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 finale - but how much difference did the scoring cha﷽nges really make?

Here at wuqian0821.com, we have got our calculators out and done our sums to determine what the pecking 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 2010, of course, it was the top ten w🐎ho troubled the scorers, with a greater margin between victory and second place than has been seen for the last eight years. So who benefit♍ted 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 under the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 regulations.

Under both of the previous sco♍ring 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 the 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5最新开奖结果:click here

For the points table under the 10-6-4-3-2-1 format, 168澳洲5最新开奖结果:click here

For the final F1 2010 standings, 168澳洲5最新开奖结果:click here