20 replies to this topic

[TomFitch]

Hi all,

 

in current Formula 1, a driver needs to cover at least 90% of the distance of the race-winner to be awarded points. So e.g., if you come 6th but have only completed 44 laps in a 50 lap race, you will not get points, even if 6th is a points scoring position.

 

Does anyone know when this rule was introduced?

 

More specifically, was it already in place for the 1965 F1-season?

 

Thanks,

 

Tom

[Vitesse2]

You need to look at it the other way round. You could only get WDC points if you were classified as a finisher. See for example Monaco in 1966, where points were only awarded for the first four places and Belgium 1966 (points to fifth only), with other cars still running not classified.

 

In 1965, I think the rule was (generally) that if you had completed 75% of the race distance - whether or not still running - you were classified as a finisher. However, Siffert was classified in the Dutch GP, despite only completing 55 of 80 laps. And in Italy, four drivers who'd retired were classified - including Ginther, who was one lap short of 75% distance - so maybe they both used another percentage: 70?

[Michael Ferner]

Wasn't it two thirds at the time, or maybe 60 %? And wasn't 1965 the first year in which it was no longer necessary for a car to be still running to be classified?

[Vitesse2]

You might be right on two-thirds, Michael. I do know that sometimes Monaco did their own thing. See for example 1960, when Ireland was classified 9th on 56 laps of 100.

[Vitesse2]

I have a feeling the rules were pretty well explained in Stephen Hirst's 1972 book Grand Prix Chronology, but I'm not sure where my copy is ...

[Tim Murray]

Certainly Clark was classified 4th at Monaco in 1964 although not running at the finish.

[TomFitch]

Thanks for the feedback.

 

So it seems rather like somewhere around 60% to 2/3rd's. It seems to be rather 2/3rd, going by Zandvoort 65 results. Siffert was still classified as 13th with 55 of the 80 laps ran. Whileas Rindt was not classified with 48 of the 80 laps run, which is exactly 60%.

 

At the Ring however, Surtees was not classified with 11 of the 15 laps ran. And at Mexico, Hill was not classified with 56 of the 65 laps ran. So it might be that the rule chnaged from track to track.

 

Thanks for the feed-back. It in any cases points towards the correct direction. And the 90%-rule is certainly not it.

 

Tom

[uechtel]

From memory, I think the 90% rule became official for all events in 1966, with the first victims being Ligier and Bonnier at Monaco and Ligier again in Belgium, who otherwise would have scored points.

 

Before that it seems as if it had been either completely individual for the race organisers or at least much space for interpretations for them within only some general rules.

 

Some examples:

 

MEX 1965 G. Hill ret 86% distance - not classified

USA 1965 Bucknum 13th 84% dist - classified 13th

NED 1965 Siffert 13th 69% dist. - classified 13th

GBR 1965 Rindt ret 78% - classified 14th - (compare to Mexico)

FRA 1965 Anderson ret 85% - classified 9th

BEL 1965 Attwood ret 81% - classified 14th

MON 1965 Hawkins ret 79% - classified 10th

SAF 1965 Bandini ret 78% - classified 15th

SAF 1965 Anderson 16th 59% - not classified

MEX 1964 P. Hill ret 97% - classified 9th - (compare to 1965)

ITA 1964 Brabham ret 76% - classified 14th

AUT 1964 Brabham 9th 72% - classified 9th

GER 1964 Revson ret 67% - classified 14th

GBR 1964 J. Taylor 14th 70% - classified 14th

NED 1964 Hailwood ret 71% - classified 12th

MON 1964 Bandini ret 68% - classified 10th

FRA 1963 P. Hill 14th 64% - not classified

BEL 1962 T. Taylor ret 78% - not classified

BEL 1962 Campbell-Jones 16th 50% - classified 11th

MON 1962 Brabham ret 77% - classified 8th

NED 1962 Rodriguez ret 91% - not classified

NED 1962 Seidel 14th 65% - not classified

GEr 1961 Collomb 18th 71% - not classified

tbc...

Edited by uechtel, 09 June 2017 - 09:58.

[Roger Clark]

In Motor Sport, January 1963, DSJ reported recent announcements by the CSI, including the extension of the current Formula 1 for a further two years (1964 and 65) and the new formula 2 and 3 for those years.

He continue: "the above decisions of the CSI are greeted with joy, but at the same time they made another decision that I can only greet with derision. They have decided that in any championship event, cars that have completed two-thirds of the total distance will be classified as a finisher, whether it is still in the race or not. In the past we have had this nonsense, an example being at Monte Carlo last year, when Graham Hill blew up well and truly, while in the lead and with only a few laps to go to the finish. He was classified a finisher even though the car was derelict by the station and Graham was walking back to the pits."

This seems to confirm that local rules applied before 1963.

In the report on the Belgian Grand Prix, he noted: "by FIA rules Settember and Maggs were classified as finishers; the Scirocco was lying in a field and the Cooper had been abandoned at the pits!"

Edited by Roger Clark, 10 June 2017 - 09:04.

[Michael Ferner]

So, apparently the 2/3's rule somehow came into effect during the 1963 season, although this stipulation is missing from what there is of the 1963 WCD or F1MC rules vice Garnier. Given the previous anomaly of the AC Monaco, 50% race distance for being a finisher, what has been suggested earlier that one needed to be a finisher to score points, which then opens the door to the criteria as to what might constitute a finisher, such as the time of the last lap or some other measure being used. This seems to suggest that this sort of thing was usually determined by the organizing clubs prior to either 1963 and certainly prior to 1966. As an aside, I think that the 1964/1965 Mexican GPs not listing Phil Hill or Graham Hill, respectively, as finishers might more a matter of local rules or an omission or simply laziness on the part of the organizers. Take your choice, but I tend to lean towards the first option.

Yes, the 50 % "local rule" at Monaco rings a bell. Although it was never a requirement to be a finisher to score points, qv the very first WDC season where, apart from Rosier in Belgium and Ascari in Italy, only Alfas actually finished any of the races, but championship points were scored by everyone in the top five regardless.

[ensign14]

The rule in the 50s was a sportscar rule where you had to cross the finishing line after the winner.  So e.g. the Claes/Fangio Maserati was not classified at Belgium in 1953, even though it had covered more distance than the car classified 3rd, because Fangio uncharacteristically ditched it on the final lap; whereas you can see footage of Salvadori parked up at the finish line at Britain 1957 and shoving the Cooper over to scramble 5th once Moss has crossed the line.

[Roger Clark]

I should also have mentioned that Denis Jenkinson was not above printing race results "as they should be, regardless of any nonsensical rules".  Care should be taken when viewing his normally reliable reports.  I am sure that there are no results websites that have fallen into such a trap.

[Michael Ferner]

The need to actually cross the line after the winner to be a finisher appears to be in use prior to those events. I have not come across any explanation for this change; it just seems to have happened...

It was simply long overdue. I am on the complete opposite side of the argument here with DSJ, what a nonsense to classify anyone trundling around ten laps in arrears ahead of someone retiring on the last lap. It was still being done in motorcycle racing when I lost interest in about 2000, if I'm not mistaken.

[ensign14]

Of course, back in the day it was easier, just let them keep running for half-an-hour or whatever to try to complete the race distance. 

 

I still wonder what would have happened at Monaco 1982 had Patrese been DQ'd for his bump start.  The winner would not have finished.  But would have beaten de Angelis, Mansell and Henton, who, sans Patrese, would presumably have been able to complete the full race distance.

[uechtel]

Another interesting statement from Mark Whitelock about the 1964 Monaco GP: "Bonnier and Hailwood finished fourth and fifth on the road, only to be demoted to fifth and sixth behind Clark´s abandoned Lotus. Entrants Rob Walker and Tim Parnell were somewhat put out by this but the race regulations clarly stated that the race order would be determined according to the number of laps completed when the winner crossed the finish line. At that point Bonnier and Hailwood had not passed the Lotus but did so before crossing the finish line. This was an unsatisfactory and confusing situation for competitors and spectators alike. The race order would have been more accurately determined according to the number of laops completed after the winner had crossed the line."

[uechtel]

So an update to may list with the anomalies marked by bold letters

66% rule (1963 to 1965)

 

MEX 1965 G. Hill ret 86% distance - not classified

USA 1965 Bucknum 13th 84% dist - classified 13th

GER 1965 Surtees ret 73% - not classified

NED 1965 Siffert 13th 69% dist. - classified 13th

GBR 1965 Rindt ret 78% - classified 14th

FRA 1965 Anderson ret 85% - classified 9th

BEL 1965 Attwood ret 81% - classified 14th

MON 1965 Hawkins ret 79% - classified 10th

SAF 1965 Bandini ret 78% - classified 15th

SAF 1965 Anderson 16th 59% - not classified

MEX 1964 P. Hill ret 97% - classified 9th

MEX 1964 Amon ret 71% - not classified

USA 1964 Spence/Clark ret 93% - classified 7th

USA 1964 Sharp 7th 59% - not classified

ITA 1964 Brabham ret 76% - classified 14th

AUT 1964 Brabham 9th 72% - classified 9th

GER 1964 Revson ret 67% - classified 14th

GBR 1964 J. Taylor 14th 70% - classified 14th

BEL 1964 Arundell ret 88% - classified 9th

NED 1964 Hailwood ret 71% - classified 12th

NED 1964 Siffert 13th 69% - classified 13th

MON 1964 Bandini ret 68% - classified 10th

MON 1964 Gurney ret 62% - not classified (66% rule!)

SAF 1963 Brabham ret 82% - classified 13th

MEX 1963 Solana ret 88% - classified 11th

MEX 1963 P. Hill ret 70% - not classified

USA 1963 McLaren ret 67% - classified 11th

ITA 1963 G. Hill ret 68% - classified 16th

GER 1963 Siffert ret 66% - classified 9th

GBR 1963 Siffert ret 80% - not classified

FRA 1963 T. Taylor ret 77% - classified 13th

FRA 1963 P. Hill 14th 64% - not classified

NED 1963 G. Hill ret 86% - not classified

NED 1963 Bonnier 13th 70% - classified 11th

BEL 1963 Settember ret 78% - classified 8th

MON 1963 Brabham ret 77% - classified 9th

 

1962:

 

SAF 1962 de Beaufort ret 85% - classified 11th

SAF 1962 Clark ret 76% - not classified

USA 1962 Bonnier 13th 79% - classified 13th

ITA 1962 R. Rodriguez ret 73% - classified 14th

ITA 1962 Ireland ret 52% - not classified

GER 1962 Lewis ret 66% - not classified

BEL 1962 T. Taylor ret 78% - not classified

BEL 1962 Campbell-Jones 16th 50% - classified 11th

MON 1962 Brabham ret 77% - classified 8th

MON 1962 Ireland ret 64% - not classified

NED 1962 R. Rodriguez ret 91% - not classified

NED 1962 Seidel 14th 65% - not classified

 

So an unclear situation. Obviously at the end of the season ITA and USA were operated to the '66%' rule, maybe also GER, and also Monaco (and not 50% this year!). In contrast BEL still operated according to the old 'you have to cross the line' regulation (with probably also GBR as they obviosuly still did in 1963), while NED seems to have something like a 'hybrid' system (66% and cross the line). And SAF is completely unclear...

 

1961

 

USA 1961 Salvadori ret 96% - not classified

USA 1961 Gendebien/Gregory 12th 92% - classified 11th

ITA 1961 Moss ret 84% - not classified

GER 1961 Mairesse ret 87% - not classified

GER 1961 Ashmore 17th 87% - classified 16th

GER 1961 Collomb 18th 71% - not classified

GBR 1961 Clark ret 83% - not classified

GBR 1961 Seidel 18th 77% - classified 17th

FRA 1961 Ginther ret 77% - classified 15th

BEL 1961 G. Hill ret 80% - not classified

BEL 1961 Brooks 14th 80% - classified 13th

MON 1961 Brooks ret 54% - classified 13th

 

BEL, FRA, ITA and USA would fit to the 'traditional' rule while GER must have had some 'hybrid' again (maybe 75% distance). That season MON did have indeed the 50% rule.

 

tbc...

 

[uechtel]

and into 1960

 

ITA 1960 Naylor ret 82% - not classified

GBR 1960 G. Hill ret 92% - not classified

FRA 1960 P. Hill ret 58% - classified 12th

BEL 1960 G. Hill ret 97% - not classified

NED 1960 Stacey ret 75% - not classified

MON 1960 von Trips ret 61% - classified 8th

MON 1960 Ireland 9th 56% - classified 9th

ARG 1960 Schell ret 79% - not classified

 

50%-rule in MON and FRA...

 

1959

 

USA 1959 von Trips ret 90% - classified 6th

USA 1959 Allison ret 54% - not classified

ITA 1959 Salvadori ret 61% - not classified

POR 1959 McLaren ret 61% - not classified

GER 1959 McLaren ret 60% - not classified

GBR 1959 Shelby ret 92% - not classified

FRA 1959 Trintignant 11th 72% - classified 11th

FRA 1959 Behra ret 62% - not classified

NED 1959 Moss ret 83% - not classified

MON 1959 Moss ret 81% - not classified

 

So with the exclusion of USA everything according to the traditional rules, even MON

 

1958

MOR 1958 Lewis-Evans ret 77% - not classified

ITA 1958 de Filippis ret 81% - not classified

POR 1958 Shelby ret 94% - not classified

GER 1958 Hawthorn ret 73% - not classified

GBR 1958 von Trips ret 78% - not classified

FRA 1958 Schell ret 82% - not classified

BEL 1958 Godia ret 92% - not classified

NED 1958 Scarlatti ret 69% - not classified

MON 1958 von Trips ret 91% - not classified

 

1957

 

ITA 1957 Collins ret 71% - not classified

GER 1957 Herrmann ret 63% - not classified

GBR 1957 Brabham ret 82% - not classified

MON 1957 von Trips/Hawthorn ret 90% - not classified

ARG 1957 Castellotti ret 75% - not classified

 

1956

 

ITA 1956 Musso ret 94% - not classified

GER 1956 Volonterio 6th 72% - not classified

GBR 1956 Moss ret 93% - not classified

FRA 1956 Simon ret 67% - not classified

BEL 1956 Fangio ret 64% - not classified

MON 1956 Manzon ret 90% - not classified

ARG 1956 Moss ret 82% - not classified

 

1955

 

ITA 1955 Kling ret 64% - not classified

GBR 1955 Trintignant ret 65% - not classified

NED 1955 Trintignant ret 65% - not classified

BEL 1955 Kling ret 58% - not classified

MON 1955 Perdisa/Behra ret 86% - not classified

ARG 1955 Mantovani/Behra/Musso ret 56% - not classified

 

1954

 

SPA 1954 Mantovani ret 72% - not classified

ITA 1954 Ascari ret 60% - not classified

SUI 1954 Kling ret 57% - not classified

GER 1954 Bira ret 81% - not classified

GBR 1954 Moss ret 89% - not classified

GBR 1954 Gould 20th 49% - classified 15th

FRA 1954 Frere ret 82% - not classified

ARG 1954 Marimon ret 55% - not classified

 

1953

 

ITA 1953 Ascari ret 99% - not classified

ITA 1953 Fairman 20th 76% - not classified

SUI 1953 Landi ret 83% - not classified

GER 1953 Villoresi/Ascari ret 83% - not classified

GBR 1953 J. Stewart ret 88% - not classified

FRA 1953 Chiron 15th 72% - classified 15th

FRA 1953 Bonetto ret 70% - not classified

BEL 1953 Claes/Fangio ret 97% - not classified

NED 1953 Villoresi ret 74% - not classified

NED 1953 Claes 13th 58% - not classified

ARG 1953 Manzon ret 69% - not classified

 

1952

 

ITA 1952 Moss ret 75% - not classified

ITA 1952 Hawthorn 19th 47% - not classified

NED 1952 Wharton ret 84% - not classified

NED 1952 van der Lof 12th 78% - not classified

GBR 1952 Collins ret 86% - not classified

FRA 1952 Bira ret 66% - not classified

SUI 1952 Bira ret 84% - not classified

 

1951

 

SPA 1951 Villoresi ret 68% - not classified

GER 1951 Giraud-Cabantous ret 85% - not classified

GBR 1951 Farina ret 83% - not classified

GBR 1951 Kelly 15th 83% - not classified

FRA 1951 Fangio/Fagioli 11th 71% - classified 11th

FRA 1951 Claes ret 70% - not classified

BEL 1951 Chiron ret 78% - not classified

SUI 1951 Whitehead ret 86% - not classified

 

1950

 

ITA 1950 Murray ret 70% - not classified

FRA 1950 Farina ret 86% - classified 7th

FRA 1950 Levegh ret 56% - not classified

BEL 1950 Chaboud ret 63% - not classified

SUI 1950 Fangio ret 76% - not classified

MON 1950 Villoresi ret 63% - not classified

GBR 1950 Fangio ret 89% - not classified

GBR 1950 Kelly 13th 81% - not classified

[uechtel]

Another finding from Mike Lang about the 1960 Monaco GP:

"With von Trips having stopped  out on the circuit with no clutch a few laps earlier only six cars were left. Three laps later it was five as Ginther retired with ominous noises coming from his crown-wheel an pinion. Another eight laps passed and then Bonnier came into the pits with broken rear suspension so a grand total of four cars were left with only Mc Laren and P. Hill doing any racing. It should have ended at that but with Championship points at stake some 'retired' cars suddenly reappeared. Brabham recovered his Cooper but was instantly disqualified for receiving outside assistance though he continued to limp around together with Bonnier and Gurney while Ginther along with Ireland pushed their cars over the line after Moss had received the chequered flag.

In the final results Brabham and Gurney were not classified as they had failed to complete 50 laps in any case but G. Hill and von Trips were classified on the grounds that they had completed more than 50 laps even though they had retired - all rather confusing!"

 

Results:

...

5th Bonnier 17 laps behind

6th Ginther 30 laps behind

7th G. Hill 34 laps behind (not running at finish)

8th von Trips 39 laps behind (not running at finish)

9th Ireland 44 laps behind

nc Gurney 45 laps (still running at finish)

dq Brabham lap 41

...

 

So this shows much confusing even among the drivers. Ginther and Ireland must have been unaware of the special rulings as otherwise it would not have made sense to wait for the chequered flag for pushing their cars over the line. Maybe indication, that this was the first occasion where such rule was applied?

[uechtel]

 

1959

 

USA 1959 von Trips ret 90% - classified 6th

USA 1959 Allison ret 54% - not classified

ITA 1959 Salvadori ret 61% - not classified

POR 1959 McLaren ret 61% - not classified

GER 1959 McLaren ret 60% - not classified

GBR 1959 Shelby ret 92% - not classified

FRA 1959 Trintignant 11th 72% - classified 11th

FRA 1959 Behra ret 62% - not classified

NED 1959 Moss ret 83% - not classified

MON 1959 Moss ret 81% - not classified

 

So with the exclusion of USA everything according to the traditional rules, even MON

 

 

Another mysterious classement, the US Grand Prix of 1959. In one of Formula 1´s heroic moments Brabham pushed his car some 800 m uphill to fourth place and his first world championship title after running out of fuel on the last lap while in the lead. But did he really have to do so to get classified? The clue to the answer should be in von Trips´ result, for whom I found records listing him just as a normal 'finisher' four laps behind the winner, but also records who state, that he was classified despite having retired with engine failure. If the latter would be correct, then of course also Brabham would have benefitted from such rule and have his fourth place already secure, as Ireland in fifth place was already three laps down. So what is the story of von Trips´ result?

 

By searching in the internet I found only one reference, that gets a little bit more into the details:

http://www.automobil...rips/index.html

 

Quote:

12. Dezember 1959 in Sebring/USA
1. Bruce McLaren (Cooper-Climax) nach 42 Runden (351,489 km) in 2:12:35,7 Stunden (159,116 km/h), 2. Maurice Trintignant, 3. Tony Brooks 4. Jack Brabham, 5. Innes Ireland u.a.
Graf Trips war zunächst Fünfter, wurde dann aber nachträglich auf den 6. Platz zurück versetzt. Er hatte seinen Ferrari nach einem Defekt über die Ziellinie geschoben, nachdem der Sieger abgewunken worden war. Das hatte jedoch 12:06,2 Minuten gedauert und deshalb wurde die Runde nicht mehr gewertet, da sie höchstens dreimal so lange wie die schnellste Runde (3:05 Minuten) hätte dauern dürfen

 

"6th place with Ferrari after 39 laps in 2:12:42 hrs (147,545 km/h)

Count von Trips was initially fifth, but would then be relegated to 6th place after the race. After sustaining a defect on the car he had pushed his Ferrari over the line after the winner of the race had been flagged off. But for this he had needed 12:06,2 minutes and because of this his last lap was not recognised, as it would have been allowed to last only three times of the fastest lap of the race (3:05 minutes)"

 

So if they had not accepted his last lap, did they nevertheless recognize him as a 'finisher' or was there already the rule, that a driver was classified if he had done a certain distance, no matter whether still running in the end?

[uechtel]

And Mike Lang again for the 1963 season:

"Another decision announced at the same time was that cars which had completed two thirds of the distance in a Championship race would be classified as finishers even though to all intents and purposes the car had been retired. This rule, although new to the statute book, had, of course, been adopted in principle by some race organisers in the past, the most common example being the Automobile Club de Monaco"

 

Nevertheless still we have the example of G. Hill being not classified in the Dutch GP in spite of having completed some 86% of the distance.

[D-Type]

In some cases there was another rule to complicate things, namely that the final lap had to be completed in a certain time to be included.  Hence the 1957 French GP that was discussed previously on here.  Behra and Schell  both completed 70 laps and Behra is usually credited with 5th place ahead of Schell.  But he took too long to complete his final lap so it was disallowed and Schell credited with 5th place.