Double points awarded for final race – Historical Perspective
- This topic has 21 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Here is a short historical perspective of how the championship results would have looked different if Bernie Ecclestone’s new idea to give double points in the season finale had been implemented since 1950.
Note that I am not going to change the actual point system from year to year, instead I’m merely going to double the normal point score for the final race.
1958: Stirling Moss would be WDC instead of Mike Hawthorne.
Revised 1958 standings;
1. Stirling Moss – 49 points
2. Mike Hawthorne – 42 points1981: Alan Jones would be WDC instead of Nelson Piquet.
Revised 1981 standings;
1. Alan Jones – 55 points
2. Nelson Piquet – 52 points1984: Alain Prost would be WDC instead of Niki Lauda.
Revised 1984 standings;
1. Alain Prost – 80.5 points
2. Niki Lauda – 78 points2003: Kimi Raikkonen would be WDC instead of Micheal Schumacher.
Revised 2003 standings;
1. Kimi Raikkonen – 99 points
2. Michael Schumacher – 94 points2008: Felipe Massa would be WDC instead of Lewis Hamilton.
Revised 2008 standings;
1. Felipe Massa – 107 points
2. Lewis Hamilton – 102 points2012: Fernando Alonso would be WDC instead of Sebastian Vettel.
Revised 2012 standings;
1. Fernando Alonso – 296 points
2. Sebastian Vettel – 289 pointsKind of ironic how I would prefer if history had turned out that way, even though I think the rule is garbage.
I can’t edit my OP, but there is more revision.
1953: Juan Manuel Fangio would be WDC instead of Alberto Ascari.
Revised 1953 standings;
1. Juan Manuel Fangio – 36 points
2. Alberto Ascari – 134.5 points1970: Jacky Ickx would be WDC instead of Jochen Rindt
Revised 1970 standings;
1. Jacky Ickx – 48 points
2. Jochen Rindt – 45 pointsInteresting comparison @kingshark
Kind of weird how fans moan about 2000-2004 and 2010-2013 being “too” dominant but this rule change would have broken both periods of dominance up with Raikkonen in 2003 and Alonso in 2012!
I see the UK “loses” a World Champion in Hamilton but “gains” one in Moss had the rule been implemented at the start of F1! :P
Not sure how I feel about this, cuz if Alonso had won Brazil last year, and vettel took second, Alonso would have taken the championship, that seems a bit extreme
I’d also like to say, the title race would also have gone done the wire in the following years (where they didn’t in real life):
2009 (after Brazil):
1 Jenson Button 89
2 Sebastian Vettel 74 (-15)
3 Rubens Barrichello 72 (-17)2005 (after Brazil):
1 Fernando Alonso 117
2 Kimi Räikkönen 94 (-23)(after Japan):
1 Fernando Alonso 123
2 Kimi Räikkönen 104 (-19)
This would be interesting in that Kimi would’ve – just – kept it alive, passing Fisi on the last lap to win (and just be 19 down instead of 21 with 20 points left).2000 (after Japan):
1 Michael Schumacher 98
2 Mika Häkkinen 86 (-12)1990 (after Japan):
1 Ayrton Senna 78
2 Alain Prost 69 (-9)
It might’ve also discouraged Senna to take Prost out at Turn 1…Note that it wouldn’t have changed the champions in any of these additional title showdowns, but it does open that window of possibility to cause an upset in such an alternate world.
Just to clarify, I’m still not a fan of the rules system, but I wonder if this is what the rulemakers had in mind.
@journeyer
I think that Fisichella would have slowed down on the last lap of Suzuka 2005 to let Alonso by for the championship. Seems like a bit of an extreme case of team orders, but as it would guarantee Alonso the title, Briatore probably would have lodged team orders. It’s better than to risk a non-finish for Alonso and Kimi win in China, even if the probability of that occurring would be really small noting that Alonso didn’t have a single reliability problem all year long.As for Japan 1990, Senna would likely not have taken out Prost.
A small comparison to the football world:
It is a little like the difference between a Premier League Season and the UEFA Champions League. In the first, every point counts towards the end. In the second, in counts only to get you to the end. You can be the best team the whole season in the UCL, but you still have to win that last match.
In that spirit, the idea is at least not absurd, from a sportive point of view.Petition to stop this BS over here:
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/cancel-the-plan-to-award-double-points-for-the-last-formula-one-race-of-a-season-from-2014-onwardI’d like to see how it goes – give it a trial year. Personally, I think (and hope) that it will keep the championship alive, and possibly stop all the whinging that has been going on this last few years about Vettel/RB’s dominance.
The key to the Championships will be reliability next year, as these engines are pretty new for all of the teams, and may (along with other parts) provide less reliability than their V8 counterparts. I think if they had this system, it could allow some interesting results – particularly if reliability is still questionable.
Anyway…before I knock it, I am going to give it a try, and see what sort of result we get. You never know, people on here might (shock, horror) actually be happy about next year’s Champion if they get it by way of this!
@sebp There are a lot more petitions floating around already!
Another championship changes as I keep making more discoveries.
1979: Gilles Villeneuve would be WDC instead of Jody Scheckter
Revised 1979 standings:
1. Gilles Villeneuve – 56 points
2. Jody Scheckter – 51 points“Anyway…before I knock it, I am going to give it a try, and see what sort of result we get. You never know, people on here might (shock, horror) actually be happy about next year’s Champion if they get it by way of this!”
I would be disappointed if a driver I support won a championship that way, because I would not consider them a champion.
@matt90
Did you consider Senna to be a false champion of 1988 because he only won due the “best 11” stipulation ? There have been points systems and rules more ridiculous than this implementation in the past.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.