Moral Championship Standings

[journeyman racer]

As result of the Singapore GP thread. And the sense of injustice felt by staunch Lewis Hamilton fans over this season, with his misfortune. It's prompted me to discuss in finer detail, how much of a factor mechanical failures have been, without the trolling.

Personally, While it's unfortunate. I'm hardly moved by a mechanical failure anymore. The whole history of motorsport is full moments where cars have broken down, denying drivers wins or good results. It's as much a part of motorsport as speed and crashing. Motor racing at the top level is about the cars, not the drivers.I mean. The races and racing we take for granted (at the top level), in the early decades of motorsport, were born out of breaking cars.



You think when the Le Mans 24hr was initiated, they thought it was a race that would provide great racing and lots of passing?


To outsiders, oval racing is just some odd form of motorsport that happens in America. Oval racing developed prominence thanks to the significance of the Indy 500. The design of IMS and chosen length of the race wasn't by accident. It was meant to destroy cars.

Even our beloved Grand Prix racing. The highest level of motorsport. The bread and butter of motorsport fans around the world. Nowadays, GP racing is a relative series of short heats. Forget about the half race/half rally type events of 100+ years ago. The earliest Grand Prix "series" I know of, is the 1931 season. The total driving/running time of those races equates to roughly the same total of the 2014 season. The 1931 GP championship season compromised of...3 races!!!



But what I don't do, is acknowledge others feeling of emptiness, when a favoured driver is denied a win or good position. It's been a long time since Nigel Mansell raced. Specifically, it's been a long time since HHF broke down halfway through Nurburgring in 99, controlling the race, and close right in on the title fight he deserved to be in.

So I gone back and had a looedk at specific seasons. I've chosen a fair mathematical equation to work out a projected score. It can be debated if it's unfair. It's supposed to take into account the driver's season form, and any dnf that occurred too early in the race.

The equation is, to take the total score. Divided by the amount of races that did not end with a mechanical problem, or non-driver error (I'll refer to this as a "nde/dnf"). the multiplied by the amount of races in the season. The following are my findings.



Feel free to point out any glaring or contentious points. Feel free to criticise. Just to be clear, a Brownlow medal is the most prestigious individual award (Player of the season, Season MVP) for Australian football.

[journeyman racer]

I'll begin by trolling Hamilton fans a little. After all, let's face it, they've been a immense pain in the bottom for many fans all over the www for many years now (It feels like decades!). A closely contested season, which fans had to wait til the last corner of the last lap of the last race of the season to see the final outcome! (Not me. I didn't like both drivers and the race started at 3am. No way I'm making an effort for that). These are the significant standings positions

1st Lewis Hamilton 98pts
2nd Felipe Massa 97

On adjusted score, I ve got...

1st Felipe Massa 97 / 16 * 18 = 109.25
2nd Lewis Hamilton 98 / 0 * 18 = 98

As you can see. Massa claims the MWDC, possibly with a race to spare. The good news for Hamilton fans is that irl, Hamilton will always be champ.

The less good news? Massa's nde/dnf does not include the HunGP. A race where Massa put in a career best performance, and had both hands on the trophy, before his engine blew. It happened so late, he's considered a finisher of that race! It also doesn't include SingGP, where he failed to score points, primarily as a result of the pit release (13th). With that in mind, Massa's score is the 124.7!

Personally? I don't think Massa has the quality of Hamilton. So I'm ok with Hamilton claiming the title, if Massa is the alternative. However, I think it's fair to say Massa was robbed!



Raikonen and Kubica finished on equal points irl. But Kimi gets the nod in the mwdc standings. I didn't bother including them because they were nowhere near the leaders.



Brownlow medal: Robert Kubica

[journeyman racer]

2007 was a great championship race. The single tightest finish in F1. Schumacher is forgotten in his first year out due to Hamilton taking over the joint. McLaren drivers led the title almost the whole season before being pipped at the death. Hamilton probably should've won the title...or should he?

Actual standings

Raikkonen 110
Hamilton 109
Alonso 109
Massa 94

MWDC standings

Raikkonen 110 / 15 *17 = 124.66
Massa* 94 / 14 *17 = 114.14
Hamilton No nde/dnf = 109
Alonso "

Notes

*Massa has up to 3 nde/dnf. One was a suspension failure at Monza. There was a disqualification at Canada and a non-points scoring race in Hungary. I'm not certain whether these were as a result of Massa himself, or whether he was not to blame. Score is 106.53 with two nde/dnf

Hamilton had two 0 point scoring races (Ger, China), Alonso had one in Japan. From memory and looking up the results, none could be viewed as nde/dnf. It's academic anyway.

Accounting for the last race results, and giving Massa the win in Brazil. The title decider would've been Raik on 116.66, Alo/Ham on 109, Massa 114.14.

Raikkonen is seen as fortunate for winning this season. It's even used to diminish him in comparison to others. Impartial analysis proves that this is BS. Maybe Hamilton had it in the bag halfway through the China GP. But Raikkonen powered on like a champion in the second half that year. Hamilton was great. But Raikkonen is legit Number 1.


Brownlow: Raikkonen Hamilton.

[journeyman racer]

In the SingaporeGP thread. I use 1991 as an example of how I (arrogantly?) set myself above Hamilton fans. Senna won the title, but Mansell suffered numerous mechanical trouble. So much so, I though it could've overcome the difference between the two. I remember adjusting the sums from my memory of how the races were likely to turn pout without mechanical trouble. I had Mansell winning the title by about 10 points. To this day, I don't hold it against Senna for winning. I use it to boost Mansell. I don't use it to diminish Senna, who was great anyway. This is what annoys me about staunch Hamilton fans by comparison, who go at great lengths to piss all over Rosberg.

Actual standings

Senna 96
Mansell 74

Following the rules, the MWDC was a lot closer than even I had anticipated!

Mansell 72 / 11 *16 = 104.73
Senna 96 / 15 *16 = 102.4

Notes

A you can see, it was really close between these two! I think it was a fairer reflection of that season, from memory.

Mansell's score does not include the CanadaGP. Mansell led the whole way. Led the last lap by a lap. Before the gearbox packed up! He's classified as a 6th place finisher, missing out on 9pts.

Sanna's score does not include very late nde/dnf at Britain and Germany. From memory, he wasn't challenging for a win. Maybe even podium. But between the two, he missed out some points.

It also doesn't include the points he missed out on by giving the JapGP win to Berger. His score would be 106.66! Would Mansell have spun out at Japan, when chasing Senna and the title, had the situation not forced him to?

As it was. The last race at Adelaide would've seen a title decider in torrential rain (as some of you remember). Mansell would've led 101.73 to 97.4. The race ended after 15 laps. Mansell being awarded 2nd, despite ending up in the wall. Would Senna have insisted on the race being restarted, had full points awarded were necessary to clinch the title?



Brownlow: tie between Senna and Mansell

[journeyman racer]

WARNING: You're not going to like this if, unless you're a Vettel Fan.

A very entertaining race for the title that ended with 4 drivers having a possibility of winning it, at the start of the final race. Extreme momentum swings culminating with just 16 points separating those top 4. The equivalent of 6-7 points with the previous points allocation.

Vettel 256
Alonso 252
Webber 242
Hamilton 240

Regarding Vettel. I'm sorry to say. But the rules are the rules.

Vettel 256 / 17 *19 = 286.12
Hamilton 240 / 17 *19 = 268.24
Alonso 252
Webber 242

Notes

What can I say? He is the legit champ. Two nde/dnf at Australian and Korea were while controlling the lead of the race too. What a tease.

Hamilton's results include a tyre failure in Spain, where he cushioned the wall on the last lap or something. Tyre failures, I'm sometime unsure of including. Because you could always change them. It was unreasonable to do so at this point, so it counts.



Brownlow: Alonso

[journeyman racer]

More bad news.

Vettel 281
Alonso 278
Raikkonen 207
Hamilton 190

Button 188

Webber 179

It was a good title race. But..

Vettel 281 /18 *20 = 312.22
Alonso 278 /19 *20 = 292.63
Hamilton 190 /15 *20 = 252.33

Button 188 /15 *20 = 250.66

Webber 179 /16 *20 = 223.75
Raikkonen 0 207

Notes



For the car he had. Vettel still wouldn't have won by more than a race win.

Button and Hamilton had so many non-points scoring races. I couldn't quite figure out how many they were definitely responsible for. Giving them the benefit of the doubt for the moment



Raikkonen falls to 6th. He was so good that year I don't mind him getting a 3rd place overall. It's still a trophy.



Brownlow: Alonso Raikkonen

[journeyman racer]

Loved working out this one!

Schumacher 93
Raikkonen 91
Montoya 82
Barrichello 65

Well whaddaya know?

Raikkonen 91 /13 *16 = 112
Montoya 82 /13 * 16 = 100.92
Schumacher 93 /0 93
Barrichello 65 /12 * 16 = 86.66

Notes

The Pro-Schumacher and Anti-Raikkonen brigade will hate this one!

Raikkonen's score includes a start line crash in Spain. Of which I think is harsh to blame him

Montoya has a 12th place finish in Malaysia. I can't remember what held him back. His score is 109.33 otherwise

Barrichello had an accident at Australia, which is included in his result. Once again, I can't remember why exactly. His score is lower if it is.

So much for Schumacher's superior ability.



Brownlow: Raikkonen

[journeyman racer]

Another entertaining title race. That threw up surprise results

Hakkinen 76
Irvine 74
Frentzen 54
Coulthard 48
Schumacher 44

Surprise results, not just the actual title as well.

Hakkinen 76 /13 *16 = 93.54
Irvine 74 /14 *16 = 84.57
Schumacher 44 /9 *16 = 78.22
Coulthard 48 /10 *16 = 76.8
Frentsen 54 /12 *16 = 72

Notes

Irvine gets a legit 2nd! Finishes ahead of Schumacher! His results include the bizarre pits stop in Nurburgring. Where for what ever reason, Ferrari didn't have 4 tyres ready for him, resulting in a long delay. He ended up 7th, with no points, But considering the way the race was forming, he would've been contending for the win. At worst, he would've finished 2nd.

Despite not suffering a serious injury from a crash. Coulthard only has 1 nde/dnf less that Schumacher!

Frentzen's results include a 11th place at Canada, which was due to a brake failure at the end, while running second. Like with Raikkonen in 2012, he was so good, I'm satisfied with his trophy placing irl.



Brownlow: Frentzen.

[journeyman racer]

In an attempt to give me a whack. Doc Austin mentioned 1939, as a means to express how archaic my attitude was (It's ok. We've exchanged pm, and it's all good now). I didn't take it personally. Because considering the nature of the discussion, I pissed myself laughing. Due to the knowledge that 1939 is the most controversial pre-war GP season! In fact, it still doesn't have an official champion!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1939_Grand_Prix_season

Obviously in those days. There was an unusual points scoring system, where by it's the lowest score winning. Getting 1pt for a win, and so on even for the length you ran. Not just the finishing position. These are the points as they were

Hermann Paul Muller 12
Hermann Lang 14

These are the result of the current day points

Hermann Paul Muller 55
Hermann Lang 50

I don't think 4 races is really enough for a legit series. Personally, the bare minimum is 6.

HPM wins the title with the 03-09 points. Also the one used in the 50s. HL wins the title on the 60s-02 points. I'm satisfied with HPM as champ.



Brownlow: HPM HL

I haven't done the result for it. But from reading. Caracciola is the no1 who collects the trophies. Tazio Nuvolari is the best one overall. Bernd Rosemeyer and Richard Seaman are the mythical legends. And Manfred von Brauchitsch is Mr unlucky. He was stiff on a number of occasions Imagine if the internet was on then???

[steveaki13]

Some interesting stuff here Journeyman

I always felt Massa was unlucky not to win his title in 2008. As you point out he had some real bad luck.

2007 seems to suggest that Ferrari should have dominated the season quite easily, but for retirements.

1991 to early for me to recall really, but I never felt Mansell seem that unlukcy in 1991, especially with his luck in 1992 in getting such a ridiculously dominant car

Not surprising to see Vettel still winning 2010 & 2012. He seemed to have quite a few mechanical issues himself those seasons and still won it.

2003 was one of my favourites seasons in my F1 watching time and was fully behind Montoya all the way, but would also loved Kimi to win.

As it turns out he should have.