47 replies to this topic

[TickTickBooom]

Am I being really thick here, or did Kimi not win the championship by two points instead of the much touted one point (see article on autosport.com about the lawyer seeking title thing).

F1 Racing and Autosport, plus various other motorsport sites and pages, often say that Kimi won the title by one point from Hamilton. But if Hamilton had one more point, he'd be tied with Kimi and Kimi would still win on number of race wins. Yes? No??

Can someone please clear this up for me?

[lukywill]

yes. kimi has 6 wins - one wonders how - and could end up with much more by him self than poor mclaren drivers.

[wingwalker]

Yes. But usually there is not enough space/interest to go into such details.

[Orin]

He won by one point, had they been tied he'd have won by no points, but been declared winner because of his number of wins.

[ensign14]

Well, they're not going to say "he won it by a point and a tie-breaker if that point did not exist", are they?

[TickTickBooom]

But surely it would make sense to say that Hamilton lost (or Raikkonen won) by 2 points. It's more accurate than 1 seeing as he WOULDN'T have won it if he had one more point!

[ensign14]

The gap was one point. Hence he won it by one point. Just swap 'em around in one race and the gap is eliminated. People are not going to go into details about how one point for 8th is more crucial than one of the 6 points for 3rd or something.

[imaginesix]

You could say he won by one point and one race win. But then if Hamilton had that point and race win, would he still have won? It depends then on 2nd place finishes, then 3rds and so on ad infinitum. This is true for every championship year; an 'x' point lead at the end of the season does not necessarily mean that's all it took to decide the championship, it just means there was an 'x' point difference between 1st and 2nd place.

[Tigershark]

Kimi won by one point and Lewis lost by two.;)

If they had been tied, they wouldn't have won based on points but on the number of victories as already stated. So I suppose that one doesn't count.

[TickTickBooom]

That still doesn't explain why people don't say he lost by 2 points, which is ACCURATE!

[Clatter]

Originally posted by TickTickBooom
That still doesn't explain why people don't say he lost by 2 points, which is ACCURATE!

But that is not accurate.

KR has 110 points, LH has 109.

110-109 = 1 unless maths where you come from is different to the rest of the world.

[turin]

because who lost the championship is irrelevant, as there are 21 of them. It is more interesting to say who did win it, and in this case it was Kimi, who won it by one point. That is accurate.

you're blowing into a tea cup

@ Clatter: In his logic is accurate, as LH would have needed two more points than Kimi (assuming Kimi results were the same) to win. It is semantic, but is different than establishing Kimi's winning margin.

[Tigershark]

Originally posted by Clatter
KR has 110 points, LH has 109.

110-109 = 1

True, but Lewis did not need 110 points to become world champion, he needed 111.

Kimi won because he had one point more than the best of the rest, but Lewis lost because he was two points short.

Or something to that effect.

[imaginesix]

But 2 points is not the closest margin of defeat, you might as well say he lost by 8 points (which is also true). He really only needed one point and two wins to take it (based on 2nd place finishes).

[Arska]

I have a feeling that people bringing this up also like to point out to people that technically the last millennium ended at the end of 2000.

[ex Rhodie racer]

ticktickboom, you´re bored. Go on, admit it.

[ensign14]

Lewis Hamilton lost by 1.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 point then.

[TickTickBooom]

Originally posted by Tigershark


True, but Lewis did not need 110 points to become world champion, he needed 111.

Kimi won because he had one point more than the best of the rest, but Lewis lost because he was two points short.

Or something to that effect.

Exactly!

Originally posted by ex Rhodie racer


ticktickboom, you´re bored. Go on, admit it.

Yes. Yes, I am.

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Originally posted by TickTickBooom
That still doesn't explain why people don't say he lost by 2 points, which is ACCURATE!

U really, really are being a goose...

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by Tigershark


True, but Lewis did not need 110 points to become world champion, he needed 111.

Kimi won because he had one point more than the best of the rest, but Lewis lost because he was two points short.

Then it is correct to say that Kimi won by a point but incorrect to say that Lewis lost by one.

[TickTickBooom]

Thank you, Buttoneer. All cleared up now.

[Collombin]

So did Alain Prost lose the 1984 championship by half a point? Or a quarter of a point? Or did the wins tie break mean he got an extra point and actually won it by half a point? If so, I think someone ought to tell him.

[Mauseri]

With two more points Hamilton would have won it, so there wasnt a two point gap.

[wingwalker]

KR won the title by 1 points while LH lost it in by 2 points.

This is simply how it works.

[Tenmantaylor]

Kimi Raikkonen won the title by one point, but if he had one less point he would have still won it but not on points. This doesnt mean he won it by two points, just that Hamilton would have needed two more to win on points.

Kerpeesh?

[VresiBerba]

Originally posted by TickTickBooom
Am I being really thick here, or did Kimi not win the championship by two points instead of the much touted one point (see article on autosport.com about the lawyer seeking title thing).

F1 Racing and Autosport, plus various other motorsport sites and pages, often say that Kimi won the title by one point from Hamilton. But if Hamilton had one more point, he'd be tied with Kimi and Kimi would still win on number of race wins. Yes? No??

Can someone please clear this up for me?

That would be like saying Montoya won the CART championship in 1999 by one point eventhough both Montoya and Franchitti finished the season on 212 points each.

In this case, it's one point.

[Dudley]

I have a feeling that people bringing this up also like to point out to people that technically the last millennium ended at the end of 2000.

There's no "technically" about it.

[pacwest]

Who would win under the old points system? Anyone good at math?

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by pacwest
Who would win under the old points system? Anyone good at math?

You asked about "old points" system - here are several... I'm using "best 11 scores" which was used back when there were 16 races in a season. 2007 had 17, so it could have been "best 12 scores"...

I think I have this right...

10-6-4-3-2-1 (All races count)
Raikkonen - 93
Hamilton - 87
Alonso - 85
Massa - 72

9-6-4-3-2-1 (All races count)
Raikkonen - 87
Hamilton - 83
Alonso - 81
Massa - 69

9-6-4-3-2-1 (Best 11 scores)
Raikkonen - 78 (87)
Alonso - 72 (81)
Hamilton - 70 (83)
Massa - 65 (69)

9-6-4-3-2-1 (Best 8 of first 9, Best 7 of last 8)
Raikkonen - 87
Alonso - 81
Hamilton - 79 (83)
Massa - 69


(Oh what the heck... I'll have to double-check this one...)

8-6-4-3-2 plus one point for fastest lap (Best 11 scores)
Raikkonen - 75 (87)
Hamilton - 73 (82)
Alonso - 70 (80)
Massa - 70

:

[VresiBerba]

Originally posted by stevewf1


You asked about "old points" system - here are several... I'm using "best 11 scores" which was used back when there were 16 races in a season. 2007 had 17, so it could have been "best 12 scores"...

I think I have this right...

10-6-4-3-2-1 (All races count)
Raikkonen - 93
Hamilton - 87
Alonso - 85
Massa - 72

9-6-4-3-2-1 (All races count)
Raikkonen - 87
Hamilton - 83
Alonso - 81
Massa - 69

9-6-4-3-2-1 (Best 11 scores)
Raikkonen - 78 (87)
Alonso - 72 (81)
Hamilton - 70 (83)
Massa - 65 (69)

9-6-4-3-2-1 (Best 8 of first 9, Best 7 of last 8)
Raikkonen - 87
Alonso - 81
Hamilton - 79 (83)
Massa - 69


(Oh what the heck... I'll have to double-check this one...)

8-6-4-3-2 plus one point for fastest lap (Best 11 scores)
Raikkonen - 75 (87)
Hamilton - 73 (82)
Alonso - 70 (80)
Massa - 70

:

So much for the current dastardly, evil and insidious point-system then! Another, preferably an old system, would have meant... eh, a more correct... uhm, something

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by VresiBerba
So much for the current insidious, evil and dastardly point-system; another, preferably an old system, would have meant... eh, a more deserving... uhm, something

Yes, I'm sure there would be some position changes at or near the top of the points tables over the years with the varying systems used, but basically, things would pretty much remain as they were...

Personally, I'm not going to bother working all of that out...

[giacomo]

[Hacklerf]

Hah this is a funny thread, i had never thought about this until you mention it, and your logic is totally correct, but, Kimi did win it by a point lol

[djellison]

To say 'if' he won one more point he'd be tied.

Then the question is - how was that extra point earnt? Perhaps he won a race earlier in the year, perhaps he won two and a whole other swathe of other things happened.

The moment you say 'if' he won one more point, then you enter a realm of fiction where anythign could have happened, and thus the count-back becomes a moot point.

Doug

[Hacklerf]

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound..?

[Peter]

Originally posted by stevewf1


You asked about "old points" system - here are several... I'm using "best 11 scores" which was used back when there were 16 races in a season. 2007 had 17, so it could have been "best 12 scores"...

I think I have this right...

10-6-4-3-2-1 (All races count)
Raikkonen - 93
Hamilton - 87
Alonso - 85
Massa - 72

9-6-4-3-2-1 (All races count)
Raikkonen - 87
Hamilton - 83
Alonso - 81
Massa - 69

9-6-4-3-2-1 (Best 11 scores)
Raikkonen - 78 (87)
Alonso - 72 (81)
Hamilton - 70 (83)
Massa - 65 (69)

9-6-4-3-2-1 (Best 8 of first 9, Best 7 of last 8)
Raikkonen - 87
Alonso - 81
Hamilton - 79 (83)
Massa - 69


(Oh what the heck... I'll have to double-check this one...)

8-6-4-3-2 plus one point for fastest lap (Best 11 scores)
Raikkonen - 75 (87)
Hamilton - 73 (82)
Alonso - 70 (80)
Massa - 70

:

But what about the simple, earlier system of 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 ???

[SkorbiF1]

Originally posted by Peter

But what about the simple, earlier system of 6 - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 ???

There has never been a system like that.
1950-1959: 8, 4, 3, 2 + Fastest lap 1
1960: 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 + Fastest lap 1
1961-1990: 9, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1
1991-2002: 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1
2003-: 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

* 1950-1953: Best four scores counted
* 1954-1957, 1959, 1961-1962, 1966: Best five scores counted
* 1958, 1960, 1963-1965: Best six scores counted
* 1967-1980: Seasons divided in halves, and best x results of x races counted
* 1981-1990: Best eleven scores counted
* 1991- : All scores count

[polymath]

Now that I'm thinking about it and also bored I would say lewis lost it on two points

Point #1 - He didn't have enough points

Point #2 - He had less victories than Kimi

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by SkorbiF1

There has never been a system like that.
1950-1959: 8, 4, 3, 2 + Fastest lap 1
1960: 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 + Fastest lap 1
1961-1990: 9, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1
1991-2002: 10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1
2003-: 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

* 1950-1953: Best four scores counted
* 1954-1957, 1959, 1961-1962, 1966: Best five scores counted
* 1958, 1960, 1963-1965: Best six scores counted
* 1967-1980: Seasons divided in halves, and best x results of x races counted
* 1981-1990: Best eleven scores counted
* 1991- : All scores count

1950-1959 was actually 8, 6, 4, 3, 2 + Fastest Lap 1 (I know it was a typo)

But in 1960, the point for fastest lap was dropped. Curiously, when the 9, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1 system was started in 1961, the Constructors points for a win that year remained at 8, but was changed to 9 in 1962...

Anyone remember shared drives? While it was rare, a driver could actually finish in the points more than once in the same race. And I'll have to look it up, but there were also rare instances where a driver scored points without actually starting the race (how do you compute points/start ratio for that)...

And while I'm at it, in the Constructors Championship 1958-1978, only the highest finishing car received points. If Ferrari finished 1-2-3, they only got points for 1st and not for 2nd & 3rd places.

I know there has been a lot of discussion about the current points system today, but back then it could get pretty confusing...

[dutra]

It would make sense if both finishing with 109 points say that Kimi won by 1 point? Of corse not. Then we would have a tie and then the number of wins would matter. If Kimi scored 1 point more then Fernando and Lewis that is why he is the champion and that is his margin. Looks cristal clear to me.

[stevewf1]

Originally posted by Tigershark
Kimi won by one point and Lewis lost by two.;)

That is correct.

Kimi won 110-109. Lewis needed 111 to win.

[tidytracks]

Or... on GP2 points

10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Pole 2 points
F Lap 1 point


1. Hamilton: 123
2. Raikkonen: 122
3. Massa: 112
4. Alonso: 106

[Orin]

Originally posted by tidytracks
Or... on GP2 points

10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Pole 2 points
F Lap 1 point


1. Hamilton: 123
2. Raikkonen: 122
3. Massa: 112
4. Alonso: 106

Finally, someone found a sensible scoring system!

[tidytracks]

Originally posted by Orin


Finally, someone found a sensible scoring system!

;)

I do genuinely think that the order you end up with on GP2 points is a fairer reflection of how those four drivers performed over the entirity of the 2007 season.

[dutra]

Originally posted by tidytracks
Or... on GP2 points

10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
Pole 2 points
F Lap 1 point


1. Hamilton: 123
2. Raikkonen: 122
3. Massa: 112
4. Alonso: 106

Well, not exactly. GP2 has two races and two points systems per weekend(except Monaco).

[tidytracks]

Originally posted by dutra


Well, not exactly. GP2 has two races and two points systems per weekend(except Monaco).

It really has hit that stage of the year where we're just all so bored at work, hasn't it! Picky picky picky ;)

Now, if F1 wanted to adopt the whole GP2 weekend format, I'd be well up for it, but for as long as it is just the one race per weekend, then yes... on the rare occasions such as Monaco where GP2 has only one race a weekend, the points system is comparable to F1, thus, as stated, 10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1... 2 for pole, 1 for F Lap. Done.

[SkorbiF1]

Originally posted by stevewf1


1950-1959 was actually 8, 6, 4, 3, 2 + Fastest Lap 1 (I know it was a typo)

But in 1960, the point for fastest lap was dropped.

Thanks for the corrections.

[Man of the race]

it makes no sense to check results with GP2 points.

Drivers and teams drive and choose strategies according to the point system, not regardless of it. Counting it afterwards does not give any valid proof.