1964 WC Points

In 1964, both Lorenzo Bandini and Richie Ginther scored 23 points in the Grand Prix World Championship for Drivers. Did they tie for fourth, or was there some type of tie-breaker calculation that made one fourth and one fifth.

There was always a tie-breaker...

The greater number of the highest places achieved did that. So if Ginther got three seconds and Bandini did too, then it would be the one with the most third places and so on...

Originally posted by Ray Bell
There was always a tie-breaker...

The greater number of the highest places achieved did that. So if Ginther got three seconds and Bandini did too, then it would be the one with the most third places and so on...

Ergo . . .

4th: Bandini (one 1st, three 3rds and one 5th)

5th: Ginther (two 2nds, three 4ths and one 5th)

I'm not at all sure sbout this, but think the tie-breaker rule applied only to deciding the winner

Originally posted by David McKinney
I'm not at all sure sbout this, but think the tie-breaker rule applied only to deciding the winner

That was my first thought too, David.

But, having grabbed the nearest of my Yellow Books (1973), Article 13 (a) of the General Prescriptions makes clear that tie-breaks of that sort should have been applied throughout the final table. Additionally, in the event of a tie which was insoluble by that method the final decision would rest with the CSI "on the basis of such considerations as it would deem appropriate."

The Championship table for 1972 in the same volume, however, doesn't bear that out. For example, Carlos Pace is placed above Carlos Reutemann, despite Reutemann's three points coming from one fourth place, while Pace got his from a 5th and 6th! Cevert is above Regazzoni, having taken two second places to Clay's one. But Amon is above Peterson: both had one third and one fourth, but Ronnie had two fifths to Chris' one!

I suspect that in practice it was only used in the event of a tie for a title: if you examine the table, they have in fact listed drivers with equal points alphabetically!

In other words, when the rules were writ, their intent was honourable...

But in practice all they wanted to do was suck up to the winner. Or, as Buford would remind us, 'nobody remembers who came second'!

By the way, if you want to get into the most complex and poorly followed of these kinds of things, you only have to look at the points applied to 2-heat title races in Australia...

The purpose of the points allocation was to ensure that the result was as near as possible to the outcome had it been a single race. Of course, that's not possible, but it was the stated purpose.

So there was a points allocation, I believe it was 20-16-13-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 for the placegetters in each heat.

The snare is in where there are retirements from one or the other of the heats. Let's say, for instance, that Bob Jane blew up his Monza on the first lap of the first heat, but fitted a new engine and came back to win the second.

But Allan Grice, perhaps, won that first one and then got stuck out on the circuit in the fifteenth lap of the second 20-lap heat with a flat tyre jammed in the suspension.

In the meantime, others had problems and it was a big mixup... say...

Heat 1

1. Grice
2. Bond
3. Smith
4. Jones
5. Briggs
6. McRae
7. Lusty
8. Gulson
9. Wilson
10. Rogers
11. Rogerson
12. Harris
13. Poole
14. Gibson

Heat 2

1. Jane
2. Briggs
3. Lusty
4. Gulson
5. Rogers
6. Hamilton
7. Brown
8. Rogerson
9. McRae
10. Holland
11. Collins
12. Jones
13. Poole
14. Harris

On raw points, this gives the overall result:

1. Briggs 26
2. Lusty 21
3. Jane 20
4. Grice 20
5. Gulson 18
6. Bond 16
7. Rogers 15
8. McRae 15
9. Jones 14
10. Smith 13
11. Rogerson 11
12. Hamilton 9
13. Brown 8
14. Wilson 6
15. Holland 5
16. Collins 4
17. Poole 4
18. Harris 4

But then you have to consider an overriding rule, a rule that applies to all races. Did the driver complete 75% of the total distance as required to classify as a finisher?

Jane, we know, didn't... only one lap of the first heat.

Grice, on the other hand, only got stuck out on the circuit with five laps to run out of 40.

So we'd have to go on, looking at completed laps in both heats in the case of lapped cars, until we found the proper finishing order.

Note also that the order I've placed the finishers on equal points is important. Written into the rules was a proviso that the highest place in the second heat would determine the result of ties on points.

Anyway, many's been the time I've seen official CAMS results come out with some of these things forgotten... particularly the need to complete the distance to classify as a finisher. I'm fairly sure it's 75% of the distance, but it may be 66.66%... but you know what I mean...

Originally posted by Vitesse2

But, having grabbed the nearest of my Yellow Books (1973), Article 13 (a) of the General Prescriptions makes clear that tie-breaks of that sort should have been applied throughout the final table. Additionally, in the event of a tie which was insoluble by that method the final decision would rest with the CSI "on the basis of such considerations as it would deem appropriate."

Thanks for that Richard. I was too lazy to look at my own yellow books.
I thought I had some from the 1960s but the oldest I can find is 1970, which says more or less the same as yours. And again its points lists for the previous season show several ties...

The 1969 Yellow Book have (almost) the same wording, but in the classification drivers with the same amount of points are seperated depending on how they got to their total.

E.g. Siffert and Surtees each had 12 points, but Seppi got his from a 1st, a 5th and a 6th and was placed 7th, whereas FJ was placed 8th with a 2nd, a 3rd and a 5th.

Attwood and Servoz-Gavin shared 12th place with 6 points from a 2nd each, and Oliver was 14th with 6 from a 3rd and a 5th.

So far, so good...

... but in equal 15th we find Lucien Bianchi and Vic Elford with 5 points, but Lucien got his from a 3rd and a 6th, whereas Vic had a 4th and a 5th... go figure...

It's easily understood...

They were rushing to put their blazers on so they could go to the presentation ceremonies where the winner would be feted.

Originally posted by conjohn
The 1969 Yellow Book have (almost) the same wording, but in the classification drivers with the same amount of points are seperated depending on how they got to their total.

E.g. Siffert and Surtees each had 12 points, but Seppi got his from a 1st, a 5th and a 6th and was placed 7th, whereas FJ was placed 8th with a 2nd, a 3rd and a 5th.

Attwood and Servoz-Gavin shared 12th place with 6 points from a 2nd each, and Oliver was 14th with 6 from a 3rd and a 5th.

So far, so good...

... but in equal 15th we find Lucien Bianchi and Vic Elford with 5 points, but Lucien got his from a 3rd and a 6th, whereas Vic had a 4th and a 5th... go figure...

It's not relevant to the main topic, but did that table include Clark and Scarfiotti?

Originally posted by Roger Clark

It's not relevant to the main topic, but did that table include Clark and Scarfiotti?

No. Bob Anderson (5th in South Africa) is omitted from the 1967 table too.

The first Yellow Book was 1968. The 1968 regs are very much simpler and in those, Article 12 follows a bald statement in Article 11 which states that:

"The driver who has won the greatest number of points according to the above articles 8 to 10 shall be declared champion."

So, by implication, Article 12 (phrased differently to 1973 but using the same method) only applies to deciding the champion.

This would seem to be confirmed by Article 13, which is (in these regs) the one which gives the CSI the power to "designate the Champion according to such other considerations as would be deemed convenient". It says nothing about resolving ties for other positions in the table.

So the answer to Michael's original question would seem to be that they should be shown as having tied. But there is no consistency in the FIA tables as to how that should be presented, even within any given individual one. In some cases it's alphabetical, in some whoever scored a point first and in some - neither of those! Additionally, in some tables, drivers are shown as tied - in others they are given individual positions!

Originally posted by Vitesse2

No. Bob Anderson (5th in South Africa) is omitted from the 1967 table too.

Presumably they did manage to include Rindt in 1970.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of Ray Bell, i don't think there was much concern over the minor championship places in those days. I'm sure Jo Siffert would have prefered to be remembered for winning the British Grand Prix rather than for having the seventh greatest number of championship points.

Originally posted by Roger Clark

Presumably they did manage to include Rindt in 1970.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of Ray Bell, i don't think there was much concern over the minor championship places in those days. I'm sure Jo Siffert would have prefered to be remembered for winning the British Grand Prix rather than for having the seventh greatest number of championship points.

What Seppi would have thought does not matter in this case.
From a historical/statistical point of view it does matter.
It does also matter if one finishes on a minor spot like 12th or 13th or gets a non-qualification for running too few laps. In all those cases (except in CART, IRL or NASCAR) no championship points are gained.
I think Michael Schumacher would rather like to see nothing on the scoreboard abolut his "performance".

Gerrit Stevens

Originally posted by Roger Clark

Presumably they did manage to include Rindt in 1970.

Yes. McLaren too.

And Siffert and Rodriguez in 1971.

Sadly, it would seem that Jochen's death was another of those unfortunate happenings which changed an FIA rule.

I have no wish to take this further OT, or to revisit old arguments, but my belief is, as it was in 1970, that the champion was "The driver who has won the greatest number of points according to the above articles 8 to 10".
Wasn't that Rindt?

Originally posted by gerrit stevens


What Seppi would have thought does not matter in this case.
From a historical/statistical point of view it does matter.
It does also matter if one finishes on a minor spot like 12th or 13th or gets a non-qualification for running too few laps. In all those cases (except in CART, IRL or NASCAR) no championship points are gained.
I think Michael Schumacher would rather like to see nothing on the scoreboard abolut his "performance".

Gerrit Stevens

My speculation on Siffert's opinion was intended as an example of the general view at the time. I have seen several contemporary tables which show Siffert and Surtees seventh equal in the 1968 championship. I can't remember ever seeing any discussion over whether one of them should have precedence. Race results obviously matter, but in those days minor places in the championship didn't. Applying the rules and conventions of today to the circumstances of forty years ago is a waste of time.

Race results obviously matter, but in those days minor places in the championship didn't. Applying the rules and conventions of today to the circumstances of forty years ago is a waste of time.

Until recently, one project I was in the process of finalizing was a narrative the 1964 GP season. Nowhere in the rather extensive research I did on the season is there anything to contradict what Roger states. Often the listings of the championship table of those with equal points were in the order earned or simply alphabetically, little importance given to ordinal issues in those days.

I have currently shelved the project and may or not ever finish the final re-writes and editing needed any time soon for any number of reasons.

Originally posted by David McKinney
I have no wish to take this further OT, or to revisit old arguments, but my belief is, as it was in 1970, that the champion was "The driver who has won the greatest number of points according to the above articles 8 to 10".
Wasn't that Rindt?

The point I was making was that in both 1967 and 1968 the FIA had tacitly omitted drivers who had scored points and subsequently lost their lives. Therefore, as far as the FIA's official tables as published in their own authorised annual were concerned, neither Bob Anderson nor Jim Clark scored points in their final championship seasons.

Thus, Jochen's death caused them to change their policy and stop rewriting history.

So it was a change of policy, not a rule change?

I'm not trying to be a smart basket here - it's just that the regulation didn't seem to provide for people dying before 1970 - did it afterwards? Or was it merely an FIA reinterpretation of the rule?

Yes. It would appear that they failed to foresee the possibility of a posthumous champion, so they reinterpreted it and changed their policy. Short memories in the FIA? They had obviously learned nothing from 1961.

So was Taffy in their Yellow Book listing from 1962?

How could they omit him?

Originally posted by Ray Bell
So was Taffy in their Yellow Book listing from 1962?

How could they omit him?

Ahem ...

Originally posted by Vitesse2
The first Yellow Book was 1968.

To veer back on topic for a moment, if that is permitted.

Having invested a rather significant effort into the narrative of the 1964 GP season -- all the GP events not merely those in the CSI championship -- I think that one clear impression I walked away with was just how startling the changes are in how business of GP -- or F1 if you prefer -- racing is run. Yet, there was the nucleus of the coming decades with the Paris Scale and the F1CA in place for the season. The points earned in the championship were now actually tied to something on the business end of things.

As for the standings, again, I did not find anything implicit or explicit for any positions in the championship with equal score below the champion to be placed in an ordinal fashion using some sort of critieria to sort them out.

I am always interested as to how the 1964 GP season generally gets shuffled off to the side these days. As I worked on the narrative, I was often struck by not only what I recalled as I did the research, but what I picked up here and there which I either did not know in the first place or simply didn't make the connections.

As a result of this thread, I went back and looked at the project and think that barring some major work it is not Ready for Prime Time and will remain shelved for the foreseeable future.

Originally posted by Vitesse2
Ahem ...

My apologies, Speedy...

So then do I have to ask if he was omitted from any official listing they might have issued? Or did they not issue any official listing?


Don... do you think that it's because it was a year in limbo? After all, that was the year the decision was made to go 3-litres for F1, not much changed from 1963 to 1964 and that sort of thing?

I think some of our German friends may have some more details on the 1961 issue, Ray.

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Don... do you think that it's because it was a year in limbo? After all, that was the year the decision was made to go 3-litres for F1, not much changed from 1963 to 1964 and that sort of thing?

Ray,

It is far more a problem of nobody really caring due to an overwhelming lack of interest or curiosity. Not to put too fine a point on it, but very few really give a ****. End of story.

Should the IMRRC rejigger their Web site, I will probably "publish" it there, but otherwise it sits on the shelf. On a personal level, I have rarely had a project I enjoyed working on more than this one. It was just great fun to work my way through all the various bits and pieces of the season and come to a new appreciation of the season, something I had not anticipated beforehand. I will probably do a re-write of most of the material since having let it sit for some months now, I have some very different thoughts on how to approach it than I did in the first stabs at it.

I know what you mean...

I just completed a story about an Escort that challenged the V8 cars for the Australian Touring Car Championship the first year that equal points applied to cars in smaller classes. Well, in a smaller class... though there were points for the top four outright spots, but only 4-3-2-1 compared to the 9-6-4-etc of the class results.

What began as a story about a limp-wristed car eventually became a revelation about a stupendous spending battle between two of Australia's biggest-spending motor sportsmen! It's amazing how it pans out, really...