It didn't take long after MS' retirement for BE starting thinking about this again....

Bernie Ecclestone has vowed to push for a change to F1's current points system.

A report in the Italian newspaper La Gazzetta dello Sport says the F1 supremo dislikes the current system because it does not sufficiently reward the winner of each grand prix.

"With second place getting eight points it is not right that the winner takes only ten," the 76-year-old, Ecclestone, is quoted as telling an English newspaper.

He said: "For 2008 I will propose a change."

The points gap between first and second places was widened after 2002, when Michael Schumacher's dominance led to the championship being decided early in the season.

But Bernie said the side-effect of narrowing the points deficit is that drivers running in second place might not be sufficiently motivated to push for the actual win.

He also suggested that each year's world champion could be decided not on points, but by his number of wins.

"It would be simple," Ecclestone said, explaining that the constructors' title would still be decided based on points.

But for the drivers', "the guy who wins more should be champion", Bernie added.

 

I hope it's not strictly based on wins. I think the MotoGP points system would work well. It heavily awards a win, but still gives a decent amount of points for a podium finish...

 

I agree - go back to the way it was.

10 points for 1st
6 for 2nd
4 for 3rd
3 for 4th
2 for 5th
1 for 6th

 

I would like to see this....plus maybe 2 bonus points for the Pole...that will bring more strategy into play on Qualifying Saturday as well.

 

Isn't getting the pole reward enough? Especially in F1, where it's so hard to pass up at the front of the field.

If you were to win from the pole, that would be 12 points -- twice as much as the guy in second place.

 

But when you think about it, shouldn't the most consistently good driver win? I mean it's like a home run hitter, if he hits 50 home runs a year, but he only has a .250 batting average, he's not as good as the guyy who hits 40 and has a .350 avg.

Would you rather have Kimi win the championship, for example, if he wins 8 races, but finishes only 10 in total, or Button (WISHFUL) winning 4, but having 12 total podiums? Who is the more consistent and better driver/team then? I think a system that rewards consistently good performance is better than the system that rewards all or nothing performance.

Anybody with me?

 

That's why it isn't 10pts for a win and 0 for 2nd. 10/6/4/3/2/1 seems about right. Reward the driver who can actually win, not one that just finishes.

 

Yeah, but in that system, if Button had 4 wins, 3 2nd's , and 5 3rd's he would lose to Kimi's 8 wins with no other points by 2. Under the current system, Jenson would win the same scenario by a clear 14 points

 

Winning 8/12 races is pretty clear dominance and probably a bit of a contrived condition. We're going for the best results under normal conditions and an average season. Every points system will have it's flaws. I'd rather reward winning than have a champion who took 2nd-5th every race.

 

No you are right, I totally agree, and my scenario, especially for Kimi, is a far fetched one. Normally the guy that wins the most races wins the championship anyway though. I just don't see the big problem with the current system, and I actually like that you get points all the way to eighth position as it really give the smaller teams something to shoot for and something show for their efforts, and makes the races more fun to watch for me to as there is still good racing going on farther back in the field when the first two cars have pread out a 30 second lead on the rest of the pack.