25-20-15-10-8-6-5-3-2-1?

How about:

25-20-15-10-8-6-4-3-2-1

so you don't have an inexplicable 2pt gap between 7th and 8th when the gap between 6th and 7th is just 1 pt.

Other than that minor annoyance, I'd say it's pretty good.

thewon4 - 11 December 2009 06:31 PM

25-20-15-10-8-6-5-3-2-1?

How about:

25-20-15-10-8-6-4-3-2-1

so you don't have an inexplicable 2pt gap between 7th and 8th when the gap between 6th and 7th is just 1 pt.

Other than that minor annoyance, I'd say it's pretty good.

Too much rushing on a decision for FIA to double check things like that

They actually did it on purpose, so that the difference between 1st and 7th is roughly the same is it is this year. 10points to 2 points = 5:1 ratio, while 25 points to 5 points still a 5:1 ratio. This is a method to their madness. Otherwise the difference from 6th, 5th, and 4th slighly less at 25% 32% and 40% than they did before (30, 40, and 50% respectively). and 8th 9th and 10th slightly higherat 12% 8% and 4% respectively (before was 10% 0% amd 0%).

So if they had done 4 points for 7th then 7th would have gotten 16% so it would have been slighly less. Hope this makes sense, so you understand why they did it the way they did. Basically what is different by this change is it penalizes you more if you don't get any points.

DaFoose - 14 December 2009 04:34 PM

They actually did it on purpose, so that the difference between 1st and 7th is roughly the same is it is this year. 10points to 2 points = 5:1 ratio, while 25 points to 5 points still a 5:1 ratio. This is a method to their madness. Otherwise the difference from 6th, 5th, and 4th slighly less at 25% 32% and 40% than they did before (30, 40, and 50% respectively). and 8th 9th and 10th slightly higherat 12% 8% and 4% respectively (before was 10% 0% amd 0%).

So if they had done 4 points for 7th then 7th would have gotten 16% so it would have been slighly less. Hope this makes sense, so you understand why they did it the way they did. Basically what is different by this change is it penalizes you more if you don't get any points.

And why is the ratio between 1st and 7th so important? Especially when they are already changing the ratio for 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th (and adding 9th and 10th)

Anyway, if they are going to make such a drastic change in scale (as far as # of points), they should at least have made it 30 points for a win.
I would prefer a system of:
30-20-15-10-8-6-4-3-2-1

This would have a nice "points curve" as it would be 1 10-point drop, 2 5-point drops, 3 2-point drops, and 4 1-point drops (when you include 10th to 11th going from 1 to 0)

The 30-20 difference from 1st to 2nd would emphasize winning (rather than simply emphasize being on the podium).

Also, for the person who likes "round numbers" (like me), a 1-2 finish would be worth a nice 50 points to the team, and if a team finishes behind them in 3-4, the constructors points awarded would be 50-25.

(and if you really need at least one of the ratios to be maintained, 1st to 8th would still be 10:1)

Still better than the medal system floated by Bernie.

You make a good point 30 probably would have been better. But only reason 1st to 7th was important was because they actually could keep it the same, the other ones you can't (without keeping even numbers).

I like the idea of the new points system because it is more of a reward to get on the podium than before. You see I never understood why they make such a bog deal about the podium, when 3rd was barely any better than 4th. I know I pointed out that it isn't a whole lot different, but with this new system, going from 1st to no points is a MUCH bigger penalty. So it is more of a reward for getting up there.