F1 boss plans scoring revolution

This is a sequel of my earlier post on F1 Points System – The True Story.

On 26 November 2008, FIA boss Bernie Eccelstone told in a news conference (click here to watch the video) that he intends to introduce a new points system in F1 racing to ensure the driver with most wins is crowned the champion. Gold, silver and bronze medals would be given to the top three finishers. The driver with most gold medals won will be crowned, and in case of similar tally, the decision will be made on the bases of count of the next medal in line.The system still requires approval from F1’s governing body, the FIA, Its world council – the body that would decide whether to introduce the system – meets next month.

The current system awards points (10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1) to the top 8 finishers in a race, and its difficult to see how Bernie would convince the FIA and the minnows in the F1 world to agree on the new system, one which ensures the teams finishing outside the top 3 would remain empty handed. The FIA also awards money for each point earned, and hence how the classification (standings) will decide the prize money will also have to be confirmed.

The points system has been criticised not just this year, but even in 2003, the world title went down to the last race between Ferrari’s Michael Schumacher and McLaren’s Kimi Raikkonen even though the German had won six races to the Finn’s one.

F1 Points System – The True Story

So, how does one select a winner? If you’re a formula 1 fan, you think the guy who wins most races in a season wins it. Well, not quite so.

F1 racing works on a controversial points system which seems to be biased on making the sport more competitive, more interesting and hence more appealing to the viewers and fans. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying making a sport more competitive is bad. In fact as a viewer its great. You’re making races closer than ever, the balance of championship goes till the last race and its good for the sport (with more sponsers, ticket sales, etc).

However, I think the new system is not as fair as it should be. Because the drivers in the second and third places are not too far away from the race winner in terms of points, its not necessary that the guy who won the most number of races in an year would win the title, as the 2008 season showed us.

So, here are the facts. I took the standings from all of the 18 races, recorded the standings of the first 8 drivers and teams (for constructor’s standings), and calculated the final points tally with the old and the new system. So first, here is the results table (click on the image to view the spreadsheet on Google docs):

2008 Race Results

So, here is the calculation of points based on the current points system (click on the image to view the spreadsheet on Google docs):

2008 Standings - Current Points System

As you can see, Hamilton won this championship by one point. But here is the problem, Hamilton has won less number of races that Massa in 2008. The points difference is 10, which he made up by finishing higher in other places more number of times. Now, I’m not saying the FIA conceived a devious plan at the end of 2002 to ensure Hamilton wins the 2008 season and becomes “the first black driver to win a championship in Formula One” (wikipedia, not me) and the youngest ever champion.

How does the points tally look if we use the system in existence prior to 2003, here it is:

2008 Standings - Old Points System Prior to 2002

As you can see, Massa wins this one by three points. Now, how does the points tally looks if we use an older system which was in existance during 1985-1990. Here is it:

2008 Old Points 1985-1990

So, what do intend to prove? Not that Hamilton is not a deserved winner, not that F1 is unfair. I conclude that no system is perfect, and FIA instated this system to ensure the sport is more competitive but not not not perfect.

Vamsi Krishna Duvvuri

MBA Class of 2009

Goizueta Business School