Brian Lawrence

Current 2007 WDC Table

1. Hamilton 30
2. Alonso 28
3. Massa 27
4. Räikkönen 22
5. Heidfeld 15
6. Kubica 8
7. Fisichella 8
8. Rosberg 5
9. Coulthard 4
10. Trulli 4
11. Kovalainen 3
12. Schumacher 1
13. Sato 1


There have been four previous points systems.

1950-59 - 8-6-4-3-2 (plus one point for the fastest lap)

1. Hamilton 23
2. Massa 20
3. Alonso 20
4. Räikkönen 17
5. Heidfeld 9
6. Kubica 3
7. Fisichella 2
8. Coulthard 2

1960 - 8-6-4-3-2-1

1. Hamilton 22
2. Alonso 20
3. Massa 19
4. Räikkönen 16
5. Heidfeld 9
6. Kubica 4
7. Fisichella 3
8. Coulthard 2
9. Rosberg 1

1961-90 - 9-6-4-3-2-1

1. Hamilton 22
2. Massa 21
3. Alonso 21
4. Räikkönen 17
5. Heidfeld 9
6. Kubica 4
7. Fisichella 3
8. Coulthard 2
9. Rosberg 1

1991-2002 - 10-6-4-3-2-1

1. Massa 23
2. Alonso 22
3. Hamilton 22
4. Räikkönen 18
5. Heidfeld 9
6. Kubica 4
7. Fisichella 3
8. Coulthard 2
9. Rosberg 1

--

Brian W Lawrence
Wantage,
Oxfordshire, UK
Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com

Knight who says \NI!\

Brian Lawrence wrote:
> Current 2007 WDC Table
>
> 1. Hamilton 30
> 2. Alonso 28
> 3. Massa 27
> 4. Räikkönen 22
> 5. Heidfeld 15
> 6. Kubica 8
> 7. Fisichella 8
> 8. Rosberg 5
> 9. Coulthard 4
> 10. Trulli 4
> 11. Kovalainen 3
> 12. Schumacher 1
> 13. Sato 1
>
>
> There have been four previous points systems.
>
> 1950-59 - 8-6-4-3-2 (plus one point for the fastest lap)
>
> 1. Hamilton 23
> 2. Massa 20
> 3. Alonso 20
> 4. Räikkönen 17
> 5. Heidfeld 9
> 6. Kubica 3
> 7. Fisichella 2
> 8. Coulthard 2
>
> 1960 - 8-6-4-3-2-1
>
> 1. Hamilton 22
> 2. Alonso 20
> 3. Massa 19
> 4. Räikkönen 16
> 5. Heidfeld 9
> 6. Kubica 4
> 7. Fisichella 3
> 8. Coulthard 2
> 9. Rosberg 1
>
> 1961-90 - 9-6-4-3-2-1
>
> 1. Hamilton 22
> 2. Massa 21
> 3. Alonso 21
> 4. Räikkönen 17
> 5. Heidfeld 9
> 6. Kubica 4
> 7. Fisichella 3
> 8. Coulthard 2
> 9. Rosberg 1
>
> 1991-2002 - 10-6-4-3-2-1
>
> 1. Massa 23
> 2. Alonso 22
> 3. Hamilton 22
> 4. Räikkönen 18
> 5. Heidfeld 9
> 6. Kubica 4
> 7. Fisichella 3
> 8. Coulthard 2
> 9. Rosberg 1
>

Personally I have always thought that the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system was best.
Although I admire Hamilton greatly and want to take nothing away from
his achievements, I do not believe that the current system gives enough
emphasis on wining. I would also favour the reintroduction of a point
for the fastest lap - gives people something else to chase after.

Dave Ryman

"Knight who says \"NI!\"" <no@spam.required> wrote in news:46482ad7$1
@nntp.onyx.net:

(snipped)
>
> Personally I have always thought that the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system was best.
> Although I admire Hamilton greatly and want to take nothing away from
> his achievements, I do not believe that the current system gives enough
> emphasis on wining. I would also favour the reintroduction of a point
> for the fastest lap - gives people something else to chase after.
>
>

Me too - although awarding consistency as well as wins is important - on
the face of it, you can't do both (although the point for fastest lap would
go someway to reaching that goal).

An evil part of me wants LH to repeat the Stirling Moss* achievement of
winning a championship without winning a race! The good part of me wants LH
to win at Monte Carlo.


* - please excuse me if I'm wrong about the driver!

--
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

Daytona

On Mon, 14 May 2007 09:57:00 +0100, "Brian Lawrence"
<Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:

>Current 2007 WDC Table

I'm wondering whether a fairer system would be one that gives the same
percentage increase at each level, ie goes on the basis that the
effort required to pass someone is the same. eg -

64 100%
32 100%
16 100%
8 100%
4 100%
2 100%
1 100%
0.5

At present it's -

10 25%
8 33%
6 20%
5 25%
4 33%
3 50%
2 100%
1

Which may go some way to explain why there's often more fighting over
the lower places.

Daytona

Brian Lawrence

"Dave Ryman" <dave_rymanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:

> An evil part of me wants LH to repeat the Stirling Moss* achievement of
> winning a championship without winning a race! The good part of me wants LH
> to win at Monte Carlo.
>
>
> * - please excuse me if I'm wrong about the driver!

No one has ever won the WDC without at least one win (only Rosberg won it
with only one win).

Moss never won the WDC, but was second in 1955, 56, 57, 58; third in 1959,
60; and third equal in 1961.

--

Brian

Knight who says \NI!\

Dave Ryman wrote:
> "Knight who says \"NI!\"" <no@spam.required> wrote in news:46482ad7$1
> @nntp.onyx.net:
>
> (snipped)
>> Personally I have always thought that the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system was best.
>> Although I admire Hamilton greatly and want to take nothing away from
>> his achievements, I do not believe that the current system gives enough
>> emphasis on wining. I would also favour the reintroduction of a point
>> for the fastest lap - gives people something else to chase after.
>>
>>
>
> Me too - although awarding consistency as well as wins is important - on
> the face of it, you can't do both (although the point for fastest lap would
> go someway to reaching that goal).
>
> An evil part of me wants LH to repeat the Stirling Moss* achievement of
> winning a championship without winning a race! The good part of me wants LH
> to win at Monte Carlo.
>
>
> * - please excuse me if I'm wrong about the driver!
>

I'd love to see him win at Monte Carlo. Part of me worries that he's
going to stick it in the wall in a big way but I sincerely hope not. I
think he has the potential for many WDC's but a big shunt early on could
ruin it for him.

colinstone@hotmail.com

What are the stats for leading WDC after first European GP and going
on to win WDC??

Brian Lawrence

<colinstone@hotmail.com> wrote:

> What are the stats for leading WDC after first European GP and going
> on to win WDC??

Out of 57 seasons the leader after the first European GP went on to
win the WDC 26 times (45.6%).

However, the number of fly away races before the first European event
has varied from zero to five, so the significance is variable.

==

Brian

Dave Ryman

colinstone@hotmail.com wrote in news:1179165580.814799.30260
@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:

> What are the stats for leading WDC after first European GP and going
> on to win WDC??
>

I'm not sure if even Stats have any sway over LH

--
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

Mike Fleming

In article <rsjg43l844pbc4iqlgftgt800dtig80s4t@4ax.com>, Daytona
<me@privacy.net> writes:

> On Mon, 14 May 2007 09:57:00 +0100, "Brian Lawrence"
> <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >Current 2007 WDC Table
>
> I'm wondering whether a fairer system would be one that gives the same
> percentage increase at each level, ie goes on the basis that the
> effort required to pass someone is the same.

I think an opportunity was missed by not going to 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1,
which would have achieved the aim of giving points a bit further down
the results and also kept the significant bonus for coming first.

--
Mike Fleming

Dave Ryman

"Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote in
news:5ar2csF2q78jjU1@mid.individual.net:

> "Dave Ryman" <dave_rymanNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> An evil part of me wants LH to repeat the Stirling Moss* achievement
>> of winning a championship without winning a race! The good part of me
>> wants LH to win at Monte Carlo.
>>
>>
>> * - please excuse me if I'm wrong about the driver!
>
> No one has ever won the WDC without at least one win (only Rosberg won
> it with only one win).
>
> Moss never won the WDC, but was second in 1955, 56, 57, 58; third in
> 1959, 60; and third equal in 1961.
>

You're right - got myself muddled. SM was the most sucessful driver in
terms of wins who didn't actually win the championship - I got this round
the wrong way (or was that the wrong way round?).

That neuron must have shorted out in my head many years ago, and I never
questioned it!

--
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

Knight who says \NI!\

Mike Fleming wrote:
> In article <rsjg43l844pbc4iqlgftgt800dtig80s4t@4ax.com>, Daytona
> <me@privacy.net> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 14 May 2007 09:57:00 +0100, "Brian Lawrence"
>> <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Current 2007 WDC Table
>> I'm wondering whether a fairer system would be one that gives the same
>> percentage increase at each level, ie goes on the basis that the
>> effort required to pass someone is the same.
>
> I think an opportunity was missed by not going to 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1,
> which would have achieved the aim of giving points a bit further down
> the results and also kept the significant bonus for coming first.
>

oooh

That could work!

a425couple

"Mike Fleming" <{mike}@tauzero.co.uk> wrote
> Daytona <me@privacy.net> writes:
> > "Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com> wrote:
> > >Current 2007 WDC Table
> > I'm wondering whether a fairer system would be one that gives the same
> > percentage increase at each level, ie goes on the basis that the
> > effort required to pass someone is the same.
>
> I think an opportunity was missed by not going to 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1,
> which would have achieved the aim of giving points a bit further down
> the results and also kept the significant bonus for coming first.

My excuse for not researching to verify is,
I gotta work on my car and other serious stuff today.
Brain and ears still ratteling from last weekend.

But I believe the above schedule of points is real close
to what SCCA (Sports Car Club of America) uses
for National Points.