Newest points system is the best one I think. The reintroduction of a point for fastest lap had actually added more to the races than I had anticipated. We just need cars that can actually closely follow one another without losing majority of the aero.
I got bored a few weeks back and applied the 2010-18 points system to the seasons in the 80s, and Prost would've been champion in both 1984 and 1983, as well as 1988 which has been mentioned in this video. Thus, Prost could have literally been a 7 time champion. Could you imagine how differently Prost would've been viewed if this was the case? Most underrated F1 driver of all time, the fact he was literally better than Senna but the points system made it seem closer than it ever was is absolutely insane.
Great video btw. I like the current points system but I think that a win should get 30 points and second get 20, because I really think the win deserves a greater percentage of the points relative to 2nd, but either way the modern system works nicely I think, it's the fairest. It's actually really tricky to think how the championship could be decided differently depending on the points system. Like I'm pretty sure Hunt would have never won the championship if it wasn't for the old points system and there are loads of other examples.
Regardless, the rules were the same for everybody at the beginning of the season, so I have to say at the time nobody thought it was rigged or unfair. These guys prost, senna, mansell kept beating each other and for so many years what the great Fangio had done seem like unobtanium, until it wasn't, that is.
I wouldn’t agree with this, points are an award for finishing in a high position. Also, this points system wouldn’t do much to close the gap. Since the top teams would now score points in every race.
I think that the best point system was 1991-2002 with only 6 drivers scoring with all results counting because the 2019 German GP showed that even underperforming teams/drivers can score points.
@@drybones7475 Most races of the last 3 years have seen the top 6 drivers in the top 6 positions. Midfield teams would hardly ever score points, making the best of the rest fight pretty boring.
@@gergelystechnicmodels8565 Ok, but even when a top 3 car driver has a horrible race (Vettel in UK 2016, Rosberg in Monaco 2016, Hamilton in Germany and Brazil 2019, Bottas in Hungary 2019), they are able to score points. Don't you think it is an issue?
As someone whose go-to activity during quarantine boredom is calculating how different years would look with different points systems by hand (yes I'm a nerd), this is the best notification I've had in a while
@@BrooXX856 The funniest thing I've found is that in 2015, in a reverse championship where the last place gets 25, 2nd last gets 18 etc., Manor would have won by 381 points. That's counting all the last lap engine failures where the driver still got classified as last 😂
I mean I like to nerd out, but this seems almost excessively unnecessary. Ahh who am I kidding. Im pretty sure I've done stuff like taking apart and putting something back together because i felt like I put the "wrong screws on the wrong feet" (ie i wanted the identical screws on the right side to be on the left instead, and vice versa)
yyayaya someone finally made a video about this!!! I was going to do research on this but i was too lazy but thank god Aldas did the research for me! hehehe
When looking at total career points, we should convert the past drivers' points to current points system before ranking them. For example Schumacher's 1st place finish should count as 25 points instead of 10. And do this for all drivers, and then we would get the real total career points in today's points. It's like converting 1914 dollar to 2020 dollar, 1 point in 1990 is worth more than 1 point in 2020 just as 1 dollar in 1914 is worth more than 1 dollar in today's money.
The 2003-2010 was what I grew up on and it was my favourite. I really liked how diminishing the impact of a win allowed for drivers and teams to bank big points early then hang on to their lead while competitors tried to outdevelop them during the season. Brawn in 09 being the best example.
I think that the best point system was 1991-2002 with only 6 drivers scoring with all results counting because the 2019 German GP showed that even underperforming teams/drivers can score points.
@@drybones7475 2003 - 2009 system was better. Maybe the top 6 system looks better now but it was only there because... a) the cars were more unreliable b) there wasn't a top 6 like there is now If you have to rely on 4 put of the top 6 drivers to crash out for the midfield to get p points, then its an unfair system
Sergeant Supreme 2003-2009 was HORRIBLE. Yes, I hated the Schumacher dominance (and dislike him as a person I might add) but tuning the points so that 2nd place earned a whopping 80% of what the winner took home is complete rubbish. It completely undermined winning and artificially kept the championship close for the viewers sake and not that the drivers really deserved their overall championship placement (for better or for worse).. The gap from 1st to 2nd is the exact same gap as from 2nd to 3rd, why would a driver in 2nd place risk it all on a ballsy overtake for the win if winning only gave a measly 2 points but with 4 times the points to lose if it goes south; along with the fact that if it does go south, those 8 points lost (and 10 points lost for the winner- a gap of 2) could equate to needing a whopping FOUR race wins if the other driver in contention kept getting 2nd place (the 2 extra points per race x 4 = 8 points gap- the amount of points lost in that 1 race where you were only down 2 from the driver in first when you decided to risk it all) I abso-fucking-lutely despise the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system.
Favourite F1 points system: the 2003-'09 points system. I don't mind the fastest lap point, but it's an easy point to game in that if you have a major crash but are able to get the car repaired (even if it takes a long time) you can just put the car in close to qualifying trim and go out and go for it. The most infamous example I can think of is the final race of the 2015-'16 Formula E season in London, where Lucas di Grassi and Sébastien Buemi went into it tied on 153 points after Buemi collected the 3 points available for Pole position in qualifying. They collided on the opening lap and just switched to their second cars and had their own race to set the fastest lap and get the 2 points. Buemi got it and won the title. In response the number of points awarded for the fastest lap was reduced to 1 and then after several cases during the following season of drivers being involved in incidents early on in races and getting repaired then heading out specifically to make attempts at the fastest lap (such as both Virgin Racing drivers Sam BIrd and José María López doing this in Monaco), the current rule for awarding the point to the fastest driver in the top 10 was introduced for the 2017-18 season (which F2 and F3 use as well and I think F1 should use). I think CART had a good points system, which was used between 1984 and 2003: 1st: 20; 2nd: 16; 3rd: 14; 4th: 12; 5th: 10; 6th: 8; 7th: 6; 8th: 5; 9th: 4; 10th: 3; 11th: 2 12th: 1; Pole Position: 1; Led most laps (but we can change that to fastest lap for F1): 1
My favorite is still the 10-6-4-3-2-1-System from 1991. Overall, my favorite points scoring system is that from Champcar from 1984 to 2003, with 20-16-14-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 and 1 bonus point for pole and most lead laps. I still recommend to use this for F1 in future, but with bonus point for fastest race lap instead of the most lead laps.
Half a point for pole, half a point for fastest lap. Then go back to an older system without all this inflation. They wrecked it with the new 25 thing.
At 13:00 you say that him winning or retiring from that race would have no impact on his score, but surely by him winning that race he could take points away from another competitor, helping him to potentially win the WDC?
The double points rule was very stupid. Lets say you are in a title race, you lead 49 points, a pretty big gap and your car breaks and he wins, thats bs. Or go further, lets say you and the person you are competing against both have 1 DNF his cost him 25 points, yours cost you 50, its utter nonsense.
I like the current points system. I wondered if adding points for pole position would do anything, but it looks like the recent gaps between first and second are too large for pole points to change anything. It might have made a difference in 2016 between Hamilton and Rosberg, but the next closest would have been 2010 and 2012 between Vettel and Alonso and points for pole would have only helped Vettel widen the gap.
I think constructors points should be awarded for all cars that finish. 1 point for 1 car and 3 points for both cars. That would reward reliability and give small midfield teams something to fight for instead of going all bumper cars when in 11th place.
Before 1991 the points-system could very well called Kafka-points-system, that's how utterly absurd some things were. Imho, a fair scoring system in a competition with just 20 participants would mean only the first 6 would get points (no, no participation trophies awarded, not in F1) and it should be like this: 10-7-5-3-2-1. The guys on the podium deserve to stand out from the rest of the group, and a ratio of around 1.5 to 1 between the winner and the second place seem a fair proportion. Plus, the pole-position could get 1 extra point and the fastest lap 2 points (no matter what position he occupies at the end of the race). About sprint-races... I don't know, maybe it could be 5-4-3-2-1 or just 5-3-1. My thoughts, anyway.
It would be cool if they had a system where if you were able to pass somebody and hold that position and it led you to the podium that driver would get one point
i think that we should get teh q3 drivers to get 1/2 the points of race position (pole gets either 12.5 or 13 points etc.) and they start in reverse grid (best time gets 12.5 or 13 points but start in p10
In pre-war Grand Prix racing the first to cross the finish line earned 1 point, the second more, the third even more etc. The driver with the least points won the championship. Kubica 2019 Champion?
Yes mate, I'm old enuf to remember the Senna/Prost diciders. It was almost like the olde days when the bibles were in Latin and the FIA & TV crews conspired together to translate if for us. You can't figure it out for yourselves - Leave the driving to us... we'll tell you who won or if we have to go to the next race to find out who wins.
The current point system is my favourite and I wouldn't like to change anything. 10 drivers qualify to Q3, so I feel this is logical that 10 drivers score points.
daniel crawford What would your 20-scoring positions look like or even 15-scoring positions look like (to somewhat accommodate DNF’s)? Just wondering cause people want a lot of things without really knowing what they’re asking and am just curious what that type of point system would look like.
I think they should let anyone have the 1 point for fastest lap, I wanna see Kevin magnussen end the season with all of his points coming from last lap pit stops for fastest lap
It was originally planned that they would award 20 points for 2nd but the drivers didn't like that idea because proportionally the gap between 1st and 2nd didn't change
With Double points in the final race the champions of the last decade would be: 2021: Max Verstappen 2020: Lewis Hamilton 2019: Lewis Hamilton 2018: Lewis Hamilton 2017: Lewis Hamilton 2016: Lewis Hamilton 2015: Lewis Hamilton 2014: Lewis Hamilton 2013: Sebastian Vettel 2012: Fernando Alonso 2011: Sebastian Vettel 2010: Sebastian Vettel
graham hill had more points in 64 but lost, Prost could of won the championship 10 times between 81-90 (87 alternator reliability cost him wins in Germany ahead of Piquet Brazil, Belgium he won) 2014 without double points Hamilton would of almost of won the championship in brazil 17 ahead so double points closed the gap to a if Rosberg win Hamilton 3rd Rosberg champion
The current system sucks as it ruins the statistics of the legend drivers who have retired a long time ago. The best system was the one with 8 best drivers getting points with the logic of 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1. That gave the smaller constructors more chances to score points but the amount of points for the win was also in proportion with the history so retired legends and by that that current drivers could be compared against each other.
Your logic for 1988 season is flawed. The point system was not appear suddenly at the end of the season. It was there from the start. Therefore, drivers adjusted themselves accordingly.
Imo points should now be awarded to everyone expect for last place. Many times we see slower cars retiring because they are put if the points.... - Reward the winner with many more points of course, but incentivize racing to the end!
If the rules were different, EVERYTHING would have been different, drivers and teams would take much less risks. So saying that had the rules been different Prost would have won is naive at best, dishonest at worst
You have channeled your inner chain bear f1. Great work, keep it up
🤣🤣🤣
All that remains is the beard
Newest points system is the best one I think. The reintroduction of a point for fastest lap had actually added more to the races than I had anticipated. We just need cars that can actually closely follow one another without losing majority of the aero.
I got bored a few weeks back and applied the 2010-18 points system to the seasons in the 80s, and Prost would've been champion in both 1984 and 1983, as well as 1988 which has been mentioned in this video. Thus, Prost could have literally been a 7 time champion. Could you imagine how differently Prost would've been viewed if this was the case? Most underrated F1 driver of all time, the fact he was literally better than Senna but the points system made it seem closer than it ever was is absolutely insane.
Great video btw. I like the current points system but I think that a win should get 30 points and second get 20, because I really think the win deserves a greater percentage of the points relative to 2nd, but either way the modern system works nicely I think, it's the fairest. It's actually really tricky to think how the championship could be decided differently depending on the points system. Like I'm pretty sure Hunt would have never won the championship if it wasn't for the old points system and there are loads of other examples.
Regardless, the rules were the same for everybody at the beginning of the season, so I have to say at the time nobody thought it was rigged or unfair. These guys prost, senna, mansell kept beating each other and for so many years what the great Fangio had done seem like unobtanium, until it wasn't, that is.
I really do hope we never see a system where all finishers get points because then they won’t mean as much to the smaller teams
It also wouldn’t mean much anymore because these cars are so reliable now.
I wouldn’t agree with this, points are an award for finishing in a high position. Also, this points system wouldn’t do much to close the gap. Since the top teams would now score points in every race.
I think that the best point system was 1991-2002 with only 6 drivers scoring with all results counting because the 2019 German GP showed that even underperforming teams/drivers can score points.
@@drybones7475 Most races of the last 3 years have seen the top 6 drivers in the top 6 positions. Midfield teams would hardly ever score points, making the best of the rest fight pretty boring.
@@gergelystechnicmodels8565 Ok, but even when a top 3 car driver has a horrible race (Vettel in UK 2016, Rosberg in Monaco 2016, Hamilton in Germany and Brazil 2019, Bottas in Hungary 2019), they are able to score points.
Don't you think it is an issue?
Imagine getting a 7th of a point. Then another race you get half a point. Then in another you get a third.
Oh man, you'd be only 1/42nd away from a full point then.
Account Naam No you would have 91% of a point
As someone whose go-to activity during quarantine boredom is calculating how different years would look with different points systems by hand (yes I'm a nerd), this is the best notification I've had in a while
Major respect to you. I don’t have the attention for something like this
@@BrooXX856 The funniest thing I've found is that in 2015, in a reverse championship where the last place gets 25, 2nd last gets 18 etc., Manor would have won by 381 points. That's counting all the last lap engine failures where the driver still got classified as last 😂
I am also a nerd in this regard
I mean I like to nerd out, but this seems almost excessively unnecessary.
Ahh who am I kidding. Im pretty sure I've done stuff like taking apart and putting something back together because i felt like I put the "wrong screws on the wrong feet" (ie i wanted the identical screws on the right side to be on the left instead, and vice versa)
There’s a website that does this. formula1points.com
It's always nice seeing videos like this
13:43 that’s the only time those three shared a podium. 14 championships represented there.
My lord, I really appreciate today's points system. Great video Aldas!
Imagine if Aldas did The History of the F1 Safety Car 😏
I imagine a cursed image will come up at Imola, in 1994
Go to Tommo's video. TommoF1
theme park that’s what I was referring to
yyayaya someone finally made a video about this!!! I was going to do research on this but i was too lazy but thank god Aldas did the research for me! hehehe
When looking at total career points, we should convert the past drivers' points to current points system before ranking them. For example Schumacher's 1st place finish should count as 25 points instead of 10. And do this for all drivers, and then we would get the real total career points in today's points. It's like converting 1914 dollar to 2020 dollar, 1 point in 1990 is worth more than 1 point in 2020 just as 1 dollar in 1914 is worth more than 1 dollar in today's money.
Thank you very much for this video, this is a topic I've never seen tackled by other F1 TH-camrs and the way you presented it was superb Aldas!
The 2003-2010 was what I grew up on and it was my favourite. I really liked how diminishing the impact of a win allowed for drivers and teams to bank big points early then hang on to their lead while competitors tried to outdevelop them during the season. Brawn in 09 being the best example.
Do miss 10 points for a win; could easily keep tabs on championship permutations mentally without pen and paper.
I think that the best point system was 1991-2002 with only 6 drivers scoring with all results counting because the 2019 German GP showed that even underperforming teams/drivers can score points.
@@drybones7475 2003 - 2009 system was better. Maybe the top 6 system looks better now but it was only there because...
a) the cars were more unreliable
b) there wasn't a top 6 like there is now
If you have to rely on 4 put of the top 6 drivers to crash out for the midfield to get p points, then its an unfair system
Sergeant Supreme 2003-2009 was HORRIBLE. Yes, I hated the Schumacher dominance (and dislike him as a person I might add) but tuning the points so that 2nd place earned a whopping 80% of what the winner took home is complete rubbish. It completely undermined winning and artificially kept the championship close for the viewers sake and not that the drivers really deserved their overall championship placement (for better or for worse).. The gap from 1st to 2nd is the exact same gap as from 2nd to 3rd, why would a driver in 2nd place risk it all on a ballsy overtake for the win if winning only gave a measly 2 points but with 4 times the points to lose if it goes south; along with the fact that if it does go south, those 8 points lost (and 10 points lost for the winner- a gap of 2) could equate to needing a whopping FOUR race wins if the other driver in contention kept getting 2nd place (the 2 extra points per race x 4 = 8 points gap- the amount of points lost in that 1 race where you were only down 2 from the driver in first when you decided to risk it all) I abso-fucking-lutely despise the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system.
Favourite F1 points system: the 2003-'09 points system.
I don't mind the fastest lap point, but it's an easy point to game in that if you have a major crash but are able to get the car repaired (even if it takes a long time) you can just put the car in close to qualifying trim and go out and go for it. The most infamous example I can think of is the final race of the 2015-'16 Formula E season in London, where Lucas di Grassi and Sébastien Buemi went into it tied on 153 points after Buemi collected the 3 points available for Pole position in qualifying. They collided on the opening lap and just switched to their second cars and had their own race to set the fastest lap and get the 2 points. Buemi got it and won the title. In response the number of points awarded for the fastest lap was reduced to 1 and then after several cases during the following season of drivers being involved in incidents early on in races and getting repaired then heading out specifically to make attempts at the fastest lap (such as both Virgin Racing drivers Sam BIrd and José María López doing this in Monaco), the current rule for awarding the point to the fastest driver in the top 10 was introduced for the 2017-18 season (which F2 and F3 use as well and I think F1 should use).
I think CART had a good points system, which was used between 1984 and 2003:
1st: 20; 2nd: 16; 3rd: 14; 4th: 12; 5th: 10; 6th: 8; 7th: 6; 8th: 5; 9th: 4; 10th: 3; 11th: 2 12th: 1; Pole Position: 1; Led most laps (but we can change that to fastest lap for F1): 1
Love them midnight posts
Great video! Deserves more views
My favorite is still the 10-6-4-3-2-1-System from 1991. Overall, my favorite points scoring system is that from Champcar from 1984 to 2003, with 20-16-14-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 and 1 bonus point for pole and most lead laps. I still recommend to use this for F1 in future, but with bonus point for fastest race lap instead of the most lead laps.
I think getting pole position should be worth 2 points. Qualifying is part of the race and one of the hardest skill to obtain in F1
Half a point for pole, half a point for fastest lap.
Then go back to an older system without all this inflation.
They wrecked it with the new 25 thing.
Those old systems were nightmares even by F1 standards
At 13:00 you say that him winning or retiring from that race would have no impact on his score, but surely by him winning that race he could take points away from another competitor, helping him to potentially win the WDC?
Yes but the other competitor might still get enough points to offset it since Alan Jones could not score any
The double points rule was very stupid.
Lets say you are in a title race, you lead 49 points, a pretty big gap and your car breaks and he wins, thats bs.
Or go further, lets say you and the person you are competing against both have 1 DNF his cost him 25 points, yours cost you 50, its utter nonsense.
Aldas: your personal F1 historian
I think that the scoring system from 2003 is better than the current one... the difference between first and second place is huge
I would love to see a video on the rules and regulations throughout the history of f1
Can u do a vid explaining the difference between constructors, Grand Prix, and championship races
Also drivers
I like the current points system. I wondered if adding points for pole position would do anything, but it looks like the recent gaps between first and second are too large for pole points to change anything. It might have made a difference in 2016 between Hamilton and Rosberg, but the next closest would have been 2010 and 2012 between Vettel and Alonso and points for pole would have only helped Vettel widen the gap.
Excellent mate!
Great video, a lot of I wasn't aware of.
But what about 500 points for the driver without DNF?
I think constructors points should be awarded for all cars that finish. 1 point for 1 car and 3 points for both cars. That would reward reliability and give small midfield teams something to fight for instead of going all bumper cars when in 11th place.
Before 1991 the points-system could very well called Kafka-points-system, that's how utterly absurd some things were.
Imho, a fair scoring system in a competition with just 20 participants would mean only the first 6 would get points (no, no participation trophies awarded, not in F1) and it should be like this: 10-7-5-3-2-1.
The guys on the podium deserve to stand out from the rest of the group, and a ratio of around 1.5 to 1 between the winner and the second place seem a fair proportion.
Plus, the pole-position could get 1 extra point and the fastest lap 2 points (no matter what position he occupies at the end of the race).
About sprint-races... I don't know, maybe it could be 5-4-3-2-1 or just 5-3-1.
My thoughts, anyway.
What music did you use in the background?
Loved this video
I'm very early today. Thanks for another great video.
Damn I have to say im quite a big of a F1 fan since the last 90s when I was a child I have never even heard of these point rules:D
It would be cool if they had a system where if you were able to pass somebody and hold that position and it led you to the podium that driver would get one point
do a video about the qualifying systems in f1’s history
My favourite points system is the 2003-2009 system
do a video on the history of qualifying
i think that we should get teh q3 drivers to get 1/2 the points of race position (pole gets either 12.5 or 13 points etc.) and they start in reverse grid (best time gets 12.5 or 13 points but start in p10
In pre-war Grand Prix racing the first to cross the finish line earned 1 point, the second more, the third even more etc. The driver with the least points won the championship. Kubica 2019 Champion?
Double points is incredibly stupid.
Yes mate, I'm old enuf to remember the Senna/Prost diciders. It was almost like the olde days when the bibles were in Latin and the FIA & TV crews conspired together to translate if for us. You can't figure it out for yourselves - Leave the driving to us... we'll tell you who won or if we have to go to the next race to find out who wins.
Great video but my brain is in pain
The current point system is my favourite and I wouldn't like to change anything. 10 drivers qualify to Q3, so I feel this is logical that 10 drivers score points.
would love to see a points system where eveyone can score points, makes each position worth fighting for
daniel crawford What would your 20-scoring positions look like or even 15-scoring positions look like (to somewhat accommodate DNF’s)? Just wondering cause people want a lot of things without really knowing what they’re asking and am just curious what that type of point system would look like.
I think they should let anyone have the 1 point for fastest lap, I wanna see Kevin magnussen end the season with all of his points coming from last lap pit stops for fastest lap
12:34 dont know whats going on with your front wheel :)
Mechancs: we are looking.
What was the point of this video?
*He says in a sarcastic and joking tone
Nice upload time
I like the current system,although I feel like only 23 points should go to the winner to reduce the gap between 1st and 2nd
It was originally planned that they would award 20 points for 2nd but the drivers didn't like that idea because proportionally the gap between 1st and 2nd didn't change
13:29 Prost is making the trollface
Why did no one think it was a good idea to streamline the driver's with the constructor's championship?
With Double points in the final race the champions of the last decade would be:
2021: Max Verstappen
2020: Lewis Hamilton
2019: Lewis Hamilton
2018: Lewis Hamilton
2017: Lewis Hamilton
2016: Lewis Hamilton
2015: Lewis Hamilton
2014: Lewis Hamilton
2013: Sebastian Vettel
2012: Fernando Alonso
2011: Sebastian Vettel
2010: Sebastian Vettel
Hmm,you could just make all of F1 final race with double points from 1950 to 2009
graham hill had more points in 64 but lost, Prost could of won the championship 10 times between 81-90 (87 alternator reliability cost him wins in Germany ahead of Piquet Brazil, Belgium he won) 2014 without double points Hamilton would of almost of won the championship in brazil 17 ahead so double points closed the gap to a if Rosberg win Hamilton 3rd Rosberg champion
The current system sucks as it ruins the statistics of the legend drivers who have retired a long time ago.
The best system was the one with 8 best drivers getting points with the logic of 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1. That gave the smaller constructors more chances to score points but the amount of points for the win was also in proportion with the history so retired legends and by that that current drivers could be compared against each other.
Your logic for 1988 season is flawed. The point system was not appear suddenly at the end of the season. It was there from the start. Therefore, drivers adjusted themselves accordingly.
Imo points should now be awarded to everyone expect for last place. Many times we see slower cars retiring because they are put if the points....
- Reward the winner with many more points of course, but incentivize racing to the end!
imagine double points for abu dhabi 2021
If your point scoring system requires you to have fractions or decimals at any point, then im afraid your system is bad.
The early points system is one of the dumbest things I've seen. How did enough people agree to this for it to go through..?
Not first 😊😉😎
Giving double point for the final race is stupid. Very artificial. Why would that race be more important?
If the rules were different, EVERYTHING would have been different, drivers and teams would take much less risks. So saying that had the rules been different Prost would have won is naive at best, dishonest at worst
This is like GTS ahahha
Basically you have just read a Wikipedia article
Imagine if vettel won the championship because Hamilton didn’t take part in the Indy 500