80 replies to this topic

[SchumiF1]

You know, where only the 11 best race results of each driver were counted towards the championship. Why was that rule dropped for the 1991 season? I know it didn't mostly change the final standings apart from a few occasions, the most famous one perhaps being 1988 where Prost initially collected more points, but Senna won the Championship due to him having more points when only counting the 11 best race results.

Just for fun I also calculated what the standings would have been had they continued to use that rule. It didn't really change the standings, apart from the fact that drivers would on most occasions get a few points less. I put the real points in brackets.

1991
Senna 87 (96)
Mansell 72 (72)

1992
Mansell 102 (108)
Patrese 56 (56)
Schumacher 53 (53)
Senna 50 (50)

1993
Prost 92 (99)
Senna 73 (73)
Hill 69 (69)
Schumcher 52 (52)

1994
Schumacher 92 (92)
Hill 91 (91)

1995
Schumacher 100 (102)
Hill 69 (69)

1996
Hill 95 (97)
Villeneuve 70 (78)
Schumacher 59 (59)

1997
Villeneuve 81 (81)
Schumacher 76 (78)

1998
Häkkinen 96 (100)
Schumacher 84 (86)

1999
Häkkinen 76 (76)
Irvine 70 (74)
Frentzen 53 (54)

2000
Schumacher 102 (108)
Häkkinen 82 (89)
Coulthard 68 (73)

2001
Schumacher 102 (123)
Coulthard 61 (65)
Barrichello 52 (56)

2002
Schumacher 110 (144)
Barrichello 77 (77)

2003
Schumacher 86 (93)
Räikkönen 83 (91)
Montoya 82 (82)

2004
Schumacher 110 (148)
Barrichello 88 (114)
Button 73 (85)

2005
Alonso 102 (133)
Räikkönen 100 (112)
Schumacher 60 (62)

2006
Schumacher 102 (121)
Alonso 102 (134)
Massa 74 (80)

2007
Räikkönen 93 (110)
Hamilton 92 (109)
Alonso 90 (109)
Massa 84 (94)

[Ross Stonefeld]

Dropped scores only hurt the people who do better consistently.

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by SchumiF1

2006
Schumacher 102 (121)
Alonso 102 (134)
Massa 74 (80)

For clarity's sake, of course the order would still be:
1. Alonso 102
2. M. Schumacher 102
(Same number of wins, but Alonso scored more 2nd places - and I think that rule is older than regulations about the number of races that count!)

[emburmak]

Good riddance; it was an unfair rule.

[SchumiF1]

Originally posted by emburmak
Good riddance; it was an unfair rule.

It has been used for most of history.

[ensign14]

I think it was dropped cos it confused the media. "If Prost wins he gets 4 points, if Senna comes second he gets 6..." Then again self-raising flour confuses the media.

They should bring it back. One retirement due to some idiot backmarker wandering into your path = 5 races to catch up, sometimes. It put the emphasis on wins.

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by ensign14
They should bring it back. One retirement due to some idiot backmarker wandering into your path = 5 races to catch up, sometimes. It put the emphasis on wins.

I'd rather see the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 back (or something like 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 for that matter), not too mention other ways to give the real winners their rewards ;)

[SchumiF1]

Originally posted by ensign14
They should bring it back. One retirement due to some idiot backmarker wandering into your path = 5 races to catch up, sometimes. It put the emphasis on wins.

Agreed.
Or I'd also be happy if the 10-6-4-3-2-1 point system returned.

[wingwalker]

No way in hell they should bring it back. 12 points for winning the race, that's more like it.

[Dudley]

Originally posted by scheivlak

For clarity's sake, of course the order would still be:
1. Alonso 102
2. M. Schumacher 102
(Same number of wins, but Alonso scored more 2nd places - and I think that rule is older than regulations about the number of races that count!)

Is that just counting the 11 or counting all?

[dgsg]

Prost initially collected more points , but Senna won the Championship

What was the question again?

[scheivlak]

Originally posted by Dudley


Is that just counting the 11 or counting all?

Counting the 11, just reacting to the original post....

[TT6]

Originally posted by ensign14
They should bring it back. One retirement due to some idiot backmarker wandering into your path

On the other hand one retirement may well be due to idiocity of the driver himself. But it might spice up the show if drivers could afford to spin out sic times per year with no point penalty.

[Menace]

Just give more points for the win. It is ridiculous that the winner gets only 2pts more then the second placed driver.

[SchumiF1]

Originally posted by wingwalker
No way in hell they should bring it back. 12 points for winning the race, that's more like it.

No, giving over 10 points for win is not acceptable. The point tallies would get way too high.

[Dmitriy_Guller]

I think it's a good rule. F1 has recently been turned into too much like NASCAR, consistent point scoring is rewarded too much over risk-taking. Of course, the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 is also to blame.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by SchumiF1
No, giving over 10 points for win is not acceptable. The point tallies would get way too high.

What does 'too high' mean? You get 25 points in MotoGP.

[WHITE]

Originally posted by ensign14
They should bring it back. One retirement due to some idiot backmarker wandering into your path = 5 races to catch up, sometimes. It put the emphasis on wins.

The system compelled drivers to struggle to improve any previous result ( but wins ).

[angst]

Originally posted by ensign14
I think it was dropped cos it confused the media. "If Prost wins he gets 4 points, if Senna comes second he gets 6..." Then again self-raising flour confuses the media.

They should bring it back. One retirement due to some idiot backmarker wandering into your path = 5 races to catch up, sometimes. It put the emphasis on wins.

It puts the emphasis upon winning, and upon risk taking. Risks can't be taken too much now, as one dropped score makes all the difference. A risk could be taken (and indeed would be encouraged) if one had a number of scores one was to drop anyway. What's the point in running in fourth if the points scored will be dropped anyway, for example? I've said before that this rule has tended toward reliability over risk, and looking at the difference in 'real' points to the dropped points score as the years have gone on tells its own story.

[SchumiF1]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


What does 'too high' mean? You get 25 points in MotoGP.

Yes well, MotoGP has always used that system.

I just wouldn't want seasons where the first drivers always end up with some 140-150 points. Better just keep it as it is, or go back to the old points system.

[Ross Stonefeld]

The number is irrelevant, it's how they are spread out that changes the championship whether the winner has 1000 or 100 points at year's end. The only difference is the math is easier to do on your couch.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by SchumiF1
It has been used for most of history.

History goes a long way further back than 1950. The rule between '67 and '80 was different again, with with drivers having to drop specified scores from the first half of the season, and then from the second.

[wingwalker]

Originally posted by SchumiF1
Yes well, MotoGP has always used that system.

I just wouldn't want seasons where the first drivers always end up with some 140-150 points. Better just keep it as it is, or go back to the old points system.

DUDE... cause what, you already got used to circa 110 points? Way to go. Everyone got used to seeing processional races so let's keep TC and trash the overtaking plan, eh?

[Juan Kerr]

Why did they ever have it that's the real question. It was ridiculous having driviers driving their nuts off all through a race to then throw the points away later in the year. It encouraged drivers to take more risks instead of being sensible since 6 or 7 of the races that they possibly finished were going to get discarded anyway.
Its not just these days that they come up with idiotic rules apparently.

[Lifew12]

Originally posted by Juan Kerr
It encouraged drivers to take more risks instead of being sensible

So, you'd rather a driver went for a 'safe' second, or third, or fourth, than try and score more?

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Juan Kerr
Why did they ever have it that's the real question. It was ridiculous having driviers driving their nuts off all through a race to then throw the points away later in the year.

In an era where there were a million ways in which a driver could fail to finish a race through no fault of his own, it made perfect sense. The drivers took risks every time they were strapped into a car anyway...

[Ross Stonefeld]

It never made any sense in any series. This isn't NASCAR. All the drivers on all the laps in all the races count towards the season total.

[GiancarloF1]

Originally posted by SchumiF1
2005
Alonso 102 (133)
Räikkönen 100 (112)
Schumacher 60 (62)

Even with this handicap Alonso owned Kimi and his superior McLaren.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by emburmak
Good riddance; it was an unfair rule.

I wonder why you always have the wrong opinions

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by GiancarloF1
Even with this handicap Alonso owned Kimi and his superior McLaren.

Hi and welcome. I think I've read these posts before. Would you mind to explain how the fast and fragile McLaren was superior to the fast and reliable Renault?

[SlateGray]

Originally posted by SchumiF1

1997
Villeneuve 81 (81)
Schumacher 76 (78)

Small point but 1997 should read.

1997
Villeneuve 81 (81)
Schumacher 0 (0)

least they forget

[GiancarloF1]

Originally posted by micra_k10

Hi and welcome. I think I've read these posts before. Would you mind to explain how the fast and fragile McLaren was superior to the fast and reliable Renault?

Excluding 8 races means excluding all the fragility of McLaren and the majority of the bad luck of Raikkonen. Alonso still has more points, but his car's ultimate pace was nowhere near to Raikkonen's McLaren.

The conclusion is rather simple: Alonso was better.

[MortenF1]

What a laughable way of looking at it. You've also forgotten that in addition to breaking down so often, McLaren's lack of reliability made sure Räikkönen started a few races with a ten-position penalty.
But, I've discussed this before already so this is all I'm going to say on this topic now. If you really want to share your views on Räikkönen's 2005-season I suggest you bump one of the existing threads dealing with that.

[GiancarloF1]

OK, my last off-topic post here.

8 races means:

Excluding Australia (-1), Malaysia, San Marino, Nurburgring, Indianapolis, Silverstone (-6), Hockenheim, Monza (-5)

Which means you have forgotten all the bad lucks of Kimi, including his starting grid penalty races and also Melbourne and Nurburgring, where he finished lowly by his own fault.

Also you excluded Australia (-6), Monaco (-5), Canada, Indianapolis, Hungary, Japan (-6), Brazil (-6) and one random race where Alonso finished 2nd.

Basically it's a removal of Alonso's bad lucky races, but also some worthy ones. He still has 2 more points with overall a slower car for most part of the season. He was better, it's not very hard to accept this.

[pUs]

Originally posted by SlateGray


Small point but 1997 should read.

1997
Villeneuve 81 (81)
Schumacher 0 (0)

least they forget

Great contribution to the topic, as always.

[rodlamas]

Originally posted by Menace
Just give more points for the win. It is ridiculous that the winner gets only 2pts more then the second placed driver.

Old CART system: 20 for the win, 16 (80%) for 2nd place
IRL system: 50 for the win, 40 (80%) for 2nd place
NASCAR: 2nd place gets more than 90% of the winner
F1: 2nd place gets 80% of the winner

What's the problem after all?

[Group B]

Originally posted by SlateGray


Small point but 1997 should read.

1997
Villeneuve 81 (81)
Schumacher 0 (0)

least they forget

'lest' they forget

[pkenny]

It was an arbitrary system - just like the one we have now and any possible alternative anyone could think up - a general result in ranking alternative scoring systems to arrive at a conclusion.

However, it is futile to go back and say in year X under the rules that applied in year Y driver A would have beaten driver B. All drivers knew the rules at the start of the season and the scoring system influenced their behaviour - it is all about incentives after all.

[Engineguy]

If a driver had all podiums the first 11 races, they'd be tempted to take out a competitor any time they're in third place or worse in their remaining "throw-away" races. Lest we forget.

Keep it simple. Anything the TV people have to laboriously (sp?) explain to viewers every race is probably too confusing to be worthwhile (complex points scenarios, fuel burnoff strategies, multi-race engine use rules, etc.).
.

[SlateGray]

Originally posted by Group B


'lest' they forget

apple 4 u fedex track 1219 76985 2331 next 09:00

[John B]

A question that comes to mind - upon seeing Schumacher hypothetically 'lose' more than 30 points in 2002 and 2004 - is did they historically include the dropped results in a driver's career point total?

At any rate I'm glad it's off the book - like most questionable racing series points systems (i.e. NASCAR) the solution is just give the winners their due.

[noikeee]

Originally posted by rodlamas


Old CART system: 20 for the win, 16 (80%) for 2nd place
IRL system: 50 for the win, 40 (80%) for 2nd place
NASCAR: 2nd place gets more than 90% of the winner
F1: 2nd place gets 80% of the winner

What's the problem after all?

The problem is that unlike all those other racing series, and unlike old F1, modern F1 cars have ridiculously high reliability, and are ridiculously consistent with their pace race-to-race. Meaning when you miss out on a result due to no fault of your own, nowadays it's much harder to come back from it. A points system that puts the emphasis on winning rather than consistency helps to minimize this problem a little bit.

[Henri Greuter]

The dropping of bad results was also because in former years, the reliability of F1 cars wasn't as impressive as it bcame in later years. So in general, the most dropped scores were retirements.

This manner of scoring rarely affected the outcome of the championship over the years. Out of the top of my head, the first time that it made another driver world champion then the one with the most points was 1988. Senna became champion because his 11 best scores were 8 firsts, 3 seconds while Prost had 7 wins and 4 seconds. But when all points counted, Prost had an amount of points more than Senna that few drivers managed to score that entire season together.

'88 was indeed the season that the winningest driver became champion. But a driver with a downright stunning reliability rate, outscoring the winningest driver handsomely ending up emptyhanded.

To my knowledge, to emphasis on reliability and reward reliability, the point dropping score system was dropped thereafter, partly because of the things that happened in '88. But also the enhanced reliability of the cars enabled such a rule change.


Henri

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
Out of the top of my head, the first time that it made another driver world champion then the one with the most points was 1988. Senna became champion because his 11 best scores were 8 firsts, 3 seconds while Prost had 7 wins and 4 seconds.

1964 - Surtees over Hill G. And Ferrari over BRM.

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by ensign14

1964 - Surtees over Hill G. And Ferrari over BRM.

Ensign14,

As I said, "out of the top of my head"
It wasn't intentional to ignore/forget 1964.
But thanks for correcting me nonetheless. Let's do history justice. And I can imagine that this is an aching weak point to cope with for the many BRM fans out here and everywhere else

Henri

[ensign14]

Really, that was Clark's year, led at Monaco before mechanical problems, was leading in France when he retired, 2nd at Austria when he retired, 3rd at Italy when he retired, 3rd at the Ring when he retired, leading at the Glen before retiring/swapping cars, leading at Mexico on the last lap when his engine broke...and won every other race.

[angst]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
The dropping of bad results was also because in former years, the reliability of F1 cars wasn't as impressive as it bcame in later years. So in general, the most dropped scores were retirements.

This manner of scoring rarely affected the outcome of the championship over the years. Out of the top of my head, the first time that it made another driver world champion then the one with the most points was 1988. Senna became champion because his 11 best scores were 8 firsts, 3 seconds while Prost had 7 wins and 4 seconds. But when all points counted, Prost had an amount of points more than Senna that few drivers managed to score that entire season together.

'88 was indeed the season that the winningest driver became champion. But a driver with a downright stunning reliability rate, outscoring the winningest driver handsomely ending up emptyhanded.

To my knowledge, to emphasis on reliability and reward reliability, the point dropping score system was dropped thereafter, partly because of the things that happened in '88. But also the enhanced reliability of the cars enabled such a rule change.


Henri

Isn't the increased reliability at least partly a response to the change in points scoring? After all, dropping points now is ludicrously 'expensive' in terms of battling for the championships, so it makes sense to ensure the cars finish more regularly - possibly at the expense of some speed (see the difference in approach of Renault and McLaren in '05, for example).

I would also argue that the increased reliability is, if anything, a reason to return to dropping points. Do we want racing, or processions? If people want to know why races are so processional, then the idea that dropping a fourth place finish (or fifth, or sixth etc.) by taking a risk (ie racing) the car ahead has to be factored into that.

We can see how this push toward reliability has affected some fans' outlook upon F1. Risk takers among the drivers are now ridiculed (Montoya), as dropping any score is championship suicide. If we want racing then risk taking has to be allowed, perhaps even encouraged (and I don't mean risk as in somebody might die, merely that somebody might retire from a race - God Forbid - as a consequence of taking that risk.)

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by angst


Isn't the increased reliability at least partly a response to the change in points scoring? After all, dropping points now is ludicrously 'expensive' in terms of battling for the championships, so it makes sense to ensure the cars finish more regularly - possibly at the expense of some speed (see the difference in approach of Renault and McLaren in '05, for example).

I would also argue that the increased reliability is, if anything, a reason to return to dropping points. Do we want racing, or processions? If people want to know why races are so processional, then the idea that dropping a fourth place finish (or fifth, or sixth etc.) by taking a risk (ie racing) the car ahead has to be factored into that.

We can see how this push toward reliability has affected some fans' outlook upon F1. Risk takers among the drivers are now ridiculed (Montoya), as dropping any score is championship suicide. If we want racing then risk taking has to be allowed, perhaps even encouraged (and I don't mean risk as in somebody might die, merely that somebody might retire from a race - God Forbid - as a consequence of taking that risk.)

I do agree with you that it puts a heavy emphasis on reliability. And also on errorless driving.
The allowance of some points do be dropped may stimulate more action. But 1988 remains a perfect example for me that rules made a driver champion but that it is highly debatable if he was the true champion compared with the man who lost out because of these rules.

The best scores principle was dropped in the early 90's I believe. (no doubt I will be corrected on this one)But even in 1987 (Mansell) the reliability of drivers and cars had been improved already. Prost also had something to shiver about in 1989 since he had scrap results too to deal with in the final races of the season while Senna had nothing to lose anymore. Another reason why Prost had to score first and seconds in those races if humanly possible.

Improved reliability very much became visible as from the mid 80's.
Personally, I think it was a result of the input by the factory engine efforts in which the factory teams put in much more effort to make their (turbocharged) engines reliable. Engine management systems improved dramatically in that period of time and F1 engines benefitted from that enormously. And many teams building up their own gearbox instead of the `off the shelf` Hewlands.
Quite a difference with the Cosworth-Hewland era of a few years early.
And I get the feeling that this more professional (factory supported and inspired) approach also had its effects on other parts used on the cars.


Henri

[Ross Stonefeld]

The reliability has come from the parc ferme rules, one (now two) race engine rules, and the engine rpm and development freeze.

[aportinga]

Originally posted by TT6


On the other hand one retirement may well be due to idiocity of the driver himself. But it might spice up the show if drivers could afford to spin out sic times per year with no point penalty.

Senna?