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 :p

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.

[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. :o

[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. :o

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.:D

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? :D 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.:D
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? :D Because based on that depends if we can "give" this race to him or not.
Do you really want to know the truth?

[jens]

Is there a problem?


OK, just some examples.

I count Hamilton's DNF in Spain 2010 as a car problem, which based on my memory was a suspension failure rather than just puncture.

This analysis hasn't counted Sebastian Vettel finishing 4th in Bahrain, while he started suffering from a car problem from the race lead, thus losing 13 points (dropped from 1st to 4th).

Regarding Räikkönen's 2003 you said his score includes Spain, where he had a start crash. But he started from last (!) position on the grid and was unlikely to score (many) points anyway.

And so on, and so on.

Not a big problem. I am trying to understand you are trying to have some general methodology. If I personally calculated, I would go on a race-by-race basis. I.e there is a difference whether a driver retired from P1 or P5, whether he had a car problem from P2 and dropped to P6, or retired altogether. Whether he stalled on the grid from P3, or had a crash with another car from P7. Or he inherited a race win from P5, because all drivers in front of him retired with problems (Johnny Herbert in 1995). For example in Spain 2012 Hamilton finished 8th, but arguably lost a race win, because he was DQ'd from qualifying due to fuel irregularity. Every situation is unique. That's why I personally don't use a "generic methodology", because it doesn't enlighten, what exactly was going on.

BUT... Leaving criticism aside, your work shows at least several tendencies (i.e Vettel winning by a bigger margin in 2010/12, Mansell and Senna neck-and-neck in 1991, Ferraris winning 07-08, etc). I don't want to criticise too much people, who put in an effort to do something.:) While it is easy to criticize from distance. But there is a possibility to go more into detail.

[jens]

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 :p


Mansell really did have a lot of issues. He retired from the first three races straight, having already a 0:30 handicap to Senna in the points. Then the famous Canada retirement. He would have likely won in Belgium, but DNF with a car problem. His pit crew didn't fit his wheel properly in Portugal and DNF. I am unsure how many points he lost, but he lost a few wins and would have been at the very least on podium on each of those occasions.

Senna also had some retirements, but from my memory these were from minor positions, and he didn't lose a win.

[journeyman racer]

OK, just some examples.

I count Hamilton's DNF in Spain 2010 as a car problem, which based on my memory was a suspension failure rather than just puncture.
I included that as a nde/dnf, along with the problem in Hungary. The dnf at Monza and Singapore were his errors.


This analysis hasn't counted Sebastian Vettel finishing 4th in Bahrain, while he started suffering from a car problem from the race lead, thus losing 13 points (dropped from 1st to 4th).
True.


Regarding Räikkönen's 2003 you said his score includes Spain, where he had a start crash. But he started from last (!) position on the grid and was unlikely to score (many) points anyway.
True. His average points haul per finish was 7. Between Spain and a probable win in Nurburgring, he gets a minimum of 10pts. The average points of those two races is 5. It might've been a bit of a stretch for him to finish 5th in Spain (for 4pts), to get the average of those races to 7. But it wouldn't have been impossible.


And so on, and so on.

Not a big problem. I am trying to understand you are trying to have some general methodology. If I personally calculated, I would go on a race-by-race basis. I.e there is a difference whether a driver retired from P1 or P5, whether he had a car problem from P2 and dropped to P6, or retired altogether. Whether he stalled on the grid from P3, or had a crash with another car from P7. Or he inherited a race win from P5, because all drivers in front of him retired with problems (Johnny Herbert in 1995). For example in Spain 2012 Hamilton finished 8th, but arguably lost a race win, because he was DQ'd from qualifying due to fuel irregularity. Every situation is unique. That's why I personally don't use a "generic methodology", because it doesn't enlighten, what exactly was going on.

BUT... Leaving criticism aside, your work shows at least several tendencies (i.e Vettel winning by a bigger margin in 2010/12, Mansell and Senna neck-and-neck in 1991, Ferraris winning 07-08, etc). I don't want to criticise too much people, who put in an effort to do something.:) While it is easy to criticize from distance. But there is a possibility to go more into detail.
It was too hard to figure out a fair equation to paint the picture. It's also too hard to when you account Chaos theory. The thread was born out of Hamilton fans going into meltdown over his problems this year. SO I just made what I thought was a fair points haul. Accounting for their season form. Regardless of what position or what lap they dnf at the time.

If you can figure out a more detailed equation. You can use my figures for a base, and go ahead.

[jens]

It was too hard to figure out a fair equation to paint the picture. It's also too hard to when you account Chaos theory. The thread was born out of Hamilton fans going into meltdown over his problems this year. SO I just made what I thought was a fair points haul. Accounting for their season form. Regardless of what position or what lap they dnf at the time.

If you can figure out a more detailed equation. You can use my figures for a base, and go ahead.

You are right about the "too hard" part if such analysis was tried to be made properly in depth. Because not only top drivers, but the whole field has to be "re-adjusted". And lots of things would be impossible to tell. For example if a driver stalled on the grid or was wiped out in the first corner, where would he have finished? How would the "re-adjusted" 2012 Belgian Grand Prix look like, if half of the top 10 had not been wiped out by Grosjean at the start?

[journeyman racer]

That's what I'm saying. I found that once you start trying to predict race results, it becomes subjective. That's when it becomes a ****storm amongst fans. With what I did, it eliminates 90% of the issue. It can become clearer where ones opinion forms.

[Doc Austin]

1988 is a disgrace and 1990 was a criminal act. 1984

88 was down to the points system and being required to drop scores, but you're right if all the races counted Prost easily wins.

However, if you want to throw out 1990, you also have to throw out 1889 when Prost clearly turned into Senna at Suzuka and initiated the collision. Senna rejoined won the race but was DQed because he restarted from the escape instead of going back to where he went off. I thought that was pretty petty considering that he lost all that time, had to pit for a new wing, and still ran Naninni down and passed him for the "win."

That, and Senna would have never had to use the escape road if Prost had not turned into him, and that's what sealed the championship for him!

Things were made worse because JM Balestre was running the FIA and was firmly in fellow Frenchman Prost's corner no matter what had transpired. It just reeked of a fixed championship.

If Suzuka had stood with Senna winning, he's the champion. However, I almost don't care because it was those two chopping, blocking, swerving and crashing into each other deliberately that set those tactics as the ones to use if you want to win.

I've only gotten so deep into this thread but wanted to comment. It will be interesting to see your take on 94, if you have not already posted it.

[Doc Austin]

How would the "re-adjusted" 2012 Belgian Grand Prix look like, if half of the top 10 had not been wiped out by Grosjean at the start?

Who knows? Maybe without the crash at the start Grosjean takes everyone out at Eau rouge instead!

[Rollo]

However, if you want to throw out 1990, you also have to throw out 1889 when Prost clearly turned into Senna at Suzuka and initiated the collision. Senna rejoined won the race but was DQed because he restarted from the escape instead of going back to where he went off. I thought that was pretty petty considering that he lost all that time, had to pit for a new wing, and still ran Naninni down and passed him for the "win."
That, and Senna would have never had to use the escape road if Prost had not turned into him, and that's what sealed the championship for him!

Prost's line into that chicane doesn't seem to deviate that far off what he would have taken. Given that the rear view mirrors on the MP4/5B are so small, I honestly think that Prost never saw him.
Senna was trying to jam a car into a space where it wouldn't fit. This was a racing incident.



I've only gotten so deep into this thread but wanted to comment. It will be interesting to see your take on 94, if you have not already posted it.

Schumacher's line into Hunt Street doesn't seem to deviate that far off what he would have taken. Schumacher and Hill definitely had visual contact but Hill tried it anyway.
Hill was trying to jam a car into a space where it wouldn't fit. This is mainly Hill's fault.

The truth is that Hill wouldn't have even got close in the points to Schumacher if it wasn't for the two race ban, which he'd picked up in Britain. Schumacher was in effect penalised four times for one offence.

[Doc Austin]

Schumacher's line into Hunt Street doesn't seem to deviate that far off what he would have taken. Schumacher and Hill definitely had visual contact but Hill tried it anyway.

Deliberate, but instinctual.

Of course, that was another time, but I think Jerez now erases all doubt about Adelaide. Once was maybe an accident, but Jerez established a pattern.


The truth is that Hill wouldn't have even got close in the points to Schumacher if it wasn't for the two race ban, which he'd picked up in Britain. Schumacher was in effect penalised four times for one offence.

Yep, it was a BS call, but that did not justify taking Hill out.

[Rollo]

If these were road accidents, then the car coming from behind is usually the one at fault. Hill would go on to prove form for this at the 1995 British GP, which was embarrassingly clumsy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az_CdcAdAjE

[Doc Austin]

Yep. Hill made a bad move, but it was just a bad move. He did not try to punt Schumacher out of the lead, and he ruined his own race as well. You can't compare that to wrecking someone on purpose when the championship is on the line. This is F1, not nascar.

I don't know how people can view an accident video over and over and still come to different conclusions as to what happened, but this is how it is. I don't believe anyone ever claimed that Hill took aim on Schumacher, but many people believe the reversed happened at Adelaide, and this was underlined by what happened later at Jerez in 97.

"Deliberate but instinctual."
I remember that Schumacher fans were militant in his defense after Jerez, and were unashamed even after he admitted he did it on purpose. It became even more comical when some of these fans would not change their stance even after Schumacher admitted turning into Villeneuve was "deliberate, but instinctual." There are still Schumacher fans who will argue Schumacher did nothing wrong at Jerez, or that Villeneuve was making a suicide pass. The truth is, Schumacher admitted it was deliberate, and he was excluded from the 97 championship as a result, not that he cared about a second place finish or anything.

Those of us who viewed Adelaide without a sense of Schumacher wonderment knew the collision was coming the moment Villeneuve swung out to pass, but this was because of what happened the last time Schumacher was involved in a championship moment.

See, After Jerez, it is not unfair to view Adelaide 94 as the beginning of a pattern.

If you are going to throw any championship out, I think it has to be 94. Regardless of what led up to it, the championship was determined by the moment when the guy who had the most to gain by crashing his opponent crashed his opponent. You can say it was an "incident," but later Jerez suggests these "incidents" constitute a pattern.

At Hocklenheim, there was the Benetton fuel filter cheating scandal, which was proven, and yet the FIA did nothing. Verstappen's Benetton burst into flames and it was a very ugly incident we are lucky did not get out of control. Funny that the FIA did hardly anything to them, when they were caught so blatantly cheating. Remembering the draconian penalty Tyrell got for cheating on their refuelling system, the slap on the wrist Benetton got was shamefully lenient. If Tyrell was precedent, Benetton should have been tossed out of the championship on the spot.

The FIA did nothing to help themselves considering that they essentially ignored Benetton cheating on the refueling system, then DQing Schumacher for a plank violation after it was damaged driving over a curb. Essentially they let a deliberate cheat (Hockenhiem and maybe every race before that) slide, and then they nail Schumacher and toss his Spa win out on a technicality when they could have very easily said it was accident damage and let a good win stand.

On top of the dirty driving, there were many other incidents that season which make 1994 a truly rotten season. There were so many stories about the Benetton traction control system, and the Benetton launch control system. It's too lengthy to go into all of it, but there was still plenty of talk and suspicion about it. Maybe it was just that, but even Senna said there was something funny about that car.

Some minds believe the FIA came down so hard on Benetton because they knew the car was illegal but could not prove it. Why else would they create such a stink over Schumacher being out of position on the formation lap, DQ him from the race and then built that into another two race suspension? That may have been the biggest farce of the year.

About the only person who drove a clean season and stayed out of all the scandals was Hill, but in the end even he got caught up in it. There was so much underhanded stuff going on from all directions that '94 is truly a year that should be completely stricken from the record books.


IMHO, but of course.

[Rollo]

If you are going to throw any championship out, I think it has to be 94. Regardless of what led up to it, the championship was determined by the moment when the guy who had the most to gain by crashing his opponent crashed his opponent. You can say it was an "incident," but later Jerez suggests these "incidents" constitute a pattern.

Patterns are one thing but this is where I head back to this comment:


However, if you want to throw out 1990, you also have to throw out 1989 when Prost clearly turned into Senna at Suzuka and initiated the collision.

This looks weird in the light of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49qF32Pazwc

You can talk about something being "deliberate but instinctual" all you like but not even 1994 or 1997 were premeditated before the race began.

[Doc Austin]

This looks weird in the light of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49qF32Pazwc

Perhaps you have misunderstood me. I did not approve of what Senna did to Prost any more than I approved of what Prost did to Senna. Of course, Prost was just playing to the rules Senna laid down at Portugal..... no rules, that is. Both incidents were disgraceful. Both championships should be tossed out if we want a moral championship.


You can talk about something being "deliberate but instinctual" all you like but not even 1994 or 1997 were premeditated before the race began.

I'de rather race against guys who's instinct are to avoid a collision. Instinctual means you will do it just about every time. That, my friend, is what constitutes "a pattern." I think the only reason we didn't see Schumancer wreck more opponents on purpose is because he was only in two title deciding moments.

The only other time one of Schumacher's championships came down to the last race (Again at Suzuka), he pushed Hakkinen all the way onto the pit road on the start (from the complete opposite side of the road), but Hakkinen knew Schumacher was going to do it, because it was part of the pattern, and he avoided the collision by backing off, handing Schumacher the championship. I don't remember the year, but that's another championship that should be stripped while we are at it.

So, to be clear, if crashing opponents on purpose is a good reason to declare a championship immoral, 89 and 90 are good years to throw out, but so is 1994.

[Doc Austin]

Go to 2:00 of this video and there is an overhead shopt of Prost turning into Senna. You can see that the way Prost's car is aimed, he would have gone off the road on the right side well before he even got to the corner, except Senna was there. There is also video from Prost's car I had never seen before, and that footage only confirms what I already knew: Prost took Senna out on purpose.

Perhaps it's best to watch the video and make up your own minds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouf1ybLjaik#t=133