GG Italy. We couldn't hang on. Now off to set fire to a dustbin.
@tommywilson2984
3 жыл бұрын
i would love to see a story time on the Goodwood festival of speed
@F-Man
3 жыл бұрын
It didn’t come home. 😝
@AidanMillward
3 жыл бұрын
Yes it did. On a bus.
@F-Man
3 жыл бұрын
@@AidanMillward Wasn’t talking about your dad and the prison bus 👀
@cancracker
3 жыл бұрын
Well, you predicted it.
@patrickracer43
3 жыл бұрын
Adain: "Motorsports points systems are simple" NASCAR: *laughs nervously*
@mahiru20ten
3 жыл бұрын
Depending on what year we're talking about... Pre-chase/playoffs, it's kinda easy with gradually decreasing points for every finisher and bonuses for leading at least a lap and even more if you're leading the most lap in a race. (i'm talking about the 1975 system)
@arthuralford
3 жыл бұрын
NASCAR does not have a simple championship structure. The "Chase" is designed to create artificial excitement, and the champion is who of four drivers wins one race. It's BS
@philleonard1985
3 жыл бұрын
SlapSh0es did an excellent breakdown of that clown show of a points system
@andrewcarter1747
3 жыл бұрын
@@philleonard1985 It says something when a diehard Nascar fan hates the Chase set up and thinks it's ruinning the sport.
@pulaski1
3 жыл бұрын
Which has quite a lot to do with why I lost interest in NASCAR. :(
@GregBrownsWorldORacing
3 жыл бұрын
@@pulaski1 People were losing interest when the championship was decided with 5 races to go in the season.
@pulaski1
3 жыл бұрын
@@GregBrownsWorldORacing Maybe, but the fact is that the popularity of NASCAR grew year-on-year right up to the end of the "cummulative points" era, and peaked soon after the switch to "the chase" format. I think we can draw a conclusion from that observation. Since then we have moved into an era where someone can win a NASCAR championship having not necessarily having won *_any_* of the first 26 races, and that NASCAR allows someone in that positon to resurrect their season and make a sprint for the championship is, to put it bluntly, just plain stoopid. Clearly I am not the only person to think that.
@sam1812seal
3 жыл бұрын
I can remember back to drop scores (started watching 1980). They actually made sense at that time. No matter how good the teams were at preparing the cars the reliability was god awful. They may only have given points down to 6th but there were races where it was lucky if even 6 finished, and even with larger grids than today. The dropped score system was a way for drivers and teams to cancel out at least a few races where the car, through no fault of anyone, just didn’t finish. (And before anyone says that it must be the team’s fault if the car breaks down, the materials technology and analysis that we have now is so far in advance of what they had even 30 years ago that it’s not even comparable. Which is also the reason that at most F1 races today there are very few, if any, DNF’s due to car failure.)
@areasquirrel
3 жыл бұрын
That was a good Hunt impression actually. The interesting bit for me was that this matter of fact Hunt line immediately followed a Murray Walker line that is often quoted out of context and presented as a classic Murrayism, but in context makes a certain amount of sense. Murray was referring to how on one hand, a crash between the title protagonists at the first corner ought to be a shocking moment, but on the other hand, this was Senna and Prost, and Senna was out for revenge on Prost, and was playing the victim card against Balestre, so it wasn't all that shocking after all, because we all expected Senna to do what he did. "Well, that is amazing, but I fear... Absolutely predictable!" I cringe when that keeps cropping up in montages, with people going 'Oh, Murray, isn't the old man silly, lol.'
@jamesstewart1794
3 жыл бұрын
Definitely a Senna fan but I think the winner should be the man or woman with the most points
@Villani_AV
3 жыл бұрын
You race differently also when every race matters
@Sticktothemodels
2 жыл бұрын
Reliability was too fallible to not have had the drop score system. Simply put. Restrospect
@PauloOliveira-uq1yk
3 жыл бұрын
Just a small correction. Jo Gartner and Yannick Dalmas did not score points because both of them weren't inscribed in the driver's championship. But points counted for the team in the constructor championship. This isn't related with the drop scores.
@AlwaysRM_
3 жыл бұрын
more correcties as the teams did not earn the points either XD
@bernhardire2557
3 жыл бұрын
Also, as they were their best results, they wouldn‘t have been dropped? 🤔
@kityhawk2000
3 жыл бұрын
@@bernhardire2557 yeah I was puzzled by that
@mattpotter8725
3 жыл бұрын
@@AlwaysRM_ So they basically drove around for fun? To show off sponsor logos? A test drive for the drivers? For the cars?
@bloodspatteredguitar
3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, it seems that the team were able to enter the second car into races, but at the beginning of the season had only entered one car for the championship, meaning that the second car was unable to score championship points. A result in a GP is a prize in itself I suppose, but it still seems unfair. Nothing to do with drop scores though.
@josephnus
3 жыл бұрын
5:50 I just realized that Prost finished in either P1 or P2 for the whole 88 season 😳 when he DID finish the race. Talk about total domination, but unfortunately not winning the championship.
@Yoshik379
3 жыл бұрын
Schumacher in 2002 finished all races in the top 2, except for one, when he finished... 3rd lol What a season.
@heliumtrophy
3 жыл бұрын
@Rachel Wood This is where I would honestly understand the resentment on Prost's side - you've shown more resilience and consistency than your flashier team-mate but get done in with a ruling quirk. It's no wonder tensions boiled over as they did.
@dukelive
3 жыл бұрын
1988 was Senna's Championship - 8 wins to 7, 13 poles to 2, 3 DNFs to 2, 7-5 in races they both finished. There was the Round 1 DQ, when he drove amazingly for half the race before being told he shouldn't have started! Plus, he had already won the championship before the final round. All drivers race to the points scoring system in play.
@regen9918
3 жыл бұрын
In 1965 Jim Clark either won or retired from every race
@josephnus
3 жыл бұрын
@@regen9918 I believe we're talking about not winning world championship on that season, duh.
@olliesutton1804
3 жыл бұрын
You have to take into account that had the drop scores not been in place, the drivers may have approached certain race weekends more cautiously had they know that losing points was massively damaging and not just chalked off the records
@MixedBag27
3 жыл бұрын
Drop scores were of their time, and should remain in their time. BTW, it's currently being used in Super Formula so drivers who may not be able to get to Japan because of travel restrictions aren't disadvantaged.
@eggselent9814
2 жыл бұрын
I mean it made sense to apply them in 1964 don't get me wrong, but as 1983 and its big rule changes, which also improved the reliability of cars quite a bit, it should've been dropped.
@paulnewman2778
3 жыл бұрын
The drivers knew the rules and I am sure that they focused on what they needed to do to win. There was a strategy to leverage these rules
@jgagnier
3 жыл бұрын
This.
@dapprman
3 жыл бұрын
I remember growing up trying to work out just why they had the drop score system. Further down the line I realised it made sense in the 1950s and 60s, but not the 70s when I started to watch F1. I remember in 1988, as a Senna fan, checking the scores with a couple of races to go and seeing that while Prost at that time had more points, Senna could still win due to the keeping of the best finishes. It made no sense, but worked for Senna and as a result me, as a fan. Conspiracy time ... - there was always a view that Balestere favoured Prost, being a fellow French man, and hated Senna. Senna won the championship through drop points and suddenly the scoring system is changed to a more logical/sensible one. DOes make you think ... Personally I'm glad drop points are long gone, never made sense when I started watching F1 in the latter days of Hunt and Lauda, made even less sense 10 years later.
@polaxis842
3 жыл бұрын
Agree, but you can't put any blame on Prost for Balestre being the person he was.
@dapprman
3 жыл бұрын
@@polaxis842 Would never blame Prost (well not for getting rid of the old scoring system), as for Balestre - there was probably long running pressure to get rid of the system, I just put it out there as he was known for some rather 'interesting' decisions. I was too young to recognise any changes or why he stepped/was forced to step down.
@leggera1
3 жыл бұрын
I don’t see the scrapping of the points drop system being related to Balestre (supposed) favoring Prost. If it were, it would’ve been abolished after ‘88 don’t you think? That’s when it had an actual effect on the championship, not a theoretical effect. Also the system that was introduced for ‘91 i’d say benefitted both Prost and Senna simultaneously. By eliminating points drops, people who were consistent like Prost and Piquet weren’t penalized for finishing races. And by adding another point for race victory, that aided Senna and Mansell, as they were more renowned for winning rather than focusing on the season as a whole. IMO the system change was an improvement, to me it seems fairer.
@jamesbehra2690
3 жыл бұрын
Drop scores again? No definitely not.
@t3rr0rz
3 жыл бұрын
Usually don’t comment… but as an American, you’re painfully wrong about NASCARs current point system. I.e why I refuse to follow the series. NASCAR has a painfully bad points and championship system. The FIA sucks in many ways but it seems they actually have a decent point system for their championships.
@Yoshik379
3 жыл бұрын
Yes and no because they use the same system for all their series', not matter how different they are. F1 isn't the same as WRC, WEC or FE yet they use the same system for all of them. (generally speaking, fastest laps and quali could differ)
@andrewcarter1747
3 жыл бұрын
@@Yoshik379 WEC is the only one that could warrent changing it's points system due to a lack of cars in the top class, but that will change over the next few years anyway as boat load of manufacturers are set to join.
@krthecarguy5150
3 жыл бұрын
Agree to disagree, I think the NASCAR Playoffs have made the final stretch much more exciting and the finales way better. Sure, 1992 was good, but most Season finales were not as exciting as they are now
@McPlayer8t
3 жыл бұрын
As an Australian, I used to watch NASCAR back when Marcos Ambrose was racing in it, and the chase format was a bit weird, but it made some sense. Now I have no idea what’s going on with the stages and all that, I think they should just go back to basics.
@dylanzrim3635
3 жыл бұрын
@@krthecarguy5150 so a driver with no business winning the championship actually winning is exiting for you?? That’s like George Russell winning the championship because he wins only the last race but places last 90%
@mafiousbj
3 жыл бұрын
Blaming Pickford for England's defeat is like blaming the only worker who showed up for work that day for the factory not functioning properly
@Arokh1997
3 жыл бұрын
This was a great video. Dropped points hopefully never come back though.^^ Weren't both the Gartner and the Dalmas points taken away because they were running a non-championship car? Dalmas was running a second Larrousse (that was not entered into the championship) and Gartner had the same thing with Osella.
@txtmstrjoe
3 жыл бұрын
A long time ago (mid-to-late 1980s, if I recall correctly), I read that the justification for the dropped scores system was to account for the unpredictable mechanical failures that were commonplace in F1 (indeed, all forms of motorsports) until fairly recently. The apparent rationale was that a driver shouldn't be penalized so much when he had terminal equipment failures (blown engines, broken transmissions, etc.). I wish I could find that piece where I read that from, but alas it predates the Internet Age and I no longer remember the name of the publication. But the stated justification does sound logical (at least it does to me). Great vid as always, Mr. Millward (and thank you for noting one of my favorite F1 factoids - that Alain Prost could have won at least one additional championship - maybe even more - if not for the dropped scores rules).
@damionlee7658
3 жыл бұрын
I started watching F1 back in the early/mid 80s. I don't miss the drop score system, but there was an element of it making things interesting, sort of... There was an element of keeping track of who was where, and what could impact on the final championship result. But at the end of the year, it was slightly hollow that a championship had less to do with real results than maths tricks. There's no real benefit to revisiting a drop score system. It either doesn't change the standings at the end of the season, or it ensures that some people feel cheated; and that doesn't benefit the sport.
@petedoane4083
3 жыл бұрын
Thank’s for putting this out I’ve always wondered how it would look if we still had drop races.
@DonRaynor
3 жыл бұрын
I see you don't watch chainbear. You should. He's top F1 KZitem along with our man Mill here.
@andrewdunn4596
3 жыл бұрын
I remember the confusion in those days when the title race was closed - It is so much better having all points count How about a terrible variation but applied race by race - total race time being calculated as the total of a driver's best 90% laps - Race winner announced on the Monday after the grand prix! Just seen the vid on the new sprint race - maybe cars should start at 5 second intervals and drop their worst 3 laps :)
@magicmavis
3 жыл бұрын
Dropped scores actually make a reasonable amount of sense. It could be argued that Prost lost the title in ‘88 because he settled for second or lower places too often. If he’d pushed to win the races or finish higher up, he’d have won. It prioritised winning over reliability. It made it less likely someone would win a title by finishing second in every race while race wins were spread across the rest of the field along with DNFs. By only allowing people to keep their best 11/16 results you make races more exciting. It makes spinning/crashing off due to a risky overtake attempt less damaging to your season. I think it was possibly Malaysia 2017, where the situation was roughly that Hamilton was leading early on but got passed by Verstappen. Vettel was Hamilton’s biggest rival but he was on a recovery drive, having had to start from the pit lane - eventually finishing 4th. It seemed like Hamilton let Verstappen go, presumably to look after his car while Vettel was having to thrash his. In a dropped points scenario maybe he’d have had to fight back harder for the win to try to make sure he won the title.
@dominicbarden4436
3 жыл бұрын
1979 was perhaps an extreme example of dropped scores: six out of the top seven drivers in the championship had points dropped (the only one who didn't was Jacques Laffite in 4th). Interestingly, had dropped scores not been around the only change in championship positions would've been Patrick Depailler and Carlos Reutemann swapping 6th and 7th places. Gartner and Dalmas actually weren't eligible for scoring points in the first place, because they were driving a second car for a team which had only officially entered one car for the season. Another driver at Italy '84 who was affected for the same reason was Gerhard Berger.
@kurohone
3 жыл бұрын
Thanks for the explanation of Gartner and Dalmas... I was trying to figure out how Aidan came to the conclusion that drop scores hurt them when you kept your BEST results.
@markweissenbach196
3 жыл бұрын
Hated it then would be absolutely awful now. Great video as always
@F1jones
3 жыл бұрын
Senna never beat Prost in a straight WDC fight. At least, not without using his car as a battering ram. I have zero issues with taking a big old dump on that guy.
@izzdin6228
3 жыл бұрын
I'm relatively new to watching F1(started in "17), but when you said "battering ram", do you mean he consistently showed opponents the chrome horns? Or he has no issue to punt when the need arises?
@F1jones
3 жыл бұрын
@@izzdin6228 both, actually. He was known for squeezing opponents more than drivers typically had before, but I'm mainly referring to his actions at the 1990 Japanese GP where he ran into Prost at the first corner to secure the championship for that year. That's where his popular quote about the idea that you're not a real racing driver if you don't go for a gap - he was trying to explain to Jackie Stewart that's what he was doing. He admitted a year later what was clear to most, that he never intended to go for the gap at all and intentionally caused the accident out of malice.
@izzdin6228
3 жыл бұрын
@@F1jones thanks for the explanation man. Was odd hearing that sorta style in open wheel racing. I'm usually watching sportscar racing so a lil bumping & grinding is expected, but never thought "chrome horn" and open wheel cars can mix.
@amaccama3267
3 жыл бұрын
Best sports commentary background ever. There I said it.
@simonrook5743
3 жыл бұрын
The trouble is you can’t go back and undrop scores because the fact that there were dropped scores affected how teams and drivers approached races. The arguments for dropped scores include the lower reliability (drivers championship) at the time and the increased likelihood a front runner was taken out by a wayward back marker, it also encouraged people to push as you knew if you went to far you could drop the bad result.
@reptongeek
3 жыл бұрын
Aidan could you discuss aggregate time in F1 races. The last one as you know was the 1994 Japanese Grand Prix. It would be interesting to theorise what would have happened in Mugello last year for instance if that was run under corrected time
@mickcompagnoni1114
3 жыл бұрын
Goodbye & good riddance to dropped rounds. If someone competes & scores points, they should keep them. I would like to see what changes would occur if the world's best point system, MotoGP, was applied to every world championship. Prost may even have 9 titles.
@TedSchoenling
3 жыл бұрын
You can't change history but you can say that, for example, said driver did indeed score more points on the season... and thus should be champion as currently defined
@McPlayer8t
3 жыл бұрын
The thing is, people may have driven differently if they knew scores would or wouldn’t be dropped. If you’re heading into the last few races, and have a few drops up your sleeve, you might go for moves you would usually back out of, because if you stuff it up, it doesn’t really matter.
@daveblock4061
3 жыл бұрын
Makes perfect sense then. Reliability was note given. Made it the best possible example of a 'Drivers Championship'.
@thisamazingguyspage
3 жыл бұрын
It was such a weird paradoxical rule. I believe it's main reason for existing was to give a cushion to drivers for any mechanical failures, which would have been far more common in the earlier years, and as a result would be meant to reward the consistent drivers. Yet in '88 it ended up punishing Prost for his consistent streak of top 2 finishes, while rewarding Senna's ride-or-die approach to go for wins over anything else.
@DeneF
3 жыл бұрын
It's crazy for me. No matter how hard I try, I just don't remember this 'drop point' system and I have been watching F1 since the late 70's. Lol. Great video. Many thanks.
@GazQwertyTv
3 жыл бұрын
I hope you know, as you said it would be interesting, Chain Bear did do a video on how drop scores would work in recent series
@marciomicio
3 жыл бұрын
OT: As an Italian, I'm sorry for how it ended! Losing like that is unfair and you put up a great fight so you deserve the "honors of war"! Next year you'll come back stronger!
@thomashayhurst6547
3 жыл бұрын
Can't knock the Italian team. Sure they played somewhat nasty last night they outlasted us. Also on behalf of most of England I'd like to apologise for the dickheads you see on the screen during matches. Most of us are not like that
@marciomicio
3 жыл бұрын
@@thomashayhurst6547 nvm friend it wasn't a problem :) bad apples are everywhere, we have those too, and we usually admire the "English crowd" for the heat and passion they provide!
@regen9918
3 жыл бұрын
Another bit of trivia, in 1979, only your best 4 results from each half of the season counted ...in a 15 race season. This resulted in no less than 6 different drivers dropping results, though as it happened none of the final standings were affected in any way, although Alan Jones went into the final race without any possibility of adding to his tally since he had already won 4 of the last 5 races. I remember watching the BBC coverage and James Hunt remarking on how stupid it was
@danesorensen1775
3 жыл бұрын
That's rather timely, thankyou Aidan. I'm currently covering the 1991 Australian Touring Car Championship and that also was won by a drop-score system. Mark Skaife out-scored his teammate Jim Richards overall, but had to drop 10 points earned at Lakeside because one race had to be axed. Richards won the championship, ironically by not finishing at Oran Park, meaning he lost nothing. I've seen the argument that drop-score systems can generate interest by encouraging overtakes: instead of touring around and collecting the points for 3rd, drivers are forced to go for win and aren't penalised if they put it in the wall in the process because, hey, now we've got a score to drop. Overall, though, it does seems like a relic from the days when owner-drivers didn't all have the means to attend every race, and tradition because the Australian championship kindasorta took after the British Saloon Car Championship. Being able to tie it back to the Indianapolis 500, though, is a wonderfully absurd touch so I'll definitely be mentioning that. Thanks!
@mrkipling2201
Жыл бұрын
I've watched F1 since 1984 and it took me a while to get used to it. Quite a while.
@operation4wheelz
Жыл бұрын
I don’t know the theory behind f1 s reasons, but I suspect it’s just something that dates back and was “out of date” maybe. But when I was karting, my club championship would do the same. You had to run at least 4 rounds for the year to be in the championship running. But, only 4 out of 6 counted. It essentially brought the championship closer and gave those who couldnt run every round a change at winning, provided they performed well.
@tomeddie14
3 жыл бұрын
I just can't believe that they would go to all races knowing only 11 mattered - thats just bonkers to me
@Yoshik379
3 жыл бұрын
That's just to make sure someone doesn't win the championship because they were lucky that they even finished the race. A lot of races only had 6-8 cars finishing so if you made it to the end, you'll haul a huge amount of points.
@jackrex7817
3 жыл бұрын
So in the early 2000s, NASCAR was actually contemplating using the drop points system. Not because of car unreliability and big fields of entrants, but almost solely because of too many entrants with garbage cars. Theres a series on KZitem done by a fella named Brock Beard, called the Rise of the Field Fillers. In the late 90s, Nascar was dipping in popularity. They wanted a spark, and they needed cash. So they implemented a stipulation that basically said, 'as long as you can pay the entry fee, and your car wasnt more than 3 years old you could race'. This led to a solid half dozen cars that would 'start and park' (start the race, run 2-5 laps, then retire with a made up mechanical issue) just for the small prize paid out to the last few positions. The problem is, most of the cars were moving chicanes. On more than one occasion they would run their few laps, and break down, setting off a caution period, or in the worst cases, be so obstructive that they would wreck the cars in the top spots. This created turmoil in the big budget teams and front office alike. They actually considered drop points for races with more than 40 entrants, and the 107% rule, along with various other points-based solutions before they ultimately ended up with raising entry costs and instituting the Charter system of today.
@DrDezaro
3 жыл бұрын
Interesting stuff ... it's tempting to have a look at all of the scoring systems to see how and which championships would have changed ... you know, "what if we help old school racing to current scoring requirements" Is consistency rewarded more or less etc
@benketteridge9150
3 жыл бұрын
Every championship is run to a set of rules that every signs up for at the start of the year (FIA technical 'tweaks' notwithstanding), so if drop scores are a part of the rules, then the points work the way the points worked in those systems. The championships are valid as they stand. Ret-conning different rules into past years is a waste of time as they'll never apply.
@marcushay9889
3 жыл бұрын
ik it's effort and u probably have more important shit to do but the story times were sick and even in podcast form they were great to listen to so if there's any way to bring them back or recover certain cars or topics i think myself and many others would be very greatful
@igorbarretotfracing2439
3 жыл бұрын
Tbf I decided to look the Gartner and Dalmas, and it wasn't because of dropped points. It was because at that time, had to say how many they were registering for the season, but if they put more cars than that in some races, the other entries would not count to both championships. And that's where these cases enter. In both cases (Osella for Gartner and Larousse for Dalmas), the team registered only one car for the season, and both Gartner and Dalmas were driving these "second entries", and that's why they count without having scored a point. And if you look up at the same race where Gartner got 5th, Berger got 6th for ATS, but because of it being "second entry", it didn't count as well.
@katout75
3 жыл бұрын
Great topic for F1 discussion!
@wabba67
3 жыл бұрын
The only justification I have for dropping scores is if we had abysmal reliability (to "even things out"); but then again, there would be no need to drop anything as people would have plenty of DNFs.
@jgagnier
3 жыл бұрын
Re: Gartner and Dalmas It struck me as odd that their only points would be dropped considering it’s the *worst* results that are dropped… meaning that the ones that stuck must’ve been better. It appears as though the reason for them not scoring is rather due to their teams only having one car entered in the championship (although why they would allow cars to race but be ineligible for the championship is, if true, far more baffling than dropped race scores).
@minibus9
3 жыл бұрын
great video, and important. Being born in 1990 i am to young to truly appreciate championship changes to do with drop scores in f1, i do know about 1988 which i learn't about from the Murray's Magic Moments VHS that i got for a christmas present in 1997. In terms of should it come back? I think no because with the currently rules the cars are too reliable and honestly with the advent of social media looking at the comments and trying to make my point would be unbearable, if a driver wins the championship then its their championship.
@eamonahern7495
3 жыл бұрын
Wait! I must check the facts, but, didn't Alberto Ascari have something like 9 wins in a row across his 2 World titles in '52 & '53? How did he not get maximum points in one of them on count back? With reference to 1:54 in the video.
@dylanzrim3635
3 жыл бұрын
So, I’m not completely ragging on senna this time (last time it was when someone shared a diagram of senna’s steering technique and I said “if I wanted to hit a wall really hard I’ll have a look”, ok I’m ragging a bit). I’m just curious. Without the drop scores, senna would not be considered the goat?
@bloodspatteredguitar
3 жыл бұрын
In sailing drop scores are standard, so the use of them seems natural to me. It does make sense in the modern idea of F1 with the expectation of 100% attendance not to have them, so reliability and consistency are rewarded; but in a looser less enfranchized sport with a bunch of independent Grand Prix events around the world, some of which are considered Championship races and some not, with no idea who will turn up to race at each... drop scores do seem like the natural way to go.
@rosstaylor5487
2 жыл бұрын
I wonder how different some titles would have been if drivers on, say, a 20 race season, lost their worst 3 results (as they did with drop scores) but also their best 3 results - a way to rank drivers by overall consistency as opposed to the cumulative results of their best results. It would be a ridiculous system, but I wonder what change that would have made in the past
@AidanMillward
2 жыл бұрын
I could probably do it for some of the more recent/closer seasons like 2010, 2012, 2016 but it’ll take some time.
@BennHerr
3 жыл бұрын
Drop points or no drop points, it doesn't matter. If the system was different a driver or team would do things differently. They might go for reliability more or go for the win harder and count on the drops to help them. It is what was. Top level pro racing doesn't need it. Now amateur level stuff can certainly use it. The hard part is figuring out how to explain it to everybody.
@acegarcia3719
3 жыл бұрын
I've always found drop scores total BS, it's about doing well in every race and shouldn't get a pass if you crash out in one.
@andrewcarter1747
3 жыл бұрын
I've always felt it had more to do with reliability, most drivers went into a season expecting to finish only half the races, 3/4 if the car was very reliable. This would have reduced the impact of reliability somewhat. I'm not saying it's a good system but that would be my guess for why it was used.
@Yoshik379
3 жыл бұрын
@@andrewcarter1747 A lot of races only had 6-8 people finishing so if you happened to finish, you'd end up high in the championship by "accident".
@seventh-hydra
3 жыл бұрын
@@andrewcarter1747 Exactly. It was primarily to prevent championships being won as a result of mechanical failures or issues out of a driver's hands, as that wouldn't be representative of their true performance. Back then, F1 was more of a drivers sport than an engineers one (Or 50/50 at the very least), and also the cars in general were a lot less reliable. It's not so much crashing out as it is the car breaking down. Theoretically, there's the argument to be made that it rewards winners more, rather than just consistent finishers. It's more of a crowd pleaser when your champion is someone who regularly wins races, even if he as a few DNFs because of his hard charging style... Than a guy who finishes lower down, but finishes all the time because he just goes safe and conservative and doesn't take risks. Not that it always worked out like that, as Prost was only 1 win behind Senna, but had more podium finishes as well, and both had an equal number of DNFs.
@punkavatarworld2
2 жыл бұрын
Drop scores is good in a series where it's not always easy to turn up to every race, we do it in sim racing. f1 insists you turn up every time so it's irrelevant to have a drop score system.
@stewartbrown6
3 жыл бұрын
Had no idea this was a thing. Great content, thank you.
I always thought that the drop points system was there because F1 cars back in the day weren't that reliable. I mean, look at any Grand Prix from the 50's to right into the 90's and you'll see that of the 20 to 26 cars that started every race in that period, you'll see that less than 10 would actually finish with most of them being laps behind the leader. So the drop system would be in place for those who had retirements could just drop their retirements from the full points tally. But as cars became more reliable (i.e Senna and Prost in 1988) they realised that it wouldn't work anymore so they got rid of it.
@y_fam_goeglyd
3 жыл бұрын
You're right, it was really annoying and I hated it. It was really confusing, especially for younger fans. I definitely don't want to see it come back.
@elmurcis1
3 жыл бұрын
I knew about drop scores system but didn't realize that they dropped that many races. (had something like 2 or 3 races in mind what would sound "acceptable")
@@andrewschuster4772 prost gets 8 titles: me happy Piquet only gets 2: me sad
@garygup
3 жыл бұрын
I'd put drop scores in the same category as sprint race qualifying. That category would be named "bloody stupid ideas which were never meant to be but became real".
@AidanMillward
3 жыл бұрын
As drivers were doing multiple championships at that time, drop scores make sense. Whereas sprint racing is the fia harking on about cost caps and cost control while simultaneously making the cars go out and race more, putting extra strain on engines.
@chrisclermont456
3 жыл бұрын
Dropped scores are bullshit!! Welcome back, Aidan!!
@AidanMillward
3 жыл бұрын
I never went anywhere…
@joshcooper7755
3 жыл бұрын
It would be interesting to look at the standings with a drop score point systems in place over the last 30 years. As I've often wondered what difference, if any having the current points system (25, 18, 15, etc plus 1 for fastest lap) would have made to the driver and constructors titles from 1950-2019. As you say the drop points system was handy because you never saw the near flawless reliability of the front runners that we've seen over the last 2 decades, probably from the 2001 Ferrari on. So it wouldn't really serve a purpose these days.
@jgagnier
3 жыл бұрын
I’m rather agnostic about dropped points (as long as it’s 1 or 2, as a mulligan for truly horrid outcomes), but it’s not as if drivers learnt which results were dropped as a surprise at the end - they knew full well what went on during the year, and someone who had been consistent could afford to be racier and take more risks near the end of the season. It’s season management. It’a somewhat akin to how with, two minutes to go, a tightly fought 0-0 hockey game can easily end up 3-0 due to empty net goals. It doesn’t mean that the game wasn’t tight, but just that one team has an incentive to risk it all. It’s game management. As mentioned, I’m agnostic about having 1 or 2 dropped races, anything more would be silly. If we’re changing the points structure, we might as well do one better and award points for every finishing position. We are worrying about the sprint race being dull thanks to only the top 3 scoring, which is fair; why do we tolerate such irrelevance for half the grid every race weekend? Perhaps one day we will try to understand how finishing 11th could be the same as finishing 20th or not finishing at all, or how a lower field driver like Latifi passing a rival like Schumacher isn’t rewarded in any way as they both still score zero points. It makes little sense both in a sporting sense and an entertainment sense.
@djvycious
3 жыл бұрын
Good point about 1989, and one that often gets glossed over. Again, I'll add my own disclaimer about not trying to shit on Senna. Frequently I hear that 1989 should have been Senna's championship, and the moment in Suzuka was when he was 'robbed' of the championship. He crashed in Adelaide. He could not have won. I know the clashes in '89 and '90 were significant, but some people seem to create a nonexistent 'what-if' scenario out of it.
@dukelive
3 жыл бұрын
This whole topic is a 'what-if' scenario! Regarding Adelaide, Senna had already lost the title by then. It's a very different mindset when you're not driving for the title,
@superstef2874
3 жыл бұрын
To me drop scores are a little like the away goals rule in football that UEFA have finally scrapped. When introduced it made sense (travelling across Europe in the 50s/60s nothing like as easy as modern times) yet it hung around long past when there was any need for it.
@Ramtamtama
3 жыл бұрын
The "if they didn't drop points..." discussion is like the "under the current points system...". They were the rules at the time, everybody knew those rules, and everybody played to those rules. In 1994, Schumacher would've won by 2 points (instead of 1) under 11/16, but Hill would've won under the current points system and there wouldn't have been the crash as Michael would've needed to outscore Damon by 5 points to win the title. In 1997, Schumacher may not have crashed into Villeneuve, and would likely have been champion. Villeneuve would've needed to beat Schumacher by 10 points, so Michael could've settled for 2nd to be champion regardless of who got the fastest lap. If it wasn't for Katayama, Hill would've been on pole, so the whole race may have played out a lot differently. I've actually had a bit of fun playing with dropped scores, using 1 race less than 75% to calculate dropped scores. So 11/16, 12/17, 13/18, 14/19, 14/20, 15/21, 16/22. The changes are below 2007 - Hamilton would've won with 103, with Raikkonen and Alonso on 101. 2008 - Massa would've won with 97, Hamilton dropping his 7th at Monza. 2016 - Hamilton would've won by 4 points from Rosberg So 3 different champions in 30 attempts, with Hamilton being an 8 time champion, Massa having a title, and Raikkonen and Rosberg having 0 apiece. The mentality is still the same though - win as much as you can and, if you can't win, finish as high as possible.
@alexlazebat839
3 жыл бұрын
jo gartner and yannick dalmas couldn't score points in those cars because the team at the start of the season most of the year ran 1 car but certain races ran 2 and the 2nd car wasn't allowed to score points this also happened to Gerhard Berger
@Stryker_-qd4nq
3 жыл бұрын
The dropped score system has merits, becayse whilst is could save a driver from bad luck, such as max at baku this year, it can also not punish a driver for making daft errors, such as sennas at Monaco and monza in 88 At the end of the day. You need speed, consistency and luck to win the f1 World title, and havjng all scores count makes all 3 relevant
@VladimirBrown
3 жыл бұрын
But Gartner didn't "drop" his points. He and Berger (6th at the raca) were driving second entries for their teams, which had entered only one car for this race, so their points weren't valid. It's not the same rule.
@har234908234
3 жыл бұрын
Whatever it was before, I think the scoring system now should be skewed more toward winning. I like that the scoring now makes the mid positions interesting, but there's enough races now - and the cars reliable enough - that the championship should be decided on the race wins. With all due respect to Keke (he won the championship by the rules) I think we all want to see drivers drive for wins, and not holding station consolidating good points positions.
@RJSRdg
3 жыл бұрын
I think the rule existed in the days when cars were less reliable, so that drivers were ranked based on their driving ability rather than the reliability of the cars. As reliability has improved, this has been less of an issue (though the fact the rule was dropped the year after it cost Prost a championship seems suspicious....) Maybe in a post-Covid environment with drivers potentially having to self isolate, there could be a case for bringing the rule back.
@musketeer5023
3 жыл бұрын
Jo Gartnet and Yannick Dalmas didn'l lose their points because of drop scores but because their teams entered only one car in the season. The same thing happened to Gerhard Berger who finished 6th behing Gartner at the Italian GP 1984. That was another weird rule of F1.
@MrSniperfox29
3 жыл бұрын
Especially as there had been many races in the past where teams would suddenly decide to run extra drivers.
@mattpotter8725
3 жыл бұрын
I started watching F1 during the early to mid 80s and never realised a certain number of points for races were dropped until now. I don't seem to recall in the analysis from the pundits then bothering to explain this, though maybe being young I was really only interested in the on track racing. I would guess the rules were there to stop the most reliable car winning, though it still would have also had to have been pretty decent as well. I guess you might get a driver finishing 2nd and 3rd all the time winning rather than a driver who pushed a car to the limit and sometimes broke it, sometimes through no fault of his own as well. It does seem very wrong though, you could maybe understand better if it was just a couple of races allowed to be dropped by not 4 or 5!!!
@Mercman1010
3 жыл бұрын
I would be ok if they brought back 1 drop race per season. Then its not such a huge disaster if you crash in quali and start at the back, or get completely taken out turn one by someone ramming you up the backside.
@metaltyre4894
3 жыл бұрын
I hate to moan but the rock music was always the best in your videos
@iqbalhussein5434
3 жыл бұрын
In nascar a driver who places 2nd in all races but finishes 1st at the final round (I think it used to be homestead miami) will beat a driver who wins all races but finishes 2nd in the final to the title. If you think this doesn’t happen in practice, Jimmy Johnson won 7 cup series by exploiting the playoff system
@simoneburini4036
3 жыл бұрын
He won only his 7th title with that system in place. His other 6 titles were won during the Chase era, not in the Playoffs era. Jimmie Johnson and Chad Knaus were basically the first to understand that you could spend the first part of the season just testing and doing the bare minimum to qualify. He didn't win 83 races on a fluke...
@p2nth3r
3 жыл бұрын
*sees it says "story time"* story time back or?
@AidanMillward
3 жыл бұрын
Maybe, dunno. There's still the podcast but I'm too busy to do it right now.
@richardlong6097
3 жыл бұрын
We gotta remember in the 50s and 60s mechanical reliably was pretty terrible. And the FIA didn't want someone to lose the championship based on something out of their control.
@consumerofstuff7854
Жыл бұрын
It seems completely backwards to me. Here are some points....oh no, hang on, those aren't yours anymore..... Any reason? Urrrm, nope, don't ask questions. We are correct, live with it! P.S good Hunt impression.
@OsamaRaoPK
3 жыл бұрын
Tommo made a video about what recent championship results would look like under old rules
@User-nu6km
3 жыл бұрын
Prost was robbed in 1988.
@AidanMillward
3 жыл бұрын
🍿
@Jusuff
3 жыл бұрын
@@AidanMillward 🍿
@seventh-hydra
3 жыл бұрын
In 1983 Prost wouldn't have won with the Post-91 rules either. With 10 points for first place, he would have scored 61 points, to Piquet's 62.
@TheMrNotInTheMood
3 жыл бұрын
NASCAR simple? try that again. Stages, Playoff points, normal points, winners move on, playoffs after 26 rounds, round of 16/12/8/championship round, elimination races... its so stupidly complicated, its stupid
@jonasschiefer626
3 жыл бұрын
I think the old point-system would only make it more confusing and more unfair, for no real reason. Like you said, todays cars are much more reliable, meaning that argument just does´nt work anymore
@corduroyspoon9346
3 жыл бұрын
Wasn't it a thing because of the all round bad reliability in the 50s and they then just didn't change it for ages for some reason
@marksimpson2689
2 жыл бұрын
NASCAR now have a playoff system at the end of the season which I feel is unfair to a team who’s been consistent all year. In F1 I’d rather see the cars simplified with less aero and try to make the engine rules more relevant to modern manufactures
@Tweej
3 жыл бұрын
The drop score system sucked for sure but the results are based on the rules set before anyone set off... I definitely sympathise with Prost, but I also think about Senna not being around to race races he should have. I am amazed how long the rule stuck around.
@retardray5701
3 жыл бұрын
I always thought drop scores were an attempt to level the field in terms of reliability back in the days when cars were pretty unreliable - i.e. reduce the effect of "luck" on championship result.
@testchannelpleaseignore2452
2 жыл бұрын
I think the rule acutally makes alot of sense, or did when it was created(FIA probably hung onto it for too long though). While building a reliable car should be part of what it takes to win in F1, thats kinda the point of it not being a spec series, in the 50's and 60's that was a lot more difficult and it woul;d have been possible for a team that had a less reliable car or just worse car to luck there way to the championship.
@ianclarke6665
3 жыл бұрын
How about this idea at start of season each team can play a joker of getting extra points but the race that joker is played it is a random choice. And they have a race where they will score no points again random choice.
@tonytaylor
3 жыл бұрын
I notice you stayed away from the Pettite Prix this Saturday!,,
@sweetdaddyslim
3 жыл бұрын
Great video. Drop points suck. Prost was robbed 🏎
@McPlayer8t
3 жыл бұрын
Super Formula still uses this system, they drop the drivers’ worst two results. Maybe it’s because Super Formula drivers often compete in other championships like WEC, and it gives them a chance to be competitive? I’m not sure exactly. The Australian Off-Road Championship has resorted to this format as well this year. The Northern Territory closed their borders to Victoria just before the Finke Desert Race, so many drivers and riders couldn’t e en get to the event.
@dominicbarden4436
3 жыл бұрын
Super Formula only introduced it last year because of how Covid was affecting the scheduling for it and other series such as WEC when racing started up again in the summer, plus with all the quarantine restrictions being used in Japan meaning that it would be hard for drivers such as Kamui Kobayashi and Kazuki Nakajima who race in both SF and WEC to do both full campaigns. Normally there wouldn't be any clashes (or at least I haven't come across any over the last couple of years apart from 2020 and 2021) as neither series has many races. But with everything being congested from the summer onwards clashes were inevitable.
@McPlayer8t
3 жыл бұрын
Dominic Barden OK, I only started watching Super Formula this year, so I didn’t know about that.
@cg9783
3 жыл бұрын
From what the asterisk next to Gartner and Dalmas says, it was because both of their teams entered only one car officially, so both Gartner and Dalmas werent officially racing, so scored no points.
@dominicbarden4436
3 жыл бұрын
Same with Gerhard Berger in Italy '84 as well. So only four drivers scored points that race.
@CookRacingUK
3 жыл бұрын
Dropped score are great in club racing e.g. 2 dropped scores, 7 weekends two races each, mean you can miss a weekend. Keep costs down / go to that wedding / concert / kids thing that inevitably clashes. Ok it's not F1 but hey.
@maza19
3 жыл бұрын
I didn't get it about Gardner and Dalmas in the end. How they didn't score points? I thought that this is about their best results that matter in the standings, and these results should be their best
@andrewcarter1747
3 жыл бұрын
As someone else explained, it's because they weren't registered for the championship, it had nothing to do with dropped scores.
@mrkipling2201
Жыл бұрын
Senna actually won more races in 1988 though. Crazy. Strange.
@d00dEEE
3 жыл бұрын
The reliability excuse is sort of a red herring. Once the teams were all required to run a fixed number of engines (transmissions, etc) for a full season, all of sudden the packages were engineered to last as long as specified. If there is no such rule, and you're given a get out of jail card in the form of drop scores, then you engineer the motor to run in the danger zone all the time and see lots of blow ups. Back in the Good Olde Days, you surely could make your engine last, but you wouldn't be competitive with others who didn't.
Пікірлер: 257