Italian Grand Prix 2012, Monza - Race 13/20

FrankJH said:
I would agree with your first point - without a doubt Alonso has benefited.

The Ferrari wasnt as bad as press wanted us to believe, and while FA flattered it slightly - Massa made it look far worse than it ever was too.

I would still say the Ferrari was the best car given all conditions / circumstances & tracks.

(and the new scoring system definitely benefits those who score most frequently even if they rarely win the very big points)
Click to expand...

If it was the best car then they would not be needing others to having problems :) The Ferrari was a dog to drive until Spain, anyone could see that from watching the incar. Since then they have got on top of it and have got to a decent level but never in a position to say they have the best car. Take away the rainy races which negate a poor car somewhat then you can't really be saying Ferrari have had the best car surely?

As I said if it was not for McLaren and Lewis having problems then he would be well ahead IMO.
 
FrankJH said:
(and the new scoring system definitely benefits those who score most frequently even if they rarely win the very big points)
Click to expand...

The new scoring system is spread the same proportionally as the old one, only with a slightly bigger advantage to winners over second place (second being 18 points rather than 20).
 
FrankJH said:
(and the new scoring system definitely benefits those who score most frequently even if they rarely win the very big points)
Click to expand...

Not in Alonsos case as I proved last week. On the old system he would be further ahead than now. Everyone is more consistent and reliable these days so it makes little difference to the old system.
 
Mr Men said:
If it was the best car then they would not be needing others to having problems :) The Ferrari was a dog to drive until Spain, anyone could see that from watching the incar. Since then they have got on top of it and have got to a decent level but never in a position to say they have the best car. Take away the rainy races which negate a poor car somewhat then you can't really be saying Ferrari have had the best car surely?

As I said if it was not for McLaren and Lewis having problems then he would be well ahead IMO.
Click to expand...

I never said it was the best car outright, but ON AVERAGE across all circuits, all weather, and reliability it IS the best

You cant just ignore race results just because they were rainy. dont get me wrong outright performance / speed is dented somewhat in the rain, but the way the chamionship stands currently is because of all the conditions at those races, and everything else besides. If it had been sunnier a few times more, possibly alonso wouldnt be leading in such a commmanding manner but we have no way of quantifying that

dannyjo22 said:
Not in Alonsos case as I proved last week. On the old system he would be further ahead than now. Everyone is more consistent and reliable these days so it makes little difference to the old system.
Click to expand...

As every single commentator has said at least once most weekends that the new scoring system benefits those who are consistant, I guess they must all be wrong

Skeeter said:
The new scoring system is spread the same proportionally as the old one, only with a slightly bigger advantage to winners over second place (second being 18 points rather than 20).
Click to expand...

Im not 100% convinced we are talking exactly the same thing, but even proportionally its different (unless Im misunderstanding you completely)

Compare 3 wins / 3 seconds in the old to new systems for example and the the old system has a bigger gap (just over a race win (with a dnf), compared to just under a race win for the new scoring system.

The new system benefits those who can score in every race, but not win - compared to those who win a few times but dont always finish (look at Lewis compared to Kimi right now)
 
Last edited:
And you just can't ignore McLaren have messed up, and Lewis has had a lot of DNF's.

It's a bit like 2010, Alonso nearly won the title thanks to Red Bull being so fragile.

I can sense a change in tact towards Ferrari on here, they were the laughing stock, but now it looks like Alonso might win and suddenly oh they have the best car appears ;) I guess its just hard for some to accept. You just don't want to admit Jenson has been in the best car and is so far behind basically.
 
Mr Men said:
And you just can't ignore McLaren have messed up, and Lewis has had a lot of DNF's.

It's a bit like 2010, Alonso nearly won the title thanks to Red Bull being so fragile.

I can sense a change in tact towards Ferrari on here, they were the laughing stock, but now it looks like Alonso might win and suddenly oh they have the best car appears ;) I guess its just hard for some to accept. You just don't want to admit Jenson has been in the best car and is so far behind basically.
Click to expand...

I hate to say it, but I agree with Mr. Men.

Alonso is doing very well but he is flattering that Ferrari. You only have to look at how poorly Massa is doing (without the usual Massa bias) to see that on paper it's not a championship winning car. The difference is Alonso is a championship winning driver and he's been very consistent.

Also, bear in mind that two of the three races Alonso won, Hamilton didn't score any points and he also received a penalty in Spain after qualifying on pole which meant he finished 8th (Alonso wen't on to get 2nd place).

The way I see it, Hamilton's points score do not reflect the capability of the car or the driver. Alonso's points score doesn't reflect the capability of the car, but is a testament to him as a driver.
 
FrankJH said:
Im not 100% convinced we are talking exactly the same thing, but even proportionally its different (unless Im misunderstanding you completely)

Compare 3 wins / 3 seconds in the old to new systems for example and the the old system has a bigger gap (just over a race win (with a dnf), compared to just under a race win for the new scoring system.

The new system benefits those who can score in every race, but not win - compared to those who win a few times but dont always finish (look at Lewis compared to Kimi right now)
Click to expand...

The old system (10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1) means 3 wins is worth 30, and 3 seconds is worth 24, with a gap of 6, so a 3rd place. The new system (25, 18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1) means 3 wins is 75 points while 3 seconds is 54, so a gap of 21 points, or just over a 2nd place. The current system has a larger gap than the old system. Thats the only real difference through.

When they moved to the new system in 2010 then took the current points, multiplied them all by 2.5x, rounded a few up or down to smooth out the numbers and allow them to stick 2 more in the bottom (the main aim for the new points system was to allow points down to 10th with the larger grids), and then decided they wanted to give more points for a win so dropped the second place from 20 to 18 points.
 
Mr Men said:
And you just can't ignore McLaren have messed up, and Lewis has had a lot of DNF's.

It's a bit like 2010, Alonso nearly won the title thanks to Red Bull being so fragile.

I can sense a change in tact towards Ferrari on here, they were the laughing stock, but now it looks like Alonso might win and suddenly oh they have the best car appears ;) I guess its just hard for some to accept. You just don't want to admit Jenson has been in the best car and is so far behind basically.
Click to expand...

Alonso is doing really great, and is clearly the most consistent driver so far of the season. However 1) the Ferrari is not as bad as everyone makes out, it is at least the 2nd or 3rd best car, and 2) Alonso opened up a points lead mainly due to epic failures by McLaren in the early part of the season.

Personally I think the McLaren has been the best car all year!
 
FrankJH said:
As every single commentator has said at least once most weekends that the new scoring system benefits those who are consistant, I guess they must all be wrong
Click to expand...

Yes they are, they should do the math. I did and on the old system Alonso was more than a win in the lead and on the new system he wasn't. On the old system he would be better off. Just because a commentator says something doesn't mean it's 100% accurate does it?

Heres the post accurate as of the 3rd september. All across the board there would be little change...

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=22692359&postcount=956
 
Yep what dannyjo said. The new scoring system is almost (as close as they could get with whole numbers) the same spread as before, but with a minor tweak that gives a 1st place a bigger difference over 2nd.

The current scoring does not reward consistency more than wins compared to the last system.

Edit: Hang on, which 'old' scoring system are we talking about? The 10-8 system makes a 2nd place worth 80% of a win, while the 10-6 system is 60%. The current system is 72%, so pretty much smack bang in the middle. If Frank is talking about the 10-6 system then he is right. But that system hasn't been used since what, 2004?
 
Last edited:
Skeeter said:
Edit: Hang on, which 'old' scoring system are we talking about? The 10-8 system makes a 2nd place worth 80% of a win, while the 10-6 system is 60%. The current system is 72%, so pretty much smack bang in the middle. If Frank is talking about the 10-6 system then he is right. But that system hasn't been used since what, 2004?
Click to expand...

Yeah I did it on the 10-6 system as that was the discussion at the time. Even then Alonso would have been worse off than the new system. At a guess without doing the math I'd say the fact that the old 10-6 system only rewarded points for 6 places makes the requirement for consistency paramount in that scoring system?

The original point that led me to add that up, was Alonso was benefitting from the new points system rewarding consistency more than the old 10-6 system. Doing the math that wasn't true, for this year so far. Of course I'm not counting back them all :D

As most of the drivers are still in their current table position I'd say that's a good indicator that other there isn't that much difference in reward only that they give points back to 10th :)

Anyway it was only a bit of fun ;)
 
Skeeter said:
The old system (10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1) means 3 wins is worth 30, and 3 seconds is worth 24, with a gap of 6, so a 3rd place. The new system (25, 18, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1) means 3 wins is 75 points while 3 seconds is 54, so a gap of 21 points, or just over a 2nd place. The current system has a larger gap than the old system. Thats the only real difference through.

When they moved to the new system in 2010 then took the current points, multiplied them all by 2.5x, rounded a few up or down to smooth out the numbers and allow them to stick 2 more in the bottom (the main aim for the new points system was to allow points down to 10th with the larger grids), and then decided they wanted to give more points for a win so dropped the second place from 20 to 18 points.
Click to expand...

maybe I lost a few years - I was thinking it went 10, 6, 4., 3, 2, 1 :)

(which I think would dramatically change the "consistancy" point I was trying to make)

Thats the "old" scoring I was remembering - sorry guys
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom