FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[AKR]

http://www.kolumbus.fi/leif.snellman/main.htm

Check out this website. Grand Prix racing pre 1950. This era interests me deeply. I found this site by fluke. As it is hard to find qualty sites for pre 1950 Grand Prix Racing. I am sure there are others here who would love this information so here is me sharing this with you all. Enjoy.

[McLaren Fan]

Just subscribe to FORIX. It's not all that expensive and provides much more comprehensive information.

[onelapdown]

Just subscribe to FORIX. It's not all that expensive and provides much more comprehensive information.

Yeah, but it's only really comprehensive in relation to Championship F1 races from 1950 on. It's very good at what it does though.

Thanks for posting that Kiki, I'm also pretty interested in the pre-F1 world of motor racing

[McLaren Fan]

Just subscribe to FORIX. It's not all that expensive and provides much more comprehensive information.

Yeah, but it's only really comprehensive in relation to Championship F1 races from 1950 on. It's very good at what it does though.

Thanks for posting that Kiki, I'm also pretty interested in the pre-F1 world of motor racing

Wrong thread. I though this was the one that's accuracy was being criticised by Kiki. Apologies. I was imagining things. This site, however, is great. Thanks for pointing it out.

[AKR]

No probs guys.

[onelapdown]

Having looked at that website I saw the 1935 championship rules:

1 point for 1st
2 points for 2nd
3 points for 3rd
4 points for completing 75% race distance or more
5 points for completing 50% race distance or more
6 points for completing 25% race distance or more
7 points for completing less than 25% race distance
8 points for non-starters
(driver with LOWEST total points wins)

and the 2008 Championship would look like this:
1st Massa 50 pts
2nd Hamilton 52 pts
3rd Raikkonen 58 pts
(although, if the Belgian GP results had been allowed to stand unmodified, Hamilton would have won by 50 pts to 51)

while 2007 looks like this:
1st Hamilton 44 pts
2nd Alonso 45 pts
3rd Raikkonen 46 pts

Interesting, huh?

[AKR]

Having looked at that website I saw the 1935 championship rules:

1 point for 1st
2 points for 2nd
3 points for 3rd
4 points for completing 75% race distance or more
5 points for completing 50% race distance or more
6 points for completing 25% race distance or more
7 points for completing less than 25% race distance
8 points for non-starters
(driver with LOWEST total points wins)

and the 2008 Championship would look like this:
1st Massa 50 pts
2nd Hamilton 52 pts
3rd Raikkonen 58 pts
(although, if the Belgian GP results had been allowed to stand unmodified, Hamilton would have won by 50 pts to 51)

while 2007 looks like this:
1st Hamilton 44 pts
2nd Alonso 45 pts
3rd Raikkonen 46 pts

Interesting, huh?

Kimi always wins. No probs. I'll take that. By the way Tazio Nuvolari. He was something special. Like Michael Schumacher of today no doubt.

[onelapdown]

Having looked at that website I saw the 1935 championship rules:

1 point for 1st
2 points for 2nd
3 points for 3rd
4 points for completing 75% race distance or more
5 points for completing 50% race distance or more
6 points for completing 25% race distance or more
7 points for completing less than 25% race distance
8 points for non-starters
(driver with LOWEST total points wins)

and the 2008 Championship would look like this:
1st Massa 50 pts
2nd Hamilton 52 pts
3rd Raikkonen 58 pts
(although, if the Belgian GP results had been allowed to stand unmodified, Hamilton would have won by 50 pts to 51)

while 2007 looks like this:
1st Hamilton 44 pts
2nd Alonso 45 pts
3rd Raikkonen 46 pts

Interesting, huh?

Kimi always wins. No probs. I'll take that. By the way Tazio Nuvolari. He was something special. Like Michael Schumacher of today no doubt.

No, Kimi comes third both times, because he's got more points and under these rules it's the lowest score that is the best.

Actually it's quite a flawed system, truth be told. A reliable car always wins over a fast but fragile car, so all you need to do is make the finish and you're likely to be high up the championship table. Under the 1930s system Nakajima would have finished up 6 places above Vettel, who would have been 16th!!!

And yes, I have heard of "Il Mantovano Volante" and he is a bit of a legend. Some rate him above any post-war drivers, but I think it's hard to tell really. There's also Bernd Rosemeyer who I'm told was particularly good in the wet, but that's just typical isn't it? You talk about the guy whose car has a prancing horse on the side, and I mention the guy who's powered by Mercedes. Twas ever thus...

[bud]

i dont think you can use previous point scoring systems to the current system as you cant take into account the mindset and actions of the drivers and teams during the current system and racing to that system.

[onelapdown]

i dont think you can use previous point scoring systems to the current system as you cant take into account the mindset and actions of the drivers and teams during the current system and racing to that system.

No, you're absolutely right, in the same way that the 1988 points system called for a different (and in my view more desirable) attitude, but it's an interesting little experiment.

[bud]

but it's an interesting little experiment.

that it is

[8-ball]

Who was the half wit that came up with that scoring system anyway?