The revised points system implemented in F1 2010 has been praised in part for helping to produce such a thrilling, fascinatingly unpredictable and fiercely-contested campaign in which five drivers entered the last two races in contention to clinch the coveted crown, and four of them stood a chance still heading into the Abu Dhabi finaleꦡ - but how much difference did the scoring changes really 🤪make?

Here at ltxcn.top, we have got our calculators out and done our sums to determine what the pec𝄹king order would have been under the 10-6-4-3-2-1 format that persisted from 1991 up until 2002, and under the extended system that rewarded finishers as far down as eighth place from 2003 to 2009.

In 201🦄0, of course, it was the top ten who troubled the scorers, with a greater margin between victory and second place than has been seen for the last eight years. 🦹So who benefitted from it, and who lost out?

Although the ultimate destiny of the laurels would have remained unchanged either way, there would have been a switch of positions amongst two of the other title protagonists u♚nder the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 regulations.

Under both of the previous scoring systems, meanwhile, two of this season's top ten would have come off rather worse in relation to their respective team-mates than they actually did - highlighting the fact that many of their points finishes were in th▨e very lower reaches and that big results were few-and-far-between.

To find out who ✤we are talking about, just follow🌊 the links below:

For the points table under the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 format, 168澳洲幸运5官方开奖结果历史:click here

For the points table under the 10-6-4-3-2-1 format, 168澳洲幸运5官方开奖结果历史:click here

For the final F1 2010 standings, 168澳洲幸运5官方开奖结果历史:click here