How a serial winner could be second-best at the end

Imagine the following scenario: Constructor A has built the fastest GP car. In a season of 20 races it wins each one of them. But it is only the winning car that finishes the races in the top three. The other one due to bad luck is in fourth place in half of the races, in the other half it retires (technical failures, collisions, driver errors, whatever). Even with clocking the fastest race lap every time the points total is 640.

Constructor B has built the second-best GP car. It is bullet-proof, the drivers are faultless, they finish second and third in every race. Their points total is 660.

So we have a car that wins 20 of 20 races, but the winner of the Constructors championship is a car that has not won a single race.

This is to show the silliness of the regulation that both cars count for championship points. If only the best-placed car would count (as has been the case in the past, for the last time, I think, in 1978) we had constructor A with 520 points and constructor B with 360 points which is a fair result.

The current ruling turns the Constructors championship into a Team championship, neglecting the difference between these two. There is no doubt that constructor B’s team performed better than constructor A’s team. But the better car, the better constructor can only be A.

The fact that there is the arithmetic possibility that a builder of a car which wins each and every race fails to win the Constructors championship is a travesty.

The powers-that-be should revert to the old system of the 1970s or they should officially announce the end of the Constructors championship and frankly call it Teams championship instead.

Note: The official F1 website is ambiguous in this regard. Under the headline “Constructor standings” ”Teams” are listed. But I think the official term is still “championnat du monde des constructeurs”.

Imagine the following scenario: Constructor A has built the fastest GP car. In a season of 20 races it wins each one of them. But it is only the winning car that finishes the races in the top three. The other one due to bad luck is in fourth place in half of the races, in the other half it retires (technical failures, collisions, driver errors, whatever). Even with clocking the fastest race lap every time the points total is 640.

 

Constructor B has built the second-best GP car. It is bullet-proof, the drivers are faultless, they finish second and third in every race. Their points total is 660.

Your scenario clearly shows that constructor B has done the better job by getting their cars home every race. If constructor A can only manage to bring one car home consistently, regardless of position, it has done the poorer job.

 

So we have a car that wins 20 of 20 races, but the winner of the Constructors championship is a car that has not won a single race.

 

This is to show the silliness of the regulation that both cars count for championship points. If only the best-placed car would count (as has been the case in the past, for the last time, I think, in 1978) we had constructor A with 520 points and constructor B with 360 points which is a fair result.

 

The current ruling turns the Constructors championship into a Team championship, neglecting the difference between these two. There is no doubt that constructor B’s team performed better than constructor A’s team. But the better car, the better constructor can only be A.

 

The fact that there is the arithmetic possibility that a builder of a car which wins each and every race fails to win the Constructors championship is a travesty.

 

The powers-that-be should revert to the old system of the 1970s or they should officially announce the end of the Constructors championship and frankly call it Teams championship instead.

 

Note: The official F1 website is ambiguous in this regard. Under the headline “Constructor standings” ”Teams” are listed. But I think the official term is still “championnat du monde des constructeurs”.

Edited by Clatter, 09 October 2019 - 17:42.

Not silly at all. The constructor has built an unreliable car and they've been lucky that one has gotten to the finish line in every race or else they have employed a driver who has poor racecraft.

If anything I think the opposite to the OP should be implemented. Only the constructor's worst result of the weekend should count for points.

The OP is falling into the trap of using an extreme situation and drawing conclusions too.

I've read some shocking things today but I think this takes the biscuit.

If a team can't build a reliable car then that's their fault.

If only the top car scores , then the wdc and WCC would be the same thing? With the same scores?

Or am I missing something?

Only if the drivers finish in the same order every race. The WCC used to only score the top result for each constructor up to 1978. From 1979 onwards both cars would score points. It stopped a whitewash for teams just entering more cars. So for example, every Lotus 1-2 gained Lotus-Ford 9 points, but in 1979 a 1-2 gained Ferrari and Williams-Ford 15 for each. It made sense to make the change once two cars became more standard.

If only the top car scores , then the wdc and WCC would be the same thing? With the same scores?

Or am I missing something?

I did not say that the first driver won 20 races and the second finished fourth ten times.

You can split it up between the two drivers in any way you want.

(For instance: Driver # 1 wins 12 races and finishes in fourth place 6 times: 384 points;

Driver # 2 wins 8 races and finishes in fourth place 4 times: 256 points.)

If only the top car scores , then the wdc and WCC would be the same thing? With the same scores?

Or am I missing something?

I've not done a proper calculation, but off the top of my head, I think it would be possible for a driver to win the WDC even if they only finished 8th at every race.

I've not done a proper calculation, but off the top of my head, I think it would be possible for a driver to win the WDC even if they only finished 8th at every race.

Theoretically, a driver can be a WDC with his best finish during a season being 10th, provided he sets the fastest lap in most of these races and every race winner is injured soon after he wins his only race and doesn't participate in any other race, although in that case we run out of drivers with superlicence to line up the full grid, so I don't know how this works out in the end.

Theoretically, a driver can be a WDC with his best finish during a season being 10th, provided he sets the fastest lap in most of these races and every race winner is injured soon after he wins his only race and doesn't participate in any other race, although in that case we run out of drivers with superlicence to line up the full grid, so I don't know how this works out in the end.

Yeah, I didn't account for the scenario where every other driver that scores points in one race is subsequently excluded from the rest of the championship (if they are injured, for example). It's outrageous! This scoring system needs to be changed.

Edited by pdac, 09 October 2019 - 19:40.

This is to show the silliness of the regulation that both cars count for championship points. If only the best-placed car would count (as has been the case in the past, for the last time, I think, in 1978) we had constructor A with 520 points and constructor B with 360 points which is a fair result.
 

Not really.  It was a travesty that Lotus won the WCC in 1972 even though they could only get 1 car in the points.  They were running at 50% team efficiency.  Effectively, they were not really a team, just one car.

I would take that rule though and give the constructor points in order of finish of the second car.  That rewards the team effort far more.  Or, perhaps, aggregate the times/distance of both cars.

Constructor title is a TEAM collaboration. This encompasses driver AND car.

If they come 4th then part of the TEAM collaboration is letting them down. 

Easy. 

It was a travesty that Lotus won the WCC in 1972 even though they could only get 1 car in the points. They were running at 50% team efficiency. Effectively, they were not really a team, just one car.

If anything I think the opposite to the OP should be implemented. Only the constructor's worst result of the weekend should count for points.

 

The OP is falling into the trap of using an extreme situation and drawing conclusions too.

But wouldn't that discourage teams from taking chances, whether it be with strategy, gambling on updates or drivers attacking for position? 

That could not happen when points were 10-6-4-3-2-1.

A win was always worth more than 2nd+3rd

But wouldn't that discourage teams from taking chances, whether it be with strategy, gambling on updates or drivers attacking for position?

In NASCAR it's possible (though very unlikely) to win 35 of 36 races, finish second once and not win the title.

I don't see the problem. If Team A built a car which was more reliable and chose drivers who were themselves consistently the best....then they'd win the WCC. It's not just about having the fastest car but the best functioning team. In the suggested scenario it sounds like Team B is the better team.

In much the same way, Brabham didn't win the 1981 WCC because they didn't care about it. They fielded only one competitive driver. 

Are there any actual examples of a team with no or few wins ending up with WCC or close to it? I think in 2003 McLaren won only 2 races and was just 16 points behind Ferrari.

Are there any actual examples of a team with no or few wins ending up with WCC or close to it? I think in 2003 McLaren won only 2 races and was just 16 points behind Ferrari.

I don't think, in reality, it would ever happen.

A car good enough to win 20/20 would not lose the WCC. It’s one of these things where mathematically it’s possible, but you could also say Driver A could win 13/20 races and Driver B three and driver B could be champion.

It’s all theory, maths. In reality it wouldn’t play out that way.

Yeah one of those technically possible scenarios we're not ever likely to see, like how a Premier League team could go the entire season unbeaten and be relegated (38 draws = 38 pts which has seen teams finish bottom 3 before).

Generally I'm with those in favour of the current situation (an aggregate of both cars points) rather than the pre-1979 system, which maybe made sense in the era where teams could enter 4 or 5 cars on occasion, and others just a single car, plus privateers in the frame too, but with all teams running the same number of cars of their own construction it makes sense for the championship to be a reflection of their combined efforts.

That said it's a fair question about whether a 2nd + 3rd should be valued greater than a 1st in general. As already pointed out 10-6-4-3-2-1 valued a 1st higher, well same points but ahead on countback of best results of course.

I don't think, in reality, it would ever happen.

A car good enough to win 20/20 would not lose the WCC.

What if it were 2019 Red Bull that somehow came to every race with a bullet proof car (Max's) that was ever so slightly than the other teams? Would the second RB driver even many 4th places? With the fastest car, there are fewer driver errors at least in T1 so Max's season might have been faultless still. Or he'd had the car to get out of trouble of his own making.

Edited by ElectricBoogie, 10 October 2019 - 14:36.

That said it's a fair question about whether a 2nd + 3rd should be valued greater than a 1st in general. As already pointed out 10-6-4-3-2-1 valued a 1st higher, well same points but ahead on countback of best results of course.

Can also ask should 3rd + 4th be valued higher than 2nd... If you go all Fibonacci, its practically close to just doing countback.

Using flatter point systems delays the championship decider. It's a logical evolution as the seasons have gotten longer. Although initially it was a response to Ferrari/Schumacher dominance.

That said it's a fair question about whether a 2nd + 3rd should be valued greater than a 1st in general. As already pointed out 10-6-4-3-2-1 valued a 1st higher, well same points but ahead on countback of best results of course.

From WCC perspective, I would say that definetely yes. I think it's fair to expect a team to have good results with both drivers in order to win WCC (otherwise what's even the point to have WDC and WCC as separate championships?) and 1st+DNF should not beat 2nd+3rd.

Edited by Anderis, 10 October 2019 - 14:28.