FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[scotty]

As the title says...

You see drivers 'settling for second' a lot now and only dropping two points, for example.

If the reward for winning were greater, like with the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system, would we see drivers making extra effort to go all out for the win?

If anything, what would you change?

It'd be interesting to see what effect something like a 15-10-8-6-4-3-2-1 points system would have on driver and team mentalities, i also think it'd be good to have a point or two for fastest lap.

[nikon133]

As the title says...

You see drivers 'settling for second' a lot now and only dropping two points, for example.

If the reward for winning were greater, like with the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 system, would we see drivers making extra effort to go all out for the win?

If anything, what would you change?

It'd be interesting to see what effect something like a 15-10-8-6-4-3-2-1 points system would have on driver and team mentalities, i also think it'd be good to have a point or two for fastest lap.

Yeah, I feel the same. One DNF with this points system easily takes 5 or more races to recover. I'd rather see system with less points, though. Maybe 4-2-1 only and some kind of accumulation 1/10 points for lower finishes... like, 4th place will give 5/10 points, fifth place will give 3/10 points etc. Of course only full points would show on board.

[racechick]

I agree. Should be more difference between first and second to make for better racing. Its too easy to coast to a safe second as it stands now and play the percentage game.

[Mikep99]

I agree. Should be more difference between first and second to make for better racing. Its too easy to coast to a safe second as it stands now and play the percentage game.

If my memory is correct I think it was changed because of the Schumacher dominance.
But I think it should go back to what it was as first place should mean much more than 2 points.

[darwin dali]

I agree - have a win count more than it does right now. Also give points for fastest lap and even an extra point for leading at the mid-point of a race - this last one could spice things up re. pit stop strategy

[texasmr2]

I agree - have a win count more than it does right now. Also give points for fastest lap and even an extra point for leading at the mid-point of a race - this last one could spice things up re. pit stop strategy

I agree DD I think they should re-instate the 'point for fastest lap' rule, dead since 1960

[Woodchip]

Point for fastest lap.
2 points for pole, with top 6 places reversed
Points for top 6 in the older 10-6-4-3-2-1

Maximum points being 13 per race, but you'd have to pass some people to get it.

We might see people fighting in Qualy and some overtaking. Then, maybe, it would become a true spectators sport again.

[737flier]

I agree. Should be more difference between first and second to make for better racing. Its too easy to coast to a safe second as it stands now and play the percentage game.

If my memory is correct I think it was changed because of the Schumacher dominance.
But I think it should go back to what it was as first place should mean much more than 2 points.

yeah right, what about the other drivers that had the championship sewn up well before the last race...??

there have been many points systems, my memory goes back a lot further than the schumacher era.

Since its beginnings in 1950 the Formula 1 championship has changed its point scoring system for drivers several times. Over the first 10 years points were awarded to the top five finishers of a race. From 1960 to 2002 the top six scored points. Since 2003, the top eight race finishers scored points, and the number of points between the winner and the second placed finisher narrowed.

if you want a comprehensive answer look at :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_World_Championship_pointscoring_systems

rather than chanting the tired old schumacher mantra

[McLaren Fan]

I have mixed views on this. The new system keeps championship fights going for longer, which is something a lot of people also want to see. You can't really have both.

[Ragnar]

Newbie here. (to board not to F1)

Personally I think the champion should always be the driver who won the most races period. I think the points should stay exactly as they are but the drivers championship be decided by race wins ONLY. If there is a tie then you would go to the points to break the tie.

In this scenario the championship would have still gone to the last race. Once Hamilton was out Felipe could have gone on to win the race in front of his home crowd since Kimi would have been safe with his 5 wins.

Furthermore had Hamilton or Alonso won the race they would have tied with Kimi for race wins and their superior points would have given them the title.

As it is now Kimi could have won 6 races to Hamilton's 4 and still have lost the title. Thats just wrong IMO.

[McLaren Fan]

Newbie here. (to board not to F1)

Personally I think the champion should always be the driver who won the most races period. I think the points should stay exactly as they are but the drivers championship be decided by race wins ONLY. If there is a tie then you would go to the points to break the tie.

In this scenario the championship would have still gone to the last race. Once Hamilton was out Felipe could have gone on to win the race in front of his home crowd since Kimi would have been safe with his 5 wins.

Furthermore had Hamilton or Alonso won the race they would have tied with Kimi for race wins and their superior points would have given them the title.

As it is now Kimi could have won 6 races to Hamilton's 4 and still have lost the title. Thats just wrong IMO.

Hmm, not sure about that. I don't think it's right to reward a boom-bust driver either.

[Selcouth_Feline]

I'm in two minds. The current points system has given us a really exciting end to the 2007 season, however Massa (I think?) made a good point near the start of the season - he had won more races than Hamilton at the time, and yet Hamilton was ahead of him in the points.

[Ragnar]

Hmm, not sure about that. I don't think it's right to reward a boom-bust driver either.

Over an entire season a boom bust driver wont usually win more races. My point is that front runners are to heavily punished for mechanical failures.

Selcouth Feline: It still would have gone to the last race. Kimi had 5 wins Fernando and Lewis each had 4. Had either of them won it would have been a tie with the title being decided by points.

[7UpJordan]

I'd say keep the current points system, but reduce the number of points for 2nd position to 7. Prior to 1991 the winner got 9 points for a win and second got 6 so we'd get a 3 point gap between first and second place finishers. Plus 10 is a nice round number anyway for the winner.

Last year often saw complete top 6 lockouts from McLaren, Ferrari and BMW, reliability has improved so it makes sense to keep points for people who finish 7th and 8th.

[Ron Dennis]

I'm in two minds. The current points system has given us a really exciting end to the 2007 season, however Massa (I think?) made a good point near the start of the season - he had won more races than Hamilton at the time, and yet Hamilton was ahead of him in the points.

That's consistency for ya!