Famine's Adjusted Constructors' ChampionshipFormula 1

[niky]

*pride goeth before the double post*

 

[niky]

I'm thinking it's a great idea... marred by the fact that you will be excluding the first drivers...

Simply because having the first drivers of second-tier teams in points scoring positions takes points away from the second drivers of top-tier teams.

What if we give points even further down the order, to sweeten the deal? Make all top fifteen places important? That way you can disregard the top drivers, but the second drivers of the big teams will still have to get around the first drivers of smaller teams to actually score good points.

 

[grbmrdj]

Why, what is the point? As long as Red bull and Vettel still win I suppose I'm OK with it.

 

[Famine]

I don't like it... what decent team would take the risk with a new upcoming driver from GP2 if they thought there might be a chance he's going to lose them vital money from finishing lower in the constructors just because their gamble didn't pay off?

All of them - they'd just be more careful.

Petrov would have never got the seat at Renault and Hulkenburg probably wouldn't have either. Hamilton's talent in 2007 would have probably been wasted as well because Mclaren would have probably loaned him out to a team that can take risks unlike Mclaren.

Petrov's contribution to Renault's efforts means his teammate never scored a point for the teams' championship - and they'd have dropped one place as a result. This is proof, with maths, that Petrov is rubbish. Williams, on the other hand, would have had an evenly balanced team and gained a spot as a result.

This rewards teams which are consistent and penalises teams with grossly unbalanced driver line-ups in the hope of snatching big points every few races. What is a team sport if there really is an "I" in team?

For this to work you'd have to assume that each team has a no.1 and no.2 driver though. I can think of several where this isn't the case.

As above, the most points come from teams which are balanced and reliable. Red Bull, McLaren, Williams and, last season, Toyota are big beneficiaries. Ferrari gain points from their reliability too.

Ok, but why would you call the resulting championship the "Constructors" championship? Why not the "Not bad for a championship", or the "Felipe Baby championship for overshadowed drivers"?

I wouldn't. I'd call it the Teams' Championship.

Constructors Championship should reward the most successful team/car. To that end it should be a combination of BOTH results.

A successful team/car is not one that has a 50% rate of attrition. A successful team does not concentrate all their efforts on their lead driver.

I'm thinking it's a great idea... marred by the fact that you will be excluding the first drivers...

Simply because having the first drivers of second-tier teams in points scoring positions takes points away from the second drivers of top-tier teams.

Not really, no.

The drivers' championship is still unaffected. Want your driver to score points for himself? He needs to be in the top 10. It's the constructors' that changes. Want your driver to score points for you? He needs to finish. You can't score team points if your car or driver is unreliable.

Short of another Indianapolis, HRT, Lotus and Virgin weren't going to score a single point this year. They needed to get a driver at least eight places up the grid which, on speed, was impossible. They needed "incidents". As a result, the three teams are ranked over the entire season because of one race. Lotus are top because they got a car into twelfth in Japan (because seven cars ahead of their 19th position grid slot failed to finish). Virgin are bottom because they didn't get a car into fourteenth or higher (they'd have needed two more fifteenths, or another fourteenth or higher too) in the last three races. What kind of ranking system is it that rewards teams for the odd fluke result (despite getting no actual points)?

HRT brought both their cars home more often (HRT 9, Lotus 7/5 [two classified non-finishers], Virgin 7/6 [one non-classified finisher]) than the others - and the balance was evenly split between the drivers. They deserve tangible recognition for their more reliable cars and more reliable drivers across the season than Lotus do for a single fluke result (though Lotus brought both their cars home in that race one place apart and deserve recognition for that).

What if we give points even further down the order, to sweeten the deal? Make all top fifteen places important? That way you can disregard the top drivers, but the second drivers of the big teams will still have to get around the first drivers of smaller teams to actually score good points.

We could just give points to everyone and be NASCAR...

Second big-team drivers still need to get round first small-team drivers to score big personal points. Fernando still has to pass Petrov to get his championship.

Why, what is the point?

To render team orders moot - to strip them of their controversy by reducing their effect on both championships and preserve racing for fans.
To reward reliability amongst drivers and machines.
To penalise unreliable and unbalanced teams.
To prevent teams having a rabbit to score them points and a moron because his sponsors pay well - to enhance talent on the grid, rather than overlook it for money.
To make no part of the field pointless - literally and figuratively.
To reward season-long excellence and ameliorate the effects of single, fluke-results.
To make people actually care about the constructors' championship and make it exciting throughout the grid.

I've got more, if you want it?

As long as Red bull and Vettel still win I suppose I'm OK with it.

It wouldn't affect the drivers' championship. Drivers' championship affect it wouldn't. Affect drivers' wouldn't championship it. Championship affect it drivers' wouldn't.

 

[peter_vod69]

Point 1: How many grossly unbalanced driver lineups are there though? Really?

Point 2: Anyone could build a car that finishes a race. Whether or not it would be fast is another matter. This is Formula One, not some banger race. You don't reward someone for merely finishing, they have to beat the others building cars to the same set of rules. The game is in who can read the rulebook the best, and (perhaps unfortunately) who has the budget. Any of the drivers in the championship could, potentially, be race winners in the right hardware.

 

[Famine]

Point 1: How many grossly unbalanced driver lineups are there though? Really?

Luckily, the stats answer this for you.

Renault are the least balanced - and by quite some way - because 100% of the constructor points would have come from Vitaly Petrov. This is due to the fact that Petrov never finished ahead of his team mate when both cars finished - it may be reliability of machine, reliability of driver, favouritism within the team or a season-long fluke. Whatever the reason, it tells us that, in 2010, Kubica was by far the better driver and Renault would have lost a position in the championship by relying on their rabbit instead of ensuring a balanced team. A similar situation occurred in 2008 with Toro Rosso - Vettel would have scored no constructor points. They addressed this by having Vettel was poached by a higher team, and that higher team now has their first world championship in each department...

Ferrari are unbalanced too - Massa scoring three times as many constructor points by this method than Alonso. As if the radio transmissions didn't tell everyone that Massa was a number 2 driver, the stats do (and they do with Barrichello in 2009 too). However, Ferrari's speed and reliability (and Brawn's in 2009) give them a strong position - by commonly finishing both cars, they get very many points indeed. This is further exemplified by Toyota in 2009 and BMW in 2008, both of whom get promoted to second place overall by virtue of so many double-finishes above their rivals (BMW score three first second drivers and five second second drivers in 2008 - with 16 points finishes from 18!).

Edit: Now I have the numbers (different computer), I'll post the teams in order of most to least balanced/reliable (and pace - the cars' actual results. There ought to be a better way of evaluating pace, but I'll stick with this for now) and the places they would have gained or lost my way.

2010
Balance: STR (+2), Williams (+1), HRT (+1), Force India (-2), Red Bull (0), Lotus (-1), Virgin (0), McLaren (-1), Sauber (0), Ferrari (+1), Mercedes (0), Renault (-1)
Reliability: Ferrari (+1), Red Bull (0), Mercedes (0), Williams (+1), McLaren (-1), Renault (-1), STR (+2), HRT (+1), Sauber (0), Force India (-2), Lotus (-1), Virgin (0)
Pace: Red Bull (0), Ferrari (+1), McLaren (-1), Mercedes (0), Renault (-1), Williams (+1), Force India (-2), Sauber (0), STR (+2), Lotus (-1), HRT (+1), Virgin (0)

Taken in isolation, you have each factor being tempered by each other - teams at the top of each field improve unless they're near the bottom of another, and teams at the bottom of each field fall unless they're near the top of another. Comparing teams more directly, you have a faster and more reliable Ferrari beating a more balanced McLaren (instead of the reality), a more reliable and better balanced HRT beating a faster Lotus (instead of the reality), a better balanced and more reliable STR beating a faster Force India (instead of the reality). I can spot a mild anomaly in there (Force India/Sauber) but looking at the numbers it's all due to Force India's catastrophic record of bringing both cars home - a truly dreadful record in one field can destroy your season. As well it should.

2009
Balance: Toyota (+2), Red Bull (0), Sauber (+1), Force India (0), Brawn (0), Ferrari (0), Williams (0), Toro Rosso (0), McLaren (-3), Renault (0)
Reliability: Brawn (0), Toyota (+2), Ferrari (0), Renault (0), Sauber (+1), Williams (0), Red Bull (0), Force India (0), McLaren (-3), Toro Rosso (0)
Pace: Brawn (0), Red Bull (0), McLaren (-3), Ferrari (0), Toyota (+2), Sauber (+1), Williams (0), Renault (0), Force India (0), Toro Rosso (0)

As above - McLaren's dreadful balance and reliability may not have hindered Hamilton's late season drivers' title charge, but it certainly dropped them behind other manufacturers. Pace when it works is no good for titles. Little change elsewhere - but the midfield gets a spread of just seven points at the end of the season, compared to 35.5...

2008
Balance: Williams (+3), Honda (0), Toyota (+1), McLaren (+1), Sauber (+1), Renault (-3), Ferrari (-2), Red Bull (+1), Force India (0), STR (-2), Super Aguri (0)
Reliability: Sauber (+1), McLaren (+1), Williams (+3), Toyota (+1), Red Bull (+1), Ferrari (-2), Honda (0), STR (-2), Renault (-3), Honda (0), Super Aguri (0)*, Force India (0)
Pace: Ferrari (-2), McLaren (+1), Sauber (+1), Renault (-3), Toyota (+1), STR (-2), Red Bull (+1), Williams (+3), Honda (0), Force India (0), Super Aguri (0)

And again. Ferrari's below-average balance and reliability hurts their championship - where they have pace over McLaren and Sauber, both teams are more reliable and better balanced and overtake them. The same can be said for Renault - Piquet's literal makeweight status destroys their speed-alone-based 4th and drops them to the bottom of midfield. Honda's awful season is unchanged despite their great balance, because they have neither pace nor reliability. The top two are covered by 2pt (compared to 21), with McLaren clinching the title at the last race despite going into it with a 1pt deficit to Sauber. Toyota nip a place from Williams by a point - going into the race 4pt down. RBR and Renault go in a point apart and come out a point apart, both failing to score. STR just nip a place from Honda by a point having gone in dead even.

1985
Balance: Ligier (+1), McLaren (-7), Arrows (+2), Ferrari (-2), Alfa Romeo (+2), RAM (+2), Lotus (+3), Williams (+1), Renault (+1), Tyrrell (0/+1), Brabham (+2)
Reliability: Lotus (+3), Ferrari (-2), Williams (+1), Brabham (+2), Arrows (+2), Ligier (+1), Renault (+1), McLaren (-7), Tyrrell (0/+1), Alfa Romeo (+2), RAM (+2)
Pace: McLaren (-7), Ferrari (-2), Williams (+1), Lotus (+3), Brabham (+2), Ligier (+1), Renault (+1), Arrows (+2), Tyrrell (0/+1), Alfa Romeo (+2), RAM (+2)

The season goes down to the wire - the last race has four teams covered by four points at the top going in and, because none of them finished both cars, coming out again. Ligier take advantagge, bring both cars home and leap from eighth to fifth. The Lotus proves the ultimate package, bringing both cars back more often than any top team by either scoring method and higher though with de Angelis getting the lion's share compared to the ultrafast Senna. The McLaren is fast and the teammates traded WCC victories, but with only three double finishes - worse than anyone besides the bottom three - can't make an impression and plummet compared to reality giving Lotus an eighth title.


And then there's the back of the grid. Can you seriously tell me that the Lotus is the better team because seven people fell off the road in front of one in a single race of a 19-race season than Hispania, who brought their cars home together 50% more often (or, discounting classified non-finishes, 100% more often)? I reckon it was the faster car of the two, but what use is speed if you can't drag it round 190 miles more than five times from nineteen?

Point 2: Anyone could build a car that finishes a race. Whether or not it would be fast is another matter. This is Formula One, not some banger race. You don't reward someone for merely finishing, they have to beat the others building cars to the same set of rules.

"To finish first, first you must finish".

And if everyone builds a car that finishes, you still need to be faster!

Any of the drivers in the championship could, potentially, be race winners in the right hardware.

Yes and, for the ninth time, this doesn't affect the drivers' championship. In order for the teams to win the teams' championship, they need to make sure it's the right hardware for both drivers and be reliable and be fast. It's not the right hardware if it's only given to one man and it's not a team sport if you only have one player. It's the team aspect that this fixes - it doesn't touch the drivers' championship.

 

[peter_vod69]

Luckily, the stats answer this for you.

Renault are the least balanced - and by quite some way - because 100% of the constructor points would have come from Vitaly Petrov. This is due to the fact that Petrov never finished ahead of his team mate when both cars finished - it may be reliability of machine, reliability of driver, favouritism within the team or a season-long fluke. Whatever the reason, it tells us that, in 2010, Kubica was by far the better driver and Renault would have lost a position in the championship by relying on their rabbit instead of ensuring a balanced team. A similar situation occurred in 2008 with Toro Rosso - Vettel would have scored no constructor points. They addressed this by having Vettel was poached by a higher team, and that higher team now has their first world championship in each department...

Ferrari are unbalanced too - Massa scoring three times as many constructor points by this method than Alonso. As if the radio transmissions didn't tell everyone that Massa was a number 2 driver, the stats do (and they do with Barrichello in 2009 too). However, Ferrari's speed and reliability (and Brawn's in 2009) give them a strong position - by commonly finishing both cars, they get very many points indeed. This is further exemplified by Toyota in 2009 and BMW in 2008, both of whom get promoted to second place overall by virtue of so many double-finishes above their rivals (BMW score three first second drivers and five second second drivers in 2008 - with 16 points finishes from 18!).

Edit: Now I have the numbers (different computer), I'll post the teams in order of most to least balanced/reliable (and pace - the cars' actual results. There ought to be a better way of evaluating pace, but I'll stick with this for now) and the places they would have gained or lost my way.

2010
Balance: STR (+2), Williams (+1), HRT (+1), Force India (-2), Red Bull (0), Lotus (-1), Virgin (0), McLaren (-1), Sauber (0), Ferrari (+1), Mercedes (0), Renault (-1)
Reliability: Ferrari (+1), Red Bull (0), Mercedes (0), Williams (+1), McLaren (-1), Renault (-1), STR (+2), HRT (+1), Sauber (0), Force India (-2), Lotus (-1), Virgin (0)
Pace: Red Bull (0), Ferrari (+1), McLaren (-1), Mercedes (0), Renault (-1), Williams (+1), Force India (-2), Sauber (0), STR (+2), Lotus (-1), HRT (+1), Virgin (0)

Taken in isolation, you have each factor being tempered by each other - teams at the top of each field improve unless they're near the bottom of another, and teams at the bottom of each field fall unless they're near the top of another. Comparing teams more directly, you have a faster and more reliable Ferrari beating a more balanced McLaren (instead of the reality), a more reliable and better balanced HRT beating a faster Lotus (instead of the reality), a better balanced and more reliable STR beating a faster Force India (instead of the reality). I can spot a mild anomaly in there (Force India/Sauber) but looking at the numbers it's all due to Force India's catastrophic record of bringing both cars home - a truly dreadful record in one field can destroy your season. As well it should.

2009
Balance: Toyota (+2), Red Bull (0), Sauber (+1), Force India (0), Brawn (0), Ferrari (0), Williams (0), Toro Rosso (0), McLaren (-3), Renault (0)
Reliability: Brawn (0), Toyota (+2), Ferrari (0), Renault (0), Sauber (+1), Williams (0), Red Bull (0), Force India (0), McLaren (-3), Toro Rosso (0)
Pace: Brawn (0), Red Bull (0), McLaren (-3), Ferrari (0), Toyota (+2), Sauber (+1), Williams (0), Renault (0), Force India (0), Toro Rosso (0)

As above - McLaren's dreadful balance and reliability may not have hindered Hamilton's late season drivers' title charge, but it certainly dropped them behind other manufacturers. Pace when it works is no good for titles. Little change elsewhere - but the midfield gets a spread of just seven points at the end of the season, compared to 35.5...

2008
Balance: Williams (+3), Honda (0), Toyota (+1), McLaren (+1), Sauber (+1), Renault (-3), Ferrari (-2), Red Bull (+1), Force India (0), STR (-2), Super Aguri (0)
Reliability: Sauber (+1), McLaren (+1), Williams (+3), Toyota (+1), Red Bull (+1), Ferrari (-2), Honda (0), STR (-2), Renault (-3), Honda (0), Super Aguri (0)*, Force India (0)
Pace: Ferrari (-2), McLaren (+1), Sauber (+1), Renault (-3), Toyota (+1), STR (-2), Red Bull (+1), Williams (+3), Honda (0), Force India (0), Super Aguri (0)

And again. Ferrari's below-average balance and reliability hurts their championship - where they have pace over McLaren and Sauber, both teams are more reliable and better balanced and overtake them. The same can be said for Renault - Piquet's literal makeweight status destroys their speed-alone-based 4th and drops them to the bottom of midfield. Honda's awful season is unchanged despite their great balance, because they have neither pace nor reliability. The top two are covered by 2pt (compared to 21), with McLaren clinching the title at the last race despite going into it with a 1pt deficit to Sauber. Toyota nip a place from Williams by a point - going into the race 4pt down. RBR and Renault go in a point apart and come out a point apart, both failing to score. STR just nip a place from Honda by a point having gone in dead even.


And then there's the back of the grid. Can you seriously tell me that the Lotus is the better team because seven people fell off the road in front of one in a single race of a 19-race season than Hispania, who brought their cars home together 50% more often (or, discounting classified non-finishes, 100% more often)? I reckon it was the faster car of the two, but what use is speed if you can't drag it round 190 miles more than five times from nineteen?



"To finish first, first you must finish".

And if everyone builds a car that finishes, you still need to be faster!



Yes and, for the ninth time, this doesn't affect the drivers' championship. In order for the teams to win the teams' championship, they need to make sure it's the right hardware for both drivers and be reliable and be fast. It's not the right hardware if it's only given to one man and it's not a team sport if you only have one player. It's the team aspect that this fixes - it doesn't touch the drivers' championship.

I wasn't referring directly to this affecting the outcome of the driver's championship. The way the cars are going, reliability is becoming less of an issue than it ever was, and as far as I can see, this new approach of yours seems to emphasise reliability at the expense of speed.

PS I still think the "Not bad for a championship" was a good name.

 

[Famine]

I wasn't referring directly to this affecting the outcome of the driver's championship. The way the cars are going, reliability is becoming less of an issue than it ever was, and as far as I can see, this new approach of yours seems to emphasise reliability at the expense of speed.

Not at all - it includes reliability and driver balance as factors alongside speed. If you have one but not the others, you don't do well - whereas now you can have a fast, fragile car with a superstar and place highly. If you have two but not the third you can still do very well. If you have all three... win.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Rather than posting a seaparate thread on the issue, I thought I might run an idea through this one. I've noticed that more and more circuits on the calendar have different configurations for different categories of racing. So what if qualifying was held on a shortened version of the circuit? I know the FIA regulations state that qualifying must be run under the same conditions (except for weather) as the race (ie Singapore is a night race, so qualifyig must take palce at night). But what I'm thinking here is that the car setup for the short circuits would be different to the longer ones. Look at Abu Dhabi - it's possible for the circuit to connect to the main straight at the switchback. So you'd have some very long, fast sections of circuit and skip the stop-start final sector of the traditional lap.

The idea is that the teams and drivers would need a compeltely different setup in qualifying as they would for the race. But with parc ferme conditions applying once the car leaves the garage for its first qualifying run, the drivers would have to decide whether they wanted to a) set the car up for qualifying and try to hang on in the race, b) sacrifice qualifying for the sake of a better race setup or c) find some kind of compromise between the two that means they wouldn't be particualrly fast in either, but nor would they be particularly slow.

 

[niky]

Not really, no.

I just read what I wrote. I wrote it wrong... what I meant was that I'd actually like the first drivers of second-rate teams to take points away from the second drivers of first-rate teams... so that those second drivers would have to push harder to win constructor's points... but that would require NASCAR scoring, which yes, would suck. I think your way is more workable.

 

[Pupik]

I was thinking about maybe solving laziness and procrastination tomorrow.

Meh, screw it. I can't be bothered.

That's because you've just suffered a smart attack, so these are normal symptoms. (The old CC tables [through 1978] actually include only the top finish from each team, so this is kind of a reverse of that.)

I think teams might be afraid to sign new talent as first with this system

The only problem is, few fans really care about the Constructors Championship; but it's still about the drivers, so it's still a good idea to handicap the driving team in such a way to make it a "team". Other types of team sports stick generally around because of revenue-sharing, so the teams do not dissolve as easily, they are geographically-located (so there's usually a centralized fan base that sticks to them), and they generally do not hemorrhage money the same way motorsports does to a team. Yes, revenue-sharing is a bit more communistic rather than capitalistic, but there's nothing that forbids a team owner(-ship group) from keeping types of revenue generated by merchandising and the like, although I imagine that the sporting conference, league, and or governing body still gets their part of it via licensing fees by calling it an "official product". Revenue-sharing works out for the good of a sport (if not always rewarding the best teams) by ensuring that teams always have fit competition to match up against.

Okay, I'm digressing a lot.

 

[Famine]

The 2011 results are in...

Famine's Adjusted Teams' Championship:
1st - Red Bull - 411pt (no change)
2nd - McLaren - 271pt (no change)
3rd - Ferrari - 240pt (no change)
4th - Force India - 177pt (+2)
5th - Mercedes - 175pt (-1)
6th - Renault - 115pt (-1)
7th - Toro Rosso - 113pt (+1)
8th - Sauber - 108pt (-1)
9th - Williams - 72pt (no change)
10th - Lotus - 53pt (no change)
11th - Hispania - 41pt (no change)
12th - Virgin - 40pt (no change)


The stats break down as follows:

• Red Bull take the championship at Japan, one race earlier than reality - but with 11 wins, 2 seconds and one retirement to that point it was almost stupidly inevitable.
• However, everything was still left to fight right up to the end for teams off the top three steps - Force India took 4th from Mercedes with a 3rd place finish at Brazil, Renault, STR and Sauber were separated by only their Brazil finishes and a bottom-three-record-equalling finish for either HRT or Virgin would have seen a re-sort at the back - Virgin finished last by a margin of one point in 40 over 19 races!
• The least well-balanced team is... Lotus. Kovalainen scored none of their team points, meaning he never finished behind his teammate when both cars reached the end of the race. This huge difference is either driver favouritism within the team or ability...
• The best balanced team is... Mercedes. The drivers split their team points almost 50:50, with Rosberg scoring 88 and Schumacher 87. Renault almost match Mercedes with another 50:50 split, but the mid-season driver change tells the story better - Heidfeld only finished behind Petrov twice in the seven occasions both cars finished, but Senna finished behind Petrov five times in the six occasions both cars finished...
• On the podium, the best balanced top team was McLaren, with Button scoring 57% of the team points to Hamilton's 43% - though Hamilton was the dominant driver up to the end of the European Grand Prix (1 in 7 team finishes behind Button), Button was dominant thereafter (2 in 7 team finishes behind Hamilton).
• Ferrari (86:14) and Red Bull (88:12) were both massively unbalanced. Each team's top driver only finished behind their second driver in the FATC twice (Malaysia and China for Massa, Germany and Brazil for Webber). Massa didn't beat Alonso home on any occasion after race 3...
• Williams appeared balanced (53:47), but crap and unreliable. However, up until Hungary Barrichello had never finished behind Maldonado, with Maldonado scoring low points in just 60% of the races. Barrichello then went on a four race losing streak and only finished ahead of Maldonado once more - at Abu Dhabi - as the team failed to score in 75% of the last four races.
• Force India's reliability saw them outstrip their factory rival. They only failed to score three times to Mercedes' six. Di Resta scored more team points than any driver outside the top three teams (bettering, of course, Alonso and Vettel) - in fact scoring only one point less on his own than the Renault team...
• Reliability was key at the bottom too. Lotus managed 11 points finishes from 19 (58%) to HRT's 8 (42%) and Virgin's 9 (47%). On three occasions, 11 teams finished both cars - one one of those three, all 12 managed it - and HRT (three zeroes) and Virgin (one zero) lost out on those occasions. Incidentally, after Daniel Ricciardo's HRT introduction at the British Grand Prix, he never finished behind a teammate...

Much better than the official version

 

[granturismite]

You know Famine, as much as I love your system, and the data it finds, it would be wayyyyyy to difficult to try and describe to a first time F1 viewer.

 

[Famine]

"It's a separate championship where only the second placed driver in each team scores points for the team.".

Casual F1 viewers now know what an off-throttle blown diffuser is and what a drag reduction system is and how it works. They could even make a good fist of telling you what it is a kinetic energy recovery system does...

 

[YellowG1]

Brilliant. One of the more worthwhile and thought-out ideas in a while. Couldn't we also just pull the radios out of the cars though? Kind of tough to write "Felipe, Alonso is faster than you, do you understand?" on a pit board.

 

[hawkeye122]

Brilliant. One of the more worthwhile and thought-out ideas in a while. Couldn't we also just pull the radios out of the cars though? Kind of tough to write "Felipe, Alonso is faster than you, do you understand?" on a pit board.

I just laughed for a bit there. They could try to teach their drivers Morse Code and flash instructions from various points around the circuit.

 

[Famine]

May as well start tracking 2012 in here too.

After Australia
1. McLaren - 25pt
2. Red Bull - 18pt
3. Sauber - 15pt
4. Toro Rosso - 12pt
5. Marussia - 10pt
6. Williams - 8pt
7= Ferrari - 0pt
7= Lotus-Renault - 0pt
7= Force India - 0pt
7= Mercedes - 0pt
7= Caterham - 0pt
7= Hispania - 0pt

In his first ever Grand Prix, Charles Pic scores 10pt for the FATC while Jean-Eric Vergne may have lost out on drivers' points in the last three corners but nets 12pt for the team.

Now tell me that doesn't make it more interesting

 

[Seismica]

That's excellent

The only problem I see is when a driver fails to finish for no fault of his own (Due to a collision caused by another driver), it will penalise the team so the Stewards would have to be even stricter on racing incidents. Lotus for example; Grosjean was out of the race due to a racing incident with Maldonado and they would have got no points despite an impressive race from Raikkonen.

I mean, if you had no chance of the WDC and were battling only for constructor's points, you could kamikaze your drivers into the opposition in the closing laps and make it look like an accident. Even if you DNF you would still be classified and earn points, likely ahead of the driver/team who was punted off.

Other than that, i'd love for this to be implemented, those 2012 standings are great

 

[Famine]

Sort of. But then drivers have done similar things before and much earlier in the race *cough* Senna *cough*

Adds a bit more excitement And yes, it'd be nice to see stewards really under pressure to make the right decisions. And drivers really under pressure to get the passes in on the chance of some WDC points but to bring the car home for the FATC points.

 

[Famine]

After Malaysia
1. Red Bull - 36pt (+18pt)
2. McLaren - 35pt (+10pt)
3. Toro Rosso - 27pt (+15pt)
4. Force India - 25pt (+25pt)
5. Sauber - 15pt (DNF)
6. Marussia - 12pt (+2pt)
7. Williams - 12pt (+4pt)
8. Mercedes - 12pt (+12pt)
9. Ferrari - 8pt (+8pt)
10. Caterham - 6pt (+6pt)
11. Hispania - 1pt (+1pt)
12. Lotus-Renault - 0pt (DNF)

Force India take the 25pt by bringing home car #2 - Nico Hulkenberg - in ninth place, ahead of Vettel's 11th (18pt), Ricciardo's 12th (15pt) and Nico Rosberg's 13th (12pt) to score Mercedes' first points. Mercedes, Williams and Marussia are separated first by points finishes (Marussia and Williams both scoring in both races) and then by highest points finish (Marussia's 10 in race 1). Lotus manage a second successive zero with a second successive Grosjean crash...

 

[joetoml1n]

Good to see all of Checo's hard work un-done here

 

[Famine]

Good to see all of Checo's hard work un-done here

How so? He's still fifth in the drivers' championship and all of Sauber's FATC (15) points came from his 8th place finish at Australia.

Also,

What kind of ranking system is it that rewards teams for the odd fluke result

If this sole 2nd place - Sauber's best ever result (in this guise) - is a fluke, it'll be disregarded. If not, it'll be a demonstration of Sauber's performance. In either case, it's Kobayashi's performance that will have "undone" Perez's hard work by failing to bring the car home - the point of a constructors' championship...

 

[AlexGTV]

Great idea! It would be more difficult for a team to take both championships.

 

[Famine]

After China
1. McLaren - 60pt (+25)
2. Red Bull - 54pt (+18)
3. Force India - 31pt (+6)
4. Toro Rosso - 31pt (+4)
5= Sauber - 27pt (+12)
5= Williams - 27pt (+15)
7. Ferrari - 18pt (+10)
8. Marussia - 14pt (+2)
9. Mercedes - 12pt (DNF)
10. Lotus-Renault - 8pt (+8)
11. Caterham - 6pt (+0)
12. Hispania - 2pt (+1)

Michael Schumacher is the sole retirement and Mercedes' teamwork let the team down - one of only two teams to have failed to bring both cars home twice so far this season (Lotus being the other)... Caterham unluckily finish both cars but all ten points scoring positions are already filled.

McLaren and Red Bull swap places, with the McLaren pair leading both of the RBR pair home. Force India gain six points and leapfrog STR on countback, while Williams' strong finish ties them up with Sauber. Ferrari's good team play brings them some valuable points and out of the low table doldrums while Marussia continue to score - one of only five teams to score in every race so far - but the big points are tough to get and they're 8th...

 

[Liquid]

Interesting looking table. Force India 3rd despite being pretty anonymous on the track.

 

[Famine]

On countback - they won Malaysia by bringing their second car (Hulkenberg) home in ninth!

However, FATC will even out such results over a season most efficiently. I expect lots of similar results to China over the season - with the lead four teams (McLaren, Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes) bringing home both cars ahead of other teams. Sauber and Williams' positions are genuine though - they're bringing both cars home (sometimes, Maldonado/Kobayashi) in the actual points.

Marussia's is the surprise - but again, the high attrition rate in Australia gave them a fifth-place team finish, which FATC should even out across the season.

No unassailable fluke results here!

 

[Liquid]

I'll be keeping an eye on the table throughout the season, if you keep updating it.

I like this system. It's unusual to begin with, but it adds an extra, exciting element to the second string drivers/driving. Have you tried submitting it to Bernie? It's a shoo-in (!)

 

[Famine]

After Bahrain
1. McLaren - 62pt (+2)
2. Red Bull - 62pt (+18)
3. Force India - 41pt (+10)
4. Toro Rosso - 37pt (+6)
5. Sauber - 35pt (+8)
6. Lotus-Renault - 33pt (+25)
7. Ferrari - 33pt (+15)
8. Williams - 27pt (DNF)
9. Mercedes - 24pt (+12)
10. Marussia - 14pt (DNF)
11. Caterham - 10pt (+4)
12. Hispania - 3pt (+1)

Red Bull's fourth successive second coupled with another poor race for McLaren sees the teams tied at the top and separated by countback (McLaren's 2 wins to Red Bull's none). Ferrari have continued to improve but have been leap-frogged by Lotus whose stunning Bahrain showing gives them maximum points. Williams' retirement hurts them badly, falling into the clutches of Mercedes - who get both drivers to the end for only the second time this season. Caterham close the gap on Marussia as they get both cars home ahead of the classified McLaren of Button while Marussia retired Pic early on in the race.

 

[boiltheocean]

Please submit this idea to magazines, even if you only win a free hat for best letter of the week. More people deserve to know how a great constructors championship should be done.

 

[Famine]

After Spain
1. McLaren - 80pt (+18)
2. Red Bull - 77pt (+15)
3. Lotus-Renault - 58pt (+25)
4. Force India - 51pt (+10)
5. Toro Rosso - 49pt (+12)
6. Ferrari - 41pt (+8)
7. Sauber - 35pt (DNF)
8. Williams - 27pt (DNF)
9. Mercedes - 24pt (DNF)
10. Caterham - 16pt (+6)
11. Marussia - 14pt (DNF)
12. Hispania - 3pt (DNF)

McLaren's disappointing weekend is lightened somewhat by bringing both cars home well and allowing them to pull a points lead in the table over Red Bull - who brought Webber home outside the points but in a 3rd place for the constructors. Lotus's second excellent, constructor-winning weekend in a row pulls them up to third in the table and reflects what a danger the car and both drivers have become to the established teams. Force India, STR and Ferrari bring both cars home for good points, while Caterham round out this week's points and jump to the top of the new teams.

Williams' excellent race finish is tarnished by Senna's retirement, while Mercedes again fail to get both cars to the end - three times in five races (60% failure) - making them the least reliable team of all and, despite Rosberg's race win, putting the team as a whole down at the bottom of the old guard.