Proposal for a new points system - A fairer ranking

  We sometimes ask ourselves whether the driver titled at the end of the championship is necessarily the best of the season. The points allocation system in Formula 1 or other motorsport series is sometimes controversial. Does it really reward the best?

Often this system benefits the most regular competitors, the most economical with their efforts. Sometimes, changes are introduced to the points system to reward panache by eliminating the less good results. But in all cases, it often happens that we regret that penny wise calculations force competitors, especially towards the end of the season, to favor points over fighting for race victory, sometimes spoiling certain races. Or even by emphasizing team strategy - the infamous team orders - which spoile the race in the name of the championship.

There was a time when championships in car racing did not exist. Each race was important in its own right. Like the Dakar, or Le Mans or even Indianapolis in a more recent era. Rallies remained like this for a long time until the creation of the Manufacturers' World Championship, then the Drivers' World Cup in the 1970s and finally the Drivers' World Championship in 1979.

The Formula 1 world championship began in 1950, but the points systems whatever the racing categories are, ends up pushing competitors to sacrifice the race result for the benefit of the title at the end of the season, with an inevitable impact on the show. F1 experienced the worst illustrations of this case with the titles of Nelson Piquet in 1987 and Keke Rosberg in 1982. On the other hand, the obsession with winning the world crown spoiled memorable ends of seasons, as in 1989 and 1990 at the height of the Prost-Senna rivalry.

Therefore, why not consider a more exact alternative to create a more equitable classification in order to address these two issues (a points system that may not be fair or representative of the hierarchy of competitors and the sacrifice of the fight and show during the races for the benefit of the championship)? A ranking that would prioritize each individual race while not making up the season's ultimate goal. 

  Here's how the idea looks: Let's start with the points classification objective, the easiest to modify. It would be possible to establish a permanent ranking which does not stop at the end of a season, but runs from one season to the next linking them all in a common classification. Thus, we have a hierarchy which crosses several generations of competitors and encompasses them all, making the season championship less important than it is currently. 

On the other hand, to satisfy everyone, a secondary ranking, only taking into account the results of a season would award the driver/team with most points in a year, but without it having the same importance as today. 

  As for the 1st objective, namely a fairer points system representative of the merits of the competitors, there is a lot more work. Certain points must be taken into account.

1st consideration: Include in the hierarchy all those who finish races by awarding points to all drivers classified at the end of each GP.

The number of points to be awarded would not be fixed in advance, but would be determined by the number of cars having actually been classified. These points would therefore vary depending on the number of competitors having completed each race. To do this, let's start by giving a point starting from the last classified and we go up to 1st by adding 1 point to each position, then increasing the gaps as soon as we arrive at the podium, just to give more importance to the top three and even more to the winner.

In the case where, let's say, 15 cars finish a race, the points would be distributed as follows:

15th = 1 pt

14th = 2 pts

13th = 3 pts

12th = 4 pt

11th = 5 pts

10th = 6 pt

9th = 7 pt

8th = 8 pt

7th = 9 pt

6th = 10 pt

5th = 11 pt

4th = 12 pt

Then, the gap starts to increase when the podium is reached:

3rd = 15 pt (3 pts difference with 4th)

2nd = 20 pt (5 pts difference with 3rd)

1st = 30 pt (10 pts difference with 2nd)

Thus, with larger gaps on the podium, panache and victory remain valued. In addition, all those ranked are included in the points, making it possible to establish a hierarchy on merit, including among the last ones.

In the case of 20 cars finishing the race, the same can be done, while increasing the gaps by the same values when arriving at the podium, which will end up giving different points for the same places from a race to another depending on the number of finishers of a given race. This would be fairer than the current system since beating 19 competitors is not the same as winning against 5 or 10.

Certainly, this assessment is not the most accurate in absolute terms, since one may have more merit in winning a race against 5 competitors than against 20 depending on multiple factors. The value of a driver's result who wins by leading from start to finish against 19 drivers who finish behind him is somehow lower than that of a driver who moves up 5 positions by fighting for example to win against only 5 or 10 drivers at the end of the race.

  To make this ranking fairer, other points could be earned on other criteria. As for the places gained compared to the place on the starting grid. Again one point per position won. Of course, one could object that the positions gained are not always due to merit and that drivers often climb the ranking thanks to the problems of those who were ahead of them. But not having any technical problems and not making any mistakes unlike the competitors in front is also a sign of merit. Reliability should also be rewarded. The places gained in races would also more often push drivers to give their all for the benefit of the show even if their main goal is the title at the end of the year or the "cross-seasons" points classification.

To give this mode even more weight, it is possible to deduct points from competitors who lose places compared to their starting position.

  Finally, to award the title at the end of the year without finding ourselves in a situation similar to the 1982 or 1958 F1 seasons (the world champions of the time, Rosberg and Hawthorn had only won one GP during the season), why not setting a minimum number or percentage of Grand Prix to be won during the season to deserve the title regardless of the total points gathered?

Jump start: Was it allowed ?

 For those not so young who are watching Grand Prix videos from the 70s or early 80s for the first time, it is always surprising to see that slight jump starts were more or less tolerated. It doesn't look serious, especially in the context of a Formula 1 GP.

1973 German Grand Prix 

  This phenomenon could be partly explained by the difficulty of slipping the clutch of an F1 car with phenomenal torque and a power of more than 400 HP without any driving assistance such as traction control. The drivers, forced to slip their clutch in order not to miss the start - no clutch being able to withstand this power for long - sometimes it was extremely difficult to keep the car from moving any longer, thereby moving forward a meter or two. This explains why the driver, to avoid an obvious false start, sometimes released his foot from the accelerator and re-disengaged at the very moment the flag was lowering, causing him to miss his momentum.

To complicate matters, during the 1970s, standing start procedures did not follow strict protocol. Each race director had his own way of giving the signal, which could change at any time. Some starters even took great pleasure in playing on the drivers' nerves by moving their arm without lowering the flag during the last 10 or 15 seconds during which it was agreed that they would give the signal.

We must also not forget that the starting grids varied from one circuit to another, particularly at the time of transition between the 3-2-3 grids and the more staggered even grids which still exist today. There were also circuits where the starting straight was more or less sloping like at Brands-Hatch.

 

British GP at Brands Hatch. Watch the start ! 

They were so tolerant back then about this that it often happened that drivers positioned themselves in front of their assigned position on the grid to be at the exact height of the driver supposed to be in front of them on the line, while in other occasions they remained at the very back. In this case, the trick was to release the clutch a little, a second or two before the signal, so as to arrive at their starting location right at the moment of the flag dropping, which meant that technically they were not stealing the start. The main advantage being to avoid slipping the clutch for too long and, better still, to find oneself in a flying start at the moment of the signal, which was clearly advantageous compared to those who made a real standing start.

In the video below from the 1974 Spanish Grand Prix, we can see a typical start from the 70s. In fact, it's almost a caricature of the starts of the time, the worst example I've personally seen. 

1974 Spanish Grand Prix. What a mess at the start !

   It is obvious that giving a new start in car racing for each false start is far from being as simple as in athletics. That was motivated by many reasons: the need to refuel on the grid in the event that refueling is prohibited during the race and, especially knowing many were too short on fuel for weight reasons, and the risk involved in multiplying starts (the most dangerous moment of the race) with the costs and the additional workload that this would imply for the teams and mechanics in the event of pileups, as well as the risk that this eliminates several competitors, particularly the most important ones from the start of the race, the time constraints of television in the case of races transmitted live, given the time it takes to restart the entire procedure, the obligation to carry out a new warm-up lap in addition if the interruption lasts too long or if the weather conditions change, and above all the additional constraints to be subjected to the clutches and transmissions, to name just a few reasons... in short, there was no shortage of reasons to tolerate barely stolen starts.

Certainly, one could object that time penalties were possible and even actually applied against offenders in the event of an early departure in a too conspicuous manner, particularly on the part of the leaders, but abuse this penalty for the slightest early departure or a few meters gained at low speed on the grid would have been abusive and above all would have complicated the race for the spectators and the teams that would be obliged to take into account the penalty in question, thus distorting the spectacle.

But over time, the technology and the departure procedure have evolved so much that these problems are now a thing of the past. Like all progress, it happened gradually.

The tragedy of 1978 Italian F1 GP start

  Playing with the tolerance of race directors or taking advantage of their dilettantism or incompetence ended up no longer being tolerated, especially after the drama of the Italian Grand Prix at Monza in 1978 which caused the death of Ronnie Peterson, after the starter gave the signal before the last ones had all stopped, thereby creating a traffic jam before the first chicane with cars arriving at high speed and the first having taken a standing start (well... almost).The difference in speed and the particularity of the track which narrows at the approach of the first chicane having led to the drama that we know. This is why we see a marshal wave a green flag behind at the back of the starting grid once he is certain that all the competitors have stopped, thus signaling to the race director that he can finally give the signal.

  That particular race was also one of the rare ones in that era where some drivers have been penalized for stealing the start. It was actually at the restart after Ronnie Peterson's accident, when the leaders, Gilles Villeneuve and Mario Andretti were given a minute penalty each for starting a few tenths before the signal.