkinson

    I thought about it long and hard and I think we should have: 16,12,9,7,6,5,4,3,2,1

    I would also like to award points for pole, possibly 2 since I feel like qualifying should be rewarded more. I’ve heard people are opposed to this because championships could be won in qualifying but I think that it could be really exciting. Imagine if Driver A is 15 points ahead of Driver B. If their both in cars are the class of the field and pole is between them, qualifying would be amazingly intense. This would also solve this years problem of Hamilton trailing Rosberg; if 3 points were awarded for pole then Lewis would have 87 and Nico would have 82.

    I also thought about double points and it made me think, if they have to happen, why not award a Grand Slam with double points. Pole, win, fastest lap and every lap lead could give you 32 points. Pole points wouldn’t apply. That way no track would be devalued and the championship would have the potential to last longer.


    I found this fantastic site


    that calculates the points based on which ever past point scoring system you prefer. Personally my preferred is the 1991-style. 10 for a win looks so neat, and only top 6 point scorers make points so much more precious, valuable and prestigious. Lewis would be leading on 1991-style points.

    Either that, or I’d like to standardise all motorsports and follow the MotoGP and WSBK. Top 15. 25-20-16-13-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 . Their system have provided many exciting seasons. Maybe it’s just bikes can’t help but be exciting. Guess I also want to cut Marussia and Caterham some slack, at least get them on the score board. When it’s so important that their survival may be at stake, giving them points to collect does seem better than that whole counting back who’s got the most 13th places at the end of the year thing.

    Omar R

    Points now look just fine. The problem is in the non scoring places (It’s indeed a F1 problem to see teams not scoring in 3 years) because just one good result means more than consistency. That one of them got a 17th in all the season and 20th on the rest, is akwardly more valuable than the other team getting 18th all the season and slipping back just in one. Of course is like a “face it” situation, these teams are not good enough to make one point, but it looks a little unfair. Unfair as double points, but the topic creator said this is not a debate about that, so just this about non scorers.


    @OmarR-Pepper articulated my dislike of the zero-points positions much better than I did. Thank you!

    Keith Campbell

    In general i think the current points system is good, the balance between wins and consistency has seemed about right since 2010. Although with one extremely dominant team as we have now maybe awarding proportionally more for the win would be fairer. As it is, there’s quite a high chance that the championship could be decided by reliability (or other DNFs). Lewis could win 13 races this season, be runner up in 4, and still lose the championship because of 2 DNFs – although this is mostly caused by the ‘rule-we-do-not-speak-of’.

    My main gripe as i’ve said before is the treatment of the backmarkers, which could become even more of a lottery if 2 more teams were to join (although still only top 10 teams get prize money anyway?). I think there should be a ‘secondary’ point system awarding points from 11th-15th (say) to award some consistency from the backmarkers rather than the one off fluke result, usually caused by retirements from the front runners. These points would only count for drivers and teams who haven’t scored a ‘real’ championship point so the normal championship system would not be affected.


    Why should there be a secondary points system? Why not award championship points for all positions?

Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 24 (of 24 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.