How would the standings look like with the old points system?

[Jordi]

Had a bit of time in my hands and did this. Here's the points in late 80s, 1990's scheme. The 20-16-14 plus points for pole and most laps led:

1. Bourdais............140 pts (=)
2. Tracy................106 pts (=)
3. Servi�*................92 pts (=)
4. Wilson................87 pts (=)
5. Allmendinger........67 pts (+1)
6. Dominguez..........64 pts (-1)
7. Tagliani..............53 pts (=)
8. Vasser...............47 pts (=)
9. da Matta............37 pts (+2)
10. Bremer.............36 pts (=)
11. Junqueira..........34 pts (+7)
12. Ranger.............32 pts (=)
13. Glock................31 pts (-4)
14. Hunter-Reay......22 pts (-1)
15. Wirdheim...........17 pts (-1)
16. Philippe.............15 pts (-1)
17. R. Sperafico.......12 pts (=)
18. Lavin................10 pts (+1)
19. Marshall.............8 pts (-3)
20. A. Sperafico........6 pts (=)
21. Dalziel................4 pts (=)
22. Valiante..............2 pts (=)
23. Marques.............2 pts (=)

Del Monte and Goeters do not score.

I think that it's of note:

-Junqueira would still be near the top ten. As it is, he's 18th now.

-A contrasting case is that of Rodolfo Lavin and Marcus Marshall. Lavin has come back two races ago and scored a fine 5th at Denver, while Marshall has been more or less consistently around the back and picking up points normally from 12th down. With the old system, Lavin would be ahead, rewarded by his fine drive in Denver, while with the current system Marshall, despite his apparent lack of pace, is some 50 points ahead of the Mexican.

-The same goes for the rookie trio of Bremer, Ranger and Glock. Right now Glock leads the standings, but he'd be down to third with the old system, by the same reason. Glock has been around at the finish most times, while Ranger and Bremer have had slightly better results in less races. (2 6ths and one seventh for Glock, one 6th and 3 sevenths for Bremer, a third and a seventh for Ranger)


What do you think? Pro current points-system or anti?

[Alex K]

I thinjk we have a good scoring system. A system in witch every driver who started the event score some points. it is good system for the lower rank drivers, like Marshall, in the old system he would score 8 points (in how many races would he score , and, because he is permanent race sdriver he is scoring in ebery race. That is good to me. The only thingy that I am not like in new scorring system is smaller that it should be difference between 1st and 2nd driver at the end of event, and also between 2nd and 3rd.

That is why rate higher IRL scoring system.

And Jordi, great job man. Oft. Oriol must be a hero in catalonia these days : He is really great, I wonder if press wrighting anything about his future :

[Kicking-back]

I hate the current point system.

Handing out points like confetti is ludicrous - they should be something you have to earn.

The old ChampCar system was fine and should not have been altered.

[BootsOntheSide]

I think the examples Jordi gives largely prove KB to be right. Lavin has already achieved more than Marshall, and he should be ahead in the standings. The old system reewarded strong performances enough, whereas the new one doesn't. In percentage terms the gap between 1st and 2nd must be one of the smallest in any form of racing, and there's no way that Bruno should be so far down the ranks despite his wins.

[Roninho]

Originally Posted by Jordi

Had a bit of time in my hands and did this. Here's the points in late 80s, 1990's scheme. The 20-16-14 plus points for pole and most laps led:

1. Bourdais............140 pts (=)
2. Tracy................106 pts (=)
3. Servi�*................92 pts (=)
4. Wilson................87 pts (=)
5. Allmendinger........67 pts (+1)
6. Dominguez..........64 pts (-1)
7. Tagliani..............53 pts (=)
8. Vasser...............47 pts (=)
9. da Matta............37 pts (+2)
10. Bremer.............36 pts (=)
11. Junqueira..........34 pts (+7)
12. Ranger.............32 pts (=)
13. Glock................31 pts (-4)
14. Hunter-Reay......22 pts (-1)
15. Wirdheim...........17 pts (-1)
16. Philippe.............15 pts (-1)
17. R. Sperafico.......12 pts (=)
18. Lavin................10 pts (+1)
19. Marshall.............8 pts (-3)
20. A. Sperafico........6 pts (=)
21. Dalziel................4 pts (=)
22. Valiante..............2 pts (=)
23. Marques.............2 pts (=)

What do you think? Pro current points-system or anti?

Definitely anti current system.
The old system was great because of:
- its simplicity. I don't like point system's where a race winner get's an enormous amount of points (like nascar or irl). It's hard to remember which position scores what, and what the impact is on the points standings. F1's point system is even easier to remember and keep track of for yourself during a race, but it has other flaws. The former cart-system was a great mixture between irl/nascar and f1. I still don't know how many points one can earn in the current system.

- the "value" of points. Scoring a point in the former system meant something, especially for the smaller teams. When a Coyne-car finished 12th there would be a big party afterwards 'cause it was special to them. Nowadays it isn't really a big difference between finishing 12th or 13th.
F1 has the same "value" for a point. Remember Mark Webber scoring a few points for Minardi at Australia or Marc Gene for them at the nurburgring? It was the highlight of the season for them. And the cart-system was even better 'cause the first 12 places scored points, making it a bit easier (but still hard) for the small teams to score points.
It's like the way cart uses the yellows/safety cars. It's important that the trackworkers know they will be safe when working on a car, but it wasn't so unconvenient that it also made different fuel-strategies possible, creating chances for the smaller teams.

- The simple fact that i think it's silly that everbody knows they are going to score points. Points should be earned.

- The former system also worked better in valuing good performances instead of simply finishing. Marcus marshall 16th in points with 76 points!?!? The guy is a backmarker. The old system definitely shows that with him dropping in the standings and only a couple of points. Only bad thing of the old system might be that winning wasn't valued enough, like it used to do in the old f1-system (10 vs 6 pts.). The new cc-system definitely doesn't work for the winner, just look at last year where bourdais won way more than junky and still had to wait a long time before he won the title.

- Historical reference. We can't compere the last 2 decades anymore using this system (only a small complaint).

All in all imo the former system was way better than the current one, and one of the best ever systems in racing.

[Jordi]

Originally Posted by Alex K

And Jordi, great job man. Oft. Oriol must be a hero in catalonia these days : He is really great, I wonder if press wrighting anything about his future :

Sadly, Oriol gets near zero coverage here. I guess he is not in F1, that's why.


As for the system, I too preferred the old one. This system rewards consistency and just finishing too much. I think the 20-16-14 was the right combination between a good reward by finishing in the top 5 and also consistency. It wouldn't be too bad to be 7th or 8th, but nowadays you score even when you're the first out and I don't think that's good.

[Tenoch]

Maybe the new system was designed to encourage drivers/teams to stick around for the whole season, Which is what it rewards really.

[mabs_nsx]

What was the old points system?

[stmookeyj033]

Originally Posted by mabs_nsx

What was the old points system?

1st=20
2nd=16
3rd=14
4th=12
5th=10
6th=8
7th=6
8th=5
9th=4
10th=3
11th=2
12th=1
Most Laps Led=1
Pole=1?

[Speedworx]

The old system was much easier to understand. Champ Cars says it does things for the fans, but has a confusing points system.

Only in NASCAR does a system where everyone scores work, because they have 43 cars. Its stupid in Champ Cars because there are not enough cars.

[N I Tram]

I'm amazed that our resident points system obsessive didn't know the old system.

Giving points to everyone is always stupid. Scoring the top 20 would be enough in NASCAR - otherwise it jsut rewards failure. One glance at the adjusted points system, especially that Bruno is much higher up, tells you that the new system is a travesty. It's like giving kids certificates for attendance. As for 'enouraging drivers to stick aorund for the whole season', it clearly hasn't worked, because 25 drivers have shared 18/19 seats this season - it doesn't pay for a drive, and I don't think any driver feels a sense of achievement from a string of 14th places - if he does, he's in the wrong job.

[Xpunk75]

For Once I agree with Kicking Back I hate the Points System in Champ Car and it needs to be changed back to how it was in the 80's. Racing is about Winning and Top 5 finishes. They shouldn't be rewarding people for consistantly finishing 10th. If their was one Rule I could change about Champ Car it would be that.

IRL should look into perhaps changing its point system to make it self a little bit more diffrent from Nasscar. Instead following suite and doing exactly what Nasscar does they should get creative and find a way to celebrate winning more.

Maybe if open wheel racing becomes more about winning instead consistancy which has become nasscar due to this Chase for the Cup stuff we might be able to get some more fans.

[N I Tram]

I could answer the title's question in one word - 'better'. Success is rewarded enough under the old system.

[Omega99]

The standings would be almost identical either way, so I personally don't see much difference. Though I would prefer the old one, simply because I knew it first.

[BootsOntheSide]

I'd say there's a fairly big difference overall. Every one of the specific changes Jordi mentioend would be a fairer reflection of performance. I'm still quite disappointed that they chose to change the system into one which is a relatively poor performance measure.

[f1manoz]

Old points system was far better and much easier to understand.