F1 is not a spec series, after all. So, if someone in a Force India should happen to win the DC by just finishing consistently up front without ever winning a single race, but everybody else on the grid is just cack and finishes 1st a couple of times, but can't keep the car in one piece most of the other races, the Force India driver would surely deserve the cahmpionship, no?

Good article on this by Mark Hughes in Autosport this week. Interesting reading actually. The medal system wouldn't have changed the outcome of any championship between something like 1990 and 2007 (assuming the individual race results remained the same of course which, of course, they wouldn't).

Would either of the previous 2 seasons have ended differently had they stuck with the 10,6,4,3,2,1 point system? Or indeed any since its arrival.

Bernie's certainly suggesting it was a mistake to go to 10,8,6,etc if his idea for a replacement is such an extreme move away from that.

MotoGP isn't worse off for giving points all the way down the order most races. As long as the difference between 1st and 2nd is big enough people will want to win. Maybe in F1 it isn't, but I think the medals system is a bit tacky.

To be honest, the current points system is good enough, these past two years have been down to the wire idk why the fia doesn't like that?

Sigh of relief.

http://www.f1technical.net/new ... 06477eb38b52cc18bce2a7a21

How about this?

30
20
15
10
7
5
4
3
2
1

Quote from Storm_Cloud :

MotoGP does not place extra emphasis on winning:

25 divided by 2.5 = 10

20 divided by 2.5 = 8

16 divided by 2.5 = 6 (rounded down )

Good point, I have to admit I hadn't looked at it in terms of proportionality just absolute points.

Maybe then 1st place should score 30. That would be the same advantage to winning as the pre 2003 F1 points system, but actually put some motivation in to making up places lower down the order.