[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by Mathias

I found that battle fascinating, I have to say.

Interested in this thread because I've done some statistical analysis of the relative performances of Caterham and Marussia in 2013, and I don't think the ultimate outcome of the battle (which amounts to some $13million for the team awarded 10th place and NOTHING AT ALL for the other) is somewhat unfair.

Marussia got 10th place simply as a result of placing 13th at Sepang, a race in which 6 of their competitors retired. Generally speaking, Caterham outperformed Marussia at most of the races - they "won" the new teams battle 11 times to Marussia's 8, and both Caterhams beat both Marussia's 5 times - a feat Marussia never achieved. Furthermore a Pic finished ahead of Gutierrez's Sauber on track at Bahrain and van der Garde finished ahead of Maldonado's Williams at Spa - neither Marussia ever beat anything other than a Caterham, unless it retired.

That said, if you take an average of all of the positions that the Caterhams and the Marussias finished in over the season, it comes to exactly 17.894th for both teams.

Anyway, my point being, that, yes, to a certain extent you have to live with the fact that Marussia finished one race further up the classification than Caterham did, even if that was only the result of the fact that the race in which more non-Caterham/Marussia drivers retired than any other, just happened to be one of the minority of races in which Marussia finished ahead.

But does that single result really mean that Marussia deserve the prize money, or should section 7.1 of the sporting regulations been applied: “Prizes and points awarded for all the positions of competitors who tie, will be added together and shared equally.”

Good post and good points. Ideally, perhaps it should be on the basis of the average finishing position rather than the present best result, but do results really mean count for anything important anything in this day and age.....