"Radical" F1 points change
Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro
I just read a clueless article in the BBC site about a proposed "radical"
change in the F1 point system:
Now % Proposed
1 10 100% 25 100%
2 8 80% 20 80%
3 6 60% 15 60%
4 5 50% 10 40%
5 4 40% 8 32%
6 3 30% 6 24%
7 2 20% 5 20%
8 1 10% 3 12%
9 - 0% 2 8%
10 - 0% 1 4%
(Or, said in another way, 1st place is worth 125% of the 2nd place.)
As you can see the "radical" change is that there is no change for the
first 3 places, 4th, 5th and 6th change a bit, 7th is also the same,
8th is almost equal, and 9th and 10th now have points (this last point,
I agree with).
As it is said in The Leopard "If we want things to stay as they are,
things will have to change."
The old system (9-6-4-3-2-1) had bigger differences and later increased
a bit (10-6-4-3-2-1), that is, 1st was worth 150% of 2nd and increased
to 166%.
And at the time of the (9-6-4-3-2-1) system not all the results counted,
which was an incentive for trying for good results instead of settling
for a few points (the change from 9 to 10 was to compensate when all
the results started counting).
If the idea is to get drivers to not to settle for 2nd place, the
difference between 1st and 2nd should be bigger.
.pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
APLer
news:hfrsq4$gjb$1...@aioe.org:
Yes, but your whole premise is based on two inaccuracies: that
journalists can think and they do proper research into what they're
writing about.
build
> Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro <r...@koala.mat.uc.pt> wrote innews:hfrsq4$gjb$1...@aioe.org:
From Autosport;
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80521
<paste>
F1 set to adopt new points system
By Matt Beer Thursday, December 10th 2009, 18:52 GMT
Formula 1 is set for a radical alteration to its points system in 2010
if the World Motor Sport Council approves an F1 Commission proposal to
give points to the top 10 finishers in each race.
In today's Commission meeting, chaired by Bernie Ecclestone and
attended by FIA president Jean Todt, a new scoring system was put
forward which will award 25 points to each race winner, 20 for second
place, 15 for third and 10 for fourth, before descending 8-6-5-3-2-1
for fifth through 10th positions.
The change has been proposed to take into account the increased field
for 2010, when the addition of the new entrants will take the grid up
to 26 cars, its highest figure since 1995.
Assuming it is approved by the WMSC, the change would be the first
revision to the points system since the number of scoring drivers per
race was increased from six to eight in 2003.
The F1 Commission also agreed that its Sporting Working Group sub-
committee should develop "detailed proposals to improve the show" that
would take effect next year, and that "the FIA and FOM will further
collaborate to enhance the communication and promotion of the
championship to the media and its worldwide fanbase."
</paste>
beers,
build
WebSlave
> Now % Proposed
> 5 4 40% 8 32%
> 6 3 30% 6 24%
> 7 2 20% 5 20%
> 8 1 10% 3 12%
> 9 - 0% 2 8%
> 10 - 0% 1 4%
What's illogical in the proposed system is that the points difference
between 6th and 7th place is only one point, but between 7th and 8th
it's two again. It would make more sense, if the 7th got 4 instead of
5.
-Webs-
build
Yeah, that does look like an error doesn't it. Perhaps a typo in press
release?
CatharticF1
I think it's important that whatever system we use anyone could win the DWC
all the way up until the last race.
Except McLaren drivers obviously.
--
CatharticF1
"What you thought was freedom is just greed."
APLer
news:87b89163-ab9d-4cd1...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On Dec 11, 10:25�am, APLer <AP...@floor.tilde> wrote:
>> Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro <r...@koala.mat.uc.pt> wrote
>> innews:hfrsq4$gjb
>
> The F1 Commission also agreed that its Sporting Working Group sub-
> committee should develop "detailed proposals to improve the show" that
> would take effect next year, and that "the FIA and FOM will further
> collaborate to enhance the communication and promotion of the
> championship to the media and its worldwide fanbase."
> </paste>
>
Arrgh. Now my brain is seeing numbers flashing just inside my periferal
vision. Oh wait, they're making a message out of themselves. Lets see if I
can squint and read it: It says "Blame Micheal, bring the balance back."
And they fade into nothingness to a Page solo.
Bob Dubery
wrote:
> If the idea is to get drivers to not to settle for 2nd place, the
> difference between 1st and 2nd should be bigger.
You've misunderstood. The idea is clearly to get drivers to not settle
for 10th place.
Bob Dubery
> change in the F1 point system:
>
> Now % Proposed
> 1 10 100% 25 100%
> 2 8 80% 20 80%
> 3 6 60% 15 60%
> 4 5 50% 10 40%
> 5 4 40% 8 32%
> 6 3 30% 6 24%
> 7 2 20% 5 20%
> 8 1 10% 3 12%
> 9 - 0% 2 8%
> 10 - 0% 1 4%
This is hilarious. There are drivers out there getting paid PER POINT.
Did anybody think to put something in a contract that says "unless
there are significant changes to the points allocation a system" ?
build
Well they could regulate that all drivers get a retainer of $2 and
there after are paid by points in relation to their team mate that
would ensure that drivers actually want Nakkas as their team mate ;-)
If so I want to manage Nakkas.
beers,
build
CatharticF1
news:25bdb9ed-25f7-4848...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Would you want to go into the first corner with your teammate - Nakajima
- next to or behind you...?
:)
build
> build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote innews:25bdb9ed-25f7-4848...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> > Well they could regulate that all drivers get a retainer of $2 and
> > there after are paid by points in relation to their team mate that
> > would ensure that drivers actually want Nakkas as their team mate ;-)
>
> Would you want to go into the first corner with your teammate - Nakajima
> - next to or behind you...?
> :)
> --
> CatharticF1
No objection to that, it won't happen ... ;-)
Well it might if I were ... hmmmm ... thinking ... no won't happen.
beers,
AC
"CatharticF1" <rasf1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CDE95609D46Dr...@203.26.24.228...
Wouldn't he be coming in from the air?
AC
build
> "CatharticF1" <rasf1pos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Nah, that's DC not KN ;-)
Bigbird
If last year were typical it would not be his teammates problem.
--
Bigbird
#
As for my humour:
I am like an artist who's work isn't fully appreciated until he's
shuffled off this mortal coil.
You'll be laughing when I'm dead!
Emma
>change in the F1 point system:
Why don't they just give a point to everyone who finishes - or even
better everyone who turns up on the grid!
--
Emma
http://chocmonster.rules.it
AC
"Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro" <r...@koala.mat.uc.pt> wrote in message
news:hfrsq4$gjb$1...@aioe.org...
>
> I just read a clueless article in the BBC site about a proposed "radical"
> change in the F1 point system:
Clueless?
Here, take your coat.
AC
Bigbird
>
> I just read a clueless article in the BBC site about a proposed
> "radical" change in the F1 point system:
>
> Now % Proposed
> 1 10 100% 25 100%
> 2 8 80% 20 80%
> 3 6 60% 15 60%
> 4 5 50% 10 40%
> 5 4 40% 8 32%
> 6 3 30% 6 24%
> 7 2 20% 5 20%
> 8 1 10% 3 12%
> 9 - 0% 2 8%
> 10 - 0% 1 4%
>
> (Or, said in another way, 1st place is worth 125% of the 2nd place.)
>
> As you can see the "radical" change is that there is no change for the
> first 3 places, 4th, 5th and 6th change a bit, 7th is also the same,
> 8th is almost equal, and 9th and 10th now have points (this last
> point, I agree with).
>
4th, 5th and 6th are worse off, 8th 9th an 10th are marginally better
off.
Bad news for Rosberg. ;)
> As it is said in The Leopard "If we want things to stay as they are,
> things will have to change."
>
> The old system (9-6-4-3-2-1) had bigger differences and later
> increased a bit (10-6-4-3-2-1), that is, 1st was worth 150% of 2nd
> and increased to 166%.
>
> And at the time of the (9-6-4-3-2-1) system not all the results
> counted, which was an incentive for trying for good results instead
> of settling for a few points (the change from 9 to 10 was to
> compensate when all the results started counting).
>
> If the idea is to get drivers to not to settle for 2nd place, the
> difference between 1st and 2nd should be bigger.
Yup. 25 points for a win is a good starting point from which they have
fallen into the trap of making things look "pretty". No doubt they
consider it less confusing than something more sensible, IMO, like
25,18,14,11,9,7,5,3,2,1
which is aesthetically displeasing an for some reason confusing to
people compared to
25,20,15,10,8,6,4,3,2,1
which is only one digit different to what is reported, a digit that
people are already complaining about.
--
Bigbird
#
Bigbird
> Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro <r...@koala.mat.uc.pt> wrote:
> >
> > I just read a clueless article in the BBC site about a proposed
> > "radical" change in the F1 point system:
>
> Why don't they just give a point to everyone who finishes - or even
> better everyone who turns up on the grid!
Less hysteria and hyperbole from the token female, thank you. ;)
--
Bigbird
#
(no disrespect to Fede ;))
AC
"Ar" <A...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:4b223587$0$2534$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 22:30:29 +0000, Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro wrote:
>
>> I just read a clueless article in the BBC site about a proposed
>> "radical" change in the F1 point system:
>>
>> Now % Proposed
>> 1 10 100% 25 100%
>> 2 8 80% 20 80%
>> 3 6 60% 15 60%
>> 4 5 50% 10 40%
>> 5 4 40% 8 32%
>> 6 3 30% 6 24%
>> 7 2 20% 5 20%
>> 8 1 10% 3 12%
>> 9 - 0% 2 8%
>> 10 - 0% 1 4%
>
Why? On the face of it, it would seem sensible to mirror the official
system.
>Why does F1 have to have
> something similar to MotoGP?
>
As a wild guess, maybe because it works, and the fans, riders and teams are
happy with it? That coupled with a mystical convergence.
AC
News
> Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro <r...@koala.mat.uc.pt> wrote:
>>
>> I just read a clueless article in the BBC site about a proposed "radical"
>> change in the F1 point system:
>
> Why don't they just give a point to everyone who finishes - or even
> better everyone who turns up on the grid!
>
Medals! We need medals!
Bob Dubery
> The 2010 pool will NOT have this points system. Why does F1 have to have
> something similar to MotoGP?
If all the teams start the season there are going to be be more cars
that do not score points. Now there has always been a mechanism for
ranking cars and drivers who do not have points but must still be
ranked in the championship, but it's invisible to the people WATCHING
the sport. Extending the points table in this way makes the rankings
easier to understand.
David Melville
Fuck it. Let's give 'em medals.
--
Cheers,
Dave
Don't touch me unless you love me.
APLer
news:d1d254e4-0007-4429...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:
You write it as a percentage of the total points awarded in a season
next contract. Until then, the driver would get a bonus of course, but
*only* if he had a multi-year contract of course. Not much of a loss
really.
APLer
> Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro <r...@koala.mat.uc.pt> wrote:
>>
>>I just read a clueless article in the BBC site about a proposed
>>"radical" change in the F1 point system:
>
> Why don't they just give a point to everyone who finishes - or even
> better everyone who turns up on the grid!
>
And every good little boy who shows up gets a whistle! <g>.
APLer
For people who don't follow or understand F1. Otherwise, it's by their
best finish/average finish per race. No reason why the commentators et
al can't display this. Besides, it's by definition the bottom teams
anyways. Sorry, but it's not much of an argument IMHO. Just change it
back to the way it was before MS. He's the reason for the change and
he's gone now. Even if he gets into a car sometime in the furture,
theres no way he's going to be as good as the last time he was racing
for Ferrari. A top 5 finish is something to strive for.
Changing every little thing every year is what has turned F1 into a land
of exploding batteries and porcupine cars.
Emma
Spoilsport ;-p
--
Emma - The Chocolate Monster
http://chocmonster.rules.it
Emma
Chocolate ones!
erschro...@gmail.com
wrote:
> I just read a clueless article in the BBC site about a proposed "radical"
> change in the F1 point system:
>
> 1 10 100% 25 100%
> 2 8 80% 20 80%
> 3 6 60% 15 60%
> 4 5 50% 10 40%
> 5 4 40% 8 32%
> 6 3 30% 6 24%
> 7 2 20% 5 20%
> 8 1 10% 3 12%
> 9 - 0% 2 8%
> 10 - 0% 1 4%
>
>
> As you can see the "radical" change is that there is no change for the
> first 3 places, 4th, 5th and 6th change a bit, 7th is also the same,
> 8th is almost equal, and 9th and 10th now have points (this last point,
> I agree with).
>
> As it is said in The Leopard "If we want things to stay as they are,
> things will have to change."
>
> The old system (9-6-4-3-2-1) had bigger differences and later increased
> a bit (10-6-4-3-2-1), that is, 1st was worth 150% of 2nd and increased
> to 166%.
>
> And at the time of the (9-6-4-3-2-1) system not all the results counted,
> which was an incentive for trying for good results instead of settling
> for a few points (the change from 9 to 10 was to compensate when all
> the results started counting).
>
> If the idea is to get drivers to not to settle for 2nd place, the
> difference between 1st and 2nd should be bigger.
>
>
> .pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
> Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94
Just start at 1 with 10th and use the Fibonacci sequence!
Chad
That sounds good in theory, but do you realise how high the 10th number in
the sequence is? (12th really, if we dont drop the first 0 and 1)
1st 89 points
2nd 55
3rd 34
4th 21
5th 13
6th 8
7th 5
8th 3
9th 2
10th 1
Actually, maybe that would work. I guess they are supposed to be good at
describing the natural order of things.
--
Chad
David Melville
> News <Ne...@Groups.Name> writes
>> Emma wrote:
>>> Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro <r...@koala.mat.uc.pt> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I just read a clueless article in the BBC site about a proposed
>>>> "radical"
>>>> change in the F1 point system:
>>> Why don't they just give a point to everyone who finishes - or even
>>> better everyone who turns up on the grid!
>> Medals! We need medals!
>
> Chocolate ones!
>
Better than hats!
News
Sure, then why not primes?
build
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80532
beers,
Chad
That article would be a useful reference to post each of the 1000 or so
times people are going to bitch about the new points system helping or
hindering a driver in 2010.
--
Chad
APLer
news:7og80rF...@mid.individual.net:
> Chad wrote:
>
>>> Just start at 1 with 10th and use the Fibonacci sequence!
>>
>> That sounds good in theory, but do you realise how high the 10th
>> number in the sequence is? (12th really, if we dont drop the first 0
>> and 1)
>>
>> 1st 89 points
>> 2nd 55
>> 3rd 34
>> 4th 21
>> 5th 13
>> 6th 8
>> 7th 5
>> 8th 3
>> 9th 2
>> 10th 1
>>
>> Actually, maybe that would work. I guess they are supposed to be good
>> at describing the natural order of things.
>
> Strictly speaking, the Fibonacci numbers start 0, 1, 1, 2, ... ;-)
>
The factorial series might make the season a *bit* more exciting <g>
120 for 1st, 24 for 2nd, 6 for 3rd, 2 for 4th and 1 for 5th.
APLer
news:fae621dd-890e-4842...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> Not radical at all according to this article.
>
> http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80532
>
> beers,
Well, it really depends of whether we actually have all those teams
racing cars next year anyways. A good enough reason to wait a year as
any. Besides, I think the idea of Jean staying in the job for a year
*without* changing anything might be a nice change. It certainly would
be a prudent thing to do in ones first year.
David Melville
Yebbut, at least it gives those with no understanding of statistics
something to shout about over their jars.
Bob Dubery
> Bob Dubery <megap...@gmail.com> wrote innews:d1d254e4-0007-4429-
> > This is hilarious. There are drivers out there getting paid PER POINT.
> > Did anybody think to put something in a contract that says "unless
> > there are significant changes to the points allocation a system" ?
>
> You write it as a percentage of the total points awarded in a season
> next contract. Until then, the driver would get a bonus of course, but
> *only* if he had a multi-year contract of course. Not much of a loss
> really.
Sure. But there are already contracts in force that stipulate X pounds
per point scored. Now a driver wins a race and demands, as per
contract, 25X pounds.
Though shrewd teams, and teams who have been around a while, will have
seen points systems change and will, presumably, have small print that
says "in the event of a rule change as regards points allocations..."
Bob Dubery
You can always wait another year. Say two teams do not start the
season this year. There will be two franchises open and they may well
be taken up. Now what do you do? Wait another year in case those new
guys don't turn up or another manufacturer drops out?
I think that what is significant here is the way in which the changes
are being made. Todt has convened the Formula 1 Commission and made
the changes through that body. This is the first time in several years
that that commission has met for several years.
It indicates a different way of doing things. A more collaborative,
inclusive approach.
I think it's smart of Todt to lay down this marker very early on in
his presidency. There's a new sheriff in town with a different way of
doing things.
Finally, if change is considered desirable then why dilly dally?
AC
"News" <Ne...@Groups.Name> wrote in message
news:OIKdneBms9Ry2b_W...@speakeasy.net...
Calm down Mutley.
Ok, get the pigeon and I'll think about it.
AC
Bigbird
> Chad wrote:
> > That sounds good in theory, but do you realise how high the 10th
> > number in the sequence is? (12th really, if we dont drop the first
> > 0 and 1)
> >
>
> Strictly speaking, the Fibonacci numbers start 0, 1, 1, 2, ... ;-)
--
Bigbird
#
You'll be laughing when I'm dead!
CS
Andrew Smallshaw
> On Dec 11, 6:45�pm, "AC" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote:
>> "CatharticF1" <rasf1pos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CDE95609D46Dr...@203.26.24.228...
>>
>> > Would you want to go into the first corner with your teammate - Nakajima
>> > - next to or behind you...?
>>
>> Wouldn't he be coming in from the air?
>
> Nah, that's DC not KN ;-)
No, DC's trick is to get pole and then crash out on the parade lap.
Getting as far as the first corner is an achievement.
--
Andrew Smallshaw
and...@sdf.lonestar.org
APLer
> On Dec 12, 3:46�am, APLer <AP...@floor.tilde> wrote:
>> build <bui...@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:fae621dd-890e-4842-99d2-af352338a73
> 8...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > Not radical at all according to this article.
>>
>> >http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80532
>>
>> > beers,
>>
>> Well, it really depends of whether we actually have all those teams
>> racing cars next year anyways. A good enough reason to wait a year as
>> any. Besides, I think the idea of Jean staying in the job for a year
>> *without* changing anything might be a nice change. It certainly
>> would be a prudent thing to do in ones first year.
>
> You can always wait another year. Say two teams do not start the
> season this year. There will be two franchises open and they may well
> be taken up. Now what do you do? Wait another year in case those new
> guys don't turn up or another manufacturer drops out?
>
That's an argument for stability if anything. If there turns out to be
more than 12 teams by the end of next year that have signed the Concord
agreement, then yes, changing the points system *may*, I repeat *may*
have merit. However, there's certainly been more than 20 cars in F1
races in the past and changing how points were awarded wasn't a concern
then. If you finish 50th in a marathon you don't get any money or prizes
either. It's not an uncommon sort of thing to happen in sports. Changing
back to the pre Schumacher points system is probably the best thing to
do. Beyond that it gets into the realm of excessive tampering IMHO.
> I think that what is significant here is the way in which the changes
> are being made. Todt has convened the Formula 1 Commission and made
> the changes through that body. This is the first time in several years
> that that commission has met for several years.
>
It's a good start at least.There's still lots to improve. I heard on
Radio Lemans that Ron is going to be back on the wall with Mclaren as
well. Todt said specifically that he's wanted back or something to that
effect apparently. Proving what I suspected and may have even said about
him leaving in the first place. I guess Frank was *never* going to go
away period. One of the sorts of things I really like about him.
> It indicates a different way of doing things. A more collaborative,
> inclusive approach.
>
> I think it's smart of Todt to lay down this marker very early on in
> his presidency. There's a new sheriff in town with a different way of
> doing things.
>
> Finally, if change is considered desirable then why dilly dally?
>
But *is* it or is it just something for the journalists to write about?