Ant: 'Points for all finishers'
Posted by superchargednut
If you watched FP2 on BBC then chances are you'll have heard him suggest this.
When he did, at first, because i've never heard it suggested, I thought he was mad, but once he explained it, I thought he made an excellent point. The teams will be rewarded for making it to the finish and also the incentive for drivers out of the top 10 to fight for positions will be brought in.
My brain hurts too much for me to want to make a proposed points table for 24 cars, though... 100 for a win?
When he did, at first, because i've never heard it suggested, I thought he was mad, but once he explained it, I thought he made an excellent point. The teams will be rewarded for making it to the finish and also the incentive for drivers out of the top 10 to fight for positions will be brought in.
My brain hurts too much for me to want to make a proposed points table for 24 cars, though... 100 for a win?
i was always against moving points down lower than 6th place. i know the small teams need a chance to get a point to survive and couldn't if the top 3 teams had both their cars finish as the first 6, but that's F1, it's not meant to be easy.
the justification was that if a small team got even a point, it would pay for their travel for the following season etc., so increasing the points to lower positions give them a chance to get that point. and now they've extended it to the top 10 finishers, which i also don't like.
if money was the reason, why not just give them the money for the travel? it almost amounts to the same thing, instead of handing out points to lower positions just so you can give them money.
if we go the whole hog and give every finisher a point, it devalues the whole thing. and you'd have to have 50 or more points for the winner.
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
the justification was that if a small team got even a point, it would pay for their travel for the following season etc., so increasing the points to lower positions give them a chance to get that point. and now they've extended it to the top 10 finishers, which i also don't like.
if money was the reason, why not just give them the money for the travel? it almost amounts to the same thing, instead of handing out points to lower positions just so you can give them money.
if we go the whole hog and give every finisher a point, it devalues the whole thing. and you'd have to have 50 or more points for the winner.
RIP Jules, never to be forgotten. #KeepFightingMichael
It's like handing out medals to everyone that competes at the Olympics.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Just, no.
What would be the point of awarding points at all then?
What would be the point of awarding points at all then?
Re: loren.
That requires one simple rule. A 'finish' can only be classed within, say, 5 laps of the winner.
That requires one simple rule. A 'finish' can only be classed within, say, 5 laps of the winner.
I think that 10th place means just that. If you are not good enough to finish any higher, for whatever reason, then tough. Rewarding mediocrity is pointless. It's like saying "we are all winners". Errr...No. We would like to be but that's the whole point of competition. We might as well bring in a "lucky dog" rule into F1 and hand out points for fastest lap, bring in "competition yellows" and go NASCAR crazy.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2010 03:15PM by slider.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2010 03:15PM by slider.
I think 10 is the limit. Simply because we have so many reliable teams that we can pretty much be sure will take the top 6 or 8 points.
If we stuck with the system of top 6 only, why on earth would the likes of lotus/virgin/hispania/toro rosso/sauber even bother racing?
The post about a storming drive from the back to just outside the points is a perfect example why to add a few points to the edges of the 'most likely top 6 or 8'.
Those points are indeed worth it.
Something mentioned on ITV today about reliability just added to my belief that the points did need extending to 10, simply because of the lack of major team failures. Ahh, I remembered what else. They mentioned about driver careers lasting 10 years or so, being a reason new guys don't get a drive very easily.
Imagine the top teams now are frozen with the same lineups for the next 3 years. Aside from the bizarre 2009 season, we can pretty confidently say the current top 4 teams will be the same ones for that time - with the others poking their nose in occasionally.
That locks out the top 8 places of points most of the time. What hope would the rest have? All the top 4 are hugely funded, best resources and best team members.
If you only reward the absolute best, when you know only those will get most of those points, you might as well make a cut off league and have just the top 4 teams.
You need scraps as incentives for those below to strive for; and to be rewarded with.
Scraps are monumentally important for those teams; more so than the big teams winning in some instances.
Look at Minardi when they finished with one point - you'd have thought they'd won the WCC and WDC.
That is how I see it.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2010 09:42PM by danm.
If we stuck with the system of top 6 only, why on earth would the likes of lotus/virgin/hispania/toro rosso/sauber even bother racing?
The post about a storming drive from the back to just outside the points is a perfect example why to add a few points to the edges of the 'most likely top 6 or 8'.
Those points are indeed worth it.
Something mentioned on ITV today about reliability just added to my belief that the points did need extending to 10, simply because of the lack of major team failures. Ahh, I remembered what else. They mentioned about driver careers lasting 10 years or so, being a reason new guys don't get a drive very easily.
Imagine the top teams now are frozen with the same lineups for the next 3 years. Aside from the bizarre 2009 season, we can pretty confidently say the current top 4 teams will be the same ones for that time - with the others poking their nose in occasionally.
That locks out the top 8 places of points most of the time. What hope would the rest have? All the top 4 are hugely funded, best resources and best team members.
If you only reward the absolute best, when you know only those will get most of those points, you might as well make a cut off league and have just the top 4 teams.
You need scraps as incentives for those below to strive for; and to be rewarded with.
Scraps are monumentally important for those teams; more so than the big teams winning in some instances.
Look at Minardi when they finished with one point - you'd have thought they'd won the WCC and WDC.
That is how I see it.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2010 09:42PM by danm.
Increasing points further down the field does highlight those drivers who are regular finishers.
Sure, that counts for not much with many people - Mr Consistency. Look at the slating over Kubica being in the title hunt for picking regular low points.
However, like Gav says, why box in a driver who starts at the back or the grid and finishes at Monaco or Spa in 9th, and last after retirements. That is a solid drive where half the field did not finish. To finish in itself is good.
That is a situation where you can be rewarded, and visually documented as a driver who brings home the bacon.
I'd love to see some of the older world championships recalculated to take points to the top 8/10/12/15/entire field.
If I remember correctly, F1 Racing did do this in a back issue in the early 00's late 90's, and it placed the likes of Fisichella or Alesi or whoever it was considerably higher due to their unrewarded tally of outside the points finishes.
Say Di Grassi wins Melbourne in a freak race that is ended early after 75% in monsoon rain conditions. He'd bag 25 points, never finishes in the points again all year, and pretty much would get a top 12 final championship result at the end of the year.
Versus, say, Barichello who'd finish nearly every race around 10th. That is almost best of the rest all year, aside from the insanely superior other cars. Yet at the end, Di Grassi would have approximately the same score.
In that example, I see the points as unfair on the rest of the field.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2010 11:42PM by danm.
Sure, that counts for not much with many people - Mr Consistency. Look at the slating over Kubica being in the title hunt for picking regular low points.
However, like Gav says, why box in a driver who starts at the back or the grid and finishes at Monaco or Spa in 9th, and last after retirements. That is a solid drive where half the field did not finish. To finish in itself is good.
That is a situation where you can be rewarded, and visually documented as a driver who brings home the bacon.
I'd love to see some of the older world championships recalculated to take points to the top 8/10/12/15/entire field.
If I remember correctly, F1 Racing did do this in a back issue in the early 00's late 90's, and it placed the likes of Fisichella or Alesi or whoever it was considerably higher due to their unrewarded tally of outside the points finishes.
Say Di Grassi wins Melbourne in a freak race that is ended early after 75% in monsoon rain conditions. He'd bag 25 points, never finishes in the points again all year, and pretty much would get a top 12 final championship result at the end of the year.
Versus, say, Barichello who'd finish nearly every race around 10th. That is almost best of the rest all year, aside from the insanely superior other cars. Yet at the end, Di Grassi would have approximately the same score.
In that example, I see the points as unfair on the rest of the field.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2010 11:42PM by danm.
gareth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's the thing guys - at the moment Virgin, HRT
> and Lotus and everyone else who doesn't finish is
> the same as someone driving a stonkingly good
> drive to finish one outside the points paying
> positions. Why is a retirement on Lap 2 because
> you're crap worth the same as driving out of your
> skin for a full GP distance to finish one spot
> from where you'd get a reward?
Thank you
It's not giving points to every contender, it's giving points to the teams who can build a car to make it to the end, and a driver that can drive to the end.
Obviously, it's proportional to the position they finish in, so it doesn't take anything away from the top 10.
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's the thing guys - at the moment Virgin, HRT
> and Lotus and everyone else who doesn't finish is
> the same as someone driving a stonkingly good
> drive to finish one outside the points paying
> positions. Why is a retirement on Lap 2 because
> you're crap worth the same as driving out of your
> skin for a full GP distance to finish one spot
> from where you'd get a reward?
Thank you
It's not giving points to every contender, it's giving points to the teams who can build a car to make it to the end, and a driver that can drive to the end.
Obviously, it's proportional to the position they finish in, so it doesn't take anything away from the top 10.
Has anyone here seen a point? Knows what it looks like? Any tweaking of the point system is largely futile and any distribution can be argued. However it's very likely that the current financial incentives are for most part independent of the points system.
I don't know how payments are calculated in the most recent Concorde but in 1997-2001 version 65% of the prize fund was paid out according to qualifying positions, positions at 1/4 distance, 1/2 distance, 3/4 distance and the finish. At the time qualifying 7th was worth 3 times as much as qualifying 20th and finishing 7th was about 6 times as much as finishing 20th.
Also i could be wrong and it might have been changed but i think the new teams don't have to pay for transportation and they get $10 million on top.
I don't know how payments are calculated in the most recent Concorde but in 1997-2001 version 65% of the prize fund was paid out according to qualifying positions, positions at 1/4 distance, 1/2 distance, 3/4 distance and the finish. At the time qualifying 7th was worth 3 times as much as qualifying 20th and finishing 7th was about 6 times as much as finishing 20th.
Also i could be wrong and it might have been changed but i think the new teams don't have to pay for transportation and they get $10 million on top.
The points system just goes round and round in circles. As soon as someone walks away with the championship like Schumacher did in the mid 2000s, the system will be changed again to stop the winner having such an advantage. Thats what happened last time.
The only regret is that, with the jump to 25 points for a win, the stats become a bit messed up historically.
RedSam
Winner: Not the Nickv Comment of the Year 2009
Due to the voting system in Germany, Governments are always made up of coalitions of different parties. At the last election, an almost unprecidented result saw the CDU/CSU (rough equivilant of the Conservatives) go into Government with the SPD (rough equivilant of Labour)
The only regret is that, with the jump to 25 points for a win, the stats become a bit messed up historically.
Winner: Not the Nickv Comment of the Year 2009
Due to the voting system in Germany, Governments are always made up of coalitions of different parties. At the last election, an almost unprecidented result saw the CDU/CSU (rough equivilant of the Conservatives) go into Government with the SPD (rough equivilant of Labour)
Red Sam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only regret is that, with the jump to 25
> points for a win, the stats become a bit messed up
> historically.
My main concern with the new system
As I said before, editing the system every few years devalues the history, not that the casual viewer cares much, but I care, an F1 history buff like me :P
Order a giffgaff SIM from my link and get £5 credit, free!
Season 1 and Season 3 GPGSL World Champion!
Member of CTDP - Cars Tracks Development Program - 3D Carshaper
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only regret is that, with the jump to 25
> points for a win, the stats become a bit messed up
> historically.
My main concern with the new system
As I said before, editing the system every few years devalues the history, not that the casual viewer cares much, but I care, an F1 history buff like me :POrder a giffgaff SIM from my link and get £5 credit, free!
Season 1 and Season 3 GPGSL World Champion!
Member of CTDP - Cars Tracks Development Program - 3D Carshaper
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.