How a points revolution would change F1

Formula 1 has had plenty of different points systems over the years, but none have been as dramatic as Liberty Media's proposal to award points to all finishers in each grand prix.

The rationale is that this ensures all teams and drivers down the order will race hard for position, even when the top 10 is out of reach, and that the ranking of the teams and drivers reflects all results.

But the big question is, will it do anything for anyone and what will it change?

When I started in F1 with Brabham in 1973, the points system was 9-6-4-3-2-1 awarded to the top six finishers. To complicate matters, there were various different dropped-score rules during this period.

In 1991, the year I came back to F1 as technical director with Jordan, it went to 10 points for a win. Then, in 2003, points went down to eighth on a 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 basis prior to the current 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1 system coming in for '10.

When the number of cars awarded points went from six to eight in 2003, it was a real help for the teams. It meant you had something to sell to the sponsors, since going into a meeting and being able to say you had 20 points is much better than saying you had picked up a load of sevenths and eighths but with nothing to show for it.

It was then felt that the two-point step between first and second did not offer enough of an incentive or reward for pushing for a victory, leading to the change to the current system.

Whatever happens, there are positives and negatives to any points systems. What the current arrangement does is make it easier to run away with championships too early in the season because of that big step between the top positions.

Perhaps the worst move was the very unpopular double-points system introduced for the last race of 2014. Then, Lewis Hamilton went into the season finale with a 17-point lead over Mercedes team-mate Nico Rosberg. Thanks to Rosberg retiring, Hamilton won the championship by a massive 67 points.

The current arrangement makes it easier to run away too early in the season

Thankfully, that system didn't change the destination of the championship and it was quietly dropped. The feeling is that all the races should count equally for the championship, and it would be wrong for a driver or team to lose it all because of bad luck or incident just because F1 wanted to increase the chances of the championship going down to the wire.

This new proposal to give points to every classified finisher is an interesting one. So, I have set what I consider to be a fair hypothetical distribution and taken a look at how that would have impacted the championship.

My system is based on the following structure: 100-75-60-48-38-30-24-19-15-12-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.

On face value, the 25-point step between first and second looks too big a difference. But if you consider that three wins versus a rival finishing second gives you a 75-point advantage, which is what you'd get for a second place finish, the proportions are similar to the 21-point gain you'd have under the current system. This system actually means the driver finishing second is slightly closer, which could slow a runaway winner.

Here's how the current championship would look based on this system:

There are few dramatic changes compared to the current positions. In the constructors' championship, Sauber moves ahead of Toro Rosso into eighth place on revised points, largely thanks to having three more race finishes.

In the drivers' championship, the only change in the top six is Valtteri Bottas moving ahead of Daniel Ricciardo. Kevin Magnussen also moves up a couple of places in the championship to seventh.

Looking back at previous completed seasons, the drivers' and constructors' championship winners remain unchanged, with only minor swapping around. But the most significant change would have been in 2011, where Mark Webber would move up to third ahead of Fernando Alonso.

I suppose you could argue it would mean fighting for a position in the lower midfield would be more important than it currently is, but these guys are racers no matter where they are through the field. You should, and they do, always want to beat the driver ahead otherwise they wouldn't be there.

What a new system would unquestionably do is stop teams strategically withdrawing cars late-on to be allowed to fit a fresh gearbox.

With no points for a DNF, simply finishing would be rewarded, so reliability would become just that bit more important than it currently is. These cars are now more reliable than they have ever been, but it would also mean if you have a problem during the race it would be in your interest to try to get up and running again.

Will the underdog suddenly come out on top? No, but it will mean the underdog is actually fighting for something

Currently, the sporting regulations dictate you are not classified if you cover less than 90% of the distance completed by the race winner, which is rounded down to the nearest complete lap. So at Silverstone, for example, you could stop on lap 47 and still be classified.

People will argue that it will distort the historical points records and make it impossible to make comparisons, but that's already happened before, so it's not really a valid argument. This is why I always use percentages when I compare things to compensate for the input figures changing.

So, is such a change good or bad? The only thing you can say for sure is it will be different. Will it mean the underdog suddenly comes out on top? No, but it will mean the underdog is actually fighting for something.

It could mean that the days of one lucky finish of 10th and the point that comes with it resulting in a squad outdoing another team with a host of 11th and 12th places are gone.

My worry about Liberty Media, F1's now not-so-new owner, is that it is skirting around the periphery of the problems and applying piecemeal changes.

Making F1 more attractive by adding glitz and glamour is fine, but the inherent problem of the cars not being able to run closely together means the rewards are weighted unevenly towards the big boys.

The smaller teams have basically no hope of success, and that needs to be tackled because with only 10 teams and 20 drivers on the grid it could very quickly shrink through lack of finance. The manufacturers could then, with only themselves to beat, walk away. It has happened before.

Looking back at the British Grand Prix last weekend, I have to say the BRDC put on a great event. Weather has so often been the downfall (or should that be downpour?) of Silverstone but this year was fantastic.

Hopes were high for a Hamilton win, but he had to be satisfied with a recovery drive to second after being clipped into a spin by Kimi Raikkonen on the first lap.

I have to say that I feel Mercedes are fairly bad losers. To suggest that Raikkonen's touch was intentional is really not on. It was a first lap racing incident, so just accept it and move on.

Hamilton is only eight points behind Vettel with eleven races to go. F1 needs this sort of nip and tuck competition, but it doesn't need sour grapes like from those at the centre of the action.

For Toto Wolff and Niki Lauda to hint at dirty tactics shows they are poor sportsmen who need to look at the real source of the problem. The Mercedes' starts are very poor compared with Ferrari's.

And while I'm on that subject, in my opinion the first lap incident between Vettel and Bottas in Paul Ricard was also just a racing accident. Bottas could see better than anyone that Vettel got a mega start and was blocked in by Hamilton in front of him, but still he tried to go around the outside.

If you put yourself on the outside of anyone, especially at the first corner on the first lap of a race when no-one really knows how the brakes and tyres are going to perform, then you're asking for trouble. In both cases, the Mercedes drivers were doing just that.

Vettel's overtake of Bottas was mega. So more of that, please, and if it takes a strategically deployed safety car to achieve it then so be it!

I said after Romain Grosjean's crash during Friday practice, which happened right in front of me, that keeping the ability to use the DRS through Turn 1 was going to end up with someone either trying to take a risky advantage or just not closing it early enough. Well, it happened.

Marcus Ericsson was the guilty one in the race, and again ended up costing Sauber many thousands of Euros through a completely unnecessary accident.

But everything has a negative and a positive: the required safety car led to both Ferraris and Max Verstappen pitting and fitting the soft tyres.

Mercedes made another questionable strategy decision and left both its drivers out. It was not so bad for Hamilton as his tyres were reasonably fresh, albeit only four laps older, but the team hung Bottas out to dry by not bringing him in for fresh ones.

It was all about track position, but since Bottas's tyres were well past their sell-by date that track position was all about him being able to hold off Vettel and then hoping Hamilton would be able to nip past.

In the end, he paid the price as his tyres dropped off the cliff a few laps before the end, relegating him from the lead to fourth, while Hamilton wasn't able to threaten Vettel. So please don't talk about sportsmanship when you destroy your own drivers' potential race finish.

After the second safety car we had 11 laps left to run and that was what I would like to see F1 racing becoming - between the top four and even the top six it was no-holds barred to the chequered flag.

Vettel's overtake of Bottas was mega. So more of that, please, and if it takes a strategically deployed safety car to achieve it then so be it!

You can talk about points all you want, but what people will remember is the pass for the lead with five-and-a-half laps to go. Whether it's worth 100, 25, 10 or no points, that's what really matters.