What if Formula 1 had always used the current points system?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- Formula 1 has gone through numerous points systems over the years, but how would the standings look if it had always used the current one?
SUBSCRIBE: / peterbrookf1
Twitter: / brook_f1
Instagram: / brook_f1
Discord: / discord
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/5lrIQiW...
Spotify for Podcasters: podcasters.spotify.com/pod/sh...
Copyright Disclaimer: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. There are certain scenes from the Formula 1 calendar where race footage is used. All those rights are property of FOM. Other photos and news elements are used solely for the purpose of assisting the original content illuminate a more in depth story.
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
0:54 1950s
10:13 1960s
17:00 1970s
25:14 1980s
32:48 1990s
40:23 2000s
46:54 2010s
51:00 Conclusion
#F1 #Formula1 #F1Points - กีฬา
![ทททททททท #27 [หลุยส์ เค โตมายังไง ณ สระบุรี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CaKoYw_Xmtg/mqdefault.jpg)
This video just gives me even more respect for Alain Prost as a driver, and I didn't even know that was possible. 7 Championships with the modern points system and as someone has mentioned in the comments, this means he never gets beaten by ANY teammate in his entire career is INSANE
Prost is an example anyway. Even if you keep their points system, he got robbed in 1988 where he finished 11 points ahead of Senna if you count all races that year.
Senna vs Prost where comparisons could be made and no mechanical failures
Qualifying= 28-4 to senna
Race= 17-7 to Senna
No all time great gets slapped this much by his teammate
Well that's also because he vetoed Senna as his team mate for a couple years 😂
@@goatgoat9940 Prost wasn't robbed. It was the rules that states that you lost one worst result and Prost's was a good result while Senna's wasn't. That was the rules, it wasn't robbery. Prost robbed Senna however in 1989.
@@lake4ishikawa well, Prost liked the whole team for himself and Senna was the future. Senna was the youngest of all "4 greats" of the 80's. In fact, Piquet and Prost began in the late 70's.
However that is Prost's own fault. I mean, Ron Dennis gave Prost the option of Piquet or Senna and Prost chose Senna so... Hahahaha. The rest is history.
It's absolutely incredible that the 2008 title would be decided by one point with two different points systems.
I thought that was probably the most impressive thing about this video, how has that season not been made into a movie yet?
it makes that moment hurt even more. still after 14 years it hurts so much...
@@SaarlaneKretiin it does hurt, but Ferrari have themselves to blame. They SHOULD have won that championship easily, but made too many strategy, and pit blunders throughout the season.
Considering the new 25 for a win points system came in for 2010 and was probably being brainstormed in 2009 I’m willing to bet they deliberately tested it on the 2008 standings and saw it kept the gap at 1 point
@@Spike-sk7ql i know i know. but those moments still haunt me after experiencing them live. the phrase "is that glock going slowly" still stings. massa gave them everything for the title and ferrari couldve done better. the story of being a ferrari fan...
Fun fact if thee new points system was used from the start then Alain Prost would've never been beaten by a teamate
Prost was very underrated
and tied with Sir Lewis for 7 titles while Schumacher would only have 6
@@nono-mu9rw the 1997 season nicely shows the issue of such theorectical games. schumacher would have never rammed villeneuve because a 2nd place would have been more then enough, so he wouldnt have been disqualified. if my maths is correct schumacher would have led the championship by 21 points before the last race.
there are probably some other instances were last race incidents would have not happened or happened different because of a different points situation before the race.
@@hanswurst6712 obviously I know that, but I still think that it's kinda interesting to see prost gaining so many wdcs if we change the point system to what it is today
@@hanswurst6712 While yes, thats true, you could just change it too "he was desperate for the win." Just as scummy, and pretty believable, not totally
31:25
The dominance of McLaren in 1988 was to the point where either driver won them the Constructors Championship alone
Yes it's like Schumacher 2002 and 2004, Vettel 2013 and Hamilton 2020. Even 2014 if it wasn't for his reliability issues
Alain Prost and Damon Hill are punching the air rn
Eddie Irvine, a world champion
Eddie Irvine was never going to be world champion because when he was in a position to win the championship he partied even harder the night before the races and blew it. I remember meeting some fans at Monaco who had printed a load of green shirts with "Shaguar 7 Irvine" on them 😁
Thats the #1 thing I took from this 🤣
An interesting twist would be to know how the last 10-15 years are decided with the old points system 10-6-4-3-2-1
That would be a great idea
2005
Alonso 115
Raikkonen 99
2006
Alonso 116
Schumacher 104
2007
Raikkonen 93
Hamilton 87
Alonso 85
Massa 72
2008
Massa 83
Hamilton 80
2009
Button 76
Vettel 69
Webber 54.5
Barrichello 51
2010
Vettel 84
Alonso 81
Webber 76 (moves above HAM on countback with one more win)
Hamilton 76
Button 61
2012
Vettel 91
Alonso 86
2014
Hamilton 136
Rosberg 113
2015
Hamilton 141
Rosberg 110
2016
Hamilton 136 (wins on countback because he had one more win)
Rosberg 136
2017
Hamilton 128
Vettel 106
Bottas 95
2018
Hamilton 148
Vettel 102
2021 (half-points for Spa and no points for sprint races)
Verstappen 143
Hamilton 135
@@clubpenguin13531
What about 2011?
@@Brinta3Vettel wins. No need to research, he was so far ahead anyway
Or the original 8-6-4-3-2 plus 1 point for fastest lap no matter where of if they finished
I think Schumacher would have still been at 7 titles as in '97 with the modern points system there would have been no need for him to make the desperate attempt to take out Villeneuve, so he wouldn't have been disqualified and he would have won that first title for Ferrari in 18 years and still end up with 7 titles.
Exactly thankyou for talking some sense
Keep fighting Michael forever the GOAT 🏆🇩🇪🏆🇩🇪🏆🇩🇪🏆🇩🇪🏆
@@zxr-cade2026 Well one of the GOAT's at least. I think Prost would be a serious contender for that title as well as he would have managed to win 7 WDC, while battling the likes of Lauda, Piquet, Senna and Mansell.
the video was about the points awarded for each individual race you cannot speculate on what may have happened on the track because that no one knows
@@mjr320 Yes you can, because he would have won the championship a round earlier... he didn't score points in the last race and had a DSQ, so if he'd already been champion there was never any reason to even do this... he was already done... The entire problem was the loosing of the championship, thus doing something utter stupid and wrong. Despite being a fan of him, still, that was just that.
Exactly. Thank you
Always said that Alain Prost is the most underrated driver and should always be mentioned as one of the greatest. He retired on top too.
Btw, Lotus not winning the 1972 constructors' title spells Dave Walker. The infamous Australian driver who didn't score a single point in the same car Emerson Fittipaldi was champion in. Though in his defense he said Chapman ignored him and pretty much had the entire team turn their backs on him early on meaning he got zero feedback from the team.
*Fun fact: with the current points system, Jacky Ickx would be the first Belgian F1 World Champion ever!*
Max Verstappen is belgian
@@madkrabber696 I know but he's driving under the Dutch flag
@@BoyFromBelgium99 max also wasnt around to win in 1970
@@madkrabber696 Verstappen is Dutch. His father is Dutch, his mother is Belgian and he got a Dutch passport when he turned 18
@@raymondhartmeijer9300 he has also a belguim paspoort and lived in belguim till he moved to monaco. But most of all he is a limburger haha
Alain Prost is only 3 points short of being an 8 times WDC, with less race starts? The "Professor" is the GOAT!!
Finally someone calls Prost a GOAT
100% correct
Glad to see Prost finally getting the credit he deserves. The whole Senna vs Prost discussions get so unbelievably toxic.
Prost himself said they became really close friends after he retired.
In this alternate universe, Paris partied so hard when Alain Prost claimed his 1st title in 1983...
He should have been crowned 6 times at least even with the old system ( having more points than Lauda and Senna at the end of 2 championships). But Prost is the Goat in my mind, such a great driver, winning often against the odds because he was such a good race setup engineer too) in an era of greatness... ( Mansell, Senna, Piquet, Lauda, etc... )
I can't even imagine all the drama that could've happened surrounding Rindt. Like 2021 was a hellhole on all social medias, imagine all the hate Ickx would've got denying the postumus championship at the last race
I read a summary of the F1 season in 1970, where the author said he was against Rindt taking the title, because it emphasized how dangerous F1 was. I don't remember the name of the author, but the article was in Road & Track.
Jacky Ickx may become Belgium's 1st World Champion but Jochen Rindt would miss out on becoming Austria's 1st World Champion if the modern points system was used in 1970...
Wow! That also showed the dominance of the Maestro "Fangio" because he would have the highest average points per race finish of all times! Just amazing!
He also holds the highest podium to races started ratio with a whopping 68,6% (not counting those drivers who started less than 8 races). 35 podiums in 51 starts is nothing to scoff at. Certainly not in an era when cars breaking down with mechanical issues and deadly crashes were common.
Oh, and he was in his 40's too...
One can only imagine how he would have been like in his 30's if there had been no WWII and there had been a F1 world championship in 1940-1949 too...
From what I've read Fangio raced Chevrolet cars in 1940-1941-1942 in grueling road races on South American roads which took place over 6 days(!). He was shown to be immensely talented already but these amazing feats never made any headlines because 1) It was a world war going on in the rest of the world and 2) Whatever happened in South America rarely made headlines even at peacetime.
The limited travel arrangements (people reached other continents by ship) and logistical issues of the 1950's made a present day 20+ race calender on different continents impossible. But had there been say a European 20 GP calender in the 1950's (with races on several different tracks in the same country) one can only imagine how many Fangio would have won.
Can't beat the OG. I love how he's on top in both videos, regarding the initial and the current points system. Alberto Ascari also scores very, very high in both. Of course, no one can tell how that would've changed had he not died in a crash at Monza, but I've never heard people mention his name when it comes to driver skill discussions.
I always thought Prost was the best driver of the 80s and early 90s. He is absolutely amongst the all time greats.
Trivia: He led the most laps out of all drivers in 1981 and 1982 too. Meaning that without the bad reliability of the Renault (they really shot themselves in the foot all the time and should easily have been the first turbo-champions if half-competently managed) the 1981 and 1982 titles may very well have been his too.
Ron Dennis offered Prost a contract for 1994 to drive for McLaren since he valued Prost's talent highly. Alas Prost (wisely) declined knowing the car wouldn't be competitive. McLaren again offered him a test in 1996 for a potential comeback (aged 41, younger than Alonso is now) but again Prost concluded that the McLaren and the Mercedes engine needed much development so he wasn't going to race just to make up numbers.
According to the teams Prost raced for he never drove faster than he needed to be and was unmatched at strategic driving. It's quite possible that judged from this factor alone he was without peer in F1 history. While people will point out that Senna had more poles than Prost in 1988-1989 in the races themselves Prost had 12 fastest laps compared to Senna's 6. This probably is explained by Prost being easier on the tires, brakes and the car overall.
And yes, let us not forget that he also holds the distinction of having 5 F1 champion team-mates (Lauda, Keke Rosberg, Senna, Mansell, Damon Hill), all of which he beat at least once. Lauda and Senna being triple-champions themselves.
When one compares to say Schumacher whose team-mates hadn't even won a single race (and some never won a single one in their entire F1 career) before joining Benetton and Ferrari, well then one can say that Prost certainly went up against tougher competition.
The reason Prost never was that popular is probably because he was "too perfect". He was a clinical driver who drove smart. People notice the likes of Gilles Villeneuve, Stefan Bellof and Ayrton Senna because they drove like their lives depended on them winning a race and didn't seem to know any limits... But a wise man must always know his limitations...
2008 under the modern points system:
"Is that Glock?!"
What really impresses me is the number of average points some of the old champions scored. Considering that their cars broke down every other race.
I've read that the Honda engineers regarded Prost as a computer and Senna as a Samurai. Senna would go for win and almost never settle unless he was out front. Prost on the other hand would take a long game approach to the championship, and stay in a position if that's all he needed.
And that's what makes Senna superior and greater.
@@michaeltrumph121 that is completely subjective though. Sometimes being faster does not equal being better
@@motorsportfanboy7769
Of course it does. The fastest out there is the best.
@@michaeltrumph121 the one who wins more is the best. You don't have to be faster to win.
@@gowrishankarkn1465
One can win more simply cause he has the best car
Points system 1950 - 1989:
In every odd number race position 1 to 5 counts, but only in the first half of the season. In every even number of race position 1 to 6 counts, but only at the second half of the season.
No points in every race, if a full moon happened the night before. Half points if a wet race was followed by a wet race. Double points, if the current champion had his birthday on race weekend. 125% of points if the current champion's wife/girlfriend is pregnant.
Prost what a legend
still is... not dead yet, actually in good shape!
I think that in 97 he whouldnt have crashed becouse he knew that he could win it without it
ya so still 7 for the shoe master
@@samsav2866 exactly
Except, he did, and it doesn't matter if it would've changed or not
He would be champion at suzuka so. Jerez would not have happened.
@@samsav2866 *shoemaker
James Hunt rated the Suzuka 89 collision as Semna's mistake. Counting on Prost leaving the door open was at least optimistic after having him almost pushed into the wall a few weeks before...
There is a reason Prost was nicknamed the professor. He knew how to nurse an ailing car in the days of reliability issues and knew that finishing in the points was better than trying a stupid passing move to try and win and risk crashing out.
Can you imagine Eddie Irvine becoming the first Ferrari world champion in 20 years instead of the wonderboy Schumacher...? I can't even begin to picture the tifosi's disbelief...
That means also including Indianapolis 500
More interesting.. what If all the championships were scored according to 1950’s points… 🤓
then consistency wouldn't matter as much as it does now, so cars would be a lot faster, but quite unreliable
@@Inferiis So you're saying Lotus would've completely dominated? 😉
@@Inferiis I think with the old point system consistency was more important, than with the new system, with the new system winning is important.
with the 50s point system a newey designed car would almost guaranteed win both championship
well, login
Things would have went so different.
All the 7th, 8th places which went empty in historic decades........... they would have approached the races way differently if they knew 7th and lower pays aswell. Same with and especially with victories.
This is what is mentioned at 0:34
Nah the current system is very messy. It looks ugly when the top 5 is:
1 - 367.5 points
2 - 345 points
3 - 301.5 points
4 - 263 points
5 - 170 points
If they had introduced this points system in say, 1991, there would have been loads of knock on impacts. Hill won in 1994, meaning they wouldn’t have screwed him in 1995 by signing HHF, meaning Newey wouldn’t have gone to McLaren and Hill probably would have been in a Newey designed Williams in 1997, 1998 and 1999. The way races were approached would have been so different and the politics would have all taken a different direction. Would Prost have left McLaren if they had this in the 80s and Senna didn’t beat him/the crashes didn’t happen etc etc. It’s interesting to think about it and I would love someone to do a video like this and think about what things could have looked like.
Bit late to comment on this, but I think Damon Hill had the skills to put a Newey-Williams onto the top. That said, while most Newey cars are time machines, SOME of them turn out to be quite the opposite, like the MP4-18. Don't get me wrong, I do think Adrian Newey is one of the best engineers in F1 history (The GOAT being Colin Chapman), but even he makes mistakes sometimes. So there's still a (small) chance Hill might've found himself in a shitbox after all.
Now you should do a what if F1 kept the original points system
Backs up my theory on how Prost is one of F1's top 5 best ever. But I do wonder if Senna would've resorted to his antics of smashing straight into Prost (1990), Schumi hitting Hill at Adelaide (1994) & I'm certain Schumi would've avoided Villeneuve at Jerez and settled for a conservative points finish (1997) had this points system been in place.
I always knew Eddie Irvine was more underrated than he deserved, but it hurts to see a championship taken from Jochen Rindt 😢. It doesn’t, however, surprise me that Prost comes off looking so good, he was Mr Consistent after all, and consistency wins titles.
Belgium's gain, Austria's pain...
Fangio’s points average is insane.
This was all fun and games until Jochen Rindt lost the title
At least, Niki Lauda became Austria's 1st and only World Champion!
I was thinking the other day how will be scenario with the current points in place for the past championships and here a I found a fantastic video explaining every bit! That was a hell of a work to do! Thanks a lot!
This video reminds me a lot of how NASCAR fans will calculate full-season standings from 2004 onwards, both even have a 4x champion becoming a 7x one (Alain Prost here, Jeff Gordon in NASCAR). Intriguing stuff!
Oh dear, even with the modern points system Massa still lost the '08 WDC title also by a single point...
Ooof
Personally, I am most impressed by Denny Hulme in 1970, and his 905 points! That has to be a record. 😂
Prost would be the GOAT if the current system has always been the rule.... So many lost championship on stupid points system (with some race results not counted!)... Amazing Achievement! In my mind he is 6th times world champion.
Friend, that is a very interesting take, which really makes one think. Goodness Prost was even better than I believed previously. Thanks for doing a heck of a lot of number crunching for us.
Just imagine... All of France (especially near the Eiffel Tower in Paris) would've partied hard when Alain Prost claimed his 1st title in 1983!
even with the championship points change... Lewis still wins 7 titles... Prost though, this shows how good he was, he didn't need to blitz the entire field twice, he just stuck in and got the results he needed rather than risking it all
Why wouldn't have Hamilton won 7 titles? He won those using the same points except in '08
Hamilton winning 6 titles with the current system which went through no changes at all in this concept is definitely the key to him "still winning 7 titles". How about taking someone into account who won their titles without the current system?
He had some great overtakes and clawing through the field earlier in his career. There were few times he put one over Senna. He was no slouch a very underrated driver.
@@srxt6758 he drove to the numbers, hence why he beat Mansell and Piquet in '86 but if he needed to, he could fight with the best (and win)
If you do start speculating that is thin ice but it is worth noticing that with only a small amount of better luck its not unreasonable to suggest Nigel Mansell won the 86, 87 and even 91 seasons too. This would rob Prost of one, Piquet of one (very fairly as he pretty much thrashed Piquet at Williams) and Senna of one leaving him with only one. Obviously this could be reasonably argued but it never-the-less shows how massively under-rated Mansell is by history and some fans. Go watch what he did to Senna in 89 Hungarian GP in a slower car at a circuit you "can't overtake" on.
First of all great video!
As a fan of "alternative time lines" I really appreciate things like that!
But - and it's of course also hard to say if some typical races would have been changed if this system would have been the system over the complete F1 history, just because drivers would have raced different and also the development (in case of reliability) would have changed things in general ... - two things, as you said in the video would have definitely changed and wouldn't happened then:
1. Senna/Prost in Suzuka, but it wouldn't changed the result then if Prost was already champion before.
2. The DSQ of Michael Schumachers pts after the season final in Jerez wouldn't happen because Schumacher was not under pressure and wouldn't do that then
So in this alternative time line Schumacher stays a 7th time world champion but wins his first title with Ferrari in 1997 already.
Irvine is a champion (omg)
Hakkinen just champ of one year and Hill is a two time champion.
As well as Senna ....
Villeneuve would not have any title ...
And unfortunately also Jochim Rindt but instead Jacky Ickx who would also deserve the title. Hmmm ....
I still don't think adding a what if to a what if scenario is a good idea, I think that the what if is clear cut and is going off the completed outcomes regardless if something else may of happened as we have no way to tell, but you make a point
i mean MSC would won the 1994, because there is no need to push after the Spanish GP,overtake Hill twice in formation lap, getting DSQ from 1/4 races from the whole season, FIA tried to do this season more interesting and exciting by slowing down one team and driver.
17:40 - Denny Hulme would have had 905 points? Wow, what a champ. 😅
I'm sorry but how do you only have 1.5k subs, I've only watched 2 of your videos so far but the content quality is just excellent and goes into a great amount of depth.
keep it up!!!👌
It was under 1k only two weeks ago!
Thats what I was thinking. It blows my mind how people like him that do all this work and make super in depth videos have a super low amount of viewers and subs, but people just dance on other channels and get millions.
It's wild googling all the names from the 50s and 60s only to realise that like a third of them died on the race tracks.
Props for going through all this. Especially those early years
I thought of doing something like that in Excel for personal entertainment, but apparently the work has already been done. Thank you, Sir.
I think a key thing is that certain decisions some drivers made would never have happened. Prost and Senna's collisions, Schumacher's collisions, how aggressively some drivers drove in later races, etc.
I agree, it's like when people claim if Senna would have survived Imola in 1994 he would have won the title based on the fact Hill only lost by a point, ignoring the fact Schumacher was disqualified from 2 races and banned from another 2, incidents which probably wouldn't have happened if Senna was around.
Are you suggesting we change the outcome then?
@@laughing5752: It's logical to do so. Example, why would Prost be desperate to crash into Senna in 1989 had he sealed the Title already? Same goes to Schumacher's 1997 DSQ because what is the point of defending seven Points when you had a 24 Points lead?
It's a fun What-Ifs scenario but once you left out all the logic, then it was senseless doing it.
@@ChiBi_JKT48 Exactly, with Prost clinching early, there is no shunt at the Suzuka chicane…and then Senna would not have been pissed the next year. Prost’s Ferrari probably would have won at Suzuki (he was on a roll) and could have had WC#8
@@andrewschuster4772: Exactly my point. There's no need for those actions had the Title sealed already. Again, past results are there and we can't change it, but if you toyed around the outcome based on What-Ifs like these, then you had to consider the What-Ifs in the actions leading to it.
Prost is by far the smartest and most consistent driver of all time. Not even Alonso can match him in this regard. This points system basically rewards consistency and there you go, he becomes a 7-time world champion.
Keeping Schumacher disqualified in 1997 makes no sense, as with this point system the collision and the disqualification wouldn't have happened.
Exactly thankyou
With the way that Schumacher drove, there is no guarantee that he still wouldn't have done that anyway. Since there is no way to prove or disprove, of course it makes sense to keep the DSQ.
@@dionscarman1650 I'm not quite sure why people think that because of the disqualified happening and what ifs that the outcome should be changed, that's plain stupidity. But they have a point in the sense that if the Morden system was what they use if may not happen. But that's the thing it's a "What if"
How many times does it have to be repeated: It. Doesn’t. Matter. We can speculate all day about what would’ve happened, but that’s not what the point of the video is. The point of the video is using the current points system based off race results, not trying to figure out how that would change things. Idk why this has to be beaten into so many people’s heads. If you want to speculate do it on your own.
It would be just as interesting if we measured all the seasons at the different points systems, ie all under the 90s system so that we could see how modern drivers would've fared.
i have always wondered about this exact thing and even tried looking into it a couple of years ago , but damn it was a lot of work , so thanks for the work you did in making this video, and Alain Prost has always been my favourite non Australian driver and i actually believe he should have been a 7 time world champion
Who is your favourite Australian driver
@@thechineserussian In Formula 1 Mark Webber but i think Oscar Piastri will do really well if he gets the right car
Very interesting! You put a lot of work into that. I bet you're hoping this points system stays for a good while!
This is a quality video, absolutely loved it.
Although, you shouldn't frame suzuka 89 as dirty then just gloss over suzuka 90 as getting his own back.
89 was arguably senna fault, 90 was just dangerous, reckless and pretty stupid from ayrton
I’d like to see a point system where all drivers who finish the race get points. This would encourage racing amongst the cars further back toward the latter part of the race. Instead we get cars 12th lower backing off, especially toward the last 10 laps… the team’s attitude being: “why risk damage when there’s really no difference between 12th of 20th”. And with this year’s money cap, it actually promotes parking the car when there’s no hope of gaining points. My .02
I actually saw a video on this not too long ago. Winner gets 50pts and 20th gets 1. But then there’s an even points spread all the way down the ranks
Graham Hill is the 60s F1 GOAT, nearly winning four F1 titles ('62, '64, '65, '68), losing it by a point (in 1965). And his son finally gets the recognition he deserves. Lauda deserves his three consecutive titles too.
Amazing job on this reserch. It made me realize that although Senna was the best drive ever, the greatest drivers were Prost, Schumacher, Hamilton and Fangio. They were consistently very succesful in a measure no other driver could be compared to it. Vettel, Verstappen, Clark, Stewart, Senna and Lauda would be the second tier.
Peter, this must have taken you ages to pull this together. Thank you, that was a great video.
One error, take a look at the 1992 drivers championship at 34:37, I think Berger and Brundles points are corrupted, but they are both in the right order.
Just imagine if the drop results rule never existed! Vanwall would have been level on points with Ferrari! That would have been one of if not the craziest thing to ever happen in Formula 1!
1999 Irvine champion for Ferrari would have been fantastic
And claiming his 1st and only title after winning the inaugural Malaysian Grand Prix in 1999 was something very special!
Wow the amount of effort and research that went into this video is insane! Thanks so much for sharing all these analyses and reflections :D
One thing I thought worth mentioning, at the end you have the drivers ranked by points earned using today's system, which doesn't take into account the fact seasons have far more races than they used to. If you take average points per race that puts Fangio at the top of the chart, followed by Hamilton and Ascari.
That's why their points average is on that list too :)
I think it's time that points should be awarded in the inverse to the number of cars that finish a race . Twentieth gets one point and first gets 20. Fastest lap goes to the fastest finisher regardless of position as long as they finish. If only six cars finish points are 6-1, first to last plus fastest lap. That way even rookies can get a point or two for trying instead of going a couple of years and never scoring a point. Makes the constructors championship fairer as well. Just MHO.
@@ronwilken5219 Why would the front runners be punished because some random team can't build a car and constantly retire from the race?
@@jkliao6486 who's punishing the leaders. Read my post again. Award points to all "finishers". Last gets one point first gets one for every car that finishes. If twenty finish the leader gets twenty points. No penalty. So it's not twenty five as it is now but at least all teams get something for their trouble during the year instead of nothing. Then when the FIA cash is handed out all get something and more than the point they have a feeling of having achieved something. Now a zero is a zero and very discouraging. Just my opinion but I don't see anyone getting punished.
@@ronwilken5219 So because two backmarkers retired, the leader only got 18 points even though those two backmarkers retiring has nothing to do with the leaders? Do you have any basic logic? If you can't read my post then don't comment.
I really enjoy these what if videos, really makes for entertaining discussions
Enormous work again, thank you!
From the points for Race Fangio is the GOAT.
I recently thought about this. Thank you for taking the time making the video!
Wow this is so thorough! Must have taken you ages, really well done
In terms of the greatest driver of all time Prost doesn't even get a mention. You always hear Schumacher, Hamilton, Senna etc. Prost is SO underrated!
To add to the mountain of trivia in this video; Niki Lauda won his 1984 title without a front row start - currently the only champion to do so and in 2002 Michael Schumacher also completed every racing lap a feat I believe only Lewis Hamilton has equalled but I can't remember which years
If it happened, it could only be 2017 because that's the only year he didn't have a retirement.
Niki Lauda average quali place in 84 was 8th whilst Prost had 3 poles. So most of the races he spent fighting from the back to win and finish on the podium. He drove his best that year like a true tactician.
Most underrated channel
There is an error in 51:00. Both Schumacher and Alonso have 2005 title.
Well done for putting this video together, amazing to see the comparisons and how much that would mean to teams like Tyrrell when it came to prize money and travel expenses.
I can't understand WHY, for so long, they did not take the results from all races. During 41 years, they always dropped AT LEAST two results in every seasons. That's insane.
Also back in the days. No one competed in Indy 500 and it was actually classified as an F1 race. That's why you got a lot of the Indy Winners who got points but never raced an European Race as well.
It's cause of reliability, back then there'd be many DNFs so doing this helped drivers who performed well but got unlucky
Thankyou for this, awesome.
this is a great video, that good ive liked and subscribed. However i was watching this at 2am and couldnt help but notice the eerie sounds in the music in the background so mayb not again but great content none the less😭🙏
This is brilliant, thank you.
Great reference video. Thanks
Brilliant video analysis!
Brilliant video!
It's interesting how, seen the point average, some common ideas of the drives still reminds:
-Fangio was the best driver of his era follow by Ascari and Farina
-Clak was by far the best driver of his era
-Prost and Senna were in another level in his generation
-Lewis and Michael were the best in the XXI century, follow by Vettel
- Verstappen, even with one title has credentials to access on this Olympus
Don't forget Niki Lauda era, Nigel and Nelson in Ayrton and Alain era the big 4, and Fernando and Kimi in Michael, lewis and seb era.
Ahh yes my favourite driver, Clak
@@R9naldo Jm Clak
Great vid!
Some tactical things wasn't fill in. For example: Why would Schumacher crash into Villeneuve in 1997, when he's leading even when Villeneuve wins? So normally he wouldn't do this and won the championship 1997.
Then how do you calculate it? This isn't the calculate each year and speculate how each grand prix went show
The only people who are surprised by Prost's results under the modern points system, are fanboys who don't give a damn about F1 prior to them discovering Formula One racing. That happens to be the vast majority of people who call themselves _"fans"_ of F1 today.
Prost was lovingly referred to as the Mathematician of Formula One, because he was so consistent. His _"consistent"_ finishes invariably resulted in him being either a contender for the title, or the championship winner. Was he _"the fastest"_ driver on race day? More often than not, no! Was he the fastest driver to qualify? More often than not, no! That didn't matter, because being so consistently 2nd, or 3rd meant that as long as he was able to capitalize on race day, it increased his chances of being the champion at the end of the season.
In any case, it would really be interesting to see how all drivers and Teams ended up with the rules from the 90's, which I consider to be the most reasonable. Today, they give points for just about everything and anything. I'm surprised that they don't give points for going to the toilet in the right Team garage!
Except he often was the fastest driver of the day in race trim. He beats Senna in fastest laps set head to head when they were teammates for two years.
41 fastest laps mean Prost was often the fastest on race day. People underate Prost's speed
@@longde
Honestly, Prost only got those fastest laps when he was driving the best car, which is often the case with awarding the fastest lap; however, there are some drivers who were capable of putting a car on pole, winning races, and getting the fastest lap of a race with cars that not even their own technical directors expected could be achieved with them.
Drivers such as Jim Clark, Niki Lauda, Nigel Mansel Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher... we're well known for squeezing more out of their cars than anyone expected.
The most dramatic example of this is Schumacher in the 1996 Ferrari. It was arguably the worst car in the field that year. A piece of junk. It was the least aerodynamic; handled like a stuck pig; and was ugly, to boot. Between Eddie Irvine and Schumacher, they chalked up 18 DNF's in 16 races; and yet, Schumacher finished 3rd in the standings, securing 2nd place in the constructors championship, behind Williams (who enjoyed a vastly superior car); and ahead of his old team, Benetton (for whom he won the championship the previous year; and would have won again in '96, had he remained at Benetton). Despite having to fight his own car all the way, he managed two fastest laps that year: One at the Spanish GP, which was a master class of wet weather driving (possibly the greatest wet weather drive of all time); and the other at Monza, which was even more surprising, because it was a dry race. Granted, Hill and Alesi both hit the tyre barriers, but so did Schumacher; and again there were much faster cars that finished behind him.
with the modern point system in place from the start, many races at the end would have been very different, because if the championship leader has a lead he wouldn`t risk crashing or taking too much risk in a race and still would have won. this would change very much in f1 till 2010.
but this is a really nice idea.
Thx, great video! Can you make a similiar video, what the outcome of each F1 season is, if F1 used the current IndyCar points system or the Champcar points system from 1984-2003. (20-16-14-12-10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1, 1 bonus for pole, 1 bonus for most lead laps)
Great video...!!
this channel is a gem
I believe 97 would have been a different story, Schumacer would have arrived at the last race with 231 points and Villenueve with 210 if i am not wrong, so all Schumacer needed to do was finish in the top 7 regardless of where does Villenueve finish.
I know this is NOT the point of this video, but its interesting to look at the context of things.
Author, i feel sorry for you, 700 likes, 17000 view for this massive work, i hope you will have more subs
Super super interesting. Helps catapult some underrated drivers and kind of shines some light on inconsistent races and shows the cracks that some drivers actually had despite being rated so highly in some circles. It seems like such a farce now that reliability and consistency were shit on so much in F1 back then. We'd be singing many different praises if that wasn't the case tbh.
Looking at alternative history, I have a video suggestion where you look at the world championship standings accounting for their misfortune. I’ve seen many blog posts of some seasons like 2005 or 2012 for example where kimi and Lewis would’ve won those seasons respectively, had everything gone right and bad luck not struck. Just an interesting concept I’d like to see. :)
Or nando would have won 2012 if not for spa
When will people relise that prost is up there with the all time greats
It shows that the modern points system rewards consistency - but it only swaps results when the scores were near ..
I said this before with the halo video, but like those videos are like all things I thought of before and I wanted to know, well made!
Interesting, Prost is incredibly a great driver and this video shows it in some way.
But now, ¿What if Formula 1 had Always used 1950 points system?
Since I was a kid watching the Senna/Prost rivalry I was always a Prost fan. Prost was always the methodical smart pilot, and Senna was always the crazy genius. This just proves my point and how right I was.
Very good video, must have been a lot of work. It would also be interesting to do the reversed thing. Applying the old system on ne newer championships
Amazing!
Could you share these numbers in some digital format?
It would be interesting to make an avg point rank.
Congrats!
very very interesting video
Now do it the other way around. What if f1 always used the points system from the 50's
Dayumm 2008 would still be the exact same wow