The eleven best score rule

Racing events, drivers, cars or anything else from the past.
Post Reply
NathanF11989
New Member
New Member
Posts: 19
Joined: 5 years ago
Real Name: Nathan
Favourite Motorsport: Formula 1
Favourite Driver: Ayrton Senna
Favourite Circuit: Osterreichring

The eleven best score rule

#1

Post by NathanF11989 »

I know that this rule was an evolution of the scoring system that had been in place since the inaugural championship in 1950, but what was the reasoning behind it? Was it meant to ensure that no driver could win the championship by a huge points margin and to make things a bit closer? I'm surprised it wasn't immediately dropped after 1988 when it cost Prost the championship (which I personally feel he deserved).
User avatar
Everso Biggyballies
Legendary Member
Legendary Member
Posts: 48988
Joined: 18 years ago
Real Name: Chris
Favourite Motorsport: Anything that goes left and right.
Favourite Racing Car: Too Many to mention
Favourite Driver: Kimi,Niki,Jim(none called Michael)
Favourite Circuit: Nordschleife, Spa, Mt Panorama.
Car(s) Currently Owned: Audi SQ5 3.0L V6 TwinTurbo
Location: Just moved 3 klms further away so now 11 klms from Albert Park, Melbourne.

#2

Post by Everso Biggyballies »

As you mention we regularly had a not every race counts system in place from 1967 right up to 1990. I believe the number of events changing /counting was just the evolution of the system.

My understanding is that it was introduced initially to allow smaller privateer teams to partake ain not all races yet still have a chance of competing for the WDC. It was long before the day of FOCA or whoever organised the sort of freight deals that now deals with the entire 'circus', and it was an expense and organisation responsibility to organise their own freight. A bit of a helping hand to the many 'garagiste' teams

In much the same way as for constructors points for many years only the points of the leading team driver counted for the WCC. This was to assist the single car teams of the time. In 1979 the rule was amended for two team cars to both attract WCC points.

In 1991 when the best 11 results was dropped we also went from 9 to 10 points for a win, with 2nd staying at 6 points. This was introduced to 'increase the value of a race win' to overcome where the winningest driver would be further rewarded to stop, or make it more difficult for someone to 'do a Keke' and win a title with minimal wins.

I can only imagine that the best of 11 was consistent through the eighties was because the number of rounds was fairly consistent, all bar a couple from that period being 16 rounds, whereas take the seventies we had anything from 11 to 17 rounds total.

Another thought is that limiting the numbers might have been in a way a quirk for broadcasters, as the system would assist a late season determination of the winner....At a time when broadcasting of F1 was growing enormously the broadcasters would not want to see a title settled early in the year. Keep the punters in suspense and their interest focused till the end of the season if possible. A late result to a title can only boost the viewers and ratings. Keep the TV sets switched on in those pre internet days where TV was more immediate than a weekly magazine. :wink:

A brief summary of the points score make up from 1967-1990

Year 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th

1967- 9- 6- 4- 3- 2- 1................. 9 (5 from first 6, 4 from last 5)
1968- 9- 6- 4- 3- 2- 1................. 10 (5 from first 6, 5 from last 6)
1969- 9- 6- 4- 3- 2- 1................. 9 (5 from first 6, 4 from last 5)
1970- 9- 6- 4- 3- 2- 1................. 11 (6 from first 7, 5 from last 6)
1971- 9- 6- 4- 3- 2- 1................. 9 (5 from first 6, 4 from last 5)
1972- 9- 6- 4- 3- 2- 1................. 10 (5 from first 6, 5 from last 6)
1973–74- 9- 6- 4- 3- 2- 1........... 13 (7 from first 8, 6 from last 7)
1975- 9- 6- 4- 3- 2- 1................. 12 (6 from first 7, 6 from last 7)
1976- 9- 6- 4- 3- 2- 1................. 14 (7 from first 8, 7 from last 8 )
1977- 9- 6- 4- 3- 2- 1................. 15 (8 from first 9, 7 from last 8 )
1978- 9- 6- 4- 3- 2- 1................. 14 (7 from first 8, 7 from last 8 )
1979- 9- 6- 4- 3- 2- 1................. 8 (4 from first 7, 4 from last 8 )
1980- 9- 6- 4- 3- 2- 1................. 10 (5 from first 7, 5 from last 7)
1981–90- 9- 6- 4- 3- 2- 1........... 11

* I started life with nothing, and still have most of it left


“Good drivers have dead flies on the side windows!” (Walter Röhrl)

* I married Miss Right. Just didn't know her first name was Always
User avatar
Michael Ferner
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 3526
Joined: 7 years ago
Real Name: Michael Ferner
Favourite Racing Car: Miller '122', McLaren M23
Favourite Driver: Billy Winn, Bruce McLaren
Car(s) Currently Owned: None
Location: Bitburg, Germany

#3

Post by Michael Ferner »

NathanF11989 wrote: 3 years ago I know that this rule was an evolution of the scoring system that had been in place since the inaugural championship in 1950, but what was the reasoning behind it? Was it meant to ensure that no driver could win the championship by a huge points margin and to make things a bit closer? I'm surprised it wasn't immediately dropped after 1988 when it cost Prost the championship (which I personally feel he deserved).
No, not about "making things a bit closer" - this was 1950, not 2020, and championships in general didn't mean the same thing they do now. The original idea was to reward excellence over steadiness.
2023 'Guess The Pole' Points & Accuracy Champion

If you don't vote now against fascism, you may never have that chance again...


Ceterum censeo interruptiones essent delendam.
DoubleFart
Elite Member
Elite Member
Posts: 5223
Joined: 9 years ago
Real Name: YouKnowWho
Favourite Motorsport: F1

#4

Post by DoubleFart »

Michael Ferner wrote: 3 years ago
NathanF11989 wrote: 3 years ago I know that this rule was an evolution of the scoring system that had been in place since the inaugural championship in 1950, but what was the reasoning behind it? Was it meant to ensure that no driver could win the championship by a huge points margin and to make things a bit closer? I'm surprised it wasn't immediately dropped after 1988 when it cost Prost the championship (which I personally feel he deserved).
No, not about "making things a bit closer" - this was 1950, not 2020, and championships in general didn't mean the same thing they do now. The original idea was to reward excellence over steadiness.
If that was the case, maybe they should have had some kind of medal system, where you can only win the championship by winning the most races? :mrgreen:
Gavle Yule Goat Predictor 2018, 2019 and 2021 Champion
MonteCristo wrote: 2 years agoVettel: Not a fan at all on track. But off track, good guy.
User avatar
EB
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1500
Joined: 18 years ago

#5

Post by EB »

NathanF11989 wrote: 3 years ago I'm surprised it wasn't immediately dropped after 1988 when it cost Prost the championship (which I personally feel he deserved).
I don't think too many people (if any) complained at the time. Remember that there had always been a dropped scores rule in place right from the start of the WDC in 1950. And besides, it was obvious from fairly early on in the 1988 season that both Prost and Senna would likely end up with at least 11 1sts and 2nds each and therefore the guy that won the most races would be champion - and how can that ever be a bad thing?
White six
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: 3 years ago

#6

Post by White six »

Michael Ferner wrote: 3 years ago
NathanF11989 wrote: 3 years ago I know that this rule was an evolution of the scoring system that had been in place since the inaugural championship in 1950, but what was the reasoning behind it? Was it meant to ensure that no driver could win the championship by a huge points margin and to make things a bit closer? I'm surprised it wasn't immediately dropped after 1988 when it cost Prost the championship (which I personally feel he deserved).
No, not about "making things a bit closer" - this was 1950, not 2020, and championships in general didn't mean the same thing they do now. The original idea was to reward excellence over steadiness.
And reduce the effect of unreliability?
The board equivalent of the Jody scheckter chicane. Fast but pointless
Michkov
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1533
Joined: 18 years ago

#7

Post by Michkov »

Hasn't the Indy 500 something to do with this?
User avatar
EB
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1500
Joined: 18 years ago

#8

Post by EB »

Michkov wrote: 3 years ago Hasn't the Indy 500 something to do with this?
Can't see why, it was effectively a complete irrelevance in WDC terms.
User avatar
PTRACER
Forum Administrator
Forum Administrator
Posts: 42138
Joined: 20 years ago
Real Name: Paul
Favourite Motorsport: Formula 1
Favourite Racing Car: Lotus 49
Favourite Driver: Gilles Villeneuve, James Hunt
Favourite Circuit: Nordschleife
Car(s) Currently Owned: Mitsubishi Lancer Evo X JDM
Contact:

#9

Post by PTRACER »

Everso Biggyballies wrote: 3 years ago My understanding is that it was introduced initially to allow smaller privateer teams to partake in not all races yet still have a chance of competing for the WDC.
This is my understanding too. Imagine the cost and difficulty in flying yourself and your privateer Maserati from London to Buenos Aires in the 1950s, for example.
Developer of the 1967v3 Historic Mod for Grand Prix Legends: viewtopic.php?t=17429

King of the Race Track, Destroyer of Tyres, Breaker of Lap Records
Michkov
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1533
Joined: 18 years ago

#10

Post by Michkov »

That is exactly the point, while irrelevant in terms of the F1 WDC it was part of the championship trail for the first 10(?) years. Mostly to add a bit of World to the Championship. Now with European teams not wanting to jump across the pond for a month you introduce drop rules to keep them content. At least that how I can imagine the rule being brought into effect happening.
User avatar
Ruslan
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1742
Joined: 3 years ago
Favourite Motorsport: Formula 1
Favourite Circuit: Monaco actually
Location: Washington, DC

#11

Post by Ruslan »

I always liked the rule and feel it should be put back in place. As people have pointed out, it 1) rewards excellent over steadiness, and 2) reduces the effect of unreliability, and 3) I think it makes wins and higher placings more important and tends to encourage people to push.
Michkov
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1533
Joined: 18 years ago

#12

Post by Michkov »

First you'd need to reintroduce unreliability
White six
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: 3 years ago

#13

Post by White six »

Michkov wrote: 3 years ago First you'd need to reintroduce unreliability
Yes please
The board equivalent of the Jody scheckter chicane. Fast but pointless
Post Reply