Records are there to be broken. By Vettel...

Edited by thiscocks, 28 September 2011 - 15:45.

Because of the changing numbers the only sensible comparison tools are those expressed as a %age of the potential maximum, whether wins, poles, podium positions, fastest laps etc and whether over a season or a career.

What is to a large extent independent of the variable factors ( number of races, points per race, number of points to drop) etc is the date on which a driver clinched the championship. I can't remember who holds thr record for earliest,but I think it has been achieved by Monza/ mid-September on at least one occasion. So Vettel has missed this one by 1 point.

I think the earliest date on which the title was clinched is 16 July - 1955 British Grand Prix at Aintree, JMF.

Helped, of course, by there being only one more race.

I can't remember who holds thr record for earliest,but I think it has been achieved by Monza/ mid-September on at least one occasion. So Vettel has missed this one by 1 point.

Edited by Kpy, 28 September 2011 - 14:01.

You also have to apply the Jenkinson test: "who did he beat?" Ascari's opposition in 1952 was very poor: only his team mates or a works Maserati, preferably driven by Fangio, were serious contenders (also Gordini when they could). Fangio didn't appear in any championship races that year, and Maserati only competed in Italy. Bonetto raced in Germany but few would expect him to challenge for a win, Things were harder in 1953 but Vettel's opposition this year has been very good by any standards.

Things were harder in 1953 but Vettel's opposition this year has been very good by any standards.

Well, there are certainly plenty of other drivers out there that are as good as Vettel if not perhaps better, but it really always reverts back to equipment. Was it Mark Donohue, or maybe Vic Elford who spoke about the "unfair advantage" meaning a car that was highly superior to the others in competition. It's what they all strive for really and what Vettel has now.

While watching the Singapore race the other day I kept thinking they should give Vettel a drive through penalty every lap just to give the others a chance. The rest of the field are running for first in class.

Edited by stevewf1, 28 September 2011 - 17:34.

Well, there are certainly plenty of other drivers out there that are as good as Vettel if not perhaps better, but it really always reverts back to equipment. Was it Mark Donohue, or maybe Vic Elford who spoke about the "unfair advantage" meaning a car that was highly superior to the others in competition. It's what they all strive for really and what Vettel has now.

While watching the Singapore race the other day I kept thinking they should give Vettel a drive through penalty every lap just to give the others a chance. The rest of the field are running for first in class.

He is one of the select half dozen or so drivers to have taken back-to-back championships.

Yes and no.

Granted, the Singapore grid is a classic case of "the animals going into the ark", ie they almost line up two-by-two, confirming that at present the car:driver balance is firmly weighted towards the car.

But Vettel is good. He is the only driver good enough to be selected by Red Bull. He is one of the select half dozen or so drivers to have taken back-to-back championships. It's not uncommon for the best driver to end up in the best car. etc etc. In time when we are in a position to look back at his career we'll be able to form a clearer opinion of just how good he is.

But he has eclipsed Webber this year.

(I've always been a percentage man, myself - puts Fangio and Clark in a better light against the modern drivers than merely totalling wins!)

Aren't the points a little less remunerative for wins these days?

That is, doesn't a second place garner a greater percentage of points compared to a win than it did in the 9-6-4-3-2-1 days?

I guess even going from precentages it is harder to get records over alonger season so Vetel is doing well to get close to the all time records.

I always think that these sort of "what ifs" is somewhat like comparing apples and grapefruit - a bit of a pointless exercise!

He's having a great year, and beating the snot out of his teammate, but the extra races per year makes it harder to compare.

Would the inverse have any logic? If you are champion in an 8-10 race season is that worth the same as winning in an 17-20 year?

Well, outright records for most poles, wins, laps lead, etc are easier to set with more races. Other wise, a championship is a championship, irregardless of the numbers.

Anyone keeping tabs on this years scoring using any of the older points scoring systems ?

I think that the top places would be the same for a "medals" system- number of wins, ties decided by number of 2nd places, ....

Interesting that the gap between Vettel and Button is approximately six wins ... but when you use the 2010 system - introduced to give greater reward for winning - Vettel leads by only five wins.

I think the 2010 would have given Graham Hill the 1965 world title. That shows you the worth of the current system.