Moral Championship Standings

[Rollo]

1983

Actual Standings:
59 - Piquet
57 - Prost
49 - Arnoux

This is the critical result which changed the complexion of the '83 season.

Dutch Grand Prix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiI-g_rqxcU
What the heck Prost? What's going here? Eejit!

1983 should have ended:
69 - Piquet
63 - Prost
49 - Arnoux

I still think that Prost should have been 7 times world champion. 1988 is a disgrace and 1990 was a criminal act. 1984 though, is a nonsense. It's just that 1983, was entirely his own fault.

[Don Capps]

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!!!

Actually, it was 1925 and the first event was held on the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. You might wish to look here for more information: http://www.kolumbus.fi/leif.snellman/gp25a.htm

As for 1939, in retrospect, it looks more likely that it was less that the CSI failed to come to a decision, rather that with the outbreak of war, it was also now somewhat irrelevant. Employing Ockham's razor to the situation (always a dangerous proposition given that many a myth or legend usually bites the dust when that happens), H.P. Müller was the Euro champion for 1939. Was H.P. Müller the outstanding driver in the Euro series? Probably not, the consensus leaning heavily towards Lang, both then and later, but such is the nature of championships.

I am obviously missing your point, whatever it might be*, given that despite many, many, many similar efforts the results for the various championship seasons somehow far more often than not remain the same despite no end of revisionist efforts, which tend to be heavily contaminated with heaps of presentism.

In 1958, for instance, the end result in the CSI world drivers' championship reflected the peculiarities of the points system, which actually what it was designed to do, make for a close finish. While any of the contenders, Moss or Hawthorn or Brooks, would have been worthy champions, it was Hawthorn who was there race after race and earned the title. As to whom was the best driver in the championship that season, the consensus is always Moss, justifiably so, but Brooks was probably only an eyelash behind with Hawthorn not that far behind Brooks, but probably just a tad behind/even with Peter Collins. Of course, had Fangio decided to contest the championship....

You have not launched into the 1961 CSI world championship season, but despite von Trips displaying a surprising level of maturity behind the and being very fortunate to be with Ferrari that season, most would suggest that it was Phil Hill that you would really want in your car. But, the best of the lot was easily Moss.

In 1964, whether it was Jim Clark or Dan Gurney or John Surtees or Graham Hill, again, any one of these would have been a worthy champion. They are listed in the order what would probably be they true performance for the season. Gurney had a great season, one that had the potential to truly threaten for the title, something not necessarily reflected very well in the cool, dry statistics. While an unabashed admirer of Surtees, following him from his time on two-wheels to four, he was fortunate that both Clark and Graham Hill had their difficulties in Mexico. That said, he earned the title fair and square according to the regs. Personally, it matter not to me who the champion was, given that, as mentioned, they were all quite worthy.

Having not been a close follower of the FIA's F1 World Championship after its fourth season (1984, in case you were wondering...), without having to pull an Autocourse from the shelf (habits die hard, but finally died after the 2010 edition when I realized I had scarcely a clue who was who or what was what as well as finally figuring out that I never actually read them for years...) to understand the various points you are making, I will defer to your thoughts on the topic.

*As for determining "moral champions," which does seem to be your point, sorry, other than fodder for an internet forum or perhaps as the topic for a magazine article, it is a good excuse to play with the data, something countless of us have done in the past for an untold number of reasons (mea culpa, incidentally...). However, if it makes you happy.... (Reading this -- "Even our beloved Grand Prix racing. The highest level of motorsport. The bread and butter of motorsport fans around the world." -- did make it difficult for me not to laugh out loud although I almost choked trying not to, being the curmudgeon that I seem to have become over the years... Sorry, I realize that you must be very sincere in your beliefs, so I beg your pardon for my reaction. Initially, it seemed to me that The Poisoned Dwarf had written it...)

[journeyman racer]

All those calculations I made over the week. In attempt to make a fair, unbiased reflection of all those seasons? American gets offended by the mentioning that F1 is the highest level of motorsport, and that it's the most popular motorsport series around the world.

[Don Capps]

All those calculations I made over the week. In attempt to make a fair, unbiased reflection of all those seasons? American gets offended by the mentioning that F1 is the highest level of motorsport, and that it's the most popular motorsport series around the world.

No, you are showing your personal prejudices and blinders in your remark, making an assumption based on a factor, nationality, that may not be even remotely relevant. So, while I am certainly not offended by your effusive, adulatory -- if not fawning, syncophantic, and groveling -- remarks regarding F1 because of any reason related to my nationality, my reaction stems from many years of exposure to GP/F1 racing, during which any sense of awe or wonderment, much less interest, has long departed. As in the case of sports in general, F1 is a self-licking ice cream cone as well as being an often amusing, if not necessarily entertaining, diversion. Of course, there is good reason that the derivation of "fan" comes from "fanatic" (fanaticus). I once thought that the problems of F1, which are legion, were primarily the result of Ecclestone and the Usual Suspects, but then it occurred to me that they seemed to now be inherent, the results of issues that extent far into the past, exacerbated by insular thinking. By the way, given the sorry, pathetic current state of automobile racing in the USA and elsewhere (F1 included, of course), one does begin to wonder about the future of the business/sport. So, no, my loathing of F1 has nothing to be with my being an American -- I have similar feelings regarding the National Football League and various other sports syndicates (FIFA among them).

As far as being "fair and unbiased" in what you deem reflections on the various seasons, I would suggest that while objectivity is certainly a "noble dream" and an aspiration of many in my own chosen field of endeavor, the approach being used in your inquiry would tend to suggest otherwise. Simply an observation, given that you seem to be having fun doing this.

Sorry for the interruption, please continue.

[Rollo]

What constitutes a "Series"?
If it's when the same cars show up, then the 1924 French and Italian Grands Prix might count.

[D-Type]

I think that with age and maturity[?] Don has realised there is a difference between a professionally organised 'sporting entertainment' which is targeted at the spectator (or the TV audience) and amateur 'sport' which is targeted at the competitors' enjoyment. In football (soccer) terms it's the difference between the UEFA cup or the World Cup and a bunch of lads playing a match in the local park on a Saturday morning watched by nobody except the occasional dog walker.
The sport that excited us in our youth no longer does so.

[Don Capps]

Given that mature people seem to be ones who die both mentally and physically more often than others, maturity would seem to be overrated and to be avoided, if possible.

There is also the overlooked element of taking a literal step back and realizing what a scam or hoax or deception or fraud that something actually is....

[jens]

Okay...

I admire what has been done though I disagree with some of the methodology. Some races, where a driver very obviously had a problem, but is "classified", are still counted? While some accident, where said driver was responsible or partly responsible, are not counted for score?

Other than that... quite obviously Massa had worse reliability than Hamilton in 2008, so that's where he lost out. Especially if we include the Singapore pitstop as a "reliability" problem as well. Pit light signaling system reliability or whatever it was.

2003 is very complicated to work out. Montoya had a couple of car failures from the front (Austria, Japan), Räikkönen retired in Europe from the lead, but also Schumi lost chunks of points due to puncture in Germany.

If I am not mistaken, "reliability-corrected" 2012 should see Hamilton right up there near the front. He retired from the lead with car failures on multiple occasions.

1991 is interesting. Mansell definitely retired a few times, though I am still unsure whether the Canada incident was his fault or car fault. Arguably he lost attention on the final lap, waved to the crowd and pushed the wrong button. But is it myth or not? Because based on that depends if we can "give" this race to him or not.

[Rollo]

I admire what has been done though I disagree with some of the methodology. Some races, where a driver very obviously had a problem, but is "classified", are still counted? While some accident, where said driver was responsible or partly responsible, are not counted for score?

Salo and Häkkinen both scored points in the 1996 Monaco GP despite both of them crashing and not finishing the race. The mind boggles.

[journeyman racer]

Okay...
I admire what has been done though I disagree with some of the methodology. Some races, where a driver very obviously had a problem, but is "classified", are still counted? While some accident, where said driver was responsible or partly responsible, are not counted for score?

Is there a problem?

Other than that... quite obviously Massa had worse reliability than Hamilton in 2008, so that's where he lost out. Especially if we include the Singapore pitstop as a "reliability" problem as well. Pit light signaling system reliability or whatever it was.

I made the distinction in the op to be able to call it a "non-driver error, did not finish" (nde/dnf)

2003 is very complicated to work out. Montoya had a couple of car failures from the front (Austria, Japan), Räikkönen retired in Europe from the lead, but also Schumi lost chunks of points due to puncture in Germany.

I can only take into account issues that I'm certain of. I'm fine to make adjustments and credit it if there's conclusive evidence.

If I am not mistaken, "reliability-corrected" 2012 should see Hamilton right up there near the front. He retired from the lead with car failures on multiple occasions.

I am only using form of the season. While it's plausible to say Hamilton may've won races he suffered a mechanical dnf from. I'm not going to guess what position he'd have finished in. He also might've had driver error dnf in 12, had he continued in those races. Just like the meltdown he had late in 10.

1991 is interesting. Mansell definitely retired a few times, though I am still unsure whether the Canada incident was his fault or car fault. Arguably he lost attention on the final lap, waved to the crowd and pushed the wrong button. But is it myth or not? Because based on that depends if we can "give" this race to him or not.

Do you really want to know the truth?