14 replies to this topic

[lustigson]

With Sauber belatedly finishing ahead of Manor in the 2016 World Constructors' Championship, and Dieter Rencken's most recent article pointing out that reliability in Formula One is phenomenal, I wondered whether there would be any difference in the WCC if only the top-scoring car would count towards it. What this does, is filter out any freak results like Grosjean's 10th in Russia, and it evens out teams' overall results over the course of the season.

 

This is what the end result would be:

1. Mercedes : 493 pts
2. Red Bull Racing–TAG Heuer : 349
3. Ferrari : 333
4. Force India–Mercedes : 204
5. Williams–Mercedes : 201
6. McLaren–Honda : 167
7. Toro Rosso–Ferrari : 134
8. Haas–Ferrari : 103
9. Renault : 64
10. Sauber–Ferrari : 52
11. MRT–Mercedes : 19

You've probably spotted that this is exactly the same championship order as with two cars scoring, but there are some interesting facts:

• Mercedes, Red Bull, and Ferrari are much closer together than in real life.
• The same goes for Force India, and Williams. From here down, all teams actually get more points.
• McLaren–Honda are a tiny bit more ahead of Toro Rosso
• Haas and Renault are a bit closer together.
• Sauber has almost three times as many points as Manor, I reckon shows the overall ability of both teams, averaged out

Well... for what it's worth... 

[Zava]

What I would find more interesting and relevant is the exact opposite: Only the second car scores. What do you get that way?

[lustigson]

What I would find more interesting and relevant is the exact opposite: Only the second car scores. What do you get that way?

 

That would be nice to see... although I don't have the time today to go over the results by hand again.

[SirVanhan]

What if only the best finishing car in the top 10 takes points (i.e. cars outside the top 10 doesn't score)?

1. Mercedes: 490
2. Red Bull-Tag Heuer: 315
3. Ferrari: 271
4. Force India-Mercedes: 125
5. Williams-Mercedes: 114
6. McLaren-Honda: 69
7. Toro Rosso-Ferrari: 58
8. Haas-Ferrari: 29
9. Renault: 8
10. Sauber-Ferrari: 2
11. Manor-Mercedes: 1

 

Couple of notes:

• Red Bull overtakes Ferrari much later in the season, after that Ferrari loses it completely.
• Williams dominated Force India until BRAZIL GP!!! With that result Force India takes fourth in the standings for the first time.
• Only 3 points difference for Mercedes between lustigson's and my format.

Edited by SirVanhan, 01 December 2016 - 11:27.

[Frood]

That would be nice to see... although I don't have the time today to go over the results by hand again.

 

I think, if my maths is correct, it would be as follows:

MERCEDES	275
RED BULL	141
FERRARI	        123
FORCE INDIA	 50
WILLIAMS	 28
MCLAREN	          7
TORO ROSSO	  5
HAAS	          0 (1x 11th)
RENAULT	          0 (1x 12th)
SAUBER	          0 (2x 14th)
MRT	          0 (1x 14th)

[Frank Tuesday]

What I would find more interesting and relevant is the exact opposite: Only the second car scores. What do you get that way?

May be errors in my method, but....

 

Mercedes 488

Red Bull 317

Ferrari 244

Force India 219

Wiliams 187

Toro Rosso 150

McLaren 135

Renault 116

Sauber 113

Haas 109

Manor 83

[Atreiu]

Since we're experimenting, what would it look like if both cars scored, but the worse 10 results from each team were dropped?

[Marklar]

Since we're experimenting, what would it look like if both cars scored, but the worse 10 results from each team were dropped?

The worst 10 weekends I assume?

Mercedes	464
Red Bull	324
Ferrari	        267
Force India	146
Williams	121
McLaren 	 74
Toro Rosso	 61
Haas	         29
Renault           8
Sauber	          2
Manor	          1

Edited by Marklar, 01 December 2016 - 19:23.

[Atreiu]

I meant individual results. To minimize the effects of some teams being unreasonably (un)reliable. Customer teams don't get to create a car aorund the engine like manufacturer teams do, I guess.

[Marklar]

I meant individual results. To minimize the effects of some teams being unreasonably (un)reliable. Customer teams don't get to create a car aorund the engine like manufacturer teams do, I guess.

In that case nothing would change on the championship standings and just Mercedes (down from 765 to 694), Red Bull (down from 468 to 448) and Ferrari (398 to 394) would change in terms of points. Everyone else had at least 10 individual races without points.

[ensign14]

 

What if only the best finishing car in the top 10 takes points (i.e. cars outside the top 10 doesn't score)?

 

I've long said that the WCC should be determined by where the 2nd car finishes, not the 1st.  Which would stop teams from putting all their resource into one car.

[Henri Greuter]

I've long said that the WCC should be determined by where the 2nd car finishes, not the 1st.  Which would stop teams from putting all their resource into one car.

 

 

I know on which team and which driver you are hinting......

 

But what about Brabham and its focus on Neslon Piquet between '81 and '85?????

Or Lotus with Clark from 62-67?

 

 

 

Henri

[ensign14]

What about them?   Brabham never won the WCC under Ecclestone.  And was Team Lotus really the best team overall if the second driver could do the thick end of eff all?  Would suggest the genius of Lotus in the sixties was not Chapman but Clark. 

 

I would argue that a team has a much better team performance if they come 2nd and 3rd than the team that got a 1st and retired.  One team got both cars to the finish, the other had a 50% success rate.  So in terms of team performance, one had the entire team performing at an 80% level, the other had only half of it doing its job at all.

[Henri Greuter]

What about them?   Brabham never won the WCC under Ecclestone.  And was Team Lotus really the best team overall if the second driver could do the thick end of eff all?  Would suggest the genius of Lotus in the sixties was not Chapman but Clark. 

 

I would argue that a team has a much better team performance if they come 2nd and 3rd than the team that got a 1st and retired.  One team got both cars to the finish, the other had a 50% success rate.  So in terms of team performance, one had the entire team performing at an 80% level, the other had only half of it doing its job at all.

 

 

 

The fat part: now why do you think how that came to be????

 

 

Henri

[ensign14]

Because he kept doing deals which made him money and affected the team.  A BT45 or 46 with Cosworth could have monstered the world title but that would have required BCE paying Cosworth.  He got Pirelli's ice-skates rather than Goodyear's pukka rubber because Pirelli paid.  And then he had the completely, totally and utterly hopeless Zunino, Rebaque and Hesnault alongside Piquet because they were minted.

Edited by ensign14, 02 December 2016 - 09:01.