34 replies to this topic

[arcsine]

A question in particular for those who were following F1 in the late 1980s ;) :

When Prost lost the 1988 WDC to Senna despite scoring more points, how much debate did this cause about the points system in use at the time?

Did the dropping of the "11 best scores" rule prior to the 1991 season have anything to do with the outcome of 1988?

[ensign14]

At the time, I remember thinking the right man had won, because the dropped points ruling rewarded wins rather than places. Same thing had happened in 1966 when Surtees beat Graham Hill by 1 point, and Hill had to drop 2.

[esorniloc]

Before the Japanese GP Prost had 84 points (with 6 taken off on best 11 scores rule) and Senna had 79 points.

Yet Senna won the race and tht title in that GP.

I can't think of another year when someone came into a GP (not being the final round) behind in the points and won the title.

[esorniloc]

Originally posted by ensign14
At the time, I remember thinking the right man had won, because the dropped points ruling rewarded wins rather than places. Same thing had happened in 1966 when Surtees beat Graham Hill by 1 point, and Hill had to drop 2.

I think you mean 1964 when Surtees won.

[gdecarli]

Originally posted by arcsine
Did the dropping of the "11 best scores" rule prior to the 1991 season have anything to do with the outcome of 1988?

I don't think so.
First of all, IIRC the rule was not 11 best scores, but half+3 best scores. As from 1981 to 1990 (when this rule was active) GP were 15 or 16, half (rounded to higher number) was always 8 and [half+3] was always 11.
Only following drivers had to drop points:

• 1981÷1984: -
• 1985: Prost: 1 fourth (3 points). Championship: 1° Prost 73 (76), 2° Alboreto 53.
• 1986: Prost: 2 sixth (2 points), Mansell 1 fifth (2 points). Championship: 1° Prost 72 (74), 2° Mansell 70 (72), 3° Piquet 69
• 1987: Piquet: 1 fourth (3 points). Championship: 1° Piquet 73 (76), 2° Mansell 61.
• 1988: Senna: 1 fourh and 1 sisth (4 points), Prost: 3 seconds (18 points). Championship: 1° Senna 90 (94), 2° Prost 87 (105)
• 1989: Prost: 1 fourh and 1 fifth (5 points). Championship: 1° Prost 76 (81), 2° Senna 60
• 1990: Prost: 1 fifth (2 points), Piquet 1 sixth (1 point). Championship: 1° Senna 78, 2° Prost 71 (73), 3° Piquet 43 (44), 4° Berger 43, 5° Mansell 37

As you can see, 1988 was the only year when drops change final position, but I know it has been a very particulary year, and hardly we will have another season like this (don't think at 2002, as there was no real competition between Schumacher and Barrichello!)

Besides, driver knew scoring system and both Senna and Prost perfectly knew that Championship would have won by the one with more winning. I don't recall any problem from Prost about this matter.

For this reason, the most important new in 1991 was 1 more point for victory: on this point I recall a big debate: according to chat of that time, this rule should have been in favour of Prost and Ferrari because at this time he was very regular but not so fast as Senna. 1991 season have been quite different: 1° Senna 96 points, 7 win - 5° Prost 34 points, 3 second and shot before Adelaide!

Ciao,
Guido

[Svend]

I don't fully understand how the dropping points rule favours winning more than the non-dropping points rule. It seems to me that it is more some sort of compensation for the lack of reliability.

For example, if Prost gained another victory over Senna they probably still had to drop their worst scorings (for example 2 6ths). So how exactly does gaining another victory benefit you more than in a normal non points dropping situation.

[gdecarli]

I think there is a misunderstanding, maybe due to my poor english

I agree with you to say that such a dropping points rule was not so important as in 10 years only once (in a very particular situation) could change final result of world championship.
So, the most important new in 1991 was not end of dropping rule, but 10 point for each victory, rather than 9.
More or less the contrary of what happen this year, with 8 points for second place.

Ciao,
Guido

[fines]

At the time, there was not much discussion, pretty much because it was a very good rule. As it was obvious from the second or third race of the season that McLaren would win all the races, it simply meant that the man with the most wins would be champion; second place finishes would only come in in a situation of tie. Racing should not be about scoring points, but about winning (and coming second, third and so on). If I'd still be following the sport, I'd miss dropped scores!

The decision to abolish this system was probably due to the fact that many of the casual followers of F1 didn't understand it, and just wanted to add up points like they'd learned in school. Part and parcel of the trivialisation of Grand Prix Racing.

Although I certainly wasn't a Senna fan on the day, I welcomed the outcome - it was the right man that won the title, and it profitted the racing very much all season. There was no use in collecting points, all that counted was winning!

[ensign14]

Originally posted by esorniloc


I think you mean 1964 when Surtees won.

Yep, typo.

I don't remember much of a debate about the points system in 1988, however.

It worked for the one with the most wins, because where you only have a limited number of points scores that can count, you need to make sure that as many of your scores are as high as possible. No point cruising around to finish 4th when you're not competitive because you may have to drop them. But worth risking it to get to 1st or 2nd.

[Svend]

Hmmz..

But with the best 10 or 11 results counting.. in what situation would a driver actually get 9, 10 or 11 victories. It was more a case of improving on your 12th worst result I think.

Anyway, cut the crap, get your car sorted out for 16/17 races instead for only 7 ;)

[ensign14]

It was 8 wins and 3 seconds being worth more than 7 wins and 7 seconds. But again the drivers drove to a degree to the points - would Senna have thown it away at Italy if he could have cruised to a guaranteed 6 points?

[D-Type]

My standard comment on this type of discussion.

The aim of a race is to win.

So the champion is the person with the most wins. If there's a tie then the most seconds, etc

This rewards results rather than consistency. Right down the field, everyone must fight for position.

(We can of course keep a points system for working out who gets to ride on Bernie's bandwagon)

[gdecarli]

Originally posted by ensign14
would Senna have thown it away at Italy if he could have cruised to a guaranteed 6 points?

Senna's accident at Monza 1988 has nothing to do with point system: he was leading the race at two laps to go and Berger was nearly 1 minute behind him, so Senna was really cruising to a quite victory. He had an accident while lapping Schlesser, but he could wait until a better position, he had plety of time.

IMHO, there are two another better example about accident and point system. Let's give a look to what would happen in 1994 and 1997 with 2003 scoring system:

• 1994: After Suzuka 1° Schumacher 92, 2° Hill 91. The same as final championship, as they crashed toghether and they were both out.
  With 2003 rules, after Japan it would have been 1° Hill 104, 2° Schumacher 96. What would have happened at Adelaide? Probably Damon world champion
• 1997: After Suzuka, 1° Schumacher 78 point, 2° Villeneuve 77. So final GP at Jerez was very important and that's the why they fight so hardly.
  With 2003 scoring system, after Suzuka it would have been 1° Schumacher 94, 2° Villeneuve 83 and all the race would be very different (no need of such a fight!), surely without any accident between them and Schumacher would have won title lost in 1994.

As you can seem, different scoring system means different races!

Ciao,
Guido

[ensign14]

Originally posted by gdecarli

Senna's accident at Monza 1988 has nothing to do with point system: he was leading the race at two laps to go and Berger was nearly 1 minute behind him, so Senna was really cruising to a quite victory. He had an accident while lapping Schlesser, but he could wait until a better position, he had plety of time.

Was he? I thought his lead was much less, and being cut by a flying Berger, with Senna marginal on fuel.

[Henri Greuter]

I don't recall much fuzz about the points system either at that time though personally I felt it to be rather unfair.
If it comes to the drivers winning the most races then Schuey has to be champion this year (at least right now that is) and I can't imagine the Montoya fans accept that but instead pointing out that their hero is more consistent in the season. OK 3 to go so it may change but you cacth the drift I suppose. And by now, Raikonnen would be out of the equastion by then because he can only equal a driver with 4 at best.
and how many other deserved champions had lost their titles then to late season challenges (Schetckter, Lauda '77, Prost '86)

Beisdes that, when I see a driver loose a title because of one less victory than the other but score 14 top two results out of 16 races vs 11 (though 8 vs 7 victories)???
Prost had to drop many more points for the title that more than half of the field had scored combined! OK: Senna scored the more victories and also the more spectacular victories, no daoubt abaot that. But the point difference over the entire season between then was too great in my point of view to justify Senna's title beyond discussion.

From what I remember the point dropping score rule was introduced when F1 went turbo and more retirements were anticipated.


Henri Greuter

[conjohn]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter


From what I remember the point dropping score rule was introduced when F1 went turbo and more retirements were anticipated.

The dropped scores were re-introduced in 1984, when the best 11 of the 16 races were counted. This continued up to and including 1990, from then on every race counts.

However, it was only between 1979 and 1983 that all races counted. Prior to that, between 1950 and 1966 a certain number of scores were dropped, counting the season as a whole. Quite how the rule was written I don't know, I can't see a pattern to it.
Then between 1967 and 1978 the season was split in two parts, with the first part getting the extra race if there were an uneven number of races. From each of the two parts, one race would have to be dropped.

[David Hyland]

I also don't recall any fuss being made about the points system in 1988. As Guido pointed out, both Prost and Senna knew the situation and knew that they would probably have to win the most races to win the title. And as far as I'm aware, the 1988 result didn't have anything to do with the "best [half+3] results" rule being dropped for 1991 - I think fines is right when he says they did this to make F1 easier for the casual observer to follow.

My own personal view is that the title went to the wrong man in 1988 - for me, Prost's 4 extra second places outweighed Senna's 1 extra win. I'm not disputing that Senna was the faster driver for most (all?) of the season, in what we can only assume to be identical cars (barring individual setup differences), but the championship has always been about amassing points, and I think Prost did the better job of that in 1988. I don't think the people who invented the "dropped scores" rule ever imagined that a driver would have to drop 3 second places!

I understand the sentiments of those who say "give the title to the driver with the most wins, and only count second places, etc if there is a tie". How different might the championships have been (not just in terms of result, but also in terms of the racing) over the years if that rule was in force?

Finally, returning to 1988, I find it interesting to consider the season in "quarters": Prost won 3 of the first 4 races, Senna won 3 of the next 4, Senna won 3 of the next 4 (but, crucially, Prost didn't win the one that Senna didn't win), and Prost won 3 of the last 4.

David.

[John B]

Originally posted by ensign14
Was he? I thought his lead was much less, and being cut by a flying Berger, with Senna marginal on fuel.

Prost is given credit for helping cause Senna's fuel problem -- after he figured out his engine was not going to last the distance, he pushed Senna hard, forcing AS to use a lot of fuel at that point of the race and ultimately put him in a position where he was forced to let the Ferraris back within striking distance.

IIRC Berger was about 4 seconds back at the time of the accident.

Spain and Portugal proved to be odd races for the season, with Senna falling back in the field in both to 4th and 6th. At one point being passed by a March on the straight....

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by D-Type
My standard comment on this type of discussion.

The aim of a race is to win.

So the champion is the person with the most wins. If there's a tie then the most seconds, etc

This rewards results rather than consistency. Right down the field, everyone must fight for position.

(We can of course keep a points system for working out who gets to ride on Bernie's bandwagon)

Hear, hear!

Championships should be a means of rewarding the best driver, not for deciding who the best driver is.

[Geza Sury]

To make things clear, that's how the point scoring system has developed throughout the years: (Perhaps it was posted somewhere else in this forum, but I couldn't find it)

Number of races taken into consideration in the final classification

1950: 4 out of 7
1951: 4 out of 8
1952: 4 out of 8
1953: 4 out of 9
1954: 5 out of 9
1955: 5 out of 7
1957: 5 out of 8
1958: 6 out of 11
1959: 5 out of 9
1960: 6 ouf of 10
1961: 5 ouf of 8
1962: 5 ouf of 9
1963: 6 ouf of 10
1964: 6 ouf of 10
1965: 6 ouf of 10
1966: 5 ouf of 9
1967: 9 ouf of 11*
1968: 10 ouf of 12
1969: 9 ouf of 11
1970: 11 out of 13
1971: 9 out of 11
1972: 11 out of 12
1973: 13 out of 15
1974: 13 out of 15
1975: 12 out of 14
1976: 14 out of 16
1977: 15 out of 17
1978: 14 out of 16
1979: 8 out of 15**
1980: 10 out of 14***
1981: 11 out of 15
1982: 11 out of 16
1983: 11 out of 15
1984: 11 out of 16
1985: 11 out of 16
1986: 11 out of 16
1987: 11 out of 16
1988: 11 out of 16
1989: 11 out of 16
1990: 11 out of 16

*In 1967, the World Championship of Drivers was divided into two equal parts. All the results minus one were taken into account
**In 1979, only the four best results of each half were taken into consideration
***In 1980, only the five best results of each half were taken into consideration

Source: Marlboro Grand Prix Guide

[fines]

Originally posted by conjohn


The dropped scores were re-introduced in 1984, when the best 11 of the 16 races were counted. This continued up to and including 1990, from then on every race counts.

However, it was only between 1979 and 1983 that all races counted.

Not quite correct: the "best 11 scores" rule was introduced, like so many things, in 1981. Before that, the season was split into two parts, like 1967-78; but in 1979 only the best four results from each half and in 1980 the best five (from memory) counted. Thus, the first World Championship without (potentially) dropped scores was 1991!

Interesting bit about Monza 1988: with a view to the World Championship, it did not matter one iota if Senna won there or retired. He needed one more win whatever his result in Italy - think about it!;)

[conjohn]

Originally posted by Geza Sury
To make things clear, that's how the point scoring system has developed throughout the years

Thank you, Geza, your source beats my source I have amended by data accordingly.

[fines]

conjohn, please amend further:

Number of races taken into consideration in the final classification

1950: 4 out of 7
1951: 4 out of 8
1952: 4 out of 8
1953: 4 out of 9
1954: 5 out of 9
1955: 5 out of 7
1957: 5 out of 8
1958: 6 out of 11
1959: 5 out of 9
1960: 6 ouf of 10
1961: 5 ouf of 8
1962: 5 ouf of 9
1963: 6 ouf of 10
1964: 6 ouf of 10
1965: 6 ouf of 10
1966: 5 ouf of 9
1967: 9 ouf of 11*
1968: 10 ouf of 12*
1969: 9 ouf of 11*
1970: 11 out of 13*
1971: 9 out of 11*
1972: 11 out of 12*
1973: 13 out of 15*
1974: 13 out of 15*
1975: 12 out of 14*
1976: 14 out of 16*
1977: 15 out of 17*
1978: 14 out of 16*
1979: 8 out of 15**
1980: 10 out of 14***
1981: 11 out of 15
1982: 11 out of 16
1983: 11 out of 15
1984: 11 out of 16
1985: 11 out of 16
1986: 11 out of 16
1987: 11 out of 16
1988: 11 out of 16
1989: 11 out of 16
1990: 11 out of 16

*From 1967 through to 1978, the World Championship of Drivers was divided into two equal parts. All the results minus one were taken into account
**In 1979, only the four best results of each half were taken into consideration
***In 1980, only the five best results of each half were taken into consideration

[conjohn]

Originally posted by fines
conjohn, please amend further:

Done

Thank you both, Geza and Michael.

By the way, Geza, as I understand it you are Hungarian, and, as we have learned here on TNF, the normal Hungarian way to present a name is: surname firstname. So, as I have no notions about Hungarians names, should I call you Sury instead

[gdecarli]

Originally posted by John B
IIRC Berger was about 4 seconds back at the time of the accident.

I think your are right and I was wrong when I said Berger was nearly 1 minute behind Senna . I don't know why I thought like this.
I have no data, I tried to make some calculation on total racing time and average speed and Berger should have been no more than 7-8 seconds behind Senna.

Ciao,
Guido

[gdecarli]

Originally posted by fines
Interesting bit about Monza 1988: with a view to the World Championship, it did not matter one iota if Senna won there or retired. He needed one more win whatever his result in Italy - think about it!;)

Finally he had one more win, but I don't think he was thinking such a thing while jumping over Schlesser
I think he was more similar to

Ciao,
Guido

[David Hyland]

Originally posted by gdecarli

Finally he had one more win, but I don't think he was thinking such a thing while jumping over Schlesser

I always found it amusing/interesting that after 1986 and 1987, when "red 5" (Nigel Mansell) won so many races, that in 1988, when Williams were nowhere, that it was the number 5 Williams (albeit without Mansell at the wheel) which was "responsible" for McLaren failing to complete their clean sweep. [Schlesser was driving number 5, wasn't he? But I can't remember whether he was "red 5" or "white 5"?]

David.

[Geza Sury]

Originally posted by fines
*From 1967 through to 1978, the World Championship of Drivers was divided into two equal parts. All the results minus one were taken into account

Thanks for correcting this mistake Michael. I have never thought the Marlboro Grand Prix Guide was wrong

Originally posted by conjohn
By the way, Geza, as I understand it you are Hungarian, and, as we have learned here on TNF, the normal Hungarian way to present a name is: surname firstname. So, as I have no notions about Hungarians names, should I call you Sury instead

Absolutely true, but to make things easier for you, I put my name in the 'European' order. My original name is Surányi Géza, (Family name: Surányi, given name: Géza), Geza Sury is a kind of a nickname.

Originally posted by David Hyland
Schlesser was driving number 5, wasn't he? But I can't remember whether he was "red 5" or "white 5"?

Schlesser's car sported Nigel's familiar red 5 at Monza. When Thierry Boutsen took Mansell's place at Williams for the 1989 season, the red number disappeared from the car and was replaced with a white one.

[fines]

Originally posted by Geza Sury
Thanks for correcting this mistake Michael. I have never thought the Marlboro Grand Prix Guide was wrong

Oh, it is - and quite often, too!;)

[John B]

A side note from Monza -- Berger had some irregularity with the car's weight at the end -- it failed the first weighing but managed to pass a second, and I remember ESPN at one point reporting that a disqualification was quite possible. Was there any controversy over whether Ferrari got a break at home -- that a noble insurrection probably would have happened had the leader of a Ferrari 1-2 in Italy been DQed?

[Alan Lewis]

Well, taking D-Type's lead...

On the basis of the most wins, then most seconds, etc. for tie-breaks, the following years would have seen "someone else" crowned World Champion :

1958 Stirling Moss (4 wins to Mike Hawthorn's 1)
1964 Jim Clark (3 wins to John Surtees' 2)
1967 Jim Clark (4 wins to Denny Hulme's 2)
1977 Mario Andretti (4 wins to Niki Lauda's 3)
1979 Alan Jones (4 wins to Jody Scheckter's 3)
1981 Alain Prost (3 wins and 2 seconds to Nelson Piquet's 3 wins and 1 second)
1982 Didier Pironi (2 wins to Keke Rosberg's 1)
1983 Alain Prost (4 wins to Nelson Piquet's 3)
1984 Alain Prost (7 wins to Niki Lauda's 5)
1986 Nigel Mansell (5 wins to Alain Prost's 4)
1987 Nigel Mansell (6 wins to Nelson Piquet's 3)
1989 Ayrton Senna (6 wins to Alain Prost's 4)

Winners :

A title for Moss
Four Championships for Clark
Two for Andretti and for Jones
Five (hmm, familiar number) for Prost
Pironi would have won in '82, rightly or wrongly
Three for Mansell
Four (in a row) for Senna

Losers :

Hawthorn, Surtees, Hulme, Scheckter and Rosberg would never have won the title but , most surprisingly, Nelson Piquet - three times a Champion in the "real" world - would have won twentyish Grands Prix without a single Championship to his name.

Also, Lauda would only have one Championship - before the accident - instead of three, one in the year after and one in the McLaren comeback. How would that have affected his reputation?

The standout years are, of course, 1958 when Hawthorn would also have been beaten by Tony Brooks, and the fabled 1982, when Arnoux, Lauda, Prost and Watson joined Pironi in outwinning (is that a word? It is now) Rosberg.

Lots more comment begging to uttered :

- team orders letting some drivers perhaps win more than they would have
- these results use all the races, not the best x wins
- though I don't think it ever mattered, should we have counted sixth place tiebreaks in the fifties, or fastest laps?
- and so forth

but I'm done here.

So, what have we learned, apart from the fact that any system for choosing one driver above others is arbitrary and will never give you a result you are satisfied with in every single year?

APL

[John B]

Alan, thanks for the compilation, I'd wondered the same thing.

One note to add to the comments is Piquet willingly surrendered a huge lead at the 1983 finale to protect his engine; this cost him win 4 which would have tied Prost.

Interesting to see Prost win three titles by 1984 on this list -- and in reality start winning them after 1984.

Imagine the possibilities for the 1982 finale -- with 11 drivers having 2 or 1 win(s), it would have been something to figure out beforehand (Alboreto won his first that day; excepting him 10 different drivers could have wound up with 2 wins).

[Alan Lewis]

Originally posted by John B
...One note to add to the comments is Piquet willingly surrendered a huge lead at the 1983 finale to protect his engine; this cost him win 4 which would have tied Prost...

Absolutely right - and would he have settled for so many second places in 1987, or could he have beaten Mansell in a few more and made it closer? Similarly Lauda at Estoril in '84 - though not such an obvious one, I agree, he'd still have needed another win.

We could have hours of fun with this.

APL

[Alan Lewis]

Dammit! I can't leave 1982 alone.

Prior to the final race in Las Vegas, the Championship table using the "D-Type System" would have been :

1 Didier Pironi 2 wins, 2 seconds, 2 thirds, etc.
2 Alain Prost 2 wins, 2 seconds, 1 sixth,...
3 John Watson 2 wins, 1 second, 1 third, 1 fourth...
4 Rene Arnoux 2 wins, 1 second, 1 third, 1 tenth,...
5 Niki Lauda 2 wins, 1 third,...
6 Keke Rosberg 1 win, 3 seconds,...
7 Patrick Tambay 1 win, 1 second, 1 third, 2 fourths,...
8 Riccardo Patrese 1 win, 1 second, 1 third, 1 fifth,...
9 Nelson Piquet 1 win, 1 second, 1 fourth,...
10 Elio de Angelis 1 win, 3 fourths,...
11 Eddie Cheever 1 second, 1 third,...
and so forth.

So, with one win obtainable, and Pironi not competing, anyone in the first six - including Rosberg - could have become Champion. Keke had two third places as his next best so the race win would have done it for him even if Prost was second. All the other contenders would have taken the title as the only three-time race winners of course.

APL

[gdecarli]

Originally posted by ensign14
Was he? I thought his lead was much less, and being cut by a flying Berger, with Senna marginal on fuel.

While looking for something else, I find times scored at Monza 1988 and I recall this old thread.
So, of coures I was wrong; here following there is difference between Senna, Berger and Alboreto in the final laps:

lap  Senna	 Berger   Alboreto  SEN-BER  BER-ALB

--  --------  --------  --------  -------  -------

37  1'31"719  1'32"042  1'32"165   26"340   10"821

38  1'32"696  1'31"909  1'31"427   25"553   10"339

39  1'33"276  1'32"403  1'31"170   24"680	9"106

40  1'33"366  1'32"098  1'30"230   23"412	7"238

41  1'32"471  1'31"600  1'29"605   22"541	5"243

42  1'32"246  1'30"794  1'29"647   21"098	4"096

43  1'32"912  1'30"280  1'29"357   18"457	3"173

44  1'33"095  1'29"832  1'29"070   15"194	2"411

45  1'33"375  1'29"472  1'29"501   11"291	2"440

46  1'31"556  1'29"209  1'29"151	8"944	2"382

47  1'31"925  1'29"113  1'29"223	6"132	2"492

48  1'30"308  1'29"225  1'29"835	5"049	3"102

49  1'30"161  1'30"041  1'29"232	4"929	2"293

50	 -	  1'31"811  1'32"042	 -	   2"524

51	 -	  1'32"365  1'29"343	 -	   0"502

Last two columns shows difference between Senna-Berger and Berger-Alboreto, so difference Senna-Alboreto is the sum of two columns. Max difference between Senna-Berger was at lap 37 (26"340); between Berger-Alboreto was at lap 33 (12"547).

Fastest lap was scored by Alboreto, 1'29"070 (lap 44); Berger's was 1'29"113 (lap 47) and Senna's 1'29"569 (lap 29).

There were no overtakings in front positions: from lap 1 to 34 positions were Senna, Prost, Berger, Alboreto; then after Prost's retirements they went on Senna, Berger, Alboreto until Senna's crash.

Ciao,
Guido

(from Autosprint 38/1988 pages 12-14)