This is a tough issue. I must say, I saw Kimi on the podium week after week after week, and there should be some reward for that. And awarding points down to eighth adds some dynamics to the season for both drivers and teams. So, i f I were going to change anything, it would probably be just the points for first as already suggested - 10 up to 12. Has anyone done the math to figure out how that would have affected the 2003 results?

I don't know that I would give points for pole. In F1, pole is worth plenty by itself.

Whatever, I'm counting down the days until the 2004 season begins!

Tony

 

If MS had 12 pts for every win he would have ended up with 105 pts to KR's 91.

 

i like the idea of a point for the pole position, but will this conflict with teams that run pit stop strategy (lighter fuel load/heavier fuel load)..2 stop/3stop strategy during their qualifying runs.
i'm a little unfamiliar with the qualifying rules that changed, but if i'm not mistaken, i thought the car must be exactly the way it qualifies when they go to the starting grid the following day.
either way, i agree with the earlier posts.. a champion SHOULD be winning races.. I think there is something to be said about consistency, but ultimately, a champion should be a winner.

 

There should be more points for winning;no doubt about it. After all 2nd place is still the first loser

 

10-7-6-5-4-3-2-1

I agree 2 points isnt enough of a gap from 1-2
3 is a good compromise between 2 and 4
and It would reward 1st place more significantly especially if in the case of MS, the driver wins several races

 

I agree the current points system is downright pathetic. I think the only way it will get changed is when we have one driver who actually wins the championship with either one to no wins.. Typical FIA bullsh**t.. reactive instead of proactive..

 

reactive instead of proactive is right.