Double points increases Rosberg’s chance of title win

2014 Brazilian Grand Prix stats and facts

Posted on

| Written by

Nico Rosberg claimed his fifth victory of the season at Interlagos in emphatic fashion, leading all three practice sessions and each part of qualifying before clinching the win.

This was Rosberg’s eighth career victory, putting him level with the likes of Jacky Ickx and 1967 world champion Denny Hulme.

He now has five wins this year, half as many as team mate Lewis Hamilton. However Rosberg remains in contention for the championship – and not just because of the controversial double points system introduced this year.

With a 17-point deficit to his team mate, Rosberg would be able to win the championship in Abu Dhabi even under last year’s points system. But with twice as many points available for the top ten places at the final round, Rosberg’s chances of winning the title are higher than they would be.

How double points can change the title outcome

These tables shows how far Hamilton would be ahead of Rosberg in the points based on their possible finishing positions using both scoring systems in Abu Dhabi. The scenarios in which Rosberg would win the championship highlighted in green.

Under the normal points system Rosberg would have to win the race with Hamilton finishing no higher than seventh, or finish second with Hamilton not scoring, to take the title.

However under double points Rosberg can take the title if he wins and Hamilton finishes third. That happened when Rosberg took his last win before Sunday’s race, in Germany.

Whereas under the normal points system there would only be six ways Rosberg can take the title, under double points there are 25 different combinations.

Double points


Normal points


Of course if the race is stopped short of 75% distance and half points are awarded, the ‘normal’ points system will apply.

Use the Points Calculator to see how double points could affect the entire championship:

Lap times fall at Interlagos

In a season where lap times have typically been two to three seconds slower than last year, it was a surprise to see the cars approaching record pace at Interlagos. Rosberg’s pole position time was 0.201 seconds slower than the Interlagos track record, set by Rubens Barrichello on a minimum-fuel qualifying run in 2004.

Why were the cars so much quicker this year? A new, smoother track surface undoubtedly helped, as did the softer tyres which Pirelli brought at the drivers’ urging. But the new V6 turbo engines also lost less power at the higher altitude than their normally aspirated V8 predecessors – something which will also make a difference when F1 returns to the thin air of Mexico City next year.

The chart below compares the fastest lap time seen at each Brazilian Grand Prix weekend since the last significant alteration to the circuit in 2000.

[chartboot version= ‘3.0’ code= ‘8D2F’ border= ‘0’ width= ‘800’ height= ‘400’ attribution= ‘0’ jsondesc= ‘{“containerId”:”visualization8D2F”,”dataTable”:{“cols”:xxx00xxx{“id”:””,”label”:””,”pattern”:””,”type”:”string”,”p”:{}},{“id”:””,”label”:”Interlagos”,”pattern”:””,”type”:”number”}xxx01xxx,”rows”:xxx00xxx{“c”:xxx00xxx{“v”:”2000″,”f”:null},{“v”:74.111,”f”:null}xxx01xxx},{“c”:xxx00xxx{“v”:”2001″,”f”:null},{“v”:73.78,”f”:null}xxx01xxx},{“c”:xxx00xxx{“v”:”2002″,”f”:null},{“v”:73.114,”f”:null}xxx01xxx},{“c”:xxx00xxx{“v”:”2003″,”f”:null},{“v”:73.457,”f”:null}xxx01xxx},{“c”:xxx00xxx{“v”:”2004″,”f”:null},{“v”:69.822,”f”:null}xxx01xxx},{“c”:xxx00xxx{“v”:”2005″,”f”:null},{“v”:71.701,”f”:null}xxx01xxx},{“c”:xxx00xxx{“v”:”2006″,”f”:null},{“v”:70.313,”f”:null}xxx01xxx},{“c”:xxx00xxx{“v”:”2007″,”f”:null},{“v”:71.81,”f”:null}xxx01xxx},{“c”:xxx00xxx{“v”:”2008″,”f”:null},{“v”:71.768,”f”:null}xxx01xxx},{“c”:xxx00xxx{“v”:”2009″,”f”:null},{“v”:72.314,”f”:null}xxx01xxx},{“c”:xxx00xxx{“v”:”2010″,”f”:null},{“v”:71.968,”f”:null}xxx01xxx},{“c”:xxx00xxx{“v”:”2011″,”f”:null},{“v”:71.918,”f”:null}xxx01xxx},{“c”:xxx00xxx{“v”:”2012″,”f”:null},{“v”:72.458,”f”:null}xxx01xxx},{“c”:xxx00xxx{“v”:”2013″,”f”:null},{“v”:75.436,”f”:null}xxx01xxx},{“c”:xxx00xxx{“v”:”2014″,”f”:null},{“v”:70.023,”f”:null}xxx01xxx}xxx01xxx,”p”:null},”options”:{“legend”:”none”,”title”:”Race weekend fastest laps at Interlagos”,”vAxes”:xxx00xxx{“title”:”Time (s)”,”minValue”:null,”maxValue”:null,”viewWindow”:{“max”:null,”min”:null},”useFormatFromData”:true,”titleTextStyle”:{“color”:”#222″,”fontSize”:12,”italic”:false,”bold”:true}},{“viewWindow”:{“max”:null,”min”:null},”minValue”:null,”maxValue”:null,”useFormatFromData”:true}xxx01xxx,”animation”:{“duration”:500},”booleanRole”:”certainty”,”lineWidth”:2,”hAxis”:{“minValue”:null,”maxValue”:null,”viewWindow”:null,”viewWindowMode”:null,”useFormatFromData”:true},”fontName”:”Tahoma”,”curveType”:””,”interpolateNulls”:false,”theme”:”maximized”},”state”:{},”isDefaultVisualization”:true,”chartType”:”LineChart”}’ ]

Mercedes claim one-two finishes record

Rosberg’s pole position was his tenth of the season, making him the first winner of the FIA’s Pole Position Trophy. His career total is now 14, equalling that of James Hunt, Alberto Ascari, Ronnie Peterson and Rubens Barrichello.

Mercedes had their 11th front row lock-out this year, and their seventh consecutively.

Rosberg has once again led more laps this year than Hamilton – 482 to 455. Nico Hulkenberg led a race for the first time this year, becoming the tenth driver to do so, but Mercedes have led 86.8% of all racing laps so far.

In the race they achieved their 11th one-two, beating the record set by McLaren in 1988, albeit in a season which was three races shorter than this one. They also took their 30th podium finish, one more than the record set by Ferrari in 2004.

Daniel Ricciardo’s retirement brought his 15-race run of consecutive points scores to an end. However he is guaranteed third in the drivers’ championship and Red Bull are now un-catchable in second place in the constructors’ points.

Review the year so far in statistics here:

Spotted any other interesting stats and facts from the Brazilian Grand Prix? Share them in the comments.

2014 Brazilian Grand Prix

Browse all 2014 Brazilian Grand Prix articles

Images © Daimler/Hoch Zwei, Ferrari/Ercole Colombo

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

115 comments on “Double points increases Rosberg’s chance of title win”

  1. Also, Mercedes as a constructor has already scored 651 points, beating RBR’s 2011 record of 650. Didn’t even need Abu Double to achieve that.

    1. They probably will be the first team to ever score 700+ points. 737 to be exact.

      1. 701 to be precise. Surely Mercedes want German WC. Hamilton’s problems will start in qualifying.

        1. The only German entity in this team is their money. All manufacturing takes place in the UK. Furthermore, Hamilton is already a WDC, and far more valuable for the brand. But do keep on with the conspiracy theories, they’re hilarious to read.

          1. You are unfortunately right. I would much prefer if it would be completely German with HQ in Stuttgart and two German drivers in the team. Just my opinion though.

          2. @thorpedo Thats a bit too nationalistic, even compared to Ferrari.

          3. @austus OK, I take back “two German drivers” part (would be nice though). Call me nationalistic or old-fashioned, I would prefer if teams were one country based (Merc-German, RBR-Austrian). Now we have the case of playing Austrian anthem for Britain based team (just to name another example). By the way, I am not German.

          4. @moriaty – Where the manufacturing takes place is irrelevant. The team is there to promote Mercedes which is a German enterprise.

            For example, even if Apple made all of its products in China (most of iPhones are made there I think), it wouldn’t still make the company anything other than American.

        2. Rosberg is hardly German also.. He is by his own admission Monegasque but took German nationality as it made funds for his early career easier to get.

    2. It’s because Mark Webber sucks :)

      1. @jcost

        Negative Houston,

        Mans a Legend :)

      2. I failed to follow this comment!!! Care to elaborate or is that the best u can do??

        1. I meant the above for the “It’s because Mark Webber……………..

  2. On paper, Abu Dhabi is set to be a great weekend for Rosberg. He trounced Lewis there last year, it is unlikely to rain (with Hamilton being unquestionably the faster in the wet in 2014) and his nemeses, Pirelli’s medium and hard compound tyres, are being left at home in favour of the soft and super-soft. And yet, the smart money remains on Lewis (unless he fancies a quiet run to P2 and a second world title). Last year Lewis had a cracked chassis, so the comparison with Rosberg is a poor one, and in the past he was perhaps been the circuit’s most consistently impressive performer, with particular reference to incredible pole laps in 2009 and 2012, two certain victories denied by reliability (and therein lies the danger to Lewis’ title). Also the soft allocation of tyres, and likely degradation, creates the type of dynamic race that plays to Hamilton’s strengths over Rosberg. Strong cases can be made in favour of both Mercedes drivers, so the showdown in desert tainted by double points could by a fittingly epic final chapter to an epic season.

    1. @countrygent Well summed up. Even though I pull for NR, I would be fine with an NR win akin to Brazil, but an LH second place that secures him the WDC. I’d rather not see the WDC won because of double points, but will be less concerned about that tainting if LH makes a couple more mistakes akin to Brazil and hands it to NR.

      1. But I’m not sure I put that down to a “LH mistake” so much as a Merc strategy mistake. They should not have told Lewis to stay out another lap and he would not have been dealing with those dangerously degraded tires. It could have easily cost him a chance to finish at all.

        1. In the words of Jarno Trulli, Hamilton was pushing like a hell and while that’s what a racing driver should do, a spin is nobody’s fault but his.

          1. In this case he was pushing like hell because it was the last lap on those tyres and then they told him to do another lap on the tyres that just ran out of life.

        2. I’m sick to death of hearing that Hamilton making a mistake and spinning on track is the team’s fault.

          By his own admission he knew the tyres were cooked after the first hot lap. He should have switched on and slowed down a bit on the second run.

          Hamilton’s fault 100%.

  3. James (@jamesjames123abc)
    10th November 2014, 12:24

    I guess this is an appropriate article to post this in. One interesting idea of a points system on another article was to multiply the points by the F1F rate the race rating.

    Incredibly, here’s what the standings would be (without Japan, USA and Brazil GPs):

    Hamilton – 1819.276
    Rosberg – 1818.138

    Meaning that Hamilton is ahead by 1.138 points (although it’d probably be more if you include the other 2/3 races)

    1. Is it me, or do I sense that maybe Bernie ask Hamilton to come in second to keep the Abu Double alive. If Hamilton won, what need would there be for double points? And then Bernie may have to return his extra money to Abu Dubai.
      I hope F1 doesnt go the way of WWF.

      1. I can’t see Hamilton turning down a WC for any amount of money. The guy is loaded anyway and the WC is everything

  4. Abu double…. haha

    1. Abu Dha bi in Portuguese sounds like “Abu makes someone 2 times champion”

  5. * 6th place was Alonso’s worst finish in Brazil (he has two DNFs)
    * With double points in the final race, this was the first time as championship couldn’t be decided in the penultimate race when title race was still open

    1. Second point is not true. In 2006, we went into the penultimate race (Japan) with the title race wide open (Schumi and Alonso tied on points) and yet the title couldn’t be decided as both drivers had exact equal points and if one had retired and other won (which infact did happen), the championship wasn’t decided as the roles could just as easily reverse in the last race of the championship.

      1. Nope, @bleu was right. Had Michael won Japan and Alonso retired, Michael would have been Champion by virtue of having 8 wins to Alonso’s 6. Even if that was reversed in Brazil, and Alonso had won with Michael retiring, the points would be level but Michael would be classified as ahead virute of 8 wins to 7, so 2006 COULD have been decided in the penultimate race.

        1. Ohh yes!! Sorry, my bad!

          1. @bleu @bradley13 Anyone feel like giving us a mathematical proof why this season was the first time this could ever happen?

          2. @keithcollantine – I’m not sure I quite understand what you mean? However, I shall try.

            Heading into the final two races previously, there had been 50 points up for grabs, 25 in each race. That means that if the driver ahead on points (or if they were tied but one driver was ahead in terms of wins, seconds, thirds, etc) won the race, and the driver who was second failed to score, the driver ahead would win the title. While the second driver could in theory win the final race with the driver in first not scoring and tie on points, they’d still be behind in terms of firsts, seconds, thirds, etc, therefore losing the title.

            If they were tied on every aspect; points, wins, seconds, thirds… through to lasts and retirements, then… flip a coin? :P

          3. @keithcollantine In a championship where all races are equally weighted, if a driver is ahead in the championship with 2 races left, whether it be on points or countback, that driver can win the championship. Imagine the worst possible result for the nearest competitor(s) in the penultimate race. (Leader wins, alternative competitor(s) DNF).

            In the final race the worst possible result for the leader is an exact reversal – and because all rounds are equally weighted the original leader would have lost only exactly what was gained in the previous race, leaving them still in 1st place.

            (This is excluding the possibility, which exists under any system, of points deduction or exclusion from the championship as a penalty.)

            However, it is possible for the championship lead to be exactly tied with 2 races remaining. (I.e. two contenders each with 8 race wins, 6 2nd places and 3 non-classified DNFs from 17 races). In this circumstance the championship could return to being exactly tied even after the most extreme result in the penultimate race – if it exactly reverses in the final race.

            If the championship finished in such a tie, the winner would be decided “by such criteria as the FIA sees fit”. Should the FIA not yet have decided which criteria it sees fit prior to the penultimate race, or if that criteria relies specifically on the outcome of the final race event, then it would prevent the penultimate event being potentially decisive.

            All highly unlikely, but not impossible.

          4. This is not really true, there used to be a weird possibility that the next-to last race could leave the championship undecided (but if never happened)

            OK the possibilities for 2 pilots A and B are:

            1: The top pilot A is ahead of the second one B at least by one point
            2: Both top pilots have the same points but A is ahead of B by at least one win
            3: Both top pilots have the same points and wins but A is ahead of B by at least one P2 (or equal P2 but one more P3, etc)
            4: Both top pilots have the same points, wins, P2, P3, P4 etc, so A is not ahead of B (unlikely but not impossible)

            With no double points (every year before present) see what happens if A wins in the next-to-last race and B DNFs:

            1: A has at least x + 1 point more than B (x being the points for a win, presently 25) hence A is clearly WDC already
            2: A has exactly x points more than B, so B can match it in the last race (winning while A DNFs). But A has at least TWO more wins than B, and B can’t match that, hence A is WDC already
            3: A has exactly x points more than B, and one more win, so B can match both. But A still wins by more P2, P3 or whatever, hence is WDC already
            4: A very special case. B can match everything in the last race. So the next-to last race can left the WDC undecided, with two possibilities for the last race: either A gets the WDC or it is still undecided AFTER the last race (I believe that in that case the FIA can nominate the winner as they see fit, according to nonspecified criteria).

            All these possibilities can be extended to three or more pilots, but nothing really changes so I’ll leave it here (as an exercise for the reader if you will) .

            BTW a DNS would do just as well as a DNF except:
            1) in the last case, A and B would have to finish in exactly the same non-scoring positions (A in the next-to last and B in the last race) for a dead heat
            2) in the third case, in the unlikely situation in which A and B are matched in all the scoring positions (at present, same number of wins, P2, P3… up to P10)

          5. @hammerheadgb

            What about the different rules for void results until 1990?

          6. @hammerheadgb

            I think the conclusion is right but the details aren’t quite correct. You say that “and because all rounds are equally weighted the original leader would have lost only exactly what was gained in the previous race, leaving them still in 1st place” this isn’t quite true because under the old dropping points system it is possible for a win/DNF combination and a DNF/win combination to be of different value (because of different dropped scores after a further win) so the points of the reverse may not be “exactly what was gained at the last race”.

            The rule does still hold (except in the total dead heat under all countback situation described) under all previous systems (including dropped scores and split seasons) because if we state that drivers A&B are both able to win the title and that A cannot secure the title at the penultimate race even if he wins and driver B has a DNF then we are saying that driver B can overcome the deficit and win the title at the last race by winning with driver A getting a DNF. This means that driver B must be able to win the title at the penultimate race by winning with driver A not scoring (since driver A can’t overcome the deficit in the last race, the order of events never having been a factor in points scoring).

            This proof holds even under a system of dropped scores and the driver who can secure the title at the penultimate race can be the one who is behind going into the penultimate race!

            This doesn’t rule out the absolute stale mate potential where the drivers have an identical points history and even countback can’t separate them.

          7. This was @keithcollantine, not @hammerheadgb, I didn’t even see Kyle’s post before I posted mine, it says pretrty much the same. However nor Kyle not myself had in count the old system in which only your N best results counted for the WDC. I havent figured it out yet, but it could change everything.

          8. OK, with the old system the penultimate round could be indecisive. I’ll just supply an example. In 1987 there were 15 races, but only the 11 best results counted, and the points for P1 to P6 were 9-6-4-3-2-1.

            Lets suppose that after round 13 pilot Agatha has 5 wins, 2 P3, 4 P4 and 2 DNS (total 65 points) but unless she DNS’s the last 2 races she’ll have to deduce some points) and Barbara has 4 wins, 4 P2, 1 P4 and 4 DNS (total 63 points) but she won’t have to deduce pany points

            Agatha is ahead (on both pointswins), but the championship is still clearly undecided, and the best possible result for her in the penultimate round is to win while Barbara DNSs.

            And so it happens, Agatha has 6 wins 2 P3, 4 P4 and 2 DNS (total 74 points). Barbara has 4 wins, 4 P2, 1 P4 and 5 DNS (total 63 points). Is Agatha already WDC, being 11 points ahead, when the win is only 9 points? No, because she will have to deduce at least 3 points. The championship is yet undecided.

            See what happens in the last round: Agatha DNS and Barbara wins. Agatha has 6 wins 2 P3, 4 P4 and 3 DNS (total 74 points) but has to deduce her four worst results and gets 71 points. Barbara has 5 wins, 4 P2, 1 P4 and 5 DNS (total 72 points) and no deductions, so she is WDC.

            In conclusion, even without a dead heat, before 1990 it was possible that the next-to last round could leave the WDC undecided.

          9. pany –> any
            pointswins —> points and wins

          10. oops, I think I got it wrong. I said Agatha was ahead in points but considering she will have to deduce 3 points (or get two really bad results) it is really Barbara who is ahead, although she’s 2 points behind.

            So if in the penultimate round it is Barbara who wins and Agatha who DNSs, the WDC gets very much decided. Barbara has 5 wins, 4 P2, 1 P4 and 4 DNS (72 points) and Agatha 5 wins, 2 P3, 4 P4 and 3 DNS (65 points). Barbara is only 7 points ahead, but Agatha can’t reach her, she can only score 6 effective more points .

            I haven’t worked all the possibilities yet but I believe now that in the penultimate round the WDC could always be decided, ecept in the dead heat case.

          11. @Jerseyf1 The first sentence of my post prescribed that I was discussing a chamiponship with equally weighted rounds. I know that F1 hasn’t always been that way, it just wasn’t something I was able to discuss in depth just yet!

            Hyoko seems to have discussed a dropped scores system accurately, however.

          12. What have I begun? Excellent contributions everyone, thank you!

            So in conclusion, under the ‘dropped scores’ rule it was also possible to have a scenario where the championship was still open at the penultimate round but couldn’t be decided?

        2. @keithcollantine

          I believe the conclusion is that even under the dropped scores system it wasn’t possible (see Hyoko’s second correction which concurs with my summary) – except in the absolute dead heat example.

          I also first of all reached the same initial conclusion as Hyoko but luckily spotted the problem before I posted a response. Confusingly in the specific scenario described by Hyoko it is the driver who is behind going into the penultimate race (Barbara) who is the only one who can secure the championship at that race, which seems perverse hence is initially dismissed, but is true because of the effect of dropped scores.

    2. @bleu Wow, that puts it perfectly in to perspective how stupid this rule is.

      1. And then you have to re-calculate for the possibility of a dead-heat finish.

  6. first time since its first edition in 1973 the Brazilian GP had less than 19 cars on the grid.

    first season since 1988 that two drivers of the same team won more than 4 races

    150th wins for Germany

    Fernando Alonso equaled the record of Giancarlo Fisichella.
    six 6th place in the same season

  7. Both Sebastian Vettel and Nico Hulkenberg have finished fifth on four occasions this season, more than anybody else.

    Alonso has finished the last three races in sixth.

    Lewis Hamilton has taken the DHL Fastest Lap award and Nico Rosberg the FIA Pole Position Trophy. That’s one completely insignificant trophy to each of the Mercedes drivers.

    Should Mercedes achieve a 1-2 at Abu Dhabi, they will have a higher percentage of 1-2s in this season than McLaren did in 1988. If they do that, they will also hold the outright record for the most wins in a season for a constructor.

    In every race where both Toro Rossos have finished the race outside of the points, Jean-Eric Vergne has finished in 13th.

    1. Benjamin Lozada
      11th November 2014, 2:05

      So now Merc will choose between beating McLaren or a German WDC.

  8. @craig-o:

    Lewis Hamilton has taken the DHL Fastest Lap award and Nico Rosberg the FIA Pole Position Trophy. That’s one completely insignificant trophy to each of the Mercedes drivers.

    Love that one! Haha

    1. petebaldwin (@)
      10th November 2014, 14:33

      Insignificant but it certainly shows why Lewis is top of the WDC at the moment. Not always the best in quali but it’s rare to see Nico faster in race trim. More often than not, Lewis is right behind Nico and passes or is unable to pass or Lewis drives away from Nico and builds a gap.

      1. “Not always the best in quali…”

        Monaco, Hungary, Germany (and Silverstone where Hamilton didnt challenge on the final run)

  9. petebaldwin (@)
    10th November 2014, 14:42

    So it could be argued that double points has done exactly what Bernie wanted….

    Abu Dhabi get their title decider that they have paid so much for.

    Lewis can’t take it easy and will have to ensure he gets 2nd. Considering it’s double points, some teams may have brought specific new parts so the other Mercedes powered cars might be able to cause problems.

    A DNF for Lewis would decide the title both with and without double points so that wouldn’t taint Nico winning the Championship in that way. It’s only a few positions that he would be very unlikely to finish in that would taint it.

    1. Hm, but it would be the same without, just with chances for Rosberg to do so a bit less bad

      1. In the article “Whereas under the normal points system there would only be six ways Rosberg can take the title, under double points there are 25 different combinations.”

        This is true but may be a bit misleading. Might sound like Abu Double could make it over four times more likely for Nico to win. Not true, as most of the extra possibilities are wildly improbable.
        The Mercs are so ridiculously dominant that P1 and P2 are their only likely results (28 out of 36 so far) with a DNF a distant 3rd (5 out of 36). And with these results, it doesn’t matter if they score double or not.

        However, Lewis got two P3 (Germany and Hungary) and Nico one P4 (Hungary) so it still could happen. Of the 18 races so far, Germany is the only one with a result (Nico 1, Lewis P3, with Valtteri sandwiched between) that could make the double points relevant. So I would conclude that Abu Double increases only marginally Nico’s chances to win (judging by the results so far, by less than a 6%)

        1. I agree, in reality the difference between having to win but Hamilton not finish highter than 7th or winning but Hamilton lower than 2nd is not all that big when we take in account how likely it is to have a Mercedes 1-2 in Abu Dhabi anyway.

    2. It’s not thanks to double points that the title is going to the last race of the season. This season, at least.

      “Increases focus on the end of the season?” I think not. Since both drivers are close this season, it was inevitable it was going to go down to the last race.

  10. Only reason 2014 cars got so close to 2004 times is drs and that’s it. On quali lap it makes the cars look a lot faster. If you look at the fastest laps of the race in 2004 montoya did 1:11,473 whereas hamilton’s fastest lap was just 1:13,555. Not to mention that in 2004 the race was finished 2 minutes sooner than in 2004. 2004 race winner would have easily lapped all cars of 2014.

    2014 cars are a lot slower than 2004 cars. Only the 2014 qualifying rules are faster than the 2004.

    1. Obviously meant to say that: in 2004 the race was finished 2 minutes sooner than in 2014

    2. @socksolid They’ve had DRS since 2011 and back then they could use it wherever they chose around the lap instead of just in two places. It’s clearly nothing to do with why the times have suddenly dropped this year.

      Though it bears pointing out that all the practice and qualifying sessions last year were held in wet conditions, and those are when the fastest times are set.

      1. I’m pretty sure that DRS has nothing to do with it. NA engines lose power in increased altitude due to decreased air pressure. Turbo engines can dramatically overcome this limitation due to the fact that they aren’t as badly affected and may even get a slight performance increase (relatively) , due to less resistance in the fans.

    3. @socksolid For the race pace, you also need to take the tyres into account. The drivers had to save tyres the whole race, while in 2004 it was flatout all the time.

    4. There was refueling back in 2004, so I don’t think it’s fair to compare the speed of the cars based on the fastest lap of the race.

      Having said that, 2004 cars are probably the fastest F1 cars ever, most of the track records of the current calendar were set in 2004.

      1. My point really was that there are lots of regulatory gimmicks that make 2014 cars look a lot faster than they are in reality. 2004 cars were pure racing cars whereas the 2014 cars are kind of bizarre collection of technical gimmicks and complexity. If we want to compare speeds we need some kind of medium ground. Otherwise the rules of 2014 will just make the older cars look slow because the rules are the biggest thing that artificially make the 2014 cars look faster than they are in reality.

        So let’s see. Fuel consumption. In 2004 the cars refueled. So theoretically they could drive in the race with lighter fuel loads. But they also burned a lot more fuel. I’d imagine the actual difference is something like 2014 cars use something like 50% of what the cars used in 2004. Then there is the tires. 10 years is a long time in tire development. While the pirelli show tires do not last as long as the 2004 tires there were no soft and hard tires in 2004. There was just one tire you used in the race and in the quali. So 2014 cars have the benefit of “qualifying rubber”.

        Then there is the drs and kers/ers/hers/whatever. Kers is a pure negative performance thing for F1 car. It just adds more weight and technical complexity. In quali though it is possible to use that system on a fast lap without having to recharge it during a fast lap so in quali it is probably worth it. But in the race, nope. Without it and its weight the car would be faster in the race. Drs is a huge bonus for for the 2014 cars. Especially in qualifying.

        In the end 2014 cars could be fastest f1 cars ever in qualifying. Not because they are faster but because of rules allowing them to use lots of things 2004 cars did not have. Softer tires and drs alone are a major adventage while kers helps too. In the race the 2014 cars get much less benefit from those gimmicky rules which shows 2004 cars being clearly faster in the race where it matters.

        Even with the mercs being totally in their own class in a race against 2004 cars the mercs would not even fit into the top 10.

        1. @socksolid I don’t really agree that refuelling wasn’t a gimmick, it clearly was brought in as one, intended to create more strategy. I agree with a lot of the influences that you mention for why cars are different, but in the end, faster is faster. In 2004 the Mercs. would be different cars altogether.

        2. @socksolid

          In the end 2014 cars could be fastest f1 cars ever in qualifying. Not because they are faster but because of rules allowing them to use lots of things 2004 cars did not have.

          They could be fastest not because they are faster but because they have things which make them faster (surely then they are faster). I’m confused, are you saying that they are faster or not.

          This comment is an attempt to attack something you don’t like without any actual argument to back it up. I don’t understand how cars can be fast in the wrong way, surely they are either fast or not??

          1. I’m just commenting on the argument in the article which makes it sound the new cars were faster than 2004. Which is simply not true. Well, it is true if you look at qualifying laps in vacuum. But if you look at race pace it clearly isn’t.

            I have laid out a lot of reasons why 2014 cars can qualify a lot faster than their race pace. And all of them are in the rules. Allowed to use stickier qualifying rubber (softer tires), drs. And yes I think there are imho right and wrong ways to measure how fast a car from different years is. Looking at qualifying pace alone is not just good enough. F1 is not a one lap race. It is not a marathon either. It is a complex mix of one short sprint one lapper followed by 305kilometer race in the next day. For fastest cars the race is much more important than the qualifying.

            I’m not saying that 2004 need to be given the sam technical gizmos as the 2014 so we can compare. No. But I’m saying there are reasons why the qualifying pace of 2014 car can look good. In the end F1 car is gp racing car. Just like lemans race car is endurance race car. For a “daily” supercar like zonda r a one lap comparison on nordschleife or topgear track may be fine to see which is best. Or even 0-200mph time or whatever. But for F1 car the measurement stick is not a one lap time but speed as an F1 car which does F1 style gp racing. Race speed.

          2. Sorry @socksolid, but your arguments do not really hold. Are you sure the current soft tyres are really softer/faster than the tyres used in 2004? Remember Bridgestone was still in a tyre war and finetuned to the Ferrari, while Pirelli supplies a standard compound with hardly any testing allowed.

            Fact is, the cars at this track were faster than they have been for most of the last decade. Despite using far less fuel AND behing heavier.

          3. @bascb No the 2014 cars are slower. Had you read my post I explained how, why and when. Simple telling me I’m wrong does not make me wrong. Personally I’d be surprised if pirelli has managed to make a tire that is slower on single lap than the 2004 tires. But it is of course possible.

          4. Yeah, sure its fine for you to say

            telling me I’m wrong does not make me wrong

            and then instead of giving us arguments (increaded minimal weight and solid arguments for tyres now to be slower than 10 years back) you ignore one altogether (weight) and put the other down by your opinion without any real argument @socksolid.

            When you mention 2004 tyres being “slow” please elaborate why you think so. The tyre war was still on, Brigestone had intensive testing with Ferrari, they developped tyres that were optimized for each track, refuelling meant the loads were lower than now and also meant teams had no incentive to make tyres last more than their fuel load either.
            Compare the situation now, where Pirelli can only be compared to itself (and was asked to make longer lasting tyres than last year and the year before), with no real push to be faster. On top of that Pirelli made these years tyres harder to cope with the expected high torque from the hybrid powertrain and they have to cope with full fuel and a heavier car than back in 2004 too.

      2. I believe it is. The fastest laps are usually set on low fuel.

  11. @keithcollantine, did Mansell lose the 1987 championship because of the points system? I ask because he had 6 victories to Piquet’s three (albeit had less podium finishes) and I didn’t do the math (I wasn’t even born then lol). Can you please clarify on this?

    1. Mansell retired from 4 races, and did not start in Japan nor Australia because of a qualifying accident. He scored in 9 of the other 10 races, including 6 wins.

      Piquet retired from 2 races, and did not start San Marino. He scored in 12 of the other 13 races but only the best 11 results counted that season – including his 3 wins 7 second places and 1 third place.

      I guess you could say it was down to the scoring system, but that only makes sense if you compare it to some other system. With this year’s system Piquet would have won 228-183. Neither finished the last race, but had Mansell been fit enough to enter he could have won the championship (by this year’s rules) on double points.

      1. Thanks @ians! I guess my real question was how this title was perceived back then, if it was deserving or not. I think it was, Mansell may have won more races but Piquet was the better driver overall.

  12. I think the double points issue is a well meant but bad joke. I really do hope they do away with it for next year.

  13. If it is dry next year I am sure we will see that record lap broken. Next year the tarmac will have time for the new oils to be gone, and more than anything the cars will be faster as teams make major developments and progress.

  14. Surely Hamilton also wins if they are level on points, because he has more wins? That makes 8 ways he wins under normal points, not 6.

    Also you really need to factor in the likelihood of them finishing in each position. Using form so far this season I make it 82% chance that Lewis will be champion and 18% that Nico will finish on top.

    1. @ians They can’t finish level on points, the current gap is an odd number and the race points and gaps are all even (because of being doubled).

      1. They can tie in the unlikely situation that the race has to be red-flagged and half points are awarded:

        Eg. The following results would see them tied on points in that scenario:
        Rosberg P2 – 18pts
        Hamilton P10 – 1pts

        1. As I understand it, half points are awarded under the old points system. Not the new. If that is the case, then a half point scenario automatically crowns Lewis as champion

  15. Wow that table is so confusing

  16. On this year’s form there is a better chance that (un)reliability will decide the race than double points, and that would be an even bigger shame. Even worse would be an accident caused by another driver taking one of the title contenders out.

  17. With the 10-8-6-5… system Hamilton leads just by one point now.

    1. Which is why the new system was brought in, to equalise race winning drivers who may have suffered issues during the year.

      Personally, I think this season proves without a shadow of a doubt that the new points system is a better one.

    2. @ f1mre , with the scoring system and the 1988 Regulation Hamilton would’ve been champion at US Grand Prix

  18. It will be a sad day for F1 if (when) double points wins it for Rosberg.

  19. The stats I’ve found after the Brazilian GP:

    – Raikkonen scores significantly better at non-Tilke tracks this year. His 5 best results of the season are all from non-Tilke tracks: 4th at Spa, 6th in Hungary, 7th at Melbourne, Spain and Brazil

    – Although Nico Rosberg led more laps than Hamilton this year (482-455), Hamilton led more KM’s than Rosberg (2454-2242)

    – Just like last year, McLaren lead the most laps raced table. They lead Ferrari by almost 2 Grand Prix distances

    – For the first time this year, both the Pole Position and the fastest lap of the race were faster than last year. In Belgium the fastest lap was faster than last year, and in Austin the pole was faster than last year.

    – Williams have scored 7 podiums so far this year. If they score one more in Abu Dhabi, then have scored just as many podiums this year as they have done from 2005 to 2013

    – Esteban Guttierez qualified 11th, that was his best qualifying performance since South Korea last year, when he qualified 8th

    – Kimi Raikkonen has scored points in every Brazilian GP since 2003

    – Nico Hulkenberg scored points in every Brazilian GP he participated in. (5th in 2012, 8th in 2010, 2013 and 2014)

    1. I think the Raikkonen has scored points in every brazilian gp since 2003 should have the rather large caveat that he has not competed in 3 of those grand prix, he din’t in 2010-11 as he was rallying and last year he had back surgery/ wasn’t getting paid

    2. Nico is only winning in laps led because Monaco and Interlagos have a huge amount of laps, but they’re very short circuits.

      1. Not only Monaco and Interlagos, but Canada (62/70) and Austria (38/71) as well.

  20. Thats it Berni, Im done.
    F1 fan for 20 years, but no longer. You have ripped the soul from my beloved F1, turned it, literally, into a circus of the powerful for the powerful, and I will no longer be a pair of eyeballs for you to sell to the advertisers. You seem to have forgotten what it is that we like watching, engineering, speed, and driving skill.

    If you want to know the reasons, here is a short list
    2. DRS and KERS
    3. Two compounds per race Tire Rules
    4. Engine Freeze
    5. Inequitable distrobution of rewards.

    Bernie, you have turned F1 into exactly all the things that are wrong with the world. I can no longer find any escape in the sport, nothing pure that once was. It is now all to clear that FOM considers the racing as a necessary evil that can be twisted and manipulated without repercussion; that the fans are drooling idiots that will lap up whatever excrement you squeeze from the orifice on a biweekly basis.

    Goodbye F1, you failed to respect this fan, and now this fan has lost all regard for you.

    1. I agree with some of your gripes, however I get the feeling that DRS could benefit if they just say here you go there’s a button to press, as and when you feel (still disabled in poor weather/safety car) will show who the talented and ballsy drivers are getting it open the soonest.

  21. When was the last time that the same driver topped the timesheets at all seven sessions? I think I checked once a while ago and (if I recall correctly) was surprised that Vettel never managed that (with Q1 often being the missing session of course where he would run the harder tyres whereas some others would run the softer tyres).

  22. Some from

    18th consecutive Mercedes-powered pole – equals Ford Cosworth’s longest run (USA 1968 – Netherlands 1970), only trails Renault (France 1992-Japan 1993).

    Mercedes’ 28th front-row start this season – equals Williams in 1993.

    First Brazilian GP since 1993 that Ferrari did not qualify a car inside the top 7.

    Perez’s first Q1 exit that was not due to a mechanical problem.

    600th podium for a British driver.

    Second time (after Berger in 1985-86) that a driver has finished in 6th 3 races in a row.

    None of the last 3 Brazilian GP winners have yet won a subsequent race (obviously Rosberg hasn’t yet had the chance to do so).

  23. Under the pre 2003 points system 10,6,4,3,2,1 (which in my opinion is the best we’ve had) Hamilton would be 126pts to Rosbergs 113 meaning Lewis would already be champion.

    1. Apart from double points… 20, 12, 8 …etc :-)

      1. Haha touché, just goes to show how undervalued a win actually is compared to other points scoring positions and has been for the last 10 years or so. Considering if driver has scored 2nd place in every race so far they’d only be 10 points behind the points Hamilton has earned so far 7 in front of rosberg, even though he has 5 wins to his name (I do understand that getting those points would be impossible as both Lewis and Nico have scored points for 2nd place finishes!!) but the point still stands should a driver still be in contention for the title if they’ve not won a race all year? Hypothetical and unlikely situation but most certainly possible.

        1. Austin Dillion won the Nationwide (the tier below NASCAR) last season without a single race victory to his name. Incredible when you consider NASCAR only really focuses on 1st place…

        2. The closest in F1 was…. Keke Rosberg!! :-)

  24. Should Nico take the WDC at Dhabi, boy oh boy, we’ll have jammed packed comments on all F1 websites. That I’m sure. Rightfully it’s Hamilton’s WDC IMVHO.

  25. It will be the biggest upset in f1 if nico rosberg wins the championship.still Hamilton is the title favourite only bad luck can stop him winning title.

  26. What would happen previous years with double points? For example in 2012 Alonso would be World Champion instead of Vettel. It will be interesting to know what would happen other seassons with double points.

    1. There is a website somewhere already covering this, but I cannot for the life of me find it. I think Alonso might have an extra title at someones expense, Massa would have a championship instead of Lewis, and possibly one more altered championship I think.

  27. Here is why I think the double point don’t matter that much this year.

    Under the old 2009 points system, It would be the driver who wins the race, that wins the championship in Abu Dhabi, regardless of where the second car finishes.
    Under four of the seven points systems given in the points calculator, with Rosberg 1st, he would win it if Hamilton came second, including the pre-2010 F1 points system.

    Interestingly, under NASCAR points, Rosberg would win the title even if he came second to Hamilton.
    So what I take from this is that the results of the drivers are such, that the outcome of the championship is more dependent on the linearity of the points system. And both divers are deserving winners.

    The NASCAR points system is the most linear, and let’s not forget that the new points in 2010 were also brought in as a gimmick, to give more points for a win, to “improve the show”.

    I personally would prefer the more linear points system, such as the one we had up to 09.

    1. For me the 2009 points system rewarded 2nd down too many points in relation to the win, this was fetched in as a gimmick because of the way Schumacher had dominated pervious season 2001/02?? I believe

      1. It seems that the 1991-2002 points system was introduced for the same reasons as the 2010, to reward the winner more. It went from 9,6,4,3,2,1 to 10,6,4,3,2,1. Under the 1991-2002 points Hamilton would be champion since the Brazil GP finished, but under the 1981-1990 system the championship would be open, with 8 point difference between them.

        I don’t see how can you call a more linear system a gimmick. A gimmick for me seems to throw extra points for the winner. Why?

        But that’s sort of how it goes, someone wants to spice things up, then they introduce more point’s for the win, then someone dominates, it becomes boring, then the points revert back to a more linear system, then again someone wants to spice things up… What was that hypothesis about history repeating in upward loops? Given the Double Points, I would hypothesize downward loops for F1.

        1. Personally and it’s only my own opinion, but I feel that there should be a bigger gap between 1st and 2nd than 2nd and 3rd, didn’t like the move to 10,8,6… And I don’t like the current points!! Should be a large gap 40%, smaller gap 20%, smaller gap 10% then single point drops down to however many places points are available

  28. Because I’m so cool, I keep a spreadsheet updated with the McLaren drivers’ quali and race results for the year. Interestingly (for me anyway) they have both been out qualified 9 times and both have an average qualifying position of 8.33! Pretty close I’d say. Although when you compare their average finishing positions, Jenson wins out with an average placing of 7.65, with 9.29 for Kevin.
    Compared with last year, their combined quali positions have improved by 2.46, and their finishing placings by only 1.16.

    1. @chuckysuperstar How would the finishing positions look without Kevin’s penalties?

      1. It would change his average from 9.92 to 8.82. Which is better, but not as good as Jenson’s.

        1. Sorry, 9.29 not 9.92

    2. @chuckysuperstar, you my friend are the definition of cool, honest, but seriously interest results

      1. Well thank you sir.

  29. Someone’s got too much time on their hands; the tables and such are far too confusing…. Basically, had Lewis finished 1st in Brazil he would have had a bigger margin (31) over Britney. Meaning, in short-hand Lewis could have afforded a 5th place finish and still win it by a point in Abu D… (with Britney 1st in all other scenarios). So yeah, mathematically Rosberg’s chances have increased; but only by reducing the number of places to 2 in Abu D. that Lewis can finish and still win it. C’mon Lewi!

    1. of course that assumes Rosberg Wins it! his chances are reduced where lewis will increase the number of places back to 5th if Rosbers comes in 2nd to any other driver – Hammer Time!

  30. Massa is the first Brazilian driver with five home podiums. Previously, he was on 4 with Senna, Piquet and Fittipaldi.

  31. Thanks for the tables. It makes it easy to see what each driver has to do to win or lose….

  32. Speaking of Fittipaldi, I kept expecting to see him at the race …. what have I missed regarding Emerson F???

Comments are closed.