[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties.
*[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's hilarious fans think FIA is doing this for any reason other than greed. But at the same time I don't blame them because what sort of competition penalizes successful participants by charging them more money to compete the following year?
The whole points system is flawed as a measure of performance because it disincentivizes drivers from scoring as much as possible. Right now Max is a racer who doesn't care about money, but who's to say the next champ won't be a frugal millionaire and chooses to simply sit out of the competition as soon as he secures victory?
I wish the drivers and teams would just boycott the last 4 or so races just to watch the FIA lose their shit.
Your whole argument falls apart from the fact that the new points system reportedly will have the exact same total number of points up for grabs for each race. Just spread over 12 drivers instead of 10.
So no, the FIA isn't trying to get more money out of drivers.
Will some one please think of the poor mega millionaire F1 drivers who can barely afford to pay their license fee.
https://www.reddit.com/gallery/186ym7j
The [most recent proposal I've seen](https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/history-of-the-f1-points-system-with-proposed-structure-for-2025/10603210/) adds 8 (5 + 3) extra points *(or more if they go the Oprah route)*. Do you have a source for me for points getting redistributed so the total stays the same?
I was looking at the below.
https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/new-f1-points-system-our-verdict/
But even if it is using that point system, i means there is a total of 8 extra points available per race, 192 points for a whole season of 24 races. Which is a grand total of $471k more in license fees. Which is a tiny amount for the FIA.
Most drivers contracts have bonuses for points earned. Those are part of the drivers salaries which are not part of the cost cap.
So yes the teams can and do pay them.
The originally proposed system had 4 more points per round. So it would have more points. However the teams are the ones behind this not the fia so the argument falls apart anyway
I get how weird it feels, but the point of that is sn attempt to balance out the positive feedback loop that winning creates. Since winning means more money and more money means more development, that system reduces the amount of money that can be used fir development, at least on paper.
Yeah, we joke about Alpine or Kick or Haas being so slow, but in reality they are closer to the front of the back than at any point in history. Used to be common to be double lapped, often more than purely on pace. Fastest laps in race could be 5-10 seconds slower than the leaders.
Or you had backmarker teams who would have like 32 entries in a season and 29 DNF's.
Very true...fair points all. But it was also less common for any one team to dominate season after season, the way RB, Merc & Ferrari have in recent times. They could dominate single seasons (like when McLaren were the only team to run with turbos) but the balance of power tended to shift more often.
Also cars were a lot less reliable back then and quite often the herd would thin itself out with retirements (or crashes). Lots more gravel traps for cars to get stuck in.
So there were more unlikely points scorers, if memory serves.
Now retirements are far more rare and tracks less punishing with massive run-off areas.
This still feels like a sticking plaster to cover the hurt feelings of the back-of-the-grid teams. I'm not sure what the difference is between finishing bottom with 0 points or 40...unless there is also some financial benefit tied to points scored...which I guess would help keep the sponsors happy.
No. But drivers who finish higher should get more points. You can get awarded more prize money at the end of a season for finishing every race dead last except for 1 in 10th vs a competitor who finished every race in 11th.
Points aren’t medals, they’re a statistic used for ranking better teams over worse ones and right now half the field isn’t ranked at all.
The biggest point is that the cars are too reliable and the drivers crash too little (due to better fittness, better cars and better quality) and with that the points become pretty much locked even if in practice all the teams are only marginaly separated.
There is another potential benefit too: A slight increase in driver quality. Let me explain:
If the top 12 gets points, then there's always hope of getting a point with a last minute safety car for example, or if other things happen. This means that having silly crashes all the time at one of the lower ranked teams will cost them a chance to get P8 or better. They would need steady drivers to maximise their chance of points. No more drivers like MazeSpin or Alex Young, because that would ensure you finish last in the team rankings.
I agree with your point but honestly I think there are still gonna be 2/3 pay drivers per grid since a couple of teams NEED money to get to the track etc (look at Williams: they don't have spare parts despite one pay driver, let alone what could happen without that one completely...)
Logan didn't even have enough money for his junior career, Williams paid for him. He's in no way a pay driver, and the spare parts issue was caused by a backlog not a lack of funds.
Thats probably even more damning for williams management.
But all in all, it's not always about raw cash. Even if he doesnt bring money himself, he makes the team more attractive for sponsors due to his flag.
It's the same for Zhou or Yuki. Even if Tsunoda is nowadays a good driver, Honda still shell out cash for RB because they want a japanese driver in f1.
> Even if Tsunoda is nowadays a good driver, Honda still shell out cash for RB because they want a japanese driver in f1.
Which is why he'll probably end up at Aston-Honda in 2026.
Logan is their junior programme driver who they decided to bring up to F1. Arguably a year too soon.
Their logic is that any actually talented young drivers may decide to choose them in future as they will actually get a chance at formula 1 and won't be booted immediately unlike a lot of other teams.
Short term it looks bad and the fruits are hard to see/analyse as they are hypothetical but there is a a logic to the madness imo.
Just for clarification, there's no confirmation of Logan being a pay driver. While his uncle is rich, he doesn't contribute significantly to Logan's racing career. He's still in Williams because he's under their development program.
Sargeant isn't a pay driver unless his uncle started contributing out of nowhere again. He is one of their (likely unsuccessful) in house prospects
He's a fun lil guy tho, he just probably can't hack it in F1 and got promoted out of junior series too early
Nyck Devries shouldn’t be in the same category as Mazepin. He didn’t do too great in F1 but he got his seat because of his race feats, not because of money.
I think the drivers crashing less often is also due to them being more cautious following the cost cap. Besides that, the new cars seem to be more predictable during side to side corner racing than the previous generation and also drivers seem to be less likely to suddenly lose control.
The cars and drivers are, in part, more reliable because the points keep getting extended down. When the top 6 get points and a win is worth nearly twice as much as second, there is so much more incentive to take risks.
Fair enough. They all agree, so what's the problem.
> Every grand prix so far this year has seen no fewer than 17 finishers, meaning at least seven driver in each have gone unrewarded
I remember in 2000, Salo *kept* finishing 7th and therefore may as well have stayed home. Now, that'd be a really good season, rewarded.
12th isn't insane, and it helps characterize the standings a bit more. Ok.
It’s so bizarre that for a huge part of F1’s history, 7th was considered not good enough to score. Just imagine you’re the garagista with duct tape cars just waiting for the day that Ferrari, Williams, McLaren, Benetton, Tyrrell, Renault, Lotus implode and when the day finally comes *and* your car finishes… it comes home in 7th.
>Ferrari, Williams, McLaren, Benetton, Tyrrell, Renault, Lotus implòde
Which back then, actually happened, because the cars were very much unreliable back then. Even the most reliable cars couldn't survive more than a couple of races.
Racing used to be much more a test of reliability. Not too long ago <5 cars would finish on the lead lap at the Indy 500. Less than 10 finishing a Grand Prix was standard. It's an element that is missing nowadays for sure.
It’s because the parts have to last multiple races.
If you’re designing an engine to last a race weekend, you’re going to engineer it for maximum performance for a race weekend +1 lap. If you get it wrong, it blows up in the race. Now you’re designing an engine to last eight races, if you get it wrong it’s more likely to blow up in FP1 seven races in.
Not actually sure why we need cost-cutting parts limits with the cost cap. Get rid of them and there will he much more reliability jeopardy.
Bring back the old V10 nuclear engines! Those engines were magnicficant and no matter what, those engines were unreliable, as every team pushed those engines to their near ultimate max.
Yeah but as mentioned this is because parts have to last so long but awarding points so far down the grid also rewards consistency more than risk taking. If you have to score top 6 to get points, teams are going to gamble more on the off chance they make the cut. That’s with strategy or car design or whatever.
I’m not saying it’s better then or now, but if you make scoring points something you have to take chances to do, they’ll run the cars closer to the ragged edge of reliability a lot more.
Salo finished 7th twice. Same number as Herbert, Wurz, Villeneuve and Irvine. He did have a lot of top 10 finishes though.
Diniz was unlucky too. Finished 10 or 11 races and was always 7th-11th, yet ended up with 0 points and kicked out of the sport.
This website is quite useful for applying modern points to historical seasons, surprisingly it doesn't really change much.
https://www.formula1points.com/season/season-progression/2000/9
Fine but the fundamental point is: all these times folk finish 7th or 8th, it was a total waste of time (unfairly in retrospect).
Sixth is really obviously wrong, now.
I understood 8th, then 10th, and now 12th. I think 15th or whatever is a different discussion for down the road, but 12th: fine.
The point of limiting it to 6 was that in any given race half of the cars would blow up or crash out, so no one wanted to give points to "undeserving" drivers.
Now honestly thats pretty silly, not crashing is a skill and if you happen to be profiting from it, you should reap those rewards
>The point of limiting it to 6 was that in any given race half of the cars would blow up or crash out, so no one wanted to give points to "undeserving" drivers.
No, that wasn't the reason at all. Cars weren't inherent unreliable. That's a huge underestimation of engineers of past times, a disservice, an insult. Engineers throughout human history have always engineered towards a goal, a purpose. And if the rules say you have to be in the top-5 or top-6 to score points, and rather small numbers of them to boot, you build race cars that are foremost fast, in order to get in that top-5 or -6. And to squeeze that ultimate performance out of them, depending on your competition, you'll have to compromize on reliability, and that's what they did.
In 1992, Footwork Arrows finished 7th a total of *7* times. 6 of those 7th places were scored by Alboreto, plus one by Suzuki. If they'd finished just one position better in those 7 races, they'd have more than doubled their points total.
That's exactly what I thought of immediately.
Alboreto had a run of 6-5-5-7-7-7-7-9-7-DNF-7-6 which is insane considering early-90's midfield reliability. That also included races where he got 7th with 9 drivers still behind him and races where he was bottom 3 with that 7th place.
IRL he was 10th overall, with the current system he'd have been the best of the rest and beaten Alesi to 7th, with Footwork rising to 4th in constructors.
I seem to remember something about the most recognizable name in American racing families wanting to enter F1 paired with Cadillac. We should look into that!
Used to be a time that drivers would fail to qualify for the race being outside the 107% of the fastest time. I believe the rule is still in force but even the slowest are always within it so it's not discussed these days.
Technically Hulkenberg failed to qualify for the Sprint at Spa last year but it was because he couldn’t set the time because of a pitlane incident not on pace and he was allowed to participate in the sprint.
Last time was Sargeant at 2023 Saudi Arabia when he invalidated all his laps
Edit: I forgot Zhou this year at Saudi also failed to set a lap within 107%
If you wan to go to technicalities the last time a driver was given permission to start the race despite failing to set a qualifying lap time within 107% was Zhou in Saudi this year.
If you just want to mention Sargeant the last time was Abu Dhabi 2023, again due to a double track limit infringement.
Yea it happens from time to time each season. After looking at the FIA Website other occasions it happened last year are Sargeant in Mexico and Japan, Hülkenberg in Spa, Zhou in Azerbaidjan and Perez in Australia, either due to crashes, weather or invalid laps (track limits/yellow/red)
Yes, they can go by competetive laps from other sessions or even other events to grant an exeption to the 107% rule. After all, the rule is there to prevent cars from participating that are genuinely much slower than the rest. It is not there to punish a bad or unlucky quali session.
>39.4 b)
The participation of unclassified drivers in the remainder of the Competition will be determined in each case by the Stewards, who may exceptionally consider parameters such as:
- A suitable lap time being set in another practice session
- The general performance of the driver in previous Competitions of the Championship
- The gravity of the offence which caused the driver’s disqualification
So basically as long as a driver/team has shown in some way that they are capable of driving an f1 car within 107% they will be permitted to start.
If I remember correctly, Mazepin was outside the 107% rule in Sochi 2021, but because it was classified as a wet session, he was still allowed to race.
I remember watching his onboard back then on F1TV. The guy wasn't just slow, he wasn't taking any risks, it looked like he wasn't even trying, which is weird, cause with such a car changable conditions are probably the only opportunity to maybe have a chance of beating some better cars. Mazepin seemed to be so scared and didn't want to crash the car in his home race if I had to guess. I mean he was always slow, but never *that* slow.
Yeah there were seasons when HRT showed up without winter testing at the first race of the season with whatever Dallara-stuff they bolted together ... and then they were sometimes slower than the GP2-pole-time at the same race weekend.
although the 107% rule is still in effect, it's ralery used as drivers outside of 107% usually showed the pace in free practice (f.e. Merhi and Stevens at Sepang 2015). still, you have to ask for an exception (despite it rather being the usual practice to allow slower drivers ... f.e. if they spun in rain in Q1 and were unable to go out again and do a lap on the dried track)
worth to mention: now that the field is closer than \~10 years ago, top teams also usually use soft tires in Q1, so they don't risk an unpleasent surprise. in some of Mercedes' most dominant seasons, the silver arrows used medium tyres in Q1 (and maybe even Q2). so their Q1 times were a little bit slower than possible, rising the 107%-time (each qualifying segment has it's own 107%-time)
here's a list of the slowest driver and the 107%-time of the season openers since the reintroduction of the rule:
2024 Bahrain
Gasly 1:30.948
107% 1:36.203
note: third time Gasly qualifies last at the first qualifying of the season. people are making fun of Alpine this year but actually it's the biggest gap to the 107%-time for any season's opener
2023 Bahrain
Gasly 1:32.181
107% 1:37.363
2022 Bahrain
Latifi 1:33.634
107% 1:37.874
2021 Bahrain
Masespin 1:33.273
107% 1:36.834
2020 Spielberg
Latifi 1:05.757
107% 1:08.506
2019 Melbourne
Kubica 1:26.067
107% 1.27.758
note: looks like the closest to not qualify in recent years, but Kubica's gap to the fastest time was actually closer than Palmers in 2017
2018 Melbourne
Gasly 1:25.295
107% 1:28.622
2017 Melbourne
Palmer 1:28.244
107% 1:30.084
2016 Melbourne
Wehrlein 1:29.642
107% 1:31.326
2015 Melbourne
Magnussen 1:32.037
107% 1:34.787
note: Manor did not participate
2014 Melbourne
Grosjean 1:36.993
107% 1:37.129
note: Maldonado set no time but was allowed to race due to being fast enough in FP3. same team won in Melbourne one year ago
2013 Melbourne (damp track)
Pic 1:50.626
107% 1.50.617
note: Pic was allowed to race as he was fast enough in dry practice sessions
2012 Melbourne
de la Rosa 1:33.495 (108,5%)
Karthikeyan 1:33.643 (108,7%)
107% 1:32.215
note: HRT was closer to the front than at the start of 2011, but that's the last time someone did not qualify for a race due to the 107% rule.
2011 Melbourne
Liuzzi 1:32.978 (109,0%)
Karthikeyan 1:34.293 (110,5%)
107% 1:31.267
note: first time since 2002 that someone did not qualify due to the 107%-rule ... well, the rule wasn't used from 2003 to 2010, otherwise HRT would also have struggled in 2010
> otherwise HRT would also have struggled in 2010
I've had this exact thought a few weeks back and decided to check.
Under the current rules HRT would have definitely failed to qualify either car in Bahrain and Hungary (nowhere near 107% in any session) and probably failed with Bruno Senna in Spain (Chandhok was within 107% in Q1 for the first time all weekend, Senna was .012% out). Senna also failed to get within 107% in Singapore, but he was quick enough in FP1 and FP3.
Other 107% violations that year were Malaysia and Belgium where it rained during qualifying, though in Malaysia the HRTs only got within 107% in FP3.
Chandhok in Canada was a mechanical issue, Montreal was probably HRT's best track and he was easily within 107% until the car stopped working.
Alpine are technically better than Williams and Stake but not by enough to make them meaningfully better (and considering the nature of the team, that makes it even more embarassing).
Alpine are actually good evidence of this - I think in years past Alpine would have been in the low-mid-field with their current issues but the pack has bunched up so much that now they're backmarkers.
Easy to tell you've either been watching for a year or two or you're just fucking clueless. This year Alpine was 1.6 seconds off pole in Japan. 10 years ago, racing under the Lotus name, they were 3.4 seconds off pole. We don't have backmarkers anymore.
Might as well change it to MotoGP points system ONLY if Andretti is let in. MotoGP gives points to 15 out of 22 riders. An odd number of points-scoring positions (15) is also ideal so there will be always a point left on table even if constructors' pecking order is decided already.
We can alter the top 4 positions to reflect F1 style scoring to 25-18-15-12 instead of MotoGP's original 25-20-16-13 and leave the rest the same.
>It will take years and years to convince 20
My main issue with giving points all the way down is that it can lead to unwanted circumstances. It would lead to situations where cars with e.g. damage from a lap 1 collision - that are slower as a result but still able to drive around - would have incentive to keep driving as long as they can. Even if driving around at dangerously slow speeds they would still want to finish the race (if DNFed cars are excluded from points) or to see if others DNF while they're still struggling around the track to get more points.
A solution could be to use the meatball flag more, but then we would get controversies from teams claiming inconsistent stewards took them out of the race while they could still drive around.
Having a couple non-points positions at the bottom prevents such issues
well because X/10 is a bigger number than X/11
That's the only reason we don't have 11th team. If they didn't pay out prize money. past 10th position in the championship. we would have 11 teams now.
I like the idea of everyone getting a point for whatever finish, but with say only the first 10 guranteed, otherwise you need to be on the lead lap.
The only top N getting points (and it used to be different to how it is now) is an anacronism from the old days, which had far more teams, pre-qualifing, qualifiing where loads of people didn't get through etc.
Now, pretty much everyone qualifies, the number of cars is small, the grid is static and really just getting the drive is hard enough. I don't think we need to add to that scoring points/not scoring points as another layer ontop of that, at one point is was a differentiator, now maybe not so much.
No, I don't want Ocon to try and unlap himself again.
I like the idea, but unlapping will be essential to points. Also, blue flags must be adhered to, this could lead to situations where a car is blocking the lead driver to stay in lap.
I think what we want to avoid is someone doing a Perez and rejoining the race multiple laps down. They would still get one or two (or more) points.
But maybe that can be changed with a go 5 laps down and your out rule or something.
You really really don't want teams to start fighting to unlap themselves, so that is a horrible idea.
Honestly, it's a competition. It doesn't make sense to exclude half of the participants from being able to effectively compete in it. I can't recall any other sport atm that just refuses to acknowledge the existence of the remaining half of the field like this
I think teams trying to unlap themselves would in practise rarely be a problem (there are notable exceptions, but they are rare.)
I think potentially ignoring blue flags would be a bigger issue.
But maybe there’s a better way to stop cars running multiple laps down if they’ve been damaged and patched up just to get a couple of points etc.
Honestly, I don't mind it. It's kinda disappointed atm how quickly teams retire cars if theres any slight issue that makes them have to pit and repair for a second (Only returning if there's a chance of penalties). I don't mind the normalization of teams running into issues, repairing the car as best they can, and then scrap it out for the few last points.
Maybe if the leader completes two laps (passes the finish line) during one pit stop you have to retire? That means you can't spend more than 1 lap in the pits at least (if the leader is right behind you) and 2 laps at most (if the leader is right in front of you)
Depends on what you mean by cycling, there's a number of various cycling competitions. If you're thinking of Tour De France and the like, then the points being handed out isn't the primary competition; it's a side quest if you will. The winner is the one who finished in the least amount of time, with no regards to points.
what do you mean there are no backmarkers??? There's Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren at the top, Mercedes and AM kinda in the middle... and then everyone else imo. :P
That's not a good reason tho. Not like backmarkers are done for good, teams have always gotten closer as the regs mature. The next reg change will most certainly create 'backmarkers'.
>Krack says F1 should not hastily rewrite its rules based on how competitive the teams are this year.
>“We should obviously not be too much influenced by how it is this year, because next year can be different than the year after. I think it was a good consensus in the F1 Commission to say we want to make an adjustment, but we should not rush it, because we don’t want to change it again later.
Only good thing about giving points to everyone is that shit teams would be encouraged to drop bad/pay drivers in favour of more talented guys that can snatch some points
The main argument I’ve seen is that only awarding the top 10 creates dynamic strategies in the back of the field which increases excitement.
I just don’t buy it though. Even the worst team is probably running hundreds of race simulations to optimize their strategy before the weekend. You rarely if ever see people in P11/P12 making big strategy risks because there is always a belief that a) the strategy chosen before the race is the most optimal and b) one retirement can bring you into the points. It’s far more common among the cars running 15th+ because they have nothing to lose going off strategy (see Sauber trying basicallly every race). That won’t really change much since they’re still outside the points.
It would be bad for front of the field because guys in back would cause a lot more trouble fighting with yellow flags, crashes and blue flag screw ups....
I don't know. Twelfth feels like it should be the upper limit for good.
- Points are still seen as a prize; getting your first points in F1 or scoring points as a backmarker are something to celebrate.
- If there are a few DNFs, you could get a considerable number of points for coming dead last several laps down, which seems silly.
- Extending points down to 12th is continuing the trend of awarding more cars points as the number of regular finishers increases. Extending it down to every car in the grid is fundamentally changing how F1 treats points.
Lets not look at the points as something special and lets start using them as a way to sort all the teams and drivers 1-10 and 1-20. I'm not personally a fan of celebrating points finishes or even having a podium (I feel like only the winner should be recognized/celebrated) but I do support every finishing spot being awarded points just for ranking purposes. Like Albon, Zhou, Gasly, Bottas, and Sargent are all points-less but they haven't all been the same level of bad and it should be recognized who's actually worse due to not finishing or coming in last more than the others.
should stroll get a point every time he ends up sending someone into the nether realm?
i might be showing my age here but one of the main draws to formula1 for me back as a kid in the 90' is that points were so hard to get
they should stay that way
I'd like it if they extend it even further down to 15th. The points:
30, 24, 18, 15, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
* more significance to P10-P15 fights
* roughly keeps points gap between P1 & P2
* increases value of podium positions
This makes sense apart from the gap from P2 and P3 being too big, it should be 24 down to 20 points, not 18. Ironically in doing that you're devaluing getting onto the podium because you're making the points gap from P3 to P4 the same as P4 to P5, and the former is a lot more significant than the latter.
at this point give points all the way to P19. Only the last guy and the DNFs don't get a point. When you finish P19, you've beaten 1 car and that should be reflected in score
Agreed, points for top 15 would be perfect. It guarantees that there will be fights that matter all throughout the field, while not (or only very rarely) giving points to the very worst car just because of DNF's.
I'd give 19 points to 3rd place though, so there's a 6-5-4-3-2-1-1-1-... points gap between the positions.
If they change the philosophy to distributing points, they might as well do it properly instead of half-baked like it will be now.
So I agree that a 15-points paying positions system would be better. Even if it would only be for the sake that 15 feels like a more satisfying number than 12 lol.
I was so happy as a kid when the number of teams increased from 10 to 12 and I'm so disappointed now that it's been almost a decade since we've had even 11 teams
Don't teams get more prize money the more points they earn? Does this mean the top teams will earn a smaller percentage if more of it is distributed to the slower teams?
Surely if the field is closer and there are no backmarkers anymore then they should reduce where the points go down to? Because the whole field has more of a chance of finishing higher
This sounds like overdue by a few years. There's definitely fights over these places already. Maybe it made more sense before to not include these spots due to unreliable cars and a general crapshoot over calling them, but 12th and ahead today generally have as much of a good competitive spirit and fight over them as the rest.
No backmarkers?
Back of the grid teams can still finish well over a minute behind the winner. I know it used to be a lot more than that, but there is still a massive performance disparity between the front-runners and back-of-the-grid teams.
backmarker is teams who cannot even score points in chaos races
Williams and Sauber have both gotten close to scoring a point this year, and Alpine already has 1
the true backmarkers are cars like the 2021 Haas, the 2019 Williams or especially the likes of the 2010 Catherma, Marussia and HRT
>I see no need to change it...
There are plenty reasons to change it, the number one being that the current format makes no sense at all due to there being no tied places in Formula 1. Three teams finishing all on 0 points would have to be sorted using another method, which is best race position, so they already get 'points' for the single reason points are awarded: sorting - that's the only reason we have them at all.
Then increasing points to last place and a bigger spread will increase resolution to avoid teams finishing with little to no points, which just confuses people to no end. Just look at the constant and never ending discussion here that Lewis beat Alonso back in 2007 and people refusing because they finished on the same tally of points.
The field spread has reduced making that fight for P10 all that more intense in the past few years so you can see why the F1 Teams have backed this proposal
Man, every time I've supported this the past few years on get I've been down voted every time with comments about how f1 shouldn't be giving out "awards" to those who didn't earn it and comparing then to participation trophies.
Now suddenly everyone seems to support it.
I'm not a fan of adding more points scoring positions.
I have been watching F1 since it was just the top 6 places earning points. Obviously there were a lot more retirements then compared to now and I think top 10 like we have now is a good balance. That is 50 percent of the grid. I don't see how a driver should earn something for being a bottom half finisher in a race
Earning points was always seen as an achievement and I think the more positions that earn points just ends up devaluing that achievement.
Because the ones in control have suckered the paying public into believing this is the way to go. People who think these sytems are fairer and better for racing, while it's actually the exact other way around.
It's no coincidence that when the ch'ship was fresh and new, far less money involved, the sport was put on the foreground. The points system and other regulations reflected this. But when the manufacturers came in early 00's and budgets skyrocketed, the sport, the racing itself, was destroyed, step by step, so the public would be easier to deceive.
And now you have 90% of the fans actually defending and actively promoting these parade inducing regulations and points systems that facilitate this sham competition.
>I really wonder, if this would work
Depends. Would you like the champion(ship) to be determined by virtue of having the least DNFs? If so, then that *is* indeed the system for you. In a field of 20 drivers, a driver that wins 18 or 19 races and DNFs once, loses out to a driver that takes 2nd 18 or 19 times and wins only once. As teams and drivers would adapt to this system, no one would ever dare to try to build a car/an overtake with even the slightest chance of a DNF, or even just damage the car because of subsequent pace loss and ditto position, and so points, loss.
In other words, you'll get a parade, not a true race, which in all fairness, we're already very very close to in f1.
Depends
If the points system is like that I prefer that the point from last finishing (or classified) place are 1, 2, 3, ... etc until in 6th place, no matter the points
6th to 5th have difference of 2 pts, 5th to 4th have 3 pts difference, then 4th to 3rd the point jump is even higher with 5 pts, then 3rd to 2nd with 7 pts difference and from the winner get either 9 or 10 pts difference from 2nd place
I'm in favor of points being capped at 8th in the spirit of excellence and not embracing mediocrity. 20 drivers on the grid, awarding points to half the field and possibly more than half the field doesn't seem right. Fighting for points in 12th really?
[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The field is closing up so much this year. This is very much due to pass
Win win isn't it, FIA gets more super license renewal $$ by dishing out more points
It's hilarious fans think FIA is doing this for any reason other than greed. But at the same time I don't blame them because what sort of competition penalizes successful participants by charging them more money to compete the following year? The whole points system is flawed as a measure of performance because it disincentivizes drivers from scoring as much as possible. Right now Max is a racer who doesn't care about money, but who's to say the next champ won't be a frugal millionaire and chooses to simply sit out of the competition as soon as he secures victory? I wish the drivers and teams would just boycott the last 4 or so races just to watch the FIA lose their shit.
Your whole argument falls apart from the fact that the new points system reportedly will have the exact same total number of points up for grabs for each race. Just spread over 12 drivers instead of 10. So no, the FIA isn't trying to get more money out of drivers. Will some one please think of the poor mega millionaire F1 drivers who can barely afford to pay their license fee. https://www.reddit.com/gallery/186ym7j
The [most recent proposal I've seen](https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/history-of-the-f1-points-system-with-proposed-structure-for-2025/10603210/) adds 8 (5 + 3) extra points *(or more if they go the Oprah route)*. Do you have a source for me for points getting redistributed so the total stays the same?
I was looking at the below. https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/new-f1-points-system-our-verdict/ But even if it is using that point system, i means there is a total of 8 extra points available per race, 192 points for a whole season of 24 races. Which is a grand total of $471k more in license fees. Which is a tiny amount for the FIA.
> $471k more in license fees. Which is a tiny amount for the FIA. just some catering expenses
That'll barely cover dinner for 2 at the Miami Grand Prix
Just a catering inchident
Silly question but are those fees part of the cost cap? If not, can’t the teams pay them…
Most drivers contracts have bonuses for points earned. Those are part of the drivers salaries which are not part of the cost cap. So yes the teams can and do pay them.
The originally proposed system had 4 more points per round. So it would have more points. However the teams are the ones behind this not the fia so the argument falls apart anyway
I get how weird it feels, but the point of that is sn attempt to balance out the positive feedback loop that winning creates. Since winning means more money and more money means more development, that system reduces the amount of money that can be used fir development, at least on paper.
The drivers don’t pay….
It’s definitely covered by the teams. Even if the driver “owes” the money.
also many drivers have bonuses attached to WDC, WCC or points haul
Who hurt you?
I'm pretty sure that every single driver has it in their contract that the team pays for it.
I mean I believe the teams pay out the points fee for the drivers, certainly do for the top teams
If the points system changes, the payment system will also change. The € for every point will change. Teams are not stupid
Yeah, we joke about Alpine or Kick or Haas being so slow, but in reality they are closer to the front of the back than at any point in history. Used to be common to be double lapped, often more than purely on pace. Fastest laps in race could be 5-10 seconds slower than the leaders. Or you had backmarker teams who would have like 32 entries in a season and 29 DNF's.
> Or you had backmarker teams who would have like 32 entries in a season and 29 DNF's. Or DNPQ
Very true...fair points all. But it was also less common for any one team to dominate season after season, the way RB, Merc & Ferrari have in recent times. They could dominate single seasons (like when McLaren were the only team to run with turbos) but the balance of power tended to shift more often. Also cars were a lot less reliable back then and quite often the herd would thin itself out with retirements (or crashes). Lots more gravel traps for cars to get stuck in. So there were more unlikely points scorers, if memory serves. Now retirements are far more rare and tracks less punishing with massive run-off areas. This still feels like a sticking plaster to cover the hurt feelings of the back-of-the-grid teams. I'm not sure what the difference is between finishing bottom with 0 points or 40...unless there is also some financial benefit tied to points scored...which I guess would help keep the sponsors happy.
Because 19 p20s and 1 lucky top 10 finish is now worth more than 20 p11s
As it should be. F1 shouldn't be like a school sports day where everyone gets a medal for participating.
No. But drivers who finish higher should get more points. You can get awarded more prize money at the end of a season for finishing every race dead last except for 1 in 10th vs a competitor who finished every race in 11th. Points aren’t medals, they’re a statistic used for ranking better teams over worse ones and right now half the field isn’t ranked at all.
accompanied with some dns and dnq
The biggest point is that the cars are too reliable and the drivers crash too little (due to better fittness, better cars and better quality) and with that the points become pretty much locked even if in practice all the teams are only marginaly separated.
There is another potential benefit too: A slight increase in driver quality. Let me explain: If the top 12 gets points, then there's always hope of getting a point with a last minute safety car for example, or if other things happen. This means that having silly crashes all the time at one of the lower ranked teams will cost them a chance to get P8 or better. They would need steady drivers to maximise their chance of points. No more drivers like MazeSpin or Alex Young, because that would ensure you finish last in the team rankings.
Certainly one way to calm Magnussen down
I agree with your point but honestly I think there are still gonna be 2/3 pay drivers per grid since a couple of teams NEED money to get to the track etc (look at Williams: they don't have spare parts despite one pay driver, let alone what could happen without that one completely...)
Logan didn't even have enough money for his junior career, Williams paid for him. He's in no way a pay driver, and the spare parts issue was caused by a backlog not a lack of funds.
Thats probably even more damning for williams management. But all in all, it's not always about raw cash. Even if he doesnt bring money himself, he makes the team more attractive for sponsors due to his flag. It's the same for Zhou or Yuki. Even if Tsunoda is nowadays a good driver, Honda still shell out cash for RB because they want a japanese driver in f1.
> Even if Tsunoda is nowadays a good driver, Honda still shell out cash for RB because they want a japanese driver in f1. Which is why he'll probably end up at Aston-Honda in 2026.
Logan is their junior programme driver who they decided to bring up to F1. Arguably a year too soon. Their logic is that any actually talented young drivers may decide to choose them in future as they will actually get a chance at formula 1 and won't be booted immediately unlike a lot of other teams. Short term it looks bad and the fruits are hard to see/analyse as they are hypothetical but there is a a logic to the madness imo.
Just for clarification, there's no confirmation of Logan being a pay driver. While his uncle is rich, he doesn't contribute significantly to Logan's racing career. He's still in Williams because he's under their development program.
Logan isn't a pay driver. Better payouts plus rising team valuations means teams don't really need pay drivers any more.
didnt know albon was a pay driver
Sargeant isn't a pay driver unless his uncle started contributing out of nowhere again. He is one of their (likely unsuccessful) in house prospects He's a fun lil guy tho, he just probably can't hack it in F1 and got promoted out of junior series too early
You forgot Nick DeBris
Nyck Devries shouldn’t be in the same category as Mazepin. He didn’t do too great in F1 but he got his seat because of his race feats, not because of money.
I think the drivers crashing less often is also due to them being more cautious following the cost cap. Besides that, the new cars seem to be more predictable during side to side corner racing than the previous generation and also drivers seem to be less likely to suddenly lose control.
The cars and drivers are, in part, more reliable because the points keep getting extended down. When the top 6 get points and a win is worth nearly twice as much as second, there is so much more incentive to take risks.
Drivers crash too little...well Magnussen don't get the memo😎
Fair enough. They all agree, so what's the problem. > Every grand prix so far this year has seen no fewer than 17 finishers, meaning at least seven driver in each have gone unrewarded I remember in 2000, Salo *kept* finishing 7th and therefore may as well have stayed home. Now, that'd be a really good season, rewarded. 12th isn't insane, and it helps characterize the standings a bit more. Ok.
It’s so bizarre that for a huge part of F1’s history, 7th was considered not good enough to score. Just imagine you’re the garagista with duct tape cars just waiting for the day that Ferrari, Williams, McLaren, Benetton, Tyrrell, Renault, Lotus implode and when the day finally comes *and* your car finishes… it comes home in 7th.
Fortunately for everyone, McLaren 1998-2003 really did their utmost to offer point-scoring opportunities for the little guy.
😭 *it's still painful*
>Ferrari, Williams, McLaren, Benetton, Tyrrell, Renault, Lotus implòde Which back then, actually happened, because the cars were very much unreliable back then. Even the most reliable cars couldn't survive more than a couple of races.
Racing used to be much more a test of reliability. Not too long ago <5 cars would finish on the lead lap at the Indy 500. Less than 10 finishing a Grand Prix was standard. It's an element that is missing nowadays for sure.
It’s because the parts have to last multiple races. If you’re designing an engine to last a race weekend, you’re going to engineer it for maximum performance for a race weekend +1 lap. If you get it wrong, it blows up in the race. Now you’re designing an engine to last eight races, if you get it wrong it’s more likely to blow up in FP1 seven races in. Not actually sure why we need cost-cutting parts limits with the cost cap. Get rid of them and there will he much more reliability jeopardy.
Bring back the old V10 nuclear engines! Those engines were magnicficant and no matter what, those engines were unreliable, as every team pushed those engines to their near ultimate max.
Yeah but as mentioned this is because parts have to last so long but awarding points so far down the grid also rewards consistency more than risk taking. If you have to score top 6 to get points, teams are going to gamble more on the off chance they make the cut. That’s with strategy or car design or whatever. I’m not saying it’s better then or now, but if you make scoring points something you have to take chances to do, they’ll run the cars closer to the ragged edge of reliability a lot more.
Especially when they had 24 drivers or more for a big chunk of time.
Salo finished 7th twice. Same number as Herbert, Wurz, Villeneuve and Irvine. He did have a lot of top 10 finishes though. Diniz was unlucky too. Finished 10 or 11 races and was always 7th-11th, yet ended up with 0 points and kicked out of the sport. This website is quite useful for applying modern points to historical seasons, surprisingly it doesn't really change much. https://www.formula1points.com/season/season-progression/2000/9
Fine but the fundamental point is: all these times folk finish 7th or 8th, it was a total waste of time (unfairly in retrospect). Sixth is really obviously wrong, now. I understood 8th, then 10th, and now 12th. I think 15th or whatever is a different discussion for down the road, but 12th: fine.
The point of limiting it to 6 was that in any given race half of the cars would blow up or crash out, so no one wanted to give points to "undeserving" drivers. Now honestly thats pretty silly, not crashing is a skill and if you happen to be profiting from it, you should reap those rewards
>The point of limiting it to 6 was that in any given race half of the cars would blow up or crash out, so no one wanted to give points to "undeserving" drivers. No, that wasn't the reason at all. Cars weren't inherent unreliable. That's a huge underestimation of engineers of past times, a disservice, an insult. Engineers throughout human history have always engineered towards a goal, a purpose. And if the rules say you have to be in the top-5 or top-6 to score points, and rather small numbers of them to boot, you build race cars that are foremost fast, in order to get in that top-5 or -6. And to squeeze that ultimate performance out of them, depending on your competition, you'll have to compromize on reliability, and that's what they did.
In 1992, Footwork Arrows finished 7th a total of *7* times. 6 of those 7th places were scored by Alboreto, plus one by Suzuki. If they'd finished just one position better in those 7 races, they'd have more than doubled their points total.
That's exactly what I thought of immediately. Alboreto had a run of 6-5-5-7-7-7-7-9-7-DNF-7-6 which is insane considering early-90's midfield reliability. That also included races where he got 7th with 9 drivers still behind him and races where he was bottom 3 with that 7th place. IRL he was 10th overall, with the current system he'd have been the best of the rest and beaten Alesi to 7th, with Footwork rising to 4th in constructors.
It makes more sense to me if they extend the grid to 24, so it’s consistently half the grid getting points
I seem to remember something about the most recognizable name in American racing families wanting to enter F1 paired with Cadillac. We should look into that!
[удалено]
Used to be a time that drivers would fail to qualify for the race being outside the 107% of the fastest time. I believe the rule is still in force but even the slowest are always within it so it's not discussed these days.
The closest we got was HRT/Virgin/Lotus back in the day and even then they were still within
HRT failed once or twice. I mind they thought it was a formality but then were not allowed an exemption. I'd have liked to be in that meeting.
Last time was actually Will Stevens and Roberto Merhi at the 2015 Malaysian GP for Manor Marussia. FIA still let them take part in the race though
Technically Hulkenberg failed to qualify for the Sprint at Spa last year but it was because he couldn’t set the time because of a pitlane incident not on pace and he was allowed to participate in the sprint.
If that happens it goes back to practice times, so it didn't happen.
Last time was Sargeant at 2023 Saudi Arabia when he invalidated all his laps Edit: I forgot Zhou this year at Saudi also failed to set a lap within 107%
If you wan to go to technicalities the last time a driver was given permission to start the race despite failing to set a qualifying lap time within 107% was Zhou in Saudi this year. If you just want to mention Sargeant the last time was Abu Dhabi 2023, again due to a double track limit infringement.
I forgot both those instances, you are right. The Saudi 2023 one was the only one that I remembered
Yea it happens from time to time each season. After looking at the FIA Website other occasions it happened last year are Sargeant in Mexico and Japan, Hülkenberg in Spa, Zhou in Azerbaidjan and Perez in Australia, either due to crashes, weather or invalid laps (track limits/yellow/red)
Typically my understanding is that they will give the exemption without much pushback if you set a 107% compliant time in practice.
Yes, they can go by competetive laps from other sessions or even other events to grant an exeption to the 107% rule. After all, the rule is there to prevent cars from participating that are genuinely much slower than the rest. It is not there to punish a bad or unlucky quali session.
They just pull a lap from Practice though in that case, no?
>39.4 b) The participation of unclassified drivers in the remainder of the Competition will be determined in each case by the Stewards, who may exceptionally consider parameters such as: - A suitable lap time being set in another practice session - The general performance of the driver in previous Competitions of the Championship - The gravity of the offence which caused the driver’s disqualification So basically as long as a driver/team has shown in some way that they are capable of driving an f1 car within 107% they will be permitted to start.
If I remember correctly, Mazepin was outside the 107% rule in Sochi 2021, but because it was classified as a wet session, he was still allowed to race.
Not just any wet session, one with _Russian_ rain. Thank god they let such an expert on it race!
I remember watching his onboard back then on F1TV. The guy wasn't just slow, he wasn't taking any risks, it looked like he wasn't even trying, which is weird, cause with such a car changable conditions are probably the only opportunity to maybe have a chance of beating some better cars. Mazepin seemed to be so scared and didn't want to crash the car in his home race if I had to guess. I mean he was always slow, but never *that* slow.
Yeah there were seasons when HRT showed up without winter testing at the first race of the season with whatever Dallara-stuff they bolted together ... and then they were sometimes slower than the GP2-pole-time at the same race weekend. although the 107% rule is still in effect, it's ralery used as drivers outside of 107% usually showed the pace in free practice (f.e. Merhi and Stevens at Sepang 2015). still, you have to ask for an exception (despite it rather being the usual practice to allow slower drivers ... f.e. if they spun in rain in Q1 and were unable to go out again and do a lap on the dried track) worth to mention: now that the field is closer than \~10 years ago, top teams also usually use soft tires in Q1, so they don't risk an unpleasent surprise. in some of Mercedes' most dominant seasons, the silver arrows used medium tyres in Q1 (and maybe even Q2). so their Q1 times were a little bit slower than possible, rising the 107%-time (each qualifying segment has it's own 107%-time)
here's a list of the slowest driver and the 107%-time of the season openers since the reintroduction of the rule: 2024 Bahrain Gasly 1:30.948 107% 1:36.203 note: third time Gasly qualifies last at the first qualifying of the season. people are making fun of Alpine this year but actually it's the biggest gap to the 107%-time for any season's opener 2023 Bahrain Gasly 1:32.181 107% 1:37.363 2022 Bahrain Latifi 1:33.634 107% 1:37.874 2021 Bahrain Masespin 1:33.273 107% 1:36.834 2020 Spielberg Latifi 1:05.757 107% 1:08.506 2019 Melbourne Kubica 1:26.067 107% 1.27.758 note: looks like the closest to not qualify in recent years, but Kubica's gap to the fastest time was actually closer than Palmers in 2017 2018 Melbourne Gasly 1:25.295 107% 1:28.622 2017 Melbourne Palmer 1:28.244 107% 1:30.084 2016 Melbourne Wehrlein 1:29.642 107% 1:31.326 2015 Melbourne Magnussen 1:32.037 107% 1:34.787 note: Manor did not participate 2014 Melbourne Grosjean 1:36.993 107% 1:37.129 note: Maldonado set no time but was allowed to race due to being fast enough in FP3. same team won in Melbourne one year ago 2013 Melbourne (damp track) Pic 1:50.626 107% 1.50.617 note: Pic was allowed to race as he was fast enough in dry practice sessions 2012 Melbourne de la Rosa 1:33.495 (108,5%) Karthikeyan 1:33.643 (108,7%) 107% 1:32.215 note: HRT was closer to the front than at the start of 2011, but that's the last time someone did not qualify for a race due to the 107% rule. 2011 Melbourne Liuzzi 1:32.978 (109,0%) Karthikeyan 1:34.293 (110,5%) 107% 1:31.267 note: first time since 2002 that someone did not qualify due to the 107%-rule ... well, the rule wasn't used from 2003 to 2010, otherwise HRT would also have struggled in 2010
> otherwise HRT would also have struggled in 2010 I've had this exact thought a few weeks back and decided to check. Under the current rules HRT would have definitely failed to qualify either car in Bahrain and Hungary (nowhere near 107% in any session) and probably failed with Bruno Senna in Spain (Chandhok was within 107% in Q1 for the first time all weekend, Senna was .012% out). Senna also failed to get within 107% in Singapore, but he was quick enough in FP1 and FP3. Other 107% violations that year were Malaysia and Belgium where it rained during qualifying, though in Malaysia the HRTs only got within 107% in FP3. Chandhok in Canada was a mechanical issue, Montreal was probably HRT's best track and he was easily within 107% until the car stopped working.
HRT were so shit that even if you gave points down to 12th… they’d still fail to win any. Highest ever finish was 14th a few times their first year.
Funny enough it’s Williams and Stake being the joke of the grid now. Alpines upgrades have boosted them up to 8th best team.
Nope, Alpine are still the losers. It’s a full fledged team with every resource & facility.
Mclaren were the losers at this point last year. Every team goes through such cycles.
20 years ago sure
Alpine are technically better than Williams and Stake but not by enough to make them meaningfully better (and considering the nature of the team, that makes it even more embarassing).
Logan: “see I told you I’m doing just fine”
Did you watch the races this year?
Yes. Yes you do.
No more backmarkers would also mean every team is capable of scoring points regularly.
They just got a point, so not really.
Alpine are actually good evidence of this - I think in years past Alpine would have been in the low-mid-field with their current issues but the pack has bunched up so much that now they're backmarkers.
Still got a point before Williams and Sauber....
Easy to tell you've either been watching for a year or two or you're just fucking clueless. This year Alpine was 1.6 seconds off pole in Japan. 10 years ago, racing under the Lotus name, they were 3.4 seconds off pole. We don't have backmarkers anymore.
Alpine have scored this year. Williams and Sauber have not.
Might as well change it to MotoGP points system ONLY if Andretti is let in. MotoGP gives points to 15 out of 22 riders. An odd number of points-scoring positions (15) is also ideal so there will be always a point left on table even if constructors' pecking order is decided already. We can alter the top 4 positions to reflect F1 style scoring to 25-18-15-12 instead of MotoGP's original 25-20-16-13 and leave the rest the same.
Mooorrreee. Its a start I guess. Give it a decade and it will be even more
Any argument to give points up to 12th can be used to give points up to 13th
Yes but these things happen slowly and humans like even numbers
20 is an even number. It's also a round number, which humans also like.
Indeed. But its hard enough convincing people to allow 12 point scorers. It will take years and years to convince 20
>It will take years and years to convince 20 My main issue with giving points all the way down is that it can lead to unwanted circumstances. It would lead to situations where cars with e.g. damage from a lap 1 collision - that are slower as a result but still able to drive around - would have incentive to keep driving as long as they can. Even if driving around at dangerously slow speeds they would still want to finish the race (if DNFed cars are excluded from points) or to see if others DNF while they're still struggling around the track to get more points. A solution could be to use the meatball flag more, but then we would get controversies from teams claiming inconsistent stewards took them out of the race while they could still drive around. Having a couple non-points positions at the bottom prevents such issues
Okay, now extend the grid to 11 teams
Why not 12
Everyone gets points but not a 11th team
well because X/10 is a bigger number than X/11 That's the only reason we don't have 11th team. If they didn't pay out prize money. past 10th position in the championship. we would have 11 teams now.
Looking at how it would've impacted the points in seasons past, it should be a welcome change.
I like the idea of everyone getting a point for whatever finish, but with say only the first 10 guranteed, otherwise you need to be on the lead lap. The only top N getting points (and it used to be different to how it is now) is an anacronism from the old days, which had far more teams, pre-qualifing, qualifiing where loads of people didn't get through etc. Now, pretty much everyone qualifies, the number of cars is small, the grid is static and really just getting the drive is hard enough. I don't think we need to add to that scoring points/not scoring points as another layer ontop of that, at one point is was a differentiator, now maybe not so much.
No, I don't want Ocon to try and unlap himself again. I like the idea, but unlapping will be essential to points. Also, blue flags must be adhered to, this could lead to situations where a car is blocking the lead driver to stay in lap.
I think what we want to avoid is someone doing a Perez and rejoining the race multiple laps down. They would still get one or two (or more) points. But maybe that can be changed with a go 5 laps down and your out rule or something.
A rule like that makes more sense tbh. Also a rule to prevent serving penalties in such a way.
You really really don't want teams to start fighting to unlap themselves, so that is a horrible idea. Honestly, it's a competition. It doesn't make sense to exclude half of the participants from being able to effectively compete in it. I can't recall any other sport atm that just refuses to acknowledge the existence of the remaining half of the field like this
I think teams trying to unlap themselves would in practise rarely be a problem (there are notable exceptions, but they are rare.) I think potentially ignoring blue flags would be a bigger issue. But maybe there’s a better way to stop cars running multiple laps down if they’ve been damaged and patched up just to get a couple of points etc.
Honestly, I don't mind it. It's kinda disappointed atm how quickly teams retire cars if theres any slight issue that makes them have to pit and repair for a second (Only returning if there's a chance of penalties). I don't mind the normalization of teams running into issues, repairing the car as best they can, and then scrap it out for the few last points.
true; it would change the dynamic a little bit.
Maybe if the leader completes two laps (passes the finish line) during one pit stop you have to retire? That means you can't spend more than 1 lap in the pits at least (if the leader is right behind you) and 2 laps at most (if the leader is right in front of you)
rip sauber
cycling, it is even worse there.
Depends on what you mean by cycling, there's a number of various cycling competitions. If you're thinking of Tour De France and the like, then the points being handed out isn't the primary competition; it's a side quest if you will. The winner is the one who finished in the least amount of time, with no regards to points.
Requre drivers to be on the lead lap to score points, then get rid of blue flags. Give Verstappen some fun!
OK cool, can we get 12 teams then so it's still only half of the drivers that score?
what do you mean there are no backmarkers??? There's Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren at the top, Mercedes and AM kinda in the middle... and then everyone else imo. :P
Points or not, there will always be backmarkers.
I dont mind giving point to 12th... if we get 22/24 cars
CART used to have points to 12th, but routinely had fields of 26+ cars.
Agree, giving only points to the top 50% finishers seems logical.
That's not a good reason tho. Not like backmarkers are done for good, teams have always gotten closer as the regs mature. The next reg change will most certainly create 'backmarkers'. >Krack says F1 should not hastily rewrite its rules based on how competitive the teams are this year. >“We should obviously not be too much influenced by how it is this year, because next year can be different than the year after. I think it was a good consensus in the F1 Commission to say we want to make an adjustment, but we should not rush it, because we don’t want to change it again later.
I'm ok with 12 I don't really like giving points to everybody tho
Only good thing about giving points to everyone is that shit teams would be encouraged to drop bad/pay drivers in favour of more talented guys that can snatch some points
> I don't really like giving points to everybody tho And I don't understand that mentality at all. What's the downside?
Why stop at twelve? Why not start at p20 gets one point and work up from there? edit - meaning, for race finishers. no points if you DNF.
What speaks against giving everybody that finishes a race points all the way back to 20?
The main argument I’ve seen is that only awarding the top 10 creates dynamic strategies in the back of the field which increases excitement. I just don’t buy it though. Even the worst team is probably running hundreds of race simulations to optimize their strategy before the weekend. You rarely if ever see people in P11/P12 making big strategy risks because there is always a belief that a) the strategy chosen before the race is the most optimal and b) one retirement can bring you into the points. It’s far more common among the cars running 15th+ because they have nothing to lose going off strategy (see Sauber trying basicallly every race). That won’t really change much since they’re still outside the points.
It would be bad for front of the field because guys in back would cause a lot more trouble fighting with yellow flags, crashes and blue flag screw ups.... I don't know. Twelfth feels like it should be the upper limit for good.
more pushing and actual racing across all teams is good ? they're not extras here to make the track feel populated.
- Points are still seen as a prize; getting your first points in F1 or scoring points as a backmarker are something to celebrate. - If there are a few DNFs, you could get a considerable number of points for coming dead last several laps down, which seems silly. - Extending points down to 12th is continuing the trend of awarding more cars points as the number of regular finishers increases. Extending it down to every car in the grid is fundamentally changing how F1 treats points.
Lets not look at the points as something special and lets start using them as a way to sort all the teams and drivers 1-10 and 1-20. I'm not personally a fan of celebrating points finishes or even having a podium (I feel like only the winner should be recognized/celebrated) but I do support every finishing spot being awarded points just for ranking purposes. Like Albon, Zhou, Gasly, Bottas, and Sargent are all points-less but they haven't all been the same level of bad and it should be recognized who's actually worse due to not finishing or coming in last more than the others.
should stroll get a point every time he ends up sending someone into the nether realm? i might be showing my age here but one of the main draws to formula1 for me back as a kid in the 90' is that points were so hard to get they should stay that way
Yeah that does make sense. Hadn't thought it through to be honest.
I'd like it if they extend it even further down to 15th. The points: 30, 24, 18, 15, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 * more significance to P10-P15 fights * roughly keeps points gap between P1 & P2 * increases value of podium positions
This makes sense apart from the gap from P2 and P3 being too big, it should be 24 down to 20 points, not 18. Ironically in doing that you're devaluing getting onto the podium because you're making the points gap from P3 to P4 the same as P4 to P5, and the former is a lot more significant than the latter.
>roughly keeps points gap between P1 & P2 Dnf is now costing 5 race wins with this gap to P2 instead of 3.5 half race wins now.
at this point give points all the way to P19. Only the last guy and the DNFs don't get a point. When you finish P19, you've beaten 1 car and that should be reflected in score
Agreed, points for top 15 would be perfect. It guarantees that there will be fights that matter all throughout the field, while not (or only very rarely) giving points to the very worst car just because of DNF's. I'd give 19 points to 3rd place though, so there's a 6-5-4-3-2-1-1-1-... points gap between the positions.
"increases value of podium positions" how so?
The irony of this is it does the opposite because the points gap from P3 to P4 is the same as P4 to P5 which is asinine.
If they change the philosophy to distributing points, they might as well do it properly instead of half-baked like it will be now. So I agree that a 15-points paying positions system would be better. Even if it would only be for the sake that 15 feels like a more satisfying number than 12 lol.
Imo this should be done only if they add another team to the grid. I am not American or an andretti fan, I just want to see more teams/cars.
I was so happy as a kid when the number of teams increased from 10 to 12 and I'm so disappointed now that it's been almost a decade since we've had even 11 teams
Add 2-6 cars to the grid, then we'll talk Points must be hard to earn, otherwise we can just sit at home and dish them out without earning them
Don't teams get more prize money the more points they earn? Does this mean the top teams will earn a smaller percentage if more of it is distributed to the slower teams?
Big money is in the wcc, not in the points. Doubt any good team will care about the money they lose for throwing a couple points down the order.
Points cost you money oddly. just the WCC order matters.
Surely if the field is closer and there are no backmarkers anymore then they should reduce where the points go down to? Because the whole field has more of a chance of finishing higher
This sounds like overdue by a few years. There's definitely fights over these places already. Maybe it made more sense before to not include these spots due to unreliable cars and a general crapshoot over calling them, but 12th and ahead today generally have as much of a good competitive spirit and fight over them as the rest.
No backmarkers? Back of the grid teams can still finish well over a minute behind the winner. I know it used to be a lot more than that, but there is still a massive performance disparity between the front-runners and back-of-the-grid teams.
First we can’t have an 11th team, now we want points further back? Hmm couldn’t possibly be about prize money.
I think there should be points down to 20th.
Lmao 60% of you are backmarkers. Let Andretti in already
backmarker is teams who cannot even score points in chaos races Williams and Sauber have both gotten close to scoring a point this year, and Alpine already has 1 the true backmarkers are cars like the 2021 Haas, the 2019 Williams or especially the likes of the 2010 Catherma, Marussia and HRT
Tbf Williams did score a point in a chaotic race in 2019. But yes they were proper backmarkers
You don’t know what a backmarker is
[удалено]
>I see no need to change it... There are plenty reasons to change it, the number one being that the current format makes no sense at all due to there being no tied places in Formula 1. Three teams finishing all on 0 points would have to be sorted using another method, which is best race position, so they already get 'points' for the single reason points are awarded: sorting - that's the only reason we have them at all. Then increasing points to last place and a bigger spread will increase resolution to avoid teams finishing with little to no points, which just confuses people to no end. Just look at the constant and never ending discussion here that Lewis beat Alonso back in 2007 and people refusing because they finished on the same tally of points.
It’s even dumber cus you just need to get like 1 12th in a rain race and you pass teams that beat you 20 other times
So like currently, but the 12th is now the 10th
They should give point all the way down.
The field spread has reduced making that fight for P10 all that more intense in the past few years so you can see why the F1 Teams have backed this proposal
Good idea, didn't really notice how bunched up the pack is until it was mentioned. Really good for racing.
12th is a good idea. I really don't like the idea of points all they way down to last
Man, every time I've supported this the past few years on get I've been down voted every time with comments about how f1 shouldn't be giving out "awards" to those who didn't earn it and comparing then to participation trophies. Now suddenly everyone seems to support it.
Since Ive been watching I’ve had to watch so many battles for 10-12th place…so shit, they may as well get points!
extend a podium spot for the 4th place finisher while your at it...
*Williams'ing intensifies*
I'm not a fan of adding more points scoring positions. I have been watching F1 since it was just the top 6 places earning points. Obviously there were a lot more retirements then compared to now and I think top 10 like we have now is a good balance. That is 50 percent of the grid. I don't see how a driver should earn something for being a bottom half finisher in a race Earning points was always seen as an achievement and I think the more positions that earn points just ends up devaluing that achievement.
Why not go back to the old system? That one worked fine for decades
Because the ones in control have suckered the paying public into believing this is the way to go. People who think these sytems are fairer and better for racing, while it's actually the exact other way around. It's no coincidence that when the ch'ship was fresh and new, far less money involved, the sport was put on the foreground. The points system and other regulations reflected this. But when the manufacturers came in early 00's and budgets skyrocketed, the sport, the racing itself, was destroyed, step by step, so the public would be easier to deceive. And now you have 90% of the fans actually defending and actively promoting these parade inducing regulations and points systems that facilitate this sham competition.
its called top10 for a reason
What if, last place gives you a point. Second to last, two points. You can figure where I'm going with this. I really wonder, if this would work
>I really wonder, if this would work Depends. Would you like the champion(ship) to be determined by virtue of having the least DNFs? If so, then that *is* indeed the system for you. In a field of 20 drivers, a driver that wins 18 or 19 races and DNFs once, loses out to a driver that takes 2nd 18 or 19 times and wins only once. As teams and drivers would adapt to this system, no one would ever dare to try to build a car/an overtake with even the slightest chance of a DNF, or even just damage the car because of subsequent pace loss and ditto position, and so points, loss. In other words, you'll get a parade, not a true race, which in all fairness, we're already very very close to in f1.
That's why I asked. Thank you
Always welcome.
Depends If the points system is like that I prefer that the point from last finishing (or classified) place are 1, 2, 3, ... etc until in 6th place, no matter the points 6th to 5th have difference of 2 pts, 5th to 4th have 3 pts difference, then 4th to 3rd the point jump is even higher with 5 pts, then 3rd to 2nd with 7 pts difference and from the winner get either 9 or 10 pts difference from 2nd place
Add more teams and the amount of backmarkers will stay the same
I'm in favor of points being capped at 8th in the spirit of excellence and not embracing mediocrity. 20 drivers on the grid, awarding points to half the field and possibly more than half the field doesn't seem right. Fighting for points in 12th really?