What if F1 Championships were decided by your best 13 results?

[@GewoonGw]

The reason that this worked back then because this is a good way to filter out reliability of the car i would say. Nowadays the cars are so reliabal that this isnt needed anymore

[@mairao]

Totally agree. If this is ever brought back I hope they limit it to 1-2 races and only for the Drivers not for the Constructors.

[@ColHanko]

Gerrit-Willem Smit yeah but I think Hamilton would’ve absolutely battered everyone (I haven’t watched yet) coz he would’ve got 11 wins and 2 2nd places. That’s OP as hell

[@artur1319]

Gerrit-Willem Smit yes, very reliabal

[@m_g_khatravinsky]

Was about to make the same point in the comments. The very motivation behind the discard system was pretty much all about the poor reliability of F1 cars back then.

[@cookingwithmike56]

2018 Daniel Ricciardo disagrees

[@Susko586]

The discard system made more sense with unreliable cars, where driver had to retire frequently due to mechanical issues. But to be honest, I like the idea of drivers racing to win and not settle down for a P4...

[@DarthEvilicus]

Nanba Mutta well to get that you have to get rid of power unit allocations. Australia a few years ago Hamilton was chasing down a leading Vettel but was told to turn down the car to conserve power unit life. I think the fans were denied a possible great showdown.

[@timothyheimbach3260]

There also isn't as much of a penalty for needing new engines because you just scrap the points from that race

[@fenhen]

Roger Dodger The problem is that there’s too much data. Strip back the data on the engines, and when it goes bang it goes bang. Makes for more exciting racing at least.

[@avada0]

"I like the idea of drivers racing to win and not settle down for a P4" That is what the larger point gap between the first couple positions accomplishes.

[@avada0]

@@DarthEvilicus What you need to get rid of is radio communications and team orders. And viewing the drivers as part of a team. (They should be treated as independent candidates entered by a team)

[@robertroot6317]

I think the discard system is unfair. I feel like it downplays consistency too much.

[@daniellee4003]

It totally destroys the grid penalty system: for every race that is discarded, just take a 1000 place grid penalty and bring a whole new car to the next few races...

[@Starfire_Storm]

You know what this reminds me of somewhat? The horrible playoffs system in NASCAR, where I think 24 out of the 36 races are non playoffs race, if you win a race of the first 24, you're automatically in the playoffs and you can win the championship even if you suck at the other 24. Then you just have to do well in the playoffs races and you'll win the championship, like what happened in 2015 with Kyle Busch, he missed half of the season because of an injury and he still won the championship. Maybe it's not as extreme as the NASCAR playoffs, since in that horrible thing there's the possibility you could win the first 35 races and finish second in the last race and lose the championship, so atleast the discard system is not that awful, but it still means that you could win the necesary ammount of races and then dissapear for the rest of the season and you'll still win the championship.

[@keisuketakahasi4584]

@@daniellee4003 they could just give - points on your total points like you would normally have 300 points but you replaced 5 engines instead of 3 and got -10 points or so. thats the smallest issue really

[@silkyz68]

But, if you are constantly getting podium, what's the matter?

[@bentoghill9418]

@@Starfire_Storm i'm so confused

[@TripleTSingt]

love these more "mathy" videos.

[@tsgoten]

TTTMusic as a math major it’s obvious watching these videos that Stuart has a lot of formal training in math.

[@Zak-ob5ze]

*mathsy Maths not math

[@Jimaybob]

Tarang Srivastava oh yeah, only a real math genius could add points together from 13 races. Jesus Chris stem dweebs love patting their own backs

[@nilen]

Jimaybob 😂😂

[@Blauefrucht]

When showing the best 19 races at 3:36, the total for Leclerc is given as 50. I should probably still show 264.

[@sibbyrobson3404]

Raptor-Eins-Null what you on about that was correct 😂

[@lebophetla1239]

The consistant: Hamilton The improver: Leclerc The wobbler: Vettel The all/nothing: Verstappen In all seriousness, this was an awesome video though

[@valeboh]

Yes, but Hamilton makes always 25/26 point

[@benguest4834]

Hamilton fits in another, seperate category not mentioned in this scenario. The champion. It's like a combination of the good aspects of both the consistent, and the all/nothing. You consistently take the "all" part.

[@mstrlrs]

Is the oranje helmet an coincidence? I think not.

[@pointlesscine]

Verstappen? That's an odd way to spell Grosjean

[@seventh-hydra]

I feel like Hamilton started out as an All or Nothing type, it's what made me really like him in his early career. That really aggressive, just plain fast driving style, like Senna. I think he's just matured and experienced enough to not make those 'nothing' mistakes

[@RegitYouTuber]

I think this sounds like something we'd find exciting, but is something we'd soon realise was a bad idea when our favourite drivers are getting torpedoed off the track by someone gunning for the win at all costs

[@corbinselanne7990]

Someone like, say, Kvyat? He IS known as 'The Torpedo' thanks to Vettel, after all.

[@sebastianlucero4571]

crashtappen

[@formulafish1536]

I like seeing consistency win. It's a bit like a game of chess. whilst going all out can seem good in the short term, this can come back to bite you later on. A smart player will have pieces to sacrifice, and bait the erratic player into taking them. In Formula 1, with current rules the erratic driver is going all out to win, but in term potentially crashing and/or hurting the reliability of the engine and gearbox, which are limited. So, whilst Mr Consistent is scoring points across the season, and is able to capitalise on the failures of others, Mr Erratic is constantly trying to get the most points to make up for mistakes and failures in other races. This is how Ricciardo defeated Verstappen in 2016 and 2017, in 2018 however Daniel copped the worst of the reliability failures at the end of the season. This is also how Hamilton has been so good. He puts his efforts into being smooth and consistent, therefore putting less strain through the car, resulting in less failures, and more points. I always believe that you should be rewarded for playing the long game, and carefully thinking about each race, and work out how to deal with every possible scenario before it happens, so you know how to continue. When I league race, I have 2 or 3 strategy plans, especially on Forza where I am actually quick. If I am at the front, and in clean air, you go long and pit late. If you are at the back, you pit early and use the clean air to undercut everyone, and if you simply don't have the pace, you follow those around you, so you can capitalise on their decisions, and hopefully keep them behind you. Through this I have 3 Forza race wins from about 40 starts, and probably 30 podiums. All this being said, you need to account for crashes and DNF's as well, which is easier said than done. I have had 1 Forza DNF, which was an internet drop out when I was on for a P3. Due to this, and a couple of tough results in my current V8 Supercars championship, I am third in the championship, but 200 points off the lead. After round 1 I was in about tenth, 160 points off. My 2 wins, and 2 further podiums so far have helped, but I haven't been consistent across all the rounds, especially struggling in the reverse grid races where I am caught up in the craziness that my championship rivals seem to get through without trouble. My strategies have helped me here, but I need to smooth out my resutls, because other than 2 wins, a second and a third, my next results are 5th, 6th, 7th and DNF. In the races with those results, my rival won 3 and came second in the 4th. Costing me nearly 250 points, about 30 of which I have pulled back with my 2 wins.

[@stevecox8948]

This is how Alain Prost drove, which is why he was called the professor

[@Editor_Hound]

Amazing to think consistent drivers like Lauda, Stewart and Prost thrived under those pretty unfair old ranking systems. But then again, it's not like they weren't winning races at all.

[@michaelcollins966]

Lauda's 84 season is generally considered the classic case of the consistent driver beating the outright fastest driver (even though there were no dropped points due to atrocious reliability). Lauda had more top 2 finishes than Prost, but only beat Prost on track twice all season. Lauda was constantly winning, but Prost was consistently winning slightly more. It was this season that Prost learned the calculating point collecting approach that Lauda used to beat him (remember that Prost had no championships at this point) - one of the characteristics that would form 'The Professor'

[@TodoEnjoyer]

Can you make a video showing us how you would make your ideal circuit

[@ivan_pozdeev_u]

He already did a video on circuit design and shown exactly that -- how the design was improving over the years based on feedback on what worked and what didn't.

[@keyboardwarrior327]

I can guess who would have won the title in 2013. Edit: and 2004.

[@Niko-he4ji]

It's Michael Schumacheer

[@saltyyf1802]

Seb won 9 in a row that year DOMINATION!

[@aboredperson4202]

@@saltyyf1802 He won 13 that season as well

[@Starfire_Storm]

And 2002

[@keisuketakahasi4584]

and 2002

[@leo1fun]

I think the discard system was something to minimize the randomness of reliability issues that the cars had for a long, long time. In modern era F1, say, 90s onwards, it became less of a factor, and in recent times, even less. So I think the video is spot on at analyzing the sporting implications of such a system, which would be the main area of motivation for making this change. I think we should stick to not discarding anything, but perhaps making changes to the points-per-race if we want to make drivers risk a bit more.

[@tnexus13]

Mr Consistent vs All/Nothing. So, Prost vs Senna?

[@ayoutubeuser7613]

Prost should have won that championship as the system for points was unfair because it was against consistency and he had the most points.

[@fenhen]

A KZbin User You can’t possibly say that, because they’re playing to the rules that are there.

[@ayoutubeuser7613]

@@fenhen but when it's a weird unnecessary rule? I mean Prost was more consistent, what can be a lot better than win or lose like senna, but no, they change the rules in a way to make it more difficult for consistent drivers.

[@avada0]

@@ayoutubeuser7613 By a good margin as well. Is there another champion racer as unlucky as him? Scoring 11 points more than the rival (when a win's only worth 9) yet still losing out. Losing a championship by half a point, two points. With slightly better luck he easily would have been a 7 times champion.

[@samcarlin2285]

Senna was a genius Prost was a politician

[@keyboardwarrior327]

As a former NASCAR fan, I cringe every time point system revisions are brought up.

[@Ewane]

Keyboard Warrior in all fairness, I actually quite like the 40-35-34-33-32-31 etc. points system used now, just minus all the stage points, playoff points etc.

[@Starfire_Storm]

@@Ewane The points system itself it's pretty good, it's the playoffs bs that ruins it

[@samuelsunnyd7187]

@@Starfire_Storm Yeah, but I also hate how stages de-value final finishing position. A battle for 10th on lap 60 out of 200 means just as much in terms of point differential as a battle for 2nd at the finish, which seems dumb to me and oversaturates points scoring.

[@Christoph5782]

Keyboard Warrior the Yeah, like the chase wasn't a horrible idea and it did a good enough job at finding a line between integrity and entertainment, but the playoff system it has evolved into is a complete joke

[@fernandoueno8668]

Stage points ruin it, because they make someone who finish in the top 5 score less points than other drivers who got a lot of stage points but finished poorly

[@gigakubica9326]

2019 williams top 15 best results 1 point and (insert 14 zeros)

[@jamesmiller7712]

100,000,000,000,000 points? :o

[@gigakubica9326]

@@jamesmiller7712 well 1 point and 14 other 0 points

[@satagaming9144]

Williams: The nothing or nothing.

[@Revzinator]

I think it would have been interesting to compare the existing system to the discard system (11 results) with the point system that was used at that time (9-6-4-3-2-1). There was a discard system because there was not so much differential in points between postions. So that system was designed to give advantage to the drivers who were battling for the win.

[@michaelcollins966]

*there was actually a greater differential in points under the 9-6-4-3-2-1 system than today's system. i.e. the percentage difference is great between the positions. Nevermind the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system which reward race winners even more so.

[@Revzinator]

Indeed but I was trying to compare apples to apples. With the old 9 points system, Schumacher would have won 6 championships instead of 7 and Hamilton 5 instead of 6. On the other hand with the 2010-2018 system (it becomes complicated with the fastest lap point in 2019), Prost would have won 6 championships instead of 4. Https://formula1.markwessel.com/champions/champions-alltime

[@KrisRogos]

The whole points system needs looking at, the cars are so reliable now it's becoming silly that only top 10 get points and that they are so heavily skewed to one side. With the top 6 locked in to the same drivers every race the remaining 7 teams are fighting over just 4 spots or they have to hope for one of the top drivers to have an issue. Even then it's not enough to make a difference. When a top 6 driver has a manageable issue they still get 10 or 8 points, if they have to retire they don't fall below the midfield standings come the end of the year (both Ferrari drivers retried three times in 2019 and came 4th and 5th, only reason Sainz came 6th is that the 2nd RB drivers swapped mid season).

[@jamham69]

partly that's due to the huge imbalance of performance between the top 3 and everyone else. but yes, personally i believe the points should be on a curve, an exponential growth from last to first. that way the midfield, which is the majority of interesting f1 these days, will be more heavily rewarded and encouraged to play for points, and you'll never see "we should just retire the car, save the engine". top drivers throwing a tantrum when they fall out of the top 10 is ridiculous.

[@colemadonna6284]

I agree with the points needing to be extended further down the field. There is a huge difference between showing up and consistently finishing 11th and showing up and finishing last 20th every race with no DNFs. I know technically that is reflected in the standings, but I think points should go further down to reflect it.

[@noahzarco18]

F1 has 20 drivers what if the grid gets point s like 1st gets 20 2nd grts 19 3rd gets 18 and so on till the 20th where he gets only 1 point?

[@KrisRogos]

@@noahzarco18 not sure if that would work, currently each places 1 through 7 gain 20-30% less points for each position lost and you'd like to keep a good incentive for getting a podium. The top end needs to be higher maybe 40 or so points for the win, dropping 20% with each would be 32 for 2nd, 26 for 3rd and so on with the driver in 15th or 16th getting the final point. Then at least most of the teams get points every race but they still have to stay in it, not retire or be 2 laps down.

[@michaelcollins966]

Genuine question: why extend the points? As has been mentioned, the standings already tiebreak based on position finished. Personally, I think the point system should be there to determine the champion. Points given outside the top 6 are basically participation trophies. When Webber and Minardi got 2 points in 2002 it felt like a huge achievement for both - they actually earned real championship points. Finishing 9th today, you know those points don't contribute towards any meaningful championship contention, so they have the definite feeling of midfield points.

[@RANKKY9]

I'm currently racing in an F2 League on the F1 2019 Game. As I am the "consistent" with currently (after 4 races) one win, one second and two P3's its still hard to beat the guy, who is either winning or scoring "very badly", so your theoretical example is very much true. I guess we will have to change our system for next time, so I could win. But as there are still a few races left, I might still have a chance of winning the Championship And as always: Awesome video, I just love it. As I work a lot with After Effects, I really know how much effort goes into these videos 🎈🎈😎😎

[@Mike23443]

quarantine: *exists* Chain Bear: THE NUMBERS MASON! WHAT DO THEY MEAN?!

[@ryyansheikh2548]

Hahaha

[@Thalanir7]

What about if every position was rewarded with points: 1. 50 2. 44 3. 41 4. 38 5. 34 6. 31 7. 28 8. 25 9. 22 10. 20 11. 10 12. 9 13. 8 14. 7 15. 6 16. 5 17. 4 18. 3 19. 2 20. 1 Note: 3 pts for fastest lap, 1 pt for constructors champ for fastest pit stop and you have to finish (90%) to get points.

[@Angry_Squirrel555]

I think that it would promote more intense racing in the midfield, but the biggest issues up front are more complicated I think. It would be interesting to try it out for a season when the new cars finally debut.

[@scottwilson2631]

If you were going to dropped scores I think the best thing to do would be give each driver 2 drop scores per year but they must use them directly after the race they want to drop points for that way if you hang on to say a 5th place at the penultimate round do you drop it as it’s a bit lower or keep your drop for the final round but what if you then win that race and have to drop the score? Maybe this is just another strategy descision to trip Ferrari up but I think that’s the best way to do it

[@maxwhite6690]

you should have use the 2016 season as an example where 2 or more deletions would have changed the champion

[@MattGoelz]

Since the point system changed to awarding the top 10, 2016 is the only champion that would have changed.

[@matthewlawther9610]

I like the idea of rewarding drivers who take risks in the race and with strategy to obtain better results. Similar in a way to how the NASCAR playoff system rewards winning drivers with automatic qualification. Implementation of this is F1 seems problematic with the current balance of power. Top teams would still dominate and mid-field teams may risk more for better results but still fall short due to top team dominance. If the field were a little more closely matched I think using the throw-away points system may lead to really exciting races particularly towards the end of the season.

[@Toropetskii]

The old scoring systems used this "all-or-nothing" approach because the consistency of the car was basically guaranteed to be poor. Getting a few DNFs in the season was basically guaranteed due to engines giving up. With the latest version of F1 cars, consistency seems basically guaranteed and you can expect the car to perform every week. This means that a consistent driver can be measured as consistent by the consistency of their results, where this was once impossible. In my opinion this consistency makes races boring - but that's not caused by the scoring system, rather the scoring system is a symptom of the consistency.

[@Siniset]

Going into penultimate race of 1988 Prost was leading by five points against Senna. Yet Prost had no chance to wrap up the title (except the scenario where Senna would be unable to race in the final race) while Senna had one.

[@foobar9220]

A discard system is widely used in sailboat racing. I think it works quite well there because it encourages people to try something different (e.g. go left instead of right with everybody else). However, a car racing track is a lot narrower than for sailboats and this effect might not happen. And of course, there is the issue that penalties (or rather bad results caused by penalties) are discarded as well, making penalties meaningless if just get through with it often enough

[@gergelystechnicmodels8565]

The one thing that would be better about this system is that the championship battle would seem to get closer and closer throughout the year. Other than that, I like the current system more as it prioritizes consistency.

[@Max_Flashheart]

Your videos just keep getting better and more polished. I salute you Sir

[@Olivyay]

This makes it all more impressive that Keke Rosberg still managed to clinch the title under such a system.

[@robertofontiglia4148]

It's as I suspected. Once people are locked up for long enough, they just spontaneously start doing maths.

[@stijner1689]

Very interesting. The only thing I think is missing from this analysis is how it would affect midfield teams. I think there the differences are bigger so the impact of changing the system will be as well. Here, the all or nothing type can also be a driver that is just lucky enough to be best of the rest in races where more of the top teams are DNFs. My gut feeling is it would also favour teams that have strengths to particular circuits, instead of teams that build a more allround car. For instance teams with a very good engine but worse chassis (like Williams used to be in '15 and '16) would benefit from this system.

[@michaelcollins966]

It depends whether you think the points system should be designed for mid-field teams, or should be designed for determining a champion. On a related note, I believe that 'consistency' of performance/results is partly to blame for the lack of excitement over the season. The season is dominated by Tilke circuits which all reward the same type of car. We used to have a variety of circuits (Hockenheim, Imola e.t.c.) which would reward different cars and basically guarantee different midfield teams a chance at competing at a few circuits if they designed their car that way. Now, with all circuits the same, if you're 5th fastest at one circuit, you're basically 5th fastest at all circuits.

[@kalactose348]

Last time I was here the comment section was in the right place

[@anurag2009]

Why what happened? It is in the right place.

[@aleksanderginter]

@@anurag2009 DONT UPDATE KZbin APP. THERE'S STILL HOPE FOR YOU, THE NEW ONE IS TERRIBLE

[@drwyyk]

Chain Bear, your consistency is amazing. Every single one of your videos are both interesting and well done, I love it.

[@TheSparcguy]

The consistent: HAM The improver LEC The Wobbler: VET The all or nothing: VER/RIC

[@SassySimian]

That's one thing that does not need to change in F1. All races should count. It makes sense in sailboat racing, because there is a lot of randomness (changes or differences in winds, currents, boat traffic,...) that can affect the racing field and performances of competitors differently in the same race, but just ends up incentivizing unreliable cars and reckless driving in motorsports.

[@zulubunsen9067]

From what I can tell the 'discard' system was mostly in place because F1 drivers weren't as locked down as they are today, moving around teams a bit more or pay drivers who only raced for one or two weekends (mostly in the mid or back fields) -- along with the whole field being much more spread out. Although those teams had even less chance for points than a backmarker today. Nowadays (aside from the occasional Red Bull swaps) even a backmarker team will stay with the same drivers for the whole year and will finish closer and more consistently. Williams may be slow and Haas may have its breakdowns, but they're still much better than a Forti for example.

[@ivan_pozdeev_u]

I'd say the scoring system change reflected the overall change in societal values. At first, we wanted to prove, with racing, that we can "triumph over the forces of nature". So we valued raw top performance, no matter the cost and how long it can last, -- since we either can triumph, at all, or we cannot. Now that we have a definite proof that we can and we did, the next logical step is to be able to do that in a cost-efficient and consistent manner. So we now value not just any performance but a safe, reliable and cost-efficient performance.

[@mozilla2576]

Great video as always. I really enjoy your delivery...so mellow, smart and smooth. Thanks so much for all your work....i just love the knowledge you bring and share. Your fan forever!!

[@SpeedZL1]

Gran Turismo Sport uses a similar point system for their online championship. What ends up happening is drivers really only focus on the races where their car is competitive and I fear something like it may happen in F1. Like Red Bull might just punt their result at Spa to focus on Monaco or whatever

[@luscorpio3679]

Yeah, but at the same time, I feel like it's more fair for people like me who don't necessarily have the time to do every race, and it also tones down the randomness of being the victim of a collision due to a driver being stupidly aggressive (which happens a lot if you're not a A driver)

[@smaspa8627]

Your videos are ALWAYS appreciated, and these kinds of stats-based videos are certainly interesting, but I gotta say, I yearn for more videos about technical aspects of the cars themselves then technical aspects of scoring breakdowns. There's only so many spreadsheets I can watch...

[@Warmagon]

I think that the current system and rewards for consistency is pretty good. Rewarding all or nothing driving or mechanical design seems likely to result in more injuries and broken cars (increasing costs and waste)

[@sofknupbeat]

Wanted to let you know I really appreciate your videos! Along with Tommo, CrankyYankee, and a few others you really got me into F1, enough I'm buying a racing simulator! To show my appreciation, and because I figure its time anyways, I used your code and got NordVPN for 3 years. Thanks again for the entertaining and informative videos!

[@Tsynique]

To me it seems that the discard system has two main advantages. It favors the unreliable cars - although that is much less of an issues these days. Secondly, it favors drivers who have more wins and higher finishing places. In the last example that is clearly visible. The guy who have won more races than others, wins the championship. On the other hand, the one who won a couple of times and took some podiums comes second, lastly the midfield guy who never made podium, comes last. In that regard, I think the discard system makes most sense. Coming back to reliability, the discard system would allow teams to push their equipment a lot harder not fearing too much if a car breaks down once in a while

[@darkshines800]

I'd be onboard but only if you could discard one or two races in a modern 20-odd season. Basically remove the engine failure/torpedo driver event once or twice per season. There's nothing worse than losing the champ because someone screwed you in to turn one and you weren't able to get back on track/limp to a point

[@Ni1996Ki]

I'd like to see that system. Especially if teams could build all or nothing cars like earlier

[@michaelcollins966]

I'd love to see this. I reckon it would give midfield teams a better chance at a podium.

[@jerregaming6009]

It seems like an interesting move to allow a few discards just because sometimes drivers really have bad luck, this would allow people to not fall out of the championship due to crashes or failures. This makes for a more interresting drivers competition. However, crashes and failures are just the challenge for the constructors competition, so these results should not be discarded for the constructor championship.

[@oprose2000]

Decided I should have a look at another alternative scheme, and see what happens if you run the 2019 F1 season under the British Superbikes showdown format - still the same top 5, but the longer tail on the points shakes up the middle places and makes the mid-season driver change unlikely

[@charmi711711]

This also doesn't take into consideration teams changing out engines and components. In a normal season they would only be allowed X PU components and then take penalties once they pass that number. In this drop points format, a team could potentially target races where they know they won't do well and change out everything before the race, drive around in parade mode and move on to the next race with a fresher engine that they can run in higher power modes for longer periods of time. With this new system, ERS components, turbos and gearboxes are basically a free for all and penalties mean nothing since you just throw away a race where you weren't expecting to do well anyways. I can just see a quarter of the field starting from pit lane after changing whole power units at specific races they don't care about. I can't wait for Williams to have a pole at a track like Monaco (I know it's cancelled this year) and all 18 other cars starting from pit lane since they know they don't need full power to get around there anyways.

[@mogul1]

Fantastic presentation!

[@SirRobbins]

I think there could be separate points added for those who finish pole position or top 5 in grid start to award drivers who have great qualifying but may run into issues during the race resulting in not finishing or finishing way behind where they started.... Say, someone starts pole but finishes the race in 5th, they would receive the points for finishing 5th but they'd also have points added for qualifying best. Give drivers more to look forward too in qualifying. If Hamilton gets pole position, the race is over basically.....

[@fredherfst8148]

Nice analysis. I've sailed in some RC (IOM)and and big sailboats. In an RC regatta, you get to drop a bad score after a certain number of races...then another after another set number, etc. lots of stuff can happen to you in those races and usually does. (If you ever want to see some cut throat competition, just go and watch a rc sail regatta). One regatta I was in as a beginner, I was beating myself up for not doing better, then to my total surprise, came in third (out of 20+ boats). i had been consistent and it carried me up. I liked it as a midfield sailor..after every gooched race, I had hope cause it was not going to count.

[@evilzzzability]

I would not be opposed to returning to this system, although probably no more than 3 discarded results from the whole season. In todays era DNFs are too heavily punished imo.

[@michaelcollins966]

DNFs are punished because there's so many points available. Go back to the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system, and that's not as much of an issue

[@evilzzzability]

@@michaelcollins966 I disagree. That would be a catastrophic points system for F1 today with the gap between the top teams and the rest. A fair system must materially recognise and reward good performances lower down the order too.

[@michaelcollins966]

@@evilzzzability , the points system doesn't have to recognise and reward teams further down the order. Originally, the points system was there to determine the champion. Hence why they're called 'Championship points'. When Webber and Minardi got 2 points at the 2002 AusGP it was huge deal. Getting 9th today doesn't have anywhere near the same affect. End of season positions for the bottom teams are already tie broken by finishes outside of the points, points for 7th - 10th are much the same. But I guess this is the age of the participation trophy, so we need lots of points...

[@evilzzzability]

@@michaelcollins966 Thanks for the history lesson. :-s I guess if you think that the most important thing is to determine the champion then you were an avid supporter of Bernie's medals system proposal.

[@dionwithyaboy]

Nice video mate, keep up the good work.

[@RBenjo21]

It’s interesting how each of the models relate to a world champion’s season: “The consistent”: Keke Rosberg, 1982 “The improver”: Sebastian Vettel, 2012 and/or 2013 “The wobbler”: Jenson Button, 2009 “All or nothing”: Jacques Villeneuve, 1997

[@Syagrius91]

I think the topic would be even more interesting, when we assume the old point distribution. Less drivers who get points and the points for win are much smaller compared to the other places.

[@Johan323232]

I would love to see a small update on this now that the 2021 season is over, because it was a season that it feels like these rules would have impacted.

[@DorkingtonHacker]

The quote inspiring this analysis wasn't really saying "keep the best 13 races," it was saying "drop the worst two." This would rarely change the championship results very much, wouldn't be anything like as complicated to follow, wouldn't hit the points ceiling until the penultimate race, and wouldn't really enable the all-or-nothing strategy.

[@Taylor-hd5co]

I still think that the point system needs to give points to all finishers. They want closer racing and that's nice, but it adds more to have a closer championship. Its exciting seeing a driver win by 2 points versus 98. I believe 20 points all the way down to 1 promotes harder and fairer racing because literally every position matters.

[@Branflakes1522]

In my go-karting league growing up, you were able to discard your worst weekend. It worked in that league because everyone had 3 races a weekend and the lineups/starting position were entirely random. It won't work in a league like F1 because everyone participates in every race and you determine your own starting position. Also, they're the worlds best drivers in the worlds most prestigious racing league. If you need 'oopsie' rounds to win the championship then you don't deserve to win the championship. Yes there are reliability issues, but something that makes this league so unique is the constructors championship. Constructors need to be just as consistent as the drivers if they want to win the champioship.

[@ThistleThings]

I guess this system was used because the cars used to break down so much, it wasn’t deemed fair in the drivers. Was looking at the stats for the 99 season the other day, they had less than 10 finishers multiple times! Crazy

[@SUNTZUAcademy]

This system would work pretty well if a number of discarded races was very small. Now we are getting 23 races each season, who knows if FIA won't add even more in the future but it would be pretty acceptable to count only 20 best results, cutting of 3 or slightly more unfortunate races for each driver. Taking 2021 as an example, Max had 4 unlucky races: 3 DNFs and 1 9th place due to massive, irreparable damage caused by a Mercedes torpedo. Under "best of 20" rule he discounts his 3 DNFs but any more bad luck than that (Hungary) will count. Hamilton had only one DNF but also plenty of races where he didn't score well: Monaco and Turkey for example. Abu Dhabi wouldn't be as close as it was but the championship decider would still be at the very last race and the overall championship result would honestly be more fair. You still reward consistency very well but also cut down on bad luck affecting the championship too much - unless your name is Ricciardo and your Renault engine and other stuff causes you to have 8 DNFs in a season. This could also lead to more tactical engine penalties that could also be increased to cut down on the BS that Mercedes was pulling towards the end of the season, but then again, if they didn't have such a massive advantage over other cars then they wouldn't get away with it as much as they did.

[@jorge8596]

A points system should reward consistency. A driver who can't be consistent can't be considered the best driver in the world, and a car that explodes 50% of the time can't be the best car on the grid. Consistency is key, and discarding races would throw that out of the window

[@6038am]

Another issue is that for a top driver/team is that if they see they can't win or get good points, they kan retire for the race and get a free change of gearbox and other parts for the next race and not loosing any points.

[@AlexRochette]

@2:35 What’s the reason for Verstappen’s 19 in Hungary?

[@cristianoliveira7491]

I'm not 100% sure but I think it's because he finished 2nd (18 points), and did the fastest lap of the race (plus 1 point), so 19 at the end.

[@benguest4834]

@@cristianoliveira7491 Can confirm

[@dimitrimariutto]

A fair system today might be a driver being able to discount 1 or 2 races for the Drivers championship, due to reliability or bad luck, but the Manufacturers championship should count all the races

[@alvarosouviron1674]

I think changing to that scoring system really would improve racing (all logistical and legal details aside), which I guess is what people want after all

[@JDSilins]

Enjoyed the video. While I wouldn't enjoy this points system, I have always had an issue with the current point system - the winner gets too large of an advantage. The point gap between 1st and 2nd really devalues being 'best of the losers'. My favorite point system was always top 8 scoring points, which I believe is an unsung hero in 2007, 2008 and 2009 championship battles - that felt like every place mattered, while the top 6 and top 10 score systems feel like everyone matters but my man - STEVE. DUDE, HAVE YOU HEARD OF STEVE IN 1ST, HE LIKE REALLY MATTERS. In conclusion, I want a reduced advantage for the winner and for someone named Steve to be in F1.

[@beeblebug]

I think it also increases the All or Nothing approach at the earlier races, as you still have plenty of races to get your 13 scores in. I think you could get some really weird tactics towards the back end of the season as well, let's say Hamilton had wrapped up all his good scores and didn't really benefit from getting the wins, but Leclerc was close to overtaking Bottas on points, would Mercedes send hamilton out to disrupt Leclerc so that Bottas got a better boost to his points. It could be a very interesting system, and maybe leade to some more exciting racing with drivers going for it more and then defending their totals towards the end of the season.

[@Standaardnaam]

The discard system helps to reduce the influence of mistakes by other drivers taking out top contenders. Which is nice.

[@elliotfannon]

Using all of them places a better emphasis on consistency, a consistent racer is the champion.

[@bhatkrishnakishor]

I would like to see a scoring system that rewards both consistency and risk taking. Allow drivers take (X) best scores and for constructor count all points for the season.

[@A-BYTE64]

What would you say about "Points for top 12" ? 1. 35p 2. 27p 3. 22p 4. 18p 5. 15p 6. 12p 7. 9p 8. 6p 9. 4p 10. 3p 11. 2p 12. 1p 2Points for The Fastest Lap in the Race* * but you must be at least on 12th position

[@jcota2003]

I think that if you are going to do a top n results you also need to change the points system. With only top 10 receiving points it doesn't work as well. But what about a drop worst and average across all. It prioritizes consistency but also performance. Because 1 bad result is not a big deal. 2 or more can have a disastrous effect.

[@GertJr17]

To be honest, I prefer a system that rewards a consistent driver. I don't really like rewarding reckless drivers. My favorite points system was actually 10,8,6,5,4,3,2,1. It almost helped Kimi get the 2003 season which I really enjoyed.

[@lucde_ville4743]

I believe part of why there was a discard-system, was because of teams not participating in every race in the season. Back in the (good?) old days, there were really good racers, who only could afford to attend european races, for example. With that system, they still had a shot at the title. Nowadays, team have to participate in all races. Also, as mentioned by others, it filters out reliability. And that is not a big issue now. So, the system of discarding the bad "n" results is no longer valid. Plus Ferrari would probably veto it, with a threat to walk away from the sport.

[@TenorCantusFirmus]

Discards might actually work to curb down a bit a too dominant team too - I once tried computing the standings of the past Season while counting only the best two thirds of races (13 out of 20, a similar proportion to the 11 of 16 in the '80s) and not only there was a narrower eventual gap between Mercedes' and "rest-of-the-field"'s drivers, but Bottas might have remained in contention for the Title against Hamilton for a bit longer (still, the latter would have won with at least one race to spare). Because by now cars have more consistent performances throught the various circuits, and their capacities outweight those of the drivers even more than it was in the past, I'd say counting just the best results might still have sense.

[@kevenguimaraes]

I do like the concept. Would definitely encourage more drivers to go all out fighting for the win

[@sillysailor5932]

Wouldn't this lead to drivers dropping out of races earlier. If you have a problem (grid penalty, bad start etc) would you be incentivised to drop out instead of fighting for a handful of points? Wouldn't a system where you counted the 10 worst races be better? The drivers would have to fight for every place even on their worst races

[@naz9481]

How about only 1 point gap for all positions except any last place? (1st: 20 points - 19th: 2 points, Any last place: 0 point) So probably the fight for title or places in standings will go all the way to the last race.

[@lake4ishikawa]

I think number of wins, then number of second places, then thirds like the medal rankings in the olympics could be very interesting

[@Mike23443]

Another reason why this system wouldn't work anymore, is that back in the day there were fewer points available for fewer positions. If you scored 9, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 the way it has been done for nearly 50 years (with slight differences), then there is a much higher amount of 0 score races for drivers to discard. Either way, I don't think this is a useful rule. The scoring system in racing is always unfair because at the end of the day, after about 2 hours of racing, you earn points for only 1 second of the entire race. And that is the finish. If you want a holistic scoring system, then you would have to rate every little thing every driver does across an entire race weekend. points for qualifying, for gap in qualifying, laps lead in the race, fastest laps earned, total race time, etc. etc. Only then could you maaaaybe get a system that accurately rates a driver's performance.

[@alexemcasa01]

The discard points system was dropped in 1990 by Jean Marie Balestre to protect Alain Prost, a consistent pilot of the aggressive Ayrton Senna, so now we have drivers that most of time do their job carrying the rule book under their armpits and the races are so boring, compared the old ones.

[@jeanbigboute]

Discard at the team level: Pick races to drop but it affects both drivers.

[@regaltheif]

Could switch to the NASCAR point system, where if you win the first race, you can completely check out until the last couple of races.

[@janvdveen]

I couldn't help but think of a point scoring system which is used in a yearly sailing competition in The Netherlands called Skutsjesilen. The point scoring is reversed. Winner gets 0.9 points, Second gets 2 points,Third gets 3 points etc. Only 14 ships compete in a 11 race championship. You can scratch your worst result, but only 1. You can get penalized by the 'stewards' for not obeying starboard/larboard rules, which leads to 14 non deductable points. Which really means if you get penalized, your championship is ruined. This system applied to F1 would be bonkers, but fun to think about. The fact that every position in the race really means something, should be looked at in my opinion. Because, finishing on the 11th place for 20 races should mean more than a one time 10th position and 12 DNF's for example.

[@kayeloop674]

I do admit its an interesting concept pushing everyone to basically race for the win but if they crash out and get no points its not that big of a deal. It will also benefit teams when they have dnf’s as there entire season wouldn’t be compromised a several of those in the beginning of the season. I think F1 should look into something like that again also pay points further down perhaps to 12-15

[@Hirosjimma]

It would also make it 'easier' to compare seasons with more/fewer races, as long as there have been at least enough races to meet the cutoff point.

[@nickmckenzie4827]

Is there another consideration here though that says that perhaps if teams new they could discard 5 races, for example, they would push their cars/engines harder knowing they could afford some breakdowns if things went badly wrong? Might make for some interesting races if cars were less reliable than they are these days.

[@randomisedjacob]

Maybe this would stop drivers from "just settling" for whatever position they are in and fighting a bit harder, although they generally fight pretty hard the way it is currently

[@Taziod]

So discard system incentivises winning? Seems good.

[@sonofswen808]

I can see where NASCAR was inspired to make their playoff system, albeit with considerably more jank. Maybe dropped scores could be a compromise to return to the pre-chase era without abandoning wins over consistency.

[@kenk9164]

You are the Formula 1 Champion of pedantic what-if scenarios. Please keep up the good work 👍

[@Trendyflute]

Dang you Stuart; you had me convinced we should do a 2020-21 F1 superseason with dropped scores a few videos ago; now you've convinced me we should never do dropped scores! Argh! :P

[@MaxScheibenpflug]

10:01 completely explains 1:57

[@clansome]

The number of drivers who got points when we had discard was much smaller and the points awarded were lower. Also it wasn't just their worst results of the season as it was limited to 1 in first half and 1 in the second half up until 1979 when it got just silly. Personally I felt it was never right to discard races as a convenience, much like the "double points for the last race back in 2014.

[@y_fam_goeglyd]

I agree with Gerrit-Willem Smit except for two circumstances. For example, if you're in the title fight, but get taken out a few times by an imaginary Swiss-Frenchman say, then it's neither the team's nor the driver's fault that the DNFs occurred. When that happens, and the normal run of points is around, then those who dodged being taken out will benefit far more in the long-term. However, with some dropped scores, it's possible that the victim of the shunts would be able to write those off and not be forced into driving at max speed in every other race to try to make up for it. That could end up being a safer strategy, because driving to the maximum of one's ability _all the time_ is a recipe for disaster. Having said that, whenever I've seen dropped scores in place, from the old F1 to many other series, it's been very confusing for the fans because they have to keep track of who's doing what and when! It's particularly confusing towards the end of a close season! I guess it's like the old aggregate scores after a stopped race, having to watch the distance between the various front-runners in time as well as physical distance to figure out if one driver will win despite finishing the restart in 5th or whatever! I'm loving these videos where you play with stats Stuart. I'd love to see you do one (or both!) where the motorbike points system is in play - 1st to 15th, (and the both thing is adding the fastest lap to anyone who scores - I am fairly certain that happens in at least one biking series I watch), then apply said points further back in time to "sample" years from each decade, particularly as this is the 70th anniversary IIRC - I've lost track, tbh. Though you can leave out those years where sharing cars was possible if you want. I was just thinking that it might give your younger viewers a better understanding of how good some drivers actually were back then when their total points scored in their careers might not otherwise show it. Cheers!

[@damiendavidson3233]

I like the discard system concept because I believe the racing would be more exciting. It may be less fair for the competitors, as the video shows. In the end it's mainly hypothetical and unlikely to be readopted.

[@TheRealGirlWeeb]

1. even advertisements sound good in your voice ... 2. what if 2 drivers, in a season with an even number of races, get the exact same results (wins, 2nds, fastest laps, etc.)? Who would win?

[@niklasswoboda6238]

Qualifying. Like who got more poles, 2nd, 3rd, .... you get the picture.. If they STILL have the exact same results (and I swear I am not joking this is actually how they would proceed) they just flip a coin and determine it that way

[@niklasswoboda6238]

I have to correct myself: this WAS the procedure but apparently they changed it someday and now if two drivers have the exact same results the FIA will "nominate the winner to such criteria as it thinks fit" So yeah no real answer, guess we'll have to wait for it to happen

[@muhmonsta]

Back then they made cars that should last a Race. Now they make cars that have to last a season. So the change of the point system was necessary. But i think if Consistency wins, a win should no get so much points more than second place.

[@sebastiangieger7874]

It's quite incredible how Sainz stays in 6th in those changed up 2019 championships even if take away quite a lot of races. You would think Albon and Gasly would hugely benefit from this points system as their races in a better car are in a way valued more this way.