Championship positions after the Belgian GP

Lewis Hamilton, McLaren-Mercedes, Spa-Francorchamps, 2007 | Daimler ChryslerLewis Hamilton holds onto a tiny lead in the drivers’ championship as Ferrari clinch the constructors’ title.

Kimi Raikkonen is 13 points behind and needs a slice of luck to overhaul both the McLarens if their reliability continues. Felipe Massa, 20 points behind, may have to give up on his world title dreams until next year.

Full points tables below.

Drivers’ championship

1. Lewis Hamilton 97
2. Fernando Alonso 95
3. Kimi Raikkonen 84
4. Felipe Massa 77
5. Nick Heidfeld 56
6. Robert Kubica 33
7. Heikki Kovalainen 22
8. Giancarlo Fisichella 17
9. Nico Rosberg 15
10. Alexander Wurz 13
11. Mark Webber 10
12. David Coulthard 8
13. Jarno Trulli 7
14. Ralf Schumacher 5
15. Takuma Sato 4
16. Jenson Button 2
17. Sebastian Vettel 1

Constructors’ championship

1. Ferrari 161*
2. BMW 90
3. Renault 39
4. Williams 28
5. Red Bull 18
6. Toyota 12
7. Super Aguri 4
8. Honda 2

Ferrari are 2007 constructors’ champions.

*McLaren were excluded from the 2007 constructors’ championship after the Italian Grand Prix. At that time they had 166 points, plus a potential further 15 pending the outcome of an appeal regarding the controversy in qualifying at the Hungarian Grand Prix.

Photo: Daimler Chrysler

Related links

Tags: / / / /

Advert | Go Ad-free

10 comments on Championship positions after the Belgian GP

  1. Number 38 said on 16th September 2007, 17:53

    ANOTHER race won from pole, that’s 10 of 14 so far, NO PASSING to speak of, well maybe Sato doing his outside maneuver on Button. This one was the MOST boring F1 race in years.

  2. William Wilgus said on 17th September 2007, 3:32

    Discard the silly points scheme, and you have not only a championship more in line with the thought `winner’, you also have a more wide open race to the finish this year: 4 drivers versus 2&1/2! Here’s what the current line-up would look like (and why):

    Driver 1sts 2nds 3rds 4ths 5ths 6ths 7ths 8ths Points
    Alonso 4 3 3 1 1 0 2 0 95
    Raiken 4 2 3 1 1 0 0 1 84
    Hamil 3 5 3 1 0 0 0 0 97
    Massa 3 3 2 0 2 1 0 0 77
    Heidfel 0 1 1 5 2 3 0 0 56
    Wurz 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 13
    Webbe 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 10
    Kubica 0 0 0 3 3 1 1 1 33
    Fisiche 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 2 17
    Kovala 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 4 22
    Coutha 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 8
    Rosber 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 15
    Trulli 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 7
    Schuma 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 5
    Sato 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4
    Button 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
    Vettel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

  3. Nathan Jones said on 17th September 2007, 3:56

    thats the system discussed on here earlier this yr!
    i like it as it’s all about winning and finishing 3rd for example isnt important so trying to b 2nd for example isn’t as risky!
    hamo would b strong as his 2nds hold him in good stead should he tie on victories with somebody

  4. While that system better reflects the McLaren/Ferrari drivers performances it instead skews the results further down. For example Wurz with just 3 points finishes ends up much higher than Kovalainen with 10 finishes and Rosberg with 6.

  5. Robert McKay said on 17th September 2007, 15:42

    “Kimi Raikkonen is 13 points behind and needs a slice of luck to overhaul both the McLarens if their reliability continues.”

    No, he doesn’t. I hope Mclaren are paying careful attention. Another three results like Belgium (i.e. Raikkonen-Massa-Alonso-Hamilton) gives Kimi the title. If Ferrari keep 1-2ing, which is definitely possible, then Lewis has to beat Alonso all three times to hand onto the WDC by a single point, which seems unlikely, and of course Kimi would have more wins if Hamilton finished level (by beating Alonso to third just once). Now that Massa is definitely rear-gunner, what will screw Mclaren is Alonso and Hamilton taking points off each other.

    Of course I’m sure reliability/crashes might change things, but Mclaren have to be mindful that if they don’t beat at least one Ferrari then they can still easily lose this title without any reliability issues at all.

  6. True, but based on their performances over the year as a whole, Raikkonen would expect to need some help. After all McLaren were 1-2 in Monza and Ferrari apparently couldn’t do anything to stop them.

    And Ferrari haven’t accepted that Massa is the rear-gunner yet – not publicly anyway.

  7. William Wilgus said on 17th September 2007, 18:13

    Magnus, it only `skews’ the results if you consider that consistency, rather than winning, counts. Under the points system, it’s conceivable that a driver that placed second in every race—never winning—could win the championship. 17 x 8 = 136 points. In order to be beaten in the championship, a driver would have to win 9 races and place 3rd in the remaining 8. 9 x 10 = 90 + 8 x 6 = 48 = 138 points. True, a driver placing 2nd in all races is unlikely—but still possible. Would you like to have a F-1 champ that won NO races?

    Magnus Says:
    While that system better reflects the McLaren/Ferrari drivers performances it instead skews the results further down. For example Wurz with just 3 points finishes ends up much higher than Kovalainen with 10 finishes and Rosberg with 6.

  8. William: Of course winning should count more than it does today but there has to be some balance. To counter your example, another driver with 1 win and 16 DNF’s would beat that 2nd place guy. ;) But that’s not very likely either and for the top teams this type of ranking would probably work, since we can count on those drivers finishing high up regularly.

    At the lower end though it’s different. One lucky podium due to safety cars etc could easily be all that’s needed to finish best of the rest when you have 2 top teams as dominant as this year.

    Keith: I agree, Ferrari 1-2’s probably isn’t as likely as some like to believe. After all, everyone thought Ferrari would be dominant at Monza after their performance in Turkey but look how that turned out.

    What seems more and more likely though is Alonso and Hamilton taking each other out at the start.

  9. William Wilgus said on 17th September 2007, 20:51

    Magnus: I see your point and agree that under `my’ system, a driver with a low number of wins could become champion. However, a driver with only 1 win and 16 DNFs would not become champ because at least one driver would have (at least)one win and less than 16 DNFs.

  10. Robert McKay said on 18th September 2007, 9:52

    I’m not saying it’s definite that Ferrari will get three 1-2’s. I’m just saying that Mclaren unreliability/crashes is not a requirement for a Ferrari WDC win.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.