Why only top 10 places for points?
Discussion
Hot on the news that the suggestion for the top 12 finishers to win points has been rejected…
https://www.racefans.net/2024/07/23/new-points-sys...
Why is it that only the top 10 (or indeed top 12) score points?
Surely it would encourage racing across the breadth of the field to have points taper in from 19th?
I must be missing something?
https://www.racefans.net/2024/07/23/new-points-sys...
Why is it that only the top 10 (or indeed top 12) score points?
Surely it would encourage racing across the breadth of the field to have points taper in from 19th?
I must be missing something?
MitchT said:
The one that winds me up is that you only get a point for the fastest lap if you finish in a points scoring position. Seems grossly unfair to me.
Because otherwise any old back marker could pit, swap to new tires and get the fastest lap with no loss to their race points.Arrivalist said:
MitchT said:
The one that winds me up is that you only get a point for the fastest lap if you finish in a points scoring position. Seems grossly unfair to me.
Because otherwise any old back marker could pit, swap to new tires and get the fastest lap with no loss to their race points.OnDaysLikeThese said:
Hot on the news that the suggestion for the top 12 finishers to win points has been rejected…
https://www.racefans.net/2024/07/23/new-points-sys...
Why is it that only the top 10 (or indeed top 12) score points?
Surely it would encourage racing across the breadth of the field to have points taper in from 19th?
I must be missing something?
Money. Most teams now have a chance of scoring points (apart from Sauber) so suddenly like the existing 1-10 scoring system, as this distributes the £.https://www.racefans.net/2024/07/23/new-points-sys...
Why is it that only the top 10 (or indeed top 12) score points?
Surely it would encourage racing across the breadth of the field to have points taper in from 19th?
I must be missing something?
I assumed it was money, but I’m not so sure. I believe prize money is distributed to constructors for placing 1 to 10 (ie they all get something), so I can’t see how distributing points further down the grid would materially effect this (although I accept its early and I didn’t sleep well 
)
)IIRC, the reason is based on the theory is that F1 is a meritocracy but also a sport where luck often plays a part in results, probably to a level more than any other. Awarding points to half the field only is designed to limit (but not eradicate) the effect of luck on the overall standings so that the results are a fair reflection of the rank order of technical and sporting proficiency.
The further down you award points, the more you reward consistent mediocrity.
I would rather a "s
t or bust" approach from both the drivers and teams lower down the order where they roll the dice, try something different and really go for it. Most of the time it won't work, but every now and again it will go their way and they come out with a small handful of points ... putting them above the boring plodders who've reliably finished 12th-14th all season.
F1 should not be giving out participation trophies.
Also, from a safety point point of view, look at series that effectively award points to all finishers. You see cars get nailed back together mid-race, and sent back out on track to limp around like a mobile chicane, multiple laps down, all to get classified as a finisher and pick up some points. By limiting points down to a level where (in 99% of occasions) there are non-scoring finishers you immediately eliminate the motivation for that unsafe behavior.
I would rather a "s
t or bust" approach from both the drivers and teams lower down the order where they roll the dice, try something different and really go for it. Most of the time it won't work, but every now and again it will go their way and they come out with a small handful of points ... putting them above the boring plodders who've reliably finished 12th-14th all season.F1 should not be giving out participation trophies.
Also, from a safety point point of view, look at series that effectively award points to all finishers. You see cars get nailed back together mid-race, and sent back out on track to limp around like a mobile chicane, multiple laps down, all to get classified as a finisher and pick up some points. By limiting points down to a level where (in 99% of occasions) there are non-scoring finishers you immediately eliminate the motivation for that unsafe behavior.
If everyone got a point for every finishing position then you'd lose those interesting midfield scraps where they're fighting over the final points position, possibly to score their only points of the season. You'd lose those magic moments where someone like Bianchi in a Marussia finally scores a team's first ever points at Monaco, or an Albon drags an underperforming Williams up to tenth for their only point of the season. A team that usually finishes around 13/14 would end the year miles ahead of a team that usually finishes 17/18, with no chance of a single freak result overhauling them.
All that would be gone. No more magic, just numbers. Points for everyone, just for being there.
All that would be gone. No more magic, just numbers. Points for everyone, just for being there.
thegreenhell said:
If everyone got a point for every finishing position then you'd lose those interesting midfield scraps where they're fighting over the final points position, possibly to score their only points of the season. You'd lose those magic moments where someone like Bianchi in a Marussia finally scores a team's first ever points at Monaco, or an Albon drags an underperforming Williams up to tenth for their only point of the season. A team that usually finishes around 13/14 would end the year miles ahead of a team that usually finishes 17/18, with no chance of a single freak result overhauling them.
All that would be gone. No more magic, just numbers. Points for everyone, just for being there.
The flip side being that, especially with meaningful points gaps, the bottom 8 cars would have far more incentive to improve their finishing places and fight for position. There's every chance awarding points to all finishers would improve the show.All that would be gone. No more magic, just numbers. Points for everyone, just for being there.
It would also provide a meaningful and relevant ranking of performance, not skewed by one or two freak results during the year. Works for lots of other sports that have far better claims to being a sport.
andrewcliffe said:
When I first started watching F1, first six finishers got points. 9-6-4-3-2-1
DittoBut to take as an example, picked a bit randomly, but to match this weekend: 1976 Belgium GP:
29 cars were entered
26 qualified (non-qualifiers included Emmerson Fittipaldi and Jacky Ickx!)
12 were classified as finishers, but the last was 7 laps down.
But over the decades since then; cars have become massively more reliable so retirements are most often due to falling off the road (Perez, Sergeant), being helped off the road (by, say, KMag or Ocon) or technical to allow component changes without penalty at the next race. Mechanical retirements are extremely rare.
So, assuming none of the above (and that Perez doesn't fall off, fail to make amends for rubbish qualifying); after Red Bull, Mercedes, Ferrari and McLaren hoover up most of the points, maybe Aston Martin also in there - the remaining teams are scrapping for a single point or two or for a classification of 11th/12th which even without points would give then 'ranking' vs the team behind them for the constructors championship.
So I can see the rationale for a bit more points spread because it is happening in the background anyway and better visibility of it is probably better for spectators/sponsors. It perhaps also mitigates the tail-end team getting a random 7th place that bumps them past teams that are actually more consistent, but consistently 12th.
OnDaysLikeThese said:
Thank you all for the responses!
I still don’t see how it’s merely ‘points for turning up’.
You could still heavily taper the points for the first 10/12, but if drivers are in very uncompetitive cars it would give meaning to a fight for 15th.
It isn’t points for turning up, that’s a lazy argument used by people who haven’t thought it through. I still don’t see how it’s merely ‘points for turning up’.
You could still heavily taper the points for the first 10/12, but if drivers are in very uncompetitive cars it would give meaning to a fight for 15th.
A team could come 11th and 12th all races but one, then a back marking team get lucky and come 10th and finish above them.
That’s good apparently and people will use any silly mental gymnastics to justify what in reality is a stupid system.
Points through the grid (for finishing) would lead to an actual representation of performance across the year for the entire grid.
It would be interesting to see some analysis of the number of points scorers over the years. There’s no argument that for most of the history of the sport, reliability played a huge part in reducing the number of finishers.
F1 is all about money. It’s therefore unsurprising that agreement for change is difficult. There will always be one or more teams who believe they will lose money if the system is altered.
F1 is all about money. It’s therefore unsurprising that agreement for change is difficult. There will always be one or more teams who believe they will lose money if the system is altered.
Leithen said:
It would be interesting to see some analysis of the number of points scorers over the years. There’s no argument that for most of the history of the sport, reliability played a huge part in reducing the number of finishers.
F1 is all about money. It’s therefore unsurprising that agreement for change is difficult. There will always be one or more teams who believe they will lose money if the system is altered.
Along those lines, here's all the races (25 of them) where the winner has lapped the entire field. Very common in the early days, but nearly 30 years since the last one! Reliabilty and equality much improved over the years.F1 is all about money. It’s therefore unsurprising that agreement for change is difficult. There will always be one or more teams who believe they will lose money if the system is altered.
Fangio – 1950 Monaco GP
Ascari – 1952 British GP
Ascari - 1952 French GP
Ascari – 1953 Argentinian GP
Fangio – 1954 Italian GP
Fangio – 1956 British GP
Moss – 1959 Portuguese GP
Gurney – 1962 French GP
Clark – 1963 Dutch GP
G Hill – 1964 Monaco GP
Brabham – 1966 Dutch GP
Clark – 1966 United States GP
Hulme – 1967 Monaco GP
Hulme – 1968 Canadian GP
Stewart – 1969 Spanish GP
Stewart – 1969 British GP
Stewart – 1970 Spanish GP
Fittipaldi – 1975 British GP
Andretti – 1976 Japanese GP
Patrese – 1982 Monaco GP
De Angelis – 1985 San Marino GP
Prost – 1985 British GP
Prost – 1986 Austrian GP
Schumacher – 1994 Brazilian GP
D Hill – 1995 Australian GP
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff