The 'Questions That Don't Warrant Their Own Thread' Thread

[Michael Ferner]

Bottom post of the previous page:

To better reward race winners over point scorers. Six second places equalled four wins, but not when only four scores counted. The division in two halves was made earlier, in 1967 iirc. I guess the reasoning was to encourage teams to enter all the races, and not to cherry pick events.

[EB]

Yes, the split season format was in force from 1967-80, but in terms of how few results actually counted, 1979 in particular does seem an anomaly.

In every other season with an odd number of races, the first half was the longer "half". If that had applied in 1979 then, all other things being equal (which of course you can't really assume!), then GV would have been world champion! But I accept that's almost as silly as declaring that Andretti would have been the "Bernie medal system" champ in 1977!

[Michael Ferner]

The reason for the 1979 oddity is really that there were 16 races on the original schedule, but the Swedish GP was cancelled pretty late in the day. It was supposed to be the eighth race, and the last one of the first half season.

[EB]

Indeed - I just wish we knew the answer to the oddity that was originally asked about!

Edit - though re-reading your post from earlier it seems to be only the split season reasoning you are guessing at, rather than why only the best 4 scores from each half counted.

[Everso Biggyballies]

What was the reasoning behind the F1 points system in 1979? Only 8 scores counted, 4 from the first 7 races and 4 from the last 8.

I always imagined that the restricted scores was to compensate for the high number of cars failing in those days, but no idea why it was restricted across the season too

You do realise that the WDC was from 1950 was always based on dropped scores, with often only the best 50% of scores counting. (ie 1951 was only the best 4 scores from 8 races.) They started splitting the season with dropped scores from each half of the season back in 1967

[White six]

What was the reasoning behind the F1 points system in 1979? Only 8 scores counted, 4 from the first 7 races and 4 from the last 8.

I always imagined that the restricted scores was to compensate for the high number of cars failing in those days, but no idea why it was restricted across the season too

You do realise that the WDC was from 1950 was always based on dropped scores, with often only the best 50% of scores counting. (ie 1951 was only the best 4 scores from 8 races.) They started splitting the season with dropped scores from each half of the season back in 1967

The question was why? And not really about the dropped scores, but the split

[White six]

To better reward race winners over point scorers. Six second places equalled four wins, but not when only four scores counted. The division in two halves was made earlier, in 1967 iirc. I guess the reasoning was to encourage teams to enter all the races, and not to cherry pick events.

Thanks, sounds reasonable. I wondered if it was designed to help teams that were consistent and smooth out the effect of the fast developments of the era, but given it was a historic thing I think you're probably right. I'm amused that Ligier started totally dominant and ended up being lapped by Zandvoort

[acerogers58]

Can anyone else remember someone who got sued by their sponsor for damaging their image?

[White six]

How trivial is this?

Which Monaco GP had the biggest waves? (at the tunnel exit very occasionally waves could be seen breaking over the rocks beside the harbour wall)

I think it was a 90s race ...

[hollie3sa]

Can anyone else remember someone who got sued by their sponsor for damaging their image?

I'm sorry. I really am. But that sounds so... American

[MonteCristo]

Can anyone else remember someone who got sued by their sponsor for damaging their image?

I'm sorry. I really am. But that sounds so... American

And that night's telecast ended like this (like they all do ):

[Michkov]

How trivial is this?

Which Monaco GP had the biggest waves? (at the tunnel exit very occasionally waves could be seen breaking over the rocks beside the harbour wall)

I think it was a 90s race ...

IIRC the pile up at Tabac back in the 50s was caused by a big breaker reaching the track. Freak event if there ever was one, given that the corner is all the way in the harbor.

[PTRACER]

Here's one. When did we first start to get on first-name terms with F1 drivers?

When I was young, it was Hakkinen, Frentzen, Hill, Schumi (unless it was the other one, in which case it would always be RALF Schumacher). Nowadays it's Lewis this, George that, Charlie this, Carlos that. When and WHY?

[Cheeveer]

You'd have to ask English speaking media and British/American social norms that, but that is not the case within Swedish motorsport broadcasting. Except for Swedish drivers, who are often on friendly terms with the journos.

[Vassago]

Here's one. When did we first start to get on first-name terms with F1 drivers?

When I was young, it was Hakkinen, Frentzen, Hill, Schumi (unless it was the other one, in which case it would always be RALF Schumacher). Nowadays it's Lewis this, George that, Charlie this, Carlos that. When and WHY?

Looks like another buddy-buddy culture thing but I have to say Croft's banter style has worn me out some time ago. I wouldn't mind if he gets replaced sometime soon alas that's unlikely to happen. At least Brundle tries to stay objective more times than not and keeps it real. Hell, even Button corrected Croft on the Tsunoda 11th place finish streak due to Sainz's 5 seconds penalty. I won't even mention Kravitz blabbering about Perez scoring points in Suzuka despite him being too many laps down to be classified hence he would never score any points there. It feels like some of these commentators have sat on the laurels for too long and lost the neccessary sharpness.

[MonteCristo]

Here's one. When did we first start to get on first-name terms with F1 drivers?

When I was young, it was Hakkinen, Frentzen, Hill, Schumi (unless it was the other one, in which case it would always be RALF Schumacher). Nowadays it's Lewis this, George that, Charlie this, Carlos that. When and WHY?

Looks like another buddy-buddy culture thing but I have to say Croft's banter style has worn me out some time ago. I wouldn't mind if he gets replaced sometime soon alas that's unlikely to happen. At least Brundle tries to stay objective more times than not and keeps it real. Hell, even Button corrected Croft on the Tsunoda 11th place finish streak due to Sainz's 5 seconds penalty. I won't even mention Kravitz blabbering about Perez scoring points in Suzuka despite him being too many laps down to be classified hence he would never score any points there. It feels like some of these commentators have sat on the laurels for too long and lost the neccessary sharpness.

Yep, same thing with Ted - it's jokes 'n stuffing around.