Why did F1 stop only counting best results for the WDC?
Discussion
For those who don't know, in the past only a drivers best number of results would count towards their championship points total and a certain number of worst results would be "dropped".
For example from 1980-1991 only a drivers best 11 race results would count towards the championship standings. Prost actually scored more total points than Senna in 1988 but Senna won the championship as his best 11 results were better than Prost's.
This seems like a very good idea to me as there are always some things outside of a drivers control such as mechanical failures or other drivers crashing into them. I believe that the effect that luck has on a championship should be minimised as much as possible.
It is widely believed that Kimi Raikkonen should have won the 2005 championship but lost it due to appalling McLaren reliability, something a driver should not be penalised for. A system like this minimises the effect that such things have on the WDC. All rounds counted towards the constructors.
So why did F1 abandon this system? Is it not a much better way of determining who the best driver was of a particular season?
For example from 1980-1991 only a drivers best 11 race results would count towards the championship standings. Prost actually scored more total points than Senna in 1988 but Senna won the championship as his best 11 results were better than Prost's.
This seems like a very good idea to me as there are always some things outside of a drivers control such as mechanical failures or other drivers crashing into them. I believe that the effect that luck has on a championship should be minimised as much as possible.
It is widely believed that Kimi Raikkonen should have won the 2005 championship but lost it due to appalling McLaren reliability, something a driver should not be penalised for. A system like this minimises the effect that such things have on the WDC. All rounds counted towards the constructors.
So why did F1 abandon this system? Is it not a much better way of determining who the best driver was of a particular season?
monthou said:
The wdc has never done that. It's a test of driver, car, team.
Yes it has. According to Wikepedia it was to assist teams who may not have had the finances to complete all of the events, and was discontinued once the Concorde Agreements were signed (which I think meant the teams had to commit to all the events and could be disqualified for missing one). At one point it was best 11 to count, and at another point it was something like best 5 from the first half of the season and best 5 from the second half. carl_w said:
monthou said:
The wdc has never done that. It's a test of driver, car, team.
Yes it has. According to Wikepedia it was to assist teams who may not have had the finances to complete all of the events, and was discontinued once the Concorde Agreements were signed (which I think meant the teams had to commit to all the events and could be disqualified for missing one). At one point it was best 11 to count, and at another point it was something like best 5 from the first half of the season and best 5 from the second half. Or have you completely misunderstood what I wrote?
It also dates back to the days when cars were far less reliable. You could have a situation where one driver wins every race he finishes, yet the car blows up for a lot of races. Is he more deserving of the WDC than a driver who finishes 2nd or 3rd in all the races with no DNFs? Who knows? But it does take that out of the equation.
Current F1 - No place for that idea at all.
Current F1 - No place for that idea at all.
It would also have made Prost world champion in 88 where the current rules in place, something I will always hate FIA for.
But it has no place in modern f1, cars are massively reliable now because the limits are pushed elsewhere, limits on engines were the thing to be pushed until the end of the v10 era in the chase for power before aero was the only thing that mattered so much but that changed with engine and box limits, it was often the case a team would have a stock of 50 engines a season to work with in the 80's turbo era, more for new teams.
But it has no place in modern f1, cars are massively reliable now because the limits are pushed elsewhere, limits on engines were the thing to be pushed until the end of the v10 era in the chase for power before aero was the only thing that mattered so much but that changed with engine and box limits, it was often the case a team would have a stock of 50 engines a season to work with in the 80's turbo era, more for new teams.
LukeBrown66 said:
It would also have made Prost world champion in 88 where the current rules in place, something I will always hate FIA for.
But it has no place in modern f1, cars are massively reliable now because the limits are pushed elsewhere, limits on engines were the thing to be pushed until the end of the v10 era in the chase for power before aero was the only thing that mattered so much but that changed with engine and box limits, it was often the case a team would have a stock of 50 engines a season to work with in the 80's turbo era, more for new teams.
Why do you hate the FIA for that?But it has no place in modern f1, cars are massively reliable now because the limits are pushed elsewhere, limits on engines were the thing to be pushed until the end of the v10 era in the chase for power before aero was the only thing that mattered so much but that changed with engine and box limits, it was often the case a team would have a stock of 50 engines a season to work with in the 80's turbo era, more for new teams.
MustangGT said:
It also dates back to the days when cars were far less reliable. You could have a situation where one driver wins every race he finishes, yet the car blows up for a lot of races. Is he more deserving of the WDC than a driver who finishes 2nd or 3rd in all the races with no DNFs? Who knows? But it does take that out of the equation.
Current F1 - No place for that idea at all.
I think this is key to using all points at present. Certainly reliability has been less of a problem since 2007. Even more so since 2014. Current F1 - No place for that idea at all.
Edited by PhilAsia on Monday 3rd January 20:23
DOCG said:
For those who don't know, in the past only a drivers best number of results would count towards their championship points total and a certain number of worst results would be "dropped".
For example from 1980-1991 only a drivers best 11 race results would count towards the championship standings. Prost actually scored more total points than Senna in 1988 but Senna won the championship as his best 11 results were better than Prost's.
This seems like a very good idea to me as there are always some things outside of a drivers control such as mechanical failures or other drivers crashing into them. I believe that the effect that luck has on a championship should be minimised as much as possible.
It is widely believed that Kimi Raikkonen should have won the 2005 championship but lost it due to appalling McLaren reliability, something a driver should not be penalised for. A system like this minimises the effect that such things have on the WDC. All rounds counted towards the constructors.
So why did F1 abandon this system? Is it not a much better way of determining who the best driver was of a particular season?
Scheckter won the WDC in 1979 because he had no mechanical failures, 2 DNF`s one because of injury and 1 loose wheel/puncture, I think the system was in use then, Jones scored more points . That was the best 4 results from each half of the season, even dumber idea. For example from 1980-1991 only a drivers best 11 race results would count towards the championship standings. Prost actually scored more total points than Senna in 1988 but Senna won the championship as his best 11 results were better than Prost's.
This seems like a very good idea to me as there are always some things outside of a drivers control such as mechanical failures or other drivers crashing into them. I believe that the effect that luck has on a championship should be minimised as much as possible.
It is widely believed that Kimi Raikkonen should have won the 2005 championship but lost it due to appalling McLaren reliability, something a driver should not be penalised for. A system like this minimises the effect that such things have on the WDC. All rounds counted towards the constructors.
So why did F1 abandon this system? Is it not a much better way of determining who the best driver was of a particular season?
Edited by hot metal on Monday 3rd January 23:50
LukeBrown66 said:
Because it would have given Prost another world title, one that he richly deserved. As he scored more points over the season. But that is now, this was then and they all knew the system and he will not be bothered!!
You compete to the rules of the championship and whoever scores the most points under the rules in place wins, unless Masi is running the show.IIRC, there has been (is?) a similar championship system in some club karting etc, I guess there is a time and place where allowing some to drop a couple bad races/ ignore a DNS result when they were unable to attend would make sense, but F1 is a bit of a different kettle of fish and this isn't really needed.
PhilAsia said:
I think this is key to using all points at present. Certainly reliability has been less of a problem since 2007. Even more so since 2014.
Reliability is written in the rule book now, with the strict limits on power unit component and gearbox usage, and harsh penalties for excessive use over the season. If you’d told the mechanics of a couple of decades ago, who would spend their evenings rebuilding engines before swapping in qualifying specials on Saturdays, that a modern F1 engine would have to run up to 6,000km between rebuilds or suffer a sporting penalty…
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff