Italian Grand Prix 2012, Monza - Race 13/20

Bring back 9-6-4-3-2-1 with a point for fastest lap! It won Hawthorn a championship (though it required Stirling Moss to be a gentleman and stick up for him in Portugal).

Or alternatively, as I've said in the past - 1pt for pole, 1pt for fastest lap, 1pt for leading a lap, 1pt for leading the most laps, then 10-6-4-3-2-1 for the top six. Reward success, not merely doing 'okay'.
 
pingwing said:
Hardly random saving a set of the quickest tyres for the end of the race when a drive has the least fuel....

A point for pole and fastest lap could spice up driver style a bit.
Click to expand...

So you think it would be fine to award a driver in 24th who is 3 laps down a point just cos he stuck a set of brand new softs on with 2 laps to go?

Those kind of points work in races where your position and speed are directly related to your driving. The tyre strategies (and if they had them, fuel strategies) in F1 mess with them too much to be fair.
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
So you think it would be fine to award a driver in 24th who is 3 laps down a point just cos he stuck a set of brand new softs on with 2 laps to go?
Click to expand...

Why not? It would encourage drivers to go with different strategies, rather than all playing with the same cookie-cutter and varying only by a lap or two. Of course, doing away with the retarded tyre compound rule might achieve the same end....
 
No it wouldnt, it would encorage anyone from 11th back to give up racing and just do a few quali runs. Why bother staying in the race if going for a single hot lap and then stopping is worth more than trying to overtake the guy in front?

And before you claim that wouldnt happen, it already has. In GP2 they had to change the fastest lap point rule because everyone outside the points by about half distance just started going for fastest laps on sets of fresh tyres instead.
 
Last edited:
Like I said, doing away with the tyre compound rule would be my first port of call for getting people to try something different on strategy. But I don't see why there would be no merit at all in the points system I've described.

For one thing, it at least gets you some points if you've led most of the way and then get taken out by some silly bugger in a backmarker car right at the end (Senna, Monza, 1988) :)
 
But what about tracks that are difficult to overtake on, where a driver earns a most laps lead point simply because the track is rubbish?

You would be rewarding drivers for luck or random strategy.
 
Skeeter said:
Points for fastest lap, leading a lap and most laps is not rewarding success, its rewarding random tyre strategies.
Click to expand...

and ensuring any seasons with a dominant car is well and truly over with more than likely a lot of races still to go on the calendar...

someone should back port a few seasons and see how much quicker some of the titles would have been won.

vettels title years he was going for the fastest lap and leading a lap almost every race.
 
So you could retire from every race on the first lap except 1, which you win, and beat someone who came second in every race in the season...

This year alone it puts Maldonado ahead of Kimi and Schumacher, and level with Vettel and Rosberg.

Edit: or not, as you talk about points, not medals, lol. But with points only for the top 3, how would you rank the rest of the teams? Most would score nothing.
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
Edit: or not, as you talk about points, not medals, lol. But with points only for the top 3, how would you rank the rest of the teams? Most would score nothing.
Click to expand...

Do the same as now for lower down the grid (those that never score points, yet have to be rated in the championship for income purposes)

Number fo times each team gets 11th / 12th etc etc etc becomes 4th / 5th and so on (for those that dont get any medals)

for the record I dont like the idea of medals at all.
 
FrankJH said:
Do the same as now for lower down the grid (those that never score points, yet have to be rated in the championship for income purposes)

Number fo times each team gets 11th / 12th etc etc etc becomes 4th / 5th and so on (for those that dont get any medals)

for the record I dont like the idea of medals at all.
Click to expand...

Regardless of how far down the list you go with points, you're always ranking people based on their results - all points achieves is more distinct weighting to the higher place finishes that you don't get outside the points. Ultimately, as long as the proportions stay roughly the same, it doesn't matter if you're getting 10 points, 25 points or 250 points for a win, the actual numbers are pretty much completely arbitrary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom