Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

F1 crazy statistics


  • Please log in to reply
5142 replies to this topic

#5051 HistoryFan

HistoryFan
  • Member

  • 6,550 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 14 August 2019 - 13:21

José Froilán González won the very first WDC race for Ferrari in Silverstone 1951, having driven for Talbot Lago the season-opener.

J-M Fangio won the 1954 French GP in a Mercedes-Benz, having won the two previous WC GPs for Maserati.

Stirling Moss won three races 1957 fpr Vanwall after he drive the season opener for Maserati.

Stirling Moss won three races 1958 for Vanwall after he won the season opener in Argentinia in a Rob Walker Cooper Climax.

Tony Brooks won the German Grand Prix 1959 for Ferrari after having competed a one-off for Vanwall the race before.
John Surtees won the 1966 Mexican GP in a Cooper, having moved to Cooper from Ferrari in mid-season.
Peter Gethin won the 1971 Italian GP for BRM, having driven for McLaren for most of the season.
Ronnie Peterson won the 1976 Italian GP for March, having moved from Lotus after the first WC GP of the year.
Mario Andretti won the 1976 Japanese Grand Prix for Lotus, having driven for Parnelli earlier in the season.

Max Verstappen won the 2016 Spanish Grand Prix for Red Bull, having driven for Toro Rosso realier in the season.



Advertisement

#5052 BiggestBuddyLazierFan

BiggestBuddyLazierFan
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 14 August 2019 - 13:58

What is the least amount of races between New winners?

Disregarding 1950,1951,1952

Were there ever succesive races with New winner

#5053 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 10,181 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 14 August 2019 - 14:03

Rosberg (China 2012) and Maldonado (Spain 2012) had only Bahrain in between.



#5054 Bleu

Bleu
  • Member

  • 2,548 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 August 2019 - 14:15

What is the least amount of races between New winners?

Disregarding 1950,1951,1952

Were there ever succesive races with New winner

 

Most recently in 2006: Button in Hungary and then Massa in Turkey. 2003 had Räikkönen in Malaysia and Fisichella in Brazil. 1982 had three consecutive first-time winners: Tambay in Germany, de Angelis in Austria and Rosberg in Dijon.


Edited by Bleu, 14 August 2019 - 14:15.


#5055 Tim Murray

Tim Murray
  • Moderator

  • 21,812 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 14 August 2019 - 14:53

In 1980 Arnoux won his first WC GP in Brazil, and followed it up with another win in South Africa. Piquet then won his first WC GP at Long Beach, which was followed by Pironi’s first win in Belgium. So, three first wins in four races.

#5056 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,591 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 14 August 2019 - 15:21

Yeah I've had a shocker on this page. Mis counted the Lewis streak (which is 10) and missed the 2016 streak which is 27 (I hope, before someone corrects me again).

 

 

Don't worry about being corrected, happens to most of us over here. :up:

I was on your tail for pointing abaout Seb's winless 2014 and overlooked 2016 as well.



#5057 Spillage

Spillage
  • Member

  • 5,741 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 14 August 2019 - 15:44

In 2003 there were back-to-back races with new winners too - Raikkonen in Malaysia followed by Fisichella in Brazil. 

 

Which season had the most first-time winners? Several seasons had three (most recently 2008 - Kubica, Kovalainen, Vettel) but I can't think of any other seasons with four or more.


Edited by Spillage, 14 August 2019 - 15:45.


#5058 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,101 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 August 2019 - 15:49

1982 had Patrese, de Angelis, Tambay, Rosberg and Alboreto.

#5059 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 14,682 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 14 August 2019 - 16:32

Get ready for even more bloated records once 22 GPs per season and more become the norm.

 

I wonder at which point people will simply forget who were the race winners a fews months after they have passed. Like NASCAR.



Advertisement

#5060 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 10,181 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 14 August 2019 - 16:36

Get ready for even more bloated records once 22 GPs per season and more become the norm.

I wonder at which point people will simply forget who were the race winners a fews months after they have passed. Like NASCAR.


Easy, if you gamble on a Merc, you're right most of the time. ;)

#5061 Rediscoveryx

Rediscoveryx
  • Member

  • 1,626 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 15 August 2019 - 06:47

Get ready for even more bloated records once 22 GPs per season and more become the norm.

 

I wonder at which point people will simply forget who were the race winners a fews months after they have passed. Like NASCAR.

 

Yeah, and I'd not be surprised if we get a new points system with 100 points for winning sometime in the future, leading to another cycle of these ridiculous "driver X has now scored more points than Senna/Schumacher/random-guy-from-the-past" headlines.



#5062 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 10,181 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 15 August 2019 - 07:41

Well, points for everyone is already floating around. Grab your spreadsheets during the race to work out the championship standings. 



#5063 screamingV16

screamingV16
  • Member

  • 1,176 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 15 August 2019 - 08:03

There have been two Finns in the grid since 2012.

 

...and there have been at least two Germans on the grid every year since 1994.



#5064 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,591 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 15 August 2019 - 08:18

Yeah, and I'd not be surprised if we get a new points system with 100 points for winning sometime in the future, leading to another cycle of these ridiculous "driver X has now scored more points than Senna/Schumacher/random-guy-from-the-past" headlines.


With the current rate of reliability we need more points scoring positions.
I have seen a thread with what the scores would be with the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 point system had it been valid for this year. Five drivers on their own and two drivers combined (Gasly&Sainz) had some 90% of all point scores....

Even the current system has already exposed a flow. Kubica has a point while Russell is still without and is he really the worst driver in the field who deserves not a single point????

#5065 Rediscoveryx

Rediscoveryx
  • Member

  • 1,626 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 15 August 2019 - 08:25

With the current rate of reliability we need more points scoring positions.
I have seen a thread with what the scores would be with the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 point system had it been valid for this year. Five drivers on their own and two drivers combined (Gasly&Sainz) had some 90% of all point scores....

Even the current system has already exposed a flow. Kubica has a point while Russell is still without and is he really the worst driver in the field who deserves not a single point????

 

I think that either way it's a bit of a problem judging drivers in the worst cars by points scored. However you cut it, their final position in the races will owe much more to the attrition rate of other drivers than to their own competence (perhaps that evens out over the course of a season to a certain extent, but still).



#5066 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,101 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 August 2019 - 09:00

Something like 60-45-35-30-25-20-18-16-14-12-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 would work for a top 20 system. It’s hard to balance a geometric relationship with not appearing to over inflate the points. But that latter issue shouldn’t be an issue. The points system is supposed to be about accurately recording everyone’s finishes to best decide the championship order.

#5067 BiggestBuddyLazierFan

BiggestBuddyLazierFan
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 15 August 2019 - 09:04

Horrors
I still think 10-6-4-3-2-1

Was the best system ever

Even better than 9-6-4-3-2-1 although it gave us more excitements

Edited by BiggestBuddyLazierFan, 15 August 2019 - 09:05.


#5068 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,101 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 August 2019 - 09:05

Horrors
I still think 10-6-4-3-2-1

Was the best system ever

Even better than 9-6-4-3-2-1 although it gave us more excitements


It can’t be the best system ever because you can’t rank those who don’t finish in the top 6.

#5069 BiggestBuddyLazierFan

BiggestBuddyLazierFan
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 15 August 2019 - 09:09

It was mathemathically perfect system

Podium = 20 = 10+6+4
Win = 10 = rest of the podium = 6 + 4


Non podium = 3 + 2 + 1 = 6

Also 3 = 1+2

And finally

Total points = 10+6+4+3+2+1 = 26 = full grid of cars

#5070 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 31,925 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 15 August 2019 - 09:10

And championships that were decided in July thanks to this, no thanks.

#5071 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 11,958 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 15 August 2019 - 09:13

Something like 60-45-35-30-25-20-18-16-14-12-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 would work for a top 20 system. It’s hard to balance a geometric relationship with not appearing to over inflate the points. But that latter issue shouldn’t be an issue. The points system is supposed to be about accurately recording everyone’s finishes to best decide the championship order.

 

Would you get points for a DNF? Otherwise a retirement would be too harsh.



#5072 BiggestBuddyLazierFan

BiggestBuddyLazierFan
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 15 August 2019 - 09:15

And championships that were decided in July thanks to this, no thanks.


Yea right Suzuka 91, Adelaide 94, Suzuka 96 and Jerez 97, Suzuka 98, Suzuka 99 were all in july. July 1st

Edited by BiggestBuddyLazierFan, 15 August 2019 - 09:15.


#5073 BiggestBuddyLazierFan

BiggestBuddyLazierFan
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 15 August 2019 - 09:17

Would you get points for a DNF? Otherwise a retirement would be too harsh.


This point system would lead to drivers just circle around without taking any risk

#5074 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,101 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 August 2019 - 09:21

Would you get points for a DNF? Otherwise a retirement would be too harsh.


As today, you’d have to be classified to score. The best way to get around that is the reintroduce dropped scores. That has the bonus of stopping anyone from settling for a low position.

#5075 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,101 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 August 2019 - 09:22

It was mathemathically perfect system

Podium = 20 = 10+6+4
Win = 10 = rest of the podium = 6 + 4


Non podium = 3 + 2 + 1 = 6

Also 3 = 1+2

And finally

Total points = 10+6+4+3+2+1 = 26 = full grid of cars


None of those number patterns have anything to do with how useful the system was.

#5076 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 10,181 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 15 August 2019 - 09:24

Something like 60-45-35-30-25-20-18-16-14-12-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 would work for a top 20 system. It’s hard to balance a geometric relationship with not appearing to over inflate the points. But that latter issue shouldn’t be an issue. The points system is supposed to be about accurately recording everyone’s finishes to best decide the championship order.

 

That is going full NASCAR on F1. After five races the leader has 1 billion points or something like that. :p

 

 

 

 

 

And championships that were decided in July thanks to this, no thanks.

 

Seasons also didn't ran until December and had 16-18 races. ;) 

 



#5077 BiggestBuddyLazierFan

BiggestBuddyLazierFan
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 15 August 2019 - 09:55

None of those number patterns have anything to do with how useful the system was.

Have it your way mate.

I know for myself that I was 10 times more excited in 1991,1994,1996,1997,1998,1999

Than I am in 2019

Point system or not its the fact.

Nowdays I watch start and finish of maybe 4-5 races per season.

And I dont Give a d*** who the champ is.

Points system or not Thats the fact

Edited by BiggestBuddyLazierFan, 15 August 2019 - 09:55.


#5078 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 11,958 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 15 August 2019 - 10:23

Something like 60-45-35-30-25-20-18-16-14-12-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 would work for a top 20 system. It’s hard to balance a geometric relationship with not appearing to over inflate the points. But that latter issue shouldn’t be an issue. The points system is supposed to be about accurately recording everyone’s finishes to best decide the championship order.

 

OK, I did a quick calculation of how would 2019 F1 championship standings look like with such points system. No fastest lap points added.

 

Everyone classified with at least 90% distance completed gets points. In brackets I add the points that drivers would additionally get if everyone participating in the race scored points, like in American series. Admittedly it wouldn't make much of a difference considering how few retirements we have these days, so they may as well not exist.

 1 Hamilton	Mercedes       609
 2 Bottas	Mercedes       461 (+6)
 3 Verstappen	Red Bull       435
 4 Vettel	Ferrari	       385
 5 Leclerc	Ferrari	       315 (+5)
 6 Gasly	Red Bull       194 (+4)
 7 Sainz	McLaren	       179 (+1)
 8 Raikkonen	Alfa Romeo     152
 9 Kvyat	Toro Rosso     131 (+4)
10 Albon	Toro Rosso     122 (+2)
11 Stroll	Racing Point   120 (+2)
12 Norris	McLaren	       116 (+5)
13 Perez	Racing Point   113 (+1)
14 Ricciardo	Renault	       108 (+5)
15 Hulkenberg	Renault	       108 (+6)
16 Magnussen	Haas	       103 (+1)
17 Giovinazzi	Alfa Romeo	74 (+3)
18 Grosjean	Haas	        64 (+11)
19 Russell	Williams	64
20 Kubica	Williams	51

At the top it wouldn't make much of a difference. In midfield the onus is more on reliability and consistency. Albon is a bit up, Renaults a bit down, etc.

 

However, you really have to participate for the whole season for the championship. Anyone entering mid-season would have an impossible task of getting anywhere in the overall standings. If a new driver entered from Belgian GP, he would need to be in a top car to score big and maybe catch midfield by the end of the season.

 

Would this system represent what you were looking for particularly in midfield? Should Racing Point be ahead of Renault in WCC? In current top 10 system higher peaks are more rewarded for midfield with DNF not having such a negative effect.


Edited by sopa, 15 August 2019 - 10:29.


#5079 Anderis

Anderis
  • Member

  • 3,924 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 15 August 2019 - 10:48

I don't like the idea of giving points for every classified driver. I feel like the teams should be encouraged to find more speed first and then reliability, not the other way around. I can live with the "injustices" like Kubica being ahead of Russell in WDC. F1 is such a circumstancial sport that the final standings won't always reflect relative performance between drivers no matter what the point system is, and it has its good sides as otherwise we would have less to talk and get emotional about.

Every single team scored at least one point during every single season in the last 5 years so I feel like the current system is doing its job.



Advertisement

#5080 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,101 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 August 2019 - 10:56

OK, I did a quick calculation of how would 2019 F1 championship standings look like with such points system. No fastest lap points added.

Everyone classified with at least 90% distance completed gets points. In brackets I add the points that drivers would additionally get if everyone participating in the race scored points, like in American series. Admittedly it wouldn't make much of a difference considering how few retirements we have these days, so they may as well not exist.

 1 Hamilton	Mercedes       609
 2 Bottas	Mercedes       461 (+6)
 3 Verstappen	Red Bull       435
 4 Vettel	Ferrari	       385
 5 Leclerc	Ferrari	       315 (+5)
 6 Gasly	Red Bull       194 (+4)
 7 Sainz	McLaren	       179 (+1)
 8 Raikkonen	Alfa Romeo     152
 9 Kvyat	Toro Rosso     131 (+4)
10 Albon	Toro Rosso     122 (+2)
11 Stroll	Racing Point   120 (+2)
12 Norris	McLaren	       116 (+5)
13 Perez	Racing Point   113 (+1)
14 Ricciardo	Renault	       108 (+5)
15 Hulkenberg	Renault	       108 (+6)
16 Magnussen	Haas	       103 (+1)
17 Giovinazzi	Alfa Romeo	74 (+3)
18 Grosjean	Haas	        64 (+11)
19 Russell	Williams	64
20 Kubica	Williams	51
At the top it wouldn't make much of a difference. In midfield the onus is more on reliability and consistency. Albon is a bit up, Renaults a bit down, etc.

However, you really have to participate for the whole season for the championship. Anyone entering mid-season would have an impossible task of getting anywhere in the overall standings. If a new driver entered from Belgian GP, he would need to be in a top car to score big and maybe catch midfield by the end of the season.

Would this system represent what you were looking for particularly in midfield? Should Racing Point be ahead of Renault in WCC? In current top 10 system higher peaks are more rewarded for midfield with DNF not having such a negative effect.

I don’t see why someone only taking part in half the championship has any reason to be classified as high as someone who does the whole championship but has similar results. Still, it’s more representative of the season performance than only scoring the top few finishers. That’s what we’re trying to achieve after all.

But I’m a big proponent of having dropped scores. It means a DNF is far less damaging to your chances and it forces the top drivers to push for better results if they want to score. I would want something like a best 16 or 17 scores to count system in a 20-22 race season.

#5081 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,101 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 August 2019 - 10:59

Have it your way mate.

I know for myself that I was 10 times more excited in 1991,1994,1996,1997,1998,1999

Than I am in 2019

Point system or not its the fact.

Nowdays I watch start and finish of maybe 4-5 races per season.

And I dont Give a d*** who the champ is.

Points system or not Thats the fact


I dare say that those seasons were exciting because they featured close battles and swings of performance. Especially if you compare to this year which has Mercedes well in front, just like you didn’t mention 1992.

If you derive your enjoyment from the sport from adding numbers, that’s your prerogative, but I don’t think a points system can actually have that much effect on how exciting a season is. Close racing and performance variation make a season exciting. Points systems just make a difference on how accurate the final table is, especially towards the bottom end of the field.

#5082 Rediscoveryx

Rediscoveryx
  • Member

  • 1,626 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 15 August 2019 - 11:05

I dare say that those seasons were exciting because they featured close battles and swings of performance. Especially if you compare to this year which has Mercedes well in front, just like you didn’t mention 1992.

If you derive your enjoyment from the sport from adding numbers, that’s your prerogative, but I don’t think a points system can actually have that much effect on how exciting a season is. Close racing and performance variation make a season exciting. Points systems just make a difference on how accurate the final table is, especially towards the bottom end of the field.

 

Well it can definitely have an effect on how exciting the final race of the season is. But I think you do have a "point" in that the system should not be engineered to create excitement for the final rounds. Such as double points and the like.



#5083 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,591 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 15 August 2019 - 11:31

And championships that were decided in July thanks to this, no thanks.


to be honest, that one championship that springs to mind is being decided in July probably owed much more to the stunning reliability of MS compared with other drivers. he was the only driver who never failed to score points in any of the races up till then. Given the superiority of the F2002 over the other cars, his title was pretty much secure already but had McLaren&Williams and their drivers been as reliable and scoring points in every race as well, the title was beyond grasp somewhat later in the season.
And MS' teammate had sored point in only half of all races up till the moment MS secured the title.....

#5084 Bleu

Bleu
  • Member

  • 2,548 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 August 2019 - 12:10

I don't like the idea of giving points for every classified driver. I feel like the teams should be encouraged to find more speed first and then reliability, not the other way around. I can live with the "injustices" like Kubica being ahead of Russell in WDC. F1 is such a circumstancial sport that the final standings won't always reflect relative performance between drivers no matter what the point system is, and it has its good sides as otherwise we would have less to talk and get emotional about.

Every single team scored at least one point during every single season in the last 5 years so I feel like the current system is doing its job.

 

Agree with that and while the amount of point-scorers has increased throughout the years, this makes events like Mark Webber in Melbourne 2002 or Jules Bianchi in Monaco 2014 more memorable.



#5085 NoForumForOldPole

NoForumForOldPole
  • Member

  • 379 posts
  • Joined: July 18

Posted 15 August 2019 - 12:15

None of those number patterns have anything to do with how useful the system was.


It does because a win was worth as much as 3rd and 2nd place. Now two 3rd places are worth more then a win...

#5086 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,591 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 15 August 2019 - 12:16

Agree with that and while the amount of point-scorers has increased throughout the years, this makes events like Mark Webber in Melbourne 2002 or Jules Bianchi in Monaco 2014 more memorable.


I kind of agree with you but something like this has also caused great injustice.

Back in '89 en '90 when we still had the prequalifying, De Cesaris scored a lucky 4th place with the Rial, one of the few times the car achieved anything. Because of that the team did not have to prequalify for a year in 1990. But by then the team had sunk so deep dat it was an embarassment compared with some of the cars that had to prequalify every time but by then had been solid contenders of only getting through that prequalifying.
Something had gone wrong with the rules then and had a entirely wrong effect.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 15 August 2019 - 12:17.


#5087 Cavalier53

Cavalier53
  • Member

  • 280 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 August 2019 - 12:52

From Leif Snellman's famous Golden Era site - Silver Arrows ruling again:

THE 2019 CHAMPIONSHIP
WITH 1930s RULES!

Results after Hungarian GP:


L Hamilton 20
V Bottas 30
M Verstappen 38
S Vettel 39
C Leclerc 47
K Räikkönen 48
A Albon 48
R Kubica 48
G Russell 48
P Gasly 49
D Kvyat 49
L Stoll 49
A Giovanazzi 50
C Sainz 51
K Magnussen 51
N Hülkenberg 51
S Perez 51
L Norris 54
D Ricciardo 54
R Grosjean 56

 

To understand the system, requires some thinking. Leif did, I didn't....



#5088 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 11,958 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 15 August 2019 - 12:59

From Leif Snellman's famous Golden Era site - Silver Arrows ruling again:

THE 2019 CHAMPIONSHIP
WITH 1930s RULES!

Results after Hungarian GP:


L Hamilton 20
V Bottas 30
M Verstappen 38
S Vettel 39
C Leclerc 47
K Räikkönen 48
A Albon 48
R Kubica 48
G Russell 48
P Gasly 49
D Kvyat 49
L Stoll 49
A Giovanazzi 50
C Sainz 51
K Magnussen 51
N Hülkenberg 51
S Perez 51
L Norris 54
D Ricciardo 54
R Grosjean 56

 

To understand the system, requires some thinking. Leif did, I didn't....

 

 

  • 1 point   to 1st position
  • 2 points to 2nd position
  • 3 points to 3rd position
  • 4 points to those that completed 75 % of the race
  • 5 points to those who completed 50% of the race
  • 6 points to those who completed 25% of the race
  • 7 points to those who did not complete 25% of the race
  • 8 points to those who did not start!

 

Well, basically... don't DNF! Or at least... try to get as far as you can in the race. Don't crash in the first corner! Well, anyway. Outside of those, who have finished on the podium the standings don't tell us much else apart from who has been retiring more than others.



#5089 BiggestBuddyLazierFan

BiggestBuddyLazierFan
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 15 August 2019 - 13:10

I dare say that those seasons were exciting because they featured close battles and swings of performance. Especially if you compare to this year which has Mercedes well in front, just like you didn’t mention 1992.

If you derive your enjoyment from the sport from adding numbers, that’s your prerogative, but I don’t think a points system can actually have that much effect on how exciting a season is. Close racing and performance variation make a season exciting. Points systems just make a difference on how accurate the final table is, especially towards the bottom end of the field.


Points system is the main culprit for todays boring races.

10-6-4-3-2-1 encourages Speed over reliability. Thus making racing more exciting. In the 90s you never knew before the last corner of the last lap weather the guy in front will finish. And Thats what kept us on the edges of our seats

#5090 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 11,958 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 15 August 2019 - 13:12

I think that either way it's a bit of a problem judging drivers in the worst cars by points scored. However you cut it, their final position in the races will owe much more to the attrition rate of other drivers than to their own competence (perhaps that evens out over the course of a season to a certain extent, but still).

 

It reminds me a bit, how years ago Caterham, Virgin/Marussia and HRT were competing for 10th place in WCC based on who would finish 12th or 13th in a race. Basically all three teams were banking on an attrition race to happen somewhere to then capitalize on getting that 12th place finish. Kind of pointless, but for them it was important, because FOM money was in play!



#5091 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,591 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 15 August 2019 - 13:28

Points system is the main culprit for todays boring races.

10-6-4-3-2-1 encourages Speed over reliability. Thus making racing more exciting. In the 90s you never knew before the last corner of the last lap weather the guy in front will finish. And Thats what kept us on the edges of our seats



I think the boring races are mainly because of the fact that you know that 5 or the 6 top spots are going to 6 cars. What is the use of going bolls out when you know for sure that on average there is only one point soring position left to compete for?
What you complain about is a result of the near bulletproof reliability. If in your beloved 90's the first 10 cars would have scored point it would have changed little to the results being affected by unreliability. The unreliability of the day affected who got points, not the fact if there were 6, 8 or even 10 point scoring positions. At least not as much as you suggest it mattered.

#5092 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 10,181 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 15 August 2019 - 13:35

 

  • 1 point   to 1st position
  • 2 points to 2nd position
  • 3 points to 3rd position
  • 4 points to those that completed 75 % of the race
  • 5 points to those who completed 50% of the race
  • 6 points to those who completed 25% of the race
  • 7 points to those who did not complete 25% of the race
  • 8 points to those who did not start!

 

Well, basically... don't DNF! Or at least... try to get as far as you can in the race. Don't crash in the first corner! Well, anyway. Outside of those, who have finished on the podium the standings don't tell us much else apart from who has been retiring more than others.

 

 

Isn't that the similar as sailing still uses? Get the least amount of points possible. Saves thinking about point systems and how big the field is.



#5093 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,101 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 August 2019 - 13:37

Isn't that the similar as sailing still uses? Get the least amount of points possible. Saves thinking about point systems and how big the field is.


Yes placing points are still commonly used in sailing. Though the points for different percentages of race completion are not.

#5094 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 1,783 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 15 August 2019 - 14:13

Something like 60-45-35-30-25-20-18-16-14-12-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 would work for a top 20 system. It’s hard to balance a geometric relationship with not appearing to over inflate the points. But that latter issue shouldn’t be an issue. The points system is supposed to be about accurately recording everyone’s finishes to best decide the championship order.

For 20 I might have 120-60-40-30-24-20-17-15-13-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1. I've always thought the win being worth double second is a good ratio (and then three times third place etc., as much as the integers allow without getting too big). Even then someone could win 2/3 of the races and be tied for points with someone else.

#5095 Henri Greuter

Henri Greuter
  • Member

  • 9,591 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 15 August 2019 - 14:33

For 20 I might have 120-60-40-30-24-20-17-15-13-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1. I've always thought the win being worth double second is a good ratio (and then three times third place etc., as much as the integers allow without getting too big). Even then someone could win 2/3 of the races and be tied for points with someone else.



With such a point score Kimi with his single victory n 2003 could have never made as it difficult for MS with 6 as eventually happened.....

#5096 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 4,498 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 15 August 2019 - 14:41

I've always thought the win being worth double second is a good ratio (and then three times third place etc., as much as the integers allow without getting too big)


Yes - for a top 20 the winner would get nearly 233 million points!

#5097 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 14,682 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 15 August 2019 - 14:56

Yes - for a top 20 the winner would get nearly 233 million points!

 

 

hahaha

 

I laughed.



#5098 BiggestBuddyLazierFan

BiggestBuddyLazierFan
  • Member

  • 418 posts
  • Joined: April 18

Posted 15 August 2019 - 15:00

I think the boring races are mainly because of the fact that you know that 5 or the 6 top spots are going to 6 cars. What is the use of going bolls out when you know for sure that on average there is only one point soring position left to compete for?
What you complain about is a result of the near bulletproof reliability. If in your beloved 90's the first 10 cars would have scored point it would have changed little to the results being affected by unreliability. The unreliability of the day affected who got points, not the fact if there were 6, 8 or even 10 point scoring positions. At least not as much as you suggest it mattered.

If we used pts system from the 90s todays cars would be faster thus less reliable by design

Nobody would design the car with 7th in mind.

Edited by BiggestBuddyLazierFan, 15 August 2019 - 15:00.


#5099 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 19,101 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 August 2019 - 15:05

If we used pts system from the 90s todays cars would be faster thus less reliable by design

Nobody would design the car with 7th in mind.


Today’s reliability revolution started when we still had the top 6 points system. It’s to do with quality control as much as anything. Even with the top six points, reliability paid more than out and out speed because you could take advantage of those who were dropping out.

The problem with top 6 is that beyond the first few teams, no team can expect to get points other than via reliability over those in front dropping out. When there’s no reward for 7th over any position further down, there’s none of the incentive for speed that you seem to think only exists if you’re chasing points.

Advertisement

#5100 sopa

sopa
  • Member

  • 11,958 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 15 August 2019 - 16:04

Yes - for a top 20 the winner would get nearly 233 million points!

 

Talk about hyperinflation. Zimbabwe or Venezuela would approve.