| #1 | |
|
|
Three-way tie
For the record, the current 3-way tie for the WDC lead is almost a
first. There was a similar tie in 1950 when the first three races had different winners who failed to score in the other two events. However, the third event was the Indy 500, so it doesn't really count. Another "first" - Hamilton is the first rookie to lead the WDC. There is a proviso - excluding 1950 when the three leaders were all rookies in the championship since there wasn't a championship before that date. In 1950 it was Farina/Fangio/Johnny Parsons. -- Brian W Lawrence Wantage, Oxfordshire, UK Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com |
| #2 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
"Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote in message
news:58h5v8F2fbr22U1@mid.individual.net... > For the record, the current 3-way tie for the WDC lead is almost a > first. There was a similar tie in 1950 when the first three races > had different winners who failed to score in the other two events. > However, the third event was the Indy 500, so it doesn't really count. > > Another "first" - Hamilton is the first rookie to lead the WDC. There > is a proviso - excluding 1950 when the three leaders were all rookies > in the championship since there wasn't a championship before that > date. > > In 1950 it was Farina/Fangio/Johnny Parsons. > Did Villeneuve never lead the championship is his rookie year? -- Dan |
| #3 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
Iridium wrote:
> "Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote in message > news:58h5v8F2fbr22U1@mid.individual.net... > > For the record, the current 3-way tie for the WDC lead is almost a > > first. There was a similar tie in 1950 when the first three races > > had different winners who failed to score in the other two events. > > However, the third event was the Indy 500, so it doesn't really > > count. > > > > Another "first" - Hamilton is the first rookie to lead the WDC. > > There is a proviso - excluding 1950 when the three leaders were all > > rookies in the championship since there wasn't a championship > > before that date. > > > > In 1950 it was Farina/Fangio/Johnny Parsons. > > > > Did Villeneuve never lead the championship is his rookie year? Damon Hill headed him from start to finish. -- |
| #4 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:45:56 +0100, "Brian Lawrence"
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote: >For the record, the current 3-way tie for the WDC lead is almost a >first. There was a similar tie in 1950 when the first three races >had different winners who failed to score in the other two events. >However, the third event was the Indy 500, so it doesn't really count. > >Another "first" - Hamilton is the first rookie to lead the WDC. There >is a proviso - excluding 1950 when the three leaders were all rookies >in the championship since there wasn't a championship before that >date. Does the rule about considering the number of wins each driver has had only come into play if the points are tied at the end of the season? Certainly that's how the order in which the "joint first placed" are listed in the table on the F1 website have been worked out, Fernando on top with 1 win, 1 second, Kimi with 1 win, 0 seconds and Lewis with no wins and 2 seconds? |
| #5 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:23:01 GMT, Paolo <p@d.co> wrote:
>Does the rule about considering the number of wins each driver has had >only come into play if the points are tied at the end of the season? No, it's used all the time, as you've noticed. Daytona |
| #6 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
"Daytona" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:23:01 GMT, Paolo <p@d.co> wrote: > >>Does the rule about considering the number of wins each driver has had >>only come into play if the points are tied at the end of the season? > > No, it's used all the time, as you've noticed. "Officially" it is, but it has no meaning and most of the media ignore it - most websites and newspapers/magazines I've seen regard the three drivers as joint leaders. -- Brian |
| #7 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
In article <58krtbF2h9fl0U1@mid.individual.net>
Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com "Brian Lawrence" writes: > "Daytona" <me@privacy.net> wrote: > > > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:23:01 GMT, Paolo <p@d.co> wrote: > > > >>Does the rule about considering the number of wins each driver has had > >>only come into play if the points are tied at the end of the season? > > > > No, it's used all the time, as you've noticed. > > "Officially" it is, but it has no meaning and most of the media ignore > it - most websites and newspapers/magazines I've seen regard the three > drivers as joint leaders. As indeed they are -- surely the number of wins/2nds/etc. will only be relevant after the last race of the championship when deciding the champion and two or more drivers have amassed the same number of points? Pete -- "We have not inherited the earth from our ancestors, we have borrowed it from our descendants." |
| #8 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
pete@nospam.demon.co.uk wrote in news:1176873239snz@nospam.demon.co.uk:
> In article <58krtbF2h9fl0U1@mid.individual.net> > Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com "Brian Lawrence" writes: > >> "Daytona" <me@privacy.net> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 18:23:01 GMT, Paolo <p@d.co> wrote: >> > >> >>Does the rule about considering the number of wins each driver has had >> >>only come into play if the points are tied at the end of the season? >> > >> > No, it's used all the time, as you've noticed. >> >> "Officially" it is, but it has no meaning and most of the media ignore >> it - most websites and newspapers/magazines I've seen regard the three >> drivers as joint leaders. > > As indeed they are -- surely the number of wins/2nds/etc. will > only be relevant after the last race of the championship when > deciding the champion and two or more drivers have amassed the > same number of points? > > Pete If you look at the way the top three drivers are listed in the driver's championship, even though they have the same points, they are listed in a specific order, so it is kind of relevant before the end of the season (or though only academically so this early on). -- Regards, Dave email: dave_ryman@hotmailNOSPAM.com My Homepage: http://homepages.tesco.net/david.ryman/ The F1 travel guide: http://www.zdp06.ukgateway.net/f1_travel.htm |
| #9 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:35:44 GMT, Dave Ryman
<dave_rymanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote: >If you look at the way the top three drivers are listed in the driver's >championship, even though they have the same points, they are listed in a >specific order, so it is kind of relevant before the end of the season >(or though only academically so this early on). But the numbering is "1" "=1" "=1" then "4", implying that the FIA also deem it to be a 3 way tie at the moment. |
| #10 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 05:13:59 +0000 (UTC), pete@nospam.demon.co.uk
wrote: >As indeed they are -- surely the number of wins/2nds/etc. will >only be relevant after the last race of the championship when >deciding the champion and two or more drivers have amassed the >same number of points? It's relevant whenever anyone wishes to take a snapshot of the rankings. Daytona |
| #11 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
In article <1176873239snz@nospam.demon.co.uk>, pete@nospam.demon.co.uk
says... > As indeed they are -- surely the number of wins/2nds/etc. will > only be relevant after the last race of the championship when > deciding the champion and two or more drivers have amassed the > same number of points? > Surely the number of points is only relevant after the last race of the championship when deciding the champion and two or more drivers have raced? -- Alan LeHun |
| #12 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
On 2007-04-19, Alan LeHun <zzuns002@lehun.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <1176873239snz@nospam.demon.co.uk>, pete@nospam.demon.co.uk > says... >> As indeed they are -- surely the number of wins/2nds/etc. will >> only be relevant after the last race of the championship when >> deciding the champion and two or more drivers have amassed the >> same number of points? >> > > Surely the number of points is only relevant after the last race of the > championship when deciding the champion and two or more drivers have > raced? Well, sure, if you're only concerned with who has _WON_ the championship. If you're trying to figure out who is currently most likely to WIN the championship in the futue, then the number of points becomes more relevant. However, the number of wins/2nds/etc is still unlikely to matter. For example, on the eve of the last race, any three way tie for the lead would be guaranteed to be broken (without resorting to the number of wins), unless all three drivers failed to score any points. Similarly, even with more races remaining, it is still most likely that the tie will be broken, making the number of wins/2nds/etc irrelevant. It is possible that a tie would recur, if two drivers alternately won and came second, for example, and then the number of wins would be very important. But this early on, in the first half of the season, there's not many placings to look at. -- David Taylor |
| #13 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
In article <MPG.20919b271175932d9896c9@news.clara.net>
zzuns002@lehun.clara.co.uk "Alan LeHun" writes: > In article <1176873239snz@nospam.demon.co.uk>, pete@nospam.demon.co.uk > says... > > As indeed they are -- surely the number of wins/2nds/etc. will > > only be relevant after the last race of the championship when > > deciding the champion and two or more drivers have amassed the > > same number of points? > > > > Surely the number of points is only relevant after the last race of the > championship when deciding the champion and two or more drivers have > raced? Surely the last race of the championship is only relevant after two or more drivers have raced in previous races with more than one driver having amassed championship points? ;-) Pete -- "We have not inherited the earth from our ancestors, we have borrowed it from our descendants." |
| #14 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
In article <1176873239snz@nospam.demon.co.uk>, pete@nospam.demon.co.uk
writes: > In article <58krtbF2h9fl0U1@mid.individual.net> > Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com "Brian Lawrence" writes: > > > "Officially" it is, but it has no meaning and most of the media ignore > > it - most websites and newspapers/magazines I've seen regard the three > > drivers as joint leaders. > > As indeed they are -- surely the number of wins/2nds/etc. will > only be relevant after the last race of the championship when > deciding the champion and two or more drivers have amassed the > same number of points? Well, yes, but you can't just print the three names on top of each other, one hase to come first, one second, and one third, so it's logical to use the ranking system that will apply come season end. Same with all the zero points drivers, they've got to be ranked properly. -- Mike Fleming |
| #15 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
Mike Fleming wrote:
> > Same with all the zero points drivers, they've got to be ranked > properly. Why? And more to the point: how? -- John Briggs |
| #16 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:20:40 GMT, "John Briggs"
<john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote: >Mike Fleming wrote: >> >> Same with all the zero points drivers, they've got to be ranked >> properly. > >Why? And more to the point: how? Finishing position ? |
| #17 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
Daytona wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:20:40 GMT, "John Briggs" wrote: >> Mike Fleming wrote: >>> >>> Same with all the zero points drivers, they've got to be ranked >>> properly. >> >> Why? And more to the point: how? > > Finishing position ? That doesn't answer "why" :-) And I can't be arsed working out the ranking of the non-points-paying finishing positions of drivers without points. Come to think of it, I don't include them at all in my private listings :-) -- John Briggs |
| #18 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:40:29 GMT, "John Briggs"
<john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote: >Daytona wrote: >> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:20:40 GMT, "John Briggs" wrote: >>> Mike Fleming wrote: >>>> >>>> Same with all the zero points drivers, they've got to be ranked >>>> properly. >>> >>> Why? And more to the point: how? >> >> Finishing position ? > >That doesn't answer "why" :-) Because it's a performance based measure. >And I can't be arsed working out the ranking of the non-points-paying >finishing positions of drivers without points. Come to think of it, I don't >include them at all in my private listings :-) I don't think anyone suggested that you should. Daytona |
| #19 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
Daytona wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:40:29 GMT, "John Briggs" wrote: >> Daytona wrote: >>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:20:40 GMT, "John Briggs" wrote: >>>> Mike Fleming wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Same with all the zero points drivers, they've got to be ranked >>>>> properly. >>>> >>>> Why? And more to the point: how? >>> >>> Finishing position ? >> >> That doesn't answer "why" :-) > > Because it's a performance based measure. Or non-performance, depending on how you look at it :-) No, the question was, "Why do they have to be ranked properly?" -- John Briggs |
| #20 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
In article <s3cXh.6313$nh7.3328@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>, "John Briggs"
<john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> writes: > Mike Fleming wrote: > > > > Same with all the zero points drivers, they've got to be ranked > > properly. > > Why? And more to the point: how? If driver A gets better results than driver B, but neither ever get into the points, surely the fact should be recognised? This could be very important for us Taku fans at the end of the season... How? Either by countback or average finishing position. -- Mike Fleming |
| #21 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
Mike Fleming wrote:
> In article <s3cXh.6313$nh7.3328@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>, "John Briggs" > <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> writes: > >> Mike Fleming wrote: >>> >>> Same with all the zero points drivers, they've got to be ranked >>> properly. >> >> Why? And more to the point: how? > > If driver A gets better results than driver B, but neither ever get > into the points, surely the fact should be recognised? This could be > very important for us Taku fans at the end of the season... Well, that's of interest to their team principals, but of no concern to the rest of us. -- John Briggs |
| #22 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
On 2007-04-25, John Briggs <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Mike Fleming wrote: >> In article <s3cXh.6313$nh7.3328@newsfe7-win.ntli.net>, "John Briggs" >> <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> writes: >> >>> Mike Fleming wrote: >>>> >>>> Same with all the zero points drivers, they've got to be ranked >>>> properly. >>> >>> Why? And more to the point: how? >> >> If driver A gets better results than driver B, but neither ever get >> into the points, surely the fact should be recognised? This could be >> very important for us Taku fans at the end of the season... > > Well, that's of interest to their team principals, but of no concern to the > rest of us. Speak for yourself. -- David Taylor |
| #23 | |
|
|
Re: Three-way tie
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 16:21:25 GMT, "John Briggs"
<john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote: >Daytona wrote: >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:40:29 GMT, "John Briggs" wrote: >>> Daytona wrote: >>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:20:40 GMT, "John Briggs" wrote: >>>>> Mike Fleming wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Same with all the zero points drivers, they've got to be ranked >>>>>> properly. >>>>> >>>>> Why? And more to the point: how? >>>> >>>> Finishing position ? >>> >>> That doesn't answer "why" :-) >> >> Because it's a performance based measure. > >Or non-performance, depending on how you look at it :-) > >No, the question was, "Why do they have to be ranked properly?" For accuracy. Daytona |
