12 replies to this topic

[Tarnik]

When did they stop using 9 points for a win and go to 10?

[Fast One]

I want to say 1993, but I may be off a little. The 9-6-4-3-2-1 system came in in 1961. Before that it was 8-6-4-3-2-1 in 1960, and 8-6-4-3-2 for the first five finishers, plus a point for fastest lap from 1950-1959. From 1950-1957 drivers could take over a teammate's car and share points. That was dropped in 1958. Funny how I remember the old changes better than the recent one.

[Stephen Herbert]

The first season when 10 points were awarded for a win was in 1991.



[This message has been edited by Stephen Herbert (edited 01-30-2000).]

[Nomad]

What about dropped scores? When did that start and finish?

[Ray Bell]

Almost annually.
There have been so many changes it's hard to keep up with them.
In the early sixties it was best 6 out of ten or something. I recall in the early eighties there was a system where you scored your best six in the first half of the season and your best six in the second half, but nobody's ever completely happy with the scheme in vogue and it keeps changing.
So don't worry about that, just keep on hitch hiking to Longford. I'm looking forward to your report.

[Stephen Herbert]

It was because of the dropped scores rule that Ayrton Senna won the 1988 World Championship. In total Alain Prost scored 105 points compared to Senna's 94, but only the best 11 results counted which meant the official table has Senna with 90 points and Prost with 87 points.

Here is a quick list of dropped scores:

1950-1953, Best 4 results.
1954-1957, Best 5 results.
1958 , Best 6 results.
1959 , Best 5 results.
1960 , Best 6 results.
1961-1962, Best 5 results.
1963-1965, Best 6 results.
1966 , Best 5 results.
1967 , Best 5 results from first six races and best 4 results from last five races.
1968 , Best 5 results from each half of the season.
1969 , Best 5 results from first six races and best 4 results from last five races.
1970 , Best 6 results from first seven races and best 5 results from last six races.
1971 , Best 5 results from first six races and best 4 results from last five races.
1972 , Best 5 results from each half of the season.
1973-1974, Best 7 results from first eight races and best 6 results from last seven races.
1975 , Best 7 results from first eight races and best 5 results from last six races.
1976 , Best 7 results from each half of the season.
1977 , Best 8 results from first nine races and best 7 results from last eight races.
1978 , Best 7 results from each half of the season.
1979 , Best 4 results from first seven races and best 4 results from last eight races.
1980 , Best 5 results from each half of the season.
1981 , Best 10 results.
1982-1990, Best 11 results.
1991-today, All Results count.

[Kuwashima]

A little off topic, but I think that the 9-6-4-3-2-1 is probably a bit fairer than a 4-point gap from 1st to 2nd...

I wonder if there would have been any championships that would have been decided differently has other years' scroing systems been used?

------------------
Formula One Rejects
www.crosswinds.net/~f1rejects
Profiles of the WORST drivers and teams in Grand Prix history

[Eric McLoughlin]

Kuwashima

"Motor Sport" carried out this precise
exercise a couple of years ago. I dont't have the results to hand but I shall spend a while this evening doing "a bit of research" (any excuse for a rummage through ny old mags) to try and dig the article out. The one thing I remember is that, on the whole, not many years produced different champions. I think Graham Hill gained an extra one (1964) as did Alain Prost - which would have put him on a par with Fangio. I think also that Moss would have won the title in 1958.

[Joe Fan]

One thing that I would like to add is that I am glad they went to system where all results counted with none being dropped. It is as if they were saying that some races weren't important. Prost would have been the champion in 1988 over Senna if all races counted.

[Fast One]

The reason they dropped races was the same as motivated the change to 10 points for first: it rewarded a driver who won, or finished high-up in more races. Cars were pretty unreliable in the past, and they didn't want a system where a guy could win by finishing every race in 2nd, 3rd or 4th. I agree that the current gap between 1st and 2nd is too big. Hell, I don't like a single thing Bernie has ever instituted, and I regret that the dog in Vegas didn't finish the job. I never minded them dropping races, although it rarely made a difference. I have mixed feelings now.

[Ray Bell]

Eric's going back through his Motor Sports - we may never hear from him again.
While you're there, Eric, how about posting that fabulous little story DSJ did entitled "The Enquiring Mind"? About when Emmo fried the clutch at the start of a non-title race at Silverstone in a 72.

[Ray Bell]

A clarification about the frequent changes shown above - for the most part it was on a formula that depended on the number of races held each year (that is, up until the early sixties). ie. Drop the worst two up to seven races, the worst 3 for 8 to 10 races, that sort of thing.

[Eric McLoughlin]

Ray

It wasn't such a huge task after all. I knew it was in the "new era" of Motor Sport so it didn't entail emptying the shelves. The article, by Mike Lawrence, was actually in the second of the new style editions (May 1997). The only changes to the championships were as follows:
REVISED
1956 Peter Collins (was Fangio)
1958 Stirling Moss (was Mike Hawthorn)
1964 Graham Hill (was John Surtees)
1984 Alain Prost (was Nikki Lauda)
1988 Alain Prost (was Ayrton Senna)

Interestingly, this makes Prost the best of all time with six championships and makes Collins the first British champion. However, these "what if" type scenarios are misleading because the nature of races and tactics used are dictated by what drivers and teams are trying to achieve at that time. Collins, in particular, gave up his car on one accasion to allow Fangio to score points. Given a different points scoring system who knows what teams and drivers would have "engineered".
Ray - I'll see what I can find on the DSJ article.

[This message has been edited by Eric McLoughlin (edited 01-30-2000).]