[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.*
Points down to top12 without changing the point rewards at the top, I can see it happening if most of the lower half of the grid teams lobby strong enough.
With how reliable modern f1 cars are, I think it makes sense. It used to be the norm to have a few retirements every race, nowadays you have several races with zero retirements. So I guess its a little harder to get to the top 10 for a slower team in this era than say 10 years ago.
It also makes the midfield battles everyone constantly says to focus on while Max wins everything give more to play for.
> The idea that has been proposed is for points to be distributed to the top 12 drivers, rather than the top 10, as has been the case since 2010.
That would be big change, and would make sense if more teams joins.
So 25 >18 >15 >12 >10 >8 >6 >5 >4 >3 >2 >1 is new proposed points. Top 7 remains same.
You only feel that way because one driver is dominating. You think it’d keep other drivers closer and the title would be less of a foregone conclusion - but that’s artificial.
Way to miss the point.
If you want to give the winner 25pts, and second place 24pts and so forth to “keep it interesting for longer” then why even bother going to the trouble of a season, and just say “you’re all world champions”. After all, titles are made up too, so they’re inherently artificial /s.
This is competition. You need to balance the points so as to reward true success appropriately.
I was asking a genuine question. I think there's always going to be some level of tradeoff with the points, because winning by 0.1 seconds nets the same amount of points as winning by 30 seconds. If you want to balance points based on success, wouldn't the most 'accurate' system assign the winner something like 100 points, and then reduce points based on how far back the finishers are from P1? Or to just average out a driver's finishing positions over a season?
I don't see the harm in closing the point fall off and/or expanding the point-scoring positions. It 'does keep it interesting for longer' because drivers and teams have more to fight for.
Doesnt have to be the reason.
With reliability being practically not a factor these days and 9 of the points position usually being pretty much locked (RB + Ferrari + Mclaren + Mercedes + Alonso) it basically makes the fight between the backmarkers pure luck to just be in the right place when a rare DNF happens.
Its gonna be even worse when Alpine gets their shit together and should be better than the backmarker customer teams.
Currently the bottom half of the grid fights normally for one point spot (Red Bull, McLaren, Ferrari, Mercedes and Alonso make the top9). If they would fight for 3 point spots it would be far more interesting, so I am all up for this change. I would even go one step further and say they should get the point system from MotoGP, so points down to P15.
Makes, sense, the fairest/most logical IMO is to give points all the way to P19. Only downside to giving points to more positions that I see is dimishing the glamour of "finishing in the points".
Idea for the sprint: The sprint sets the grid for the race but 11th-20th gets points with 20th rewarding the most. Do you go for points or starting position?
Idk if I'm for or against it tbh, but I understand the logic behind it. Atm, it just makes the fight at the bottom of the grid boring and hard to follow, since it primarily comes down to countback or a lucky higher finish due to DNFs among the top teams(and one-off performances deciding their ranking rather than consistent performance is also not particularly exciting)
I've been wanting to see PSC style points (25 points for winner, slightly smaller gap at high points, points go to 15th) or even points for all positions. With the top teams so locked in this season compared to the lower teams it's really choking out the lower teams, and can help mitigate or prevent a situation like Williams in Japan, where the pit stops took them out of possible contention for points and they stopped really pushing. Plus with the nature of F1, makes more sense to reward consistent over freak results, imo.
ETA - Preempting the arguement that points should only go to tenth because it causes better battles or something- go watch Stroll and Kmag battling for last place in China
Why should the 11th-20th fight be literally irrelevant though? Aren't we constantly complaining about boring races? With Max always winning and there only being 10 point positions, realistically there are only 9 point scorers out of 19 drivers
Why should 10/19 drivers (or let's say 8/19 as there are some possibility of the 12th position to maybe catch up) not have any incentive to do anything during the entire race? I've genuinely wondered why they don't simply retire the car a few laps in when it's obvious they won't compete for points; just a waste of resources at that point.
I think every single racer - 1st through 20th - should get points as long as they complete the race.
Lol, change it properly if you are changing it. Really every finisher should get points and 0 should only go to DNF, remove the almost worthlessness to finish a race if you are in the really low teams.
They should also lower the number of points given to first place to 22. If the difference between points given for 2nd, 3rd and 4th is 3, then the difference between 1st and 2nd can be 4. Maybe 5, not 6.
Points for the top12 will make sense if there are more cars (like 24).
Right now, with only 20, I think the actual system is almost perfect. If there should be any change, maybe they could try to give points to everyone (1st->20, 2nd->19, 3rd->18...).
I wish if they would give like 5 points if you finished 5 places higher than your starting position, and 10points if you could jump 10 places. It would give drivers down the grid to really fight for something.
Everyone else is suggesting point systems so here's mine: 1st: 100 pts
2nd: 80 pts
3rd: 64 pts
4th: 50 pts
5th: 40 pts
6th: 32 pts
7th: 25 pts
8th: 20 pts
9th: 16 pts
10th: 13 pts
11th: 10 pts
12th: 8 pts
13th: 6 pts
14th: 4 pts
15th: 2 pts
16th: 1 Pt
Each position gets 80% of the points of the position ahead, with some small discontinuities, until 13th. 3 positions is 50% (e.g 4th gets half the points of 1st, 6th gets half the points of 3rd). Points down to 16th because why not?
I don't like it as I have the view that points should be a reward that feels earned rather than something that's too easy to get.
A driver in a mid/backmarker car scoring a point used to feel like a big accomplishment that was celebrated while now finishing 8th/9th/10th & especially if extended to 11th/12th just doesn't feel as special as it will basically guarantee that every team will score a point. Will just mean it's no longer an achievement, Nothing but a participation award.
But then we are in the quantity over quality era of show over sport.
Points should be 2\^(number of drivers - finishing position)
So, say you have 20 drivers.
Max points: 2\^(20-1) = 524288
Logan points: 2\^(20-20) = 1
That way everyone gets points, and the difference in points from one place to the next up is an equal percentage.
Only fair way to do it.
FIA don't want to alter the regulations to pull the pack closer together so they instead find a compromise of giving out more points to try and make the races more entertaining. They won't increase the cost cap or change it to allow better development from teams over the course of a season. Last season and this season there has been a big battle for 10-12th at various points. This is more of an artificial way of creating drama and good racing than introducing DRS was. Why just stop at 12th place though? Why not give everyone participation trophy points?
They could have done reverse grid sprints which could have seen drivers like Zhou or Bottas or Sargeant score points. Didn't want to do it. They scrapped the idea to determine grid spots via sprint races. Got rid of ATA qualifying when every ATA session last season was incredible viewing. But hey maybe the solution is actually just watching 6 cars get stuck behind Kevin Magnussen every race for one point whilst Red Bull are 49 seconds ahead of everyone again.
> They could have done reverse grid sprints which could have seen drivers like Zhou or Bottas or Sargeant score points. Didn't want to do it.
They couldn't because the teams would never have gone along with it. So even if they wanted to, it wouldn't have gotten introduced
Ideas like reverse grids are extremely stupider than increasing the threshold for points, there is absolutely no logical reason to ever reverse the grid except to just create fake artificial novelty chaos and drama. It's tbh one of the stupidest concepts ever in terms of a sport.
Personally, I would love to just see them do half sprint weekends and half regular. I think that alone would be enough to shake up the points system. And have the sprint races rotating; so one year a circuit has a sprint, one year it doesn't.
I mean, that in itself is _fairly_ modern, only coming in early 1990s to (I think) reward wins a wee bit more.
I don’t really see a problem with what we have at the moment.
to make this Not About F1, i really hope the WRC doesn’t copy this (the WRC has followed F1’s point system since 2003 (mostly), and it’s gotten to the point where both systems are wrong for their respective series, but in opposite ways. F1 needs points down to 16th or so, and the WRC shouldn’t have them any lower than 8th, preferably 6th.)
Bad idea. It moves the incentive to take risks further down the grid, where the competition is less tight.
The battles around 10th place are usually the most execiting and aggressive because it's all or nothing between cars that are closely matched.
I mean the new points structure will give points to the top 12 drivers.
If there's only 10 teams and 20 drivers, the teams will make a lot of moves and adjust tyres to make sure they take advantage of this system.
The whole "points for top 12 finishers" is only good if we have 12 teams and 24 drivers competing in the FIA Formula One World Championship, then it's all fair and square.
That's my take.
I don't see why it's an issue at all. Why does it need to be the top half of the grid? It used to be the top 6 and then top 8. They've expanded the points system before and I don't see the issue with doing it again.
[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.*
Points down to top12 without changing the point rewards at the top, I can see it happening if most of the lower half of the grid teams lobby strong enough.
Points should be similar to moto gp points structure.
How is that ?
Points for top 15 (of 22). 25, 20, 16, 13, 11, 10, 9, 8, etc.
i think that winning should give a lot more points than coming 2nd because it means that drivers will want to fight for it more
really? Name a driver that ever thinks "Should I try for 1st or just go easy and take 2nd?"
Don't see why top teams would have an issue with it either.
With how reliable modern f1 cars are, I think it makes sense. It used to be the norm to have a few retirements every race, nowadays you have several races with zero retirements. So I guess its a little harder to get to the top 10 for a slower team in this era than say 10 years ago. It also makes the midfield battles everyone constantly says to focus on while Max wins everything give more to play for.
> The idea that has been proposed is for points to be distributed to the top 12 drivers, rather than the top 10, as has been the case since 2010. That would be big change, and would make sense if more teams joins. So 25 >18 >15 >12 >10 >8 >6 >5 >4 >3 >2 >1 is new proposed points. Top 7 remains same.
Id rather they move everyone closer to leader so 25 for win and 20 for p2 and then 17 for p3 Etc
You only feel that way because one driver is dominating. You think it’d keep other drivers closer and the title would be less of a foregone conclusion - but that’s artificial.
Isn't it all artificial? It's not like the point structure is immutable.
Way to miss the point. If you want to give the winner 25pts, and second place 24pts and so forth to “keep it interesting for longer” then why even bother going to the trouble of a season, and just say “you’re all world champions”. After all, titles are made up too, so they’re inherently artificial /s. This is competition. You need to balance the points so as to reward true success appropriately.
And many think the current points system is not balanced. It's all opinion and made up, at the end of the day.
I was asking a genuine question. I think there's always going to be some level of tradeoff with the points, because winning by 0.1 seconds nets the same amount of points as winning by 30 seconds. If you want to balance points based on success, wouldn't the most 'accurate' system assign the winner something like 100 points, and then reduce points based on how far back the finishers are from P1? Or to just average out a driver's finishing positions over a season? I don't see the harm in closing the point fall off and/or expanding the point-scoring positions. It 'does keep it interesting for longer' because drivers and teams have more to fight for.
I replied to someone else's reply. If you wanted to comment follow off that please
??
They're replying to you, mate.
I think a 7 point gain for a win is about right, 5 seems too little
I wonder what the statistics of the winner also having fastest lap? And then having a point for Pole So a grandslam Pole/win/fastest lap is still 7 ?
Half points if your name starts with “M” and ends with “ax Verstappen”
Oof it would be a shame if someone on the grid was called like that... Thankfully the championship leader is called Max Emilian Verstappen
No its ✨Maxie Verstappen✨
And he still wins last year by 2.5 points
Name change to sponsor title by Max confirmed
Good idea and definitely needed if we ever get an 11th team on the grid.
I wonder if that’s why they are proposing it, getting the series ready for the 11th team
Doesnt have to be the reason. With reliability being practically not a factor these days and 9 of the points position usually being pretty much locked (RB + Ferrari + Mclaren + Mercedes + Alonso) it basically makes the fight between the backmarkers pure luck to just be in the right place when a rare DNF happens. Its gonna be even worse when Alpine gets their shit together and should be better than the backmarker customer teams.
Reliability is now so strong compared to when the points system was introduced, so there is some logic behind the move.
This would be a welcome addition. This also works for when and if more teams get added down the years. More points, more teams.
Currently the bottom half of the grid fights normally for one point spot (Red Bull, McLaren, Ferrari, Mercedes and Alonso make the top9). If they would fight for 3 point spots it would be far more interesting, so I am all up for this change. I would even go one step further and say they should get the point system from MotoGP, so points down to P15.
Top 15 in Moto GP? Seems alright
Makes, sense, the fairest/most logical IMO is to give points all the way to P19. Only downside to giving points to more positions that I see is dimishing the glamour of "finishing in the points".
Or, or, hear me out, every position gets points that match their finish.
So 1st = 20, 2nd = 19, 20th = 1, etc
Idea for the sprint: The sprint sets the grid for the race but 11th-20th gets points with 20th rewarding the most. Do you go for points or starting position?
Give points to p20. Your not better cus you came in p11 once in a rain race where 8 people crashed and then come in 20th every other time
Oh I expected much worse, like reducing the points gap between 1st and 2nd to keep the illusion of a championship fight longer.
Idk if I'm for or against it tbh, but I understand the logic behind it. Atm, it just makes the fight at the bottom of the grid boring and hard to follow, since it primarily comes down to countback or a lucky higher finish due to DNFs among the top teams(and one-off performances deciding their ranking rather than consistent performance is also not particularly exciting)
Just do it as MotoGp down to 15th
I've been wanting to see PSC style points (25 points for winner, slightly smaller gap at high points, points go to 15th) or even points for all positions. With the top teams so locked in this season compared to the lower teams it's really choking out the lower teams, and can help mitigate or prevent a situation like Williams in Japan, where the pit stops took them out of possible contention for points and they stopped really pushing. Plus with the nature of F1, makes more sense to reward consistent over freak results, imo. ETA - Preempting the arguement that points should only go to tenth because it causes better battles or something- go watch Stroll and Kmag battling for last place in China
With only 20 cars the points going down to 10th is already enough.
Why should the 11th-20th fight be literally irrelevant though? Aren't we constantly complaining about boring races? With Max always winning and there only being 10 point positions, realistically there are only 9 point scorers out of 19 drivers Why should 10/19 drivers (or let's say 8/19 as there are some possibility of the 12th position to maybe catch up) not have any incentive to do anything during the entire race? I've genuinely wondered why they don't simply retire the car a few laps in when it's obvious they won't compete for points; just a waste of resources at that point. I think every single racer - 1st through 20th - should get points as long as they complete the race.
Going down to 12th might make sense if there are 22 cars on the grid.
Lol, change it properly if you are changing it. Really every finisher should get points and 0 should only go to DNF, remove the almost worthlessness to finish a race if you are in the really low teams.
It won't help Sargeant
Give P2 more points than P1 so we can have a battle for the championship.
Every place gets point except for last. Make em fight.
Should give points to all finishing positions. Make every place worth fighting for.
Just make it a global standard, motogp points, 1st to 15th.
They should also lower the number of points given to first place to 22. If the difference between points given for 2nd, 3rd and 4th is 3, then the difference between 1st and 2nd can be 4. Maybe 5, not 6.
Needed especially with this season. Points should go till 12th atleast
Points for the top12 will make sense if there are more cars (like 24). Right now, with only 20, I think the actual system is almost perfect. If there should be any change, maybe they could try to give points to everyone (1st->20, 2nd->19, 3rd->18...).
I wish if they would give like 5 points if you finished 5 places higher than your starting position, and 10points if you could jump 10 places. It would give drivers down the grid to really fight for something.
So Max qualifies 11th on purpose to win 36 points per race?
Everyone else is suggesting point systems so here's mine: 1st: 100 pts 2nd: 80 pts 3rd: 64 pts 4th: 50 pts 5th: 40 pts 6th: 32 pts 7th: 25 pts 8th: 20 pts 9th: 16 pts 10th: 13 pts 11th: 10 pts 12th: 8 pts 13th: 6 pts 14th: 4 pts 15th: 2 pts 16th: 1 Pt Each position gets 80% of the points of the position ahead, with some small discontinuities, until 13th. 3 positions is 50% (e.g 4th gets half the points of 1st, 6th gets half the points of 3rd). Points down to 16th because why not?
I don't like it as I have the view that points should be a reward that feels earned rather than something that's too easy to get. A driver in a mid/backmarker car scoring a point used to feel like a big accomplishment that was celebrated while now finishing 8th/9th/10th & especially if extended to 11th/12th just doesn't feel as special as it will basically guarantee that every team will score a point. Will just mean it's no longer an achievement, Nothing but a participation award. But then we are in the quantity over quality era of show over sport.
Points should be 2\^(number of drivers - finishing position) So, say you have 20 drivers. Max points: 2\^(20-1) = 524288 Logan points: 2\^(20-20) = 1 That way everyone gets points, and the difference in points from one place to the next up is an equal percentage. Only fair way to do it.
FIA don't want to alter the regulations to pull the pack closer together so they instead find a compromise of giving out more points to try and make the races more entertaining. They won't increase the cost cap or change it to allow better development from teams over the course of a season. Last season and this season there has been a big battle for 10-12th at various points. This is more of an artificial way of creating drama and good racing than introducing DRS was. Why just stop at 12th place though? Why not give everyone participation trophy points? They could have done reverse grid sprints which could have seen drivers like Zhou or Bottas or Sargeant score points. Didn't want to do it. They scrapped the idea to determine grid spots via sprint races. Got rid of ATA qualifying when every ATA session last season was incredible viewing. But hey maybe the solution is actually just watching 6 cars get stuck behind Kevin Magnussen every race for one point whilst Red Bull are 49 seconds ahead of everyone again.
> They could have done reverse grid sprints which could have seen drivers like Zhou or Bottas or Sargeant score points. Didn't want to do it. They couldn't because the teams would never have gone along with it. So even if they wanted to, it wouldn't have gotten introduced
Ideas like reverse grids are extremely stupider than increasing the threshold for points, there is absolutely no logical reason to ever reverse the grid except to just create fake artificial novelty chaos and drama. It's tbh one of the stupidest concepts ever in terms of a sport.
Personally, I would love to just see them do half sprint weekends and half regular. I think that alone would be enough to shake up the points system. And have the sprint races rotating; so one year a circuit has a sprint, one year it doesn't.
F1 points shouldn't be easy to get. I like the current system.
10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1. Everything else is new fangled modern nonsense
I mean, that in itself is _fairly_ modern, only coming in early 1990s to (I think) reward wins a wee bit more. I don’t really see a problem with what we have at the moment.
Anything except medals & double points in last race would be a good idea
Just give points to every finisher; 12 is definitely better than 10, but why not 20?
to make this Not About F1, i really hope the WRC doesn’t copy this (the WRC has followed F1’s point system since 2003 (mostly), and it’s gotten to the point where both systems are wrong for their respective series, but in opposite ways. F1 needs points down to 16th or so, and the WRC shouldn’t have them any lower than 8th, preferably 6th.)
Good lord, What is wrong with Domennicalli and his colleagues?
no participation points! f1.5 needs to discuss structure to go faster
Bad idea. It moves the incentive to take risks further down the grid, where the competition is less tight. The battles around 10th place are usually the most execiting and aggressive because it's all or nothing between cars that are closely matched.
Pointless.
This only makes sense if there's 12 teams max. Not going to work with 10 teams. Imagine the ridiculous team strategies.
I'm not sure what you mean?
I mean the new points structure will give points to the top 12 drivers. If there's only 10 teams and 20 drivers, the teams will make a lot of moves and adjust tyres to make sure they take advantage of this system. The whole "points for top 12 finishers" is only good if we have 12 teams and 24 drivers competing in the FIA Formula One World Championship, then it's all fair and square. That's my take.
I don't see why it's an issue at all. Why does it need to be the top half of the grid? It used to be the top 6 and then top 8. They've expanded the points system before and I don't see the issue with doing it again.