V8's Pointscoring system

[frederick]

I was watching the V8 superstars forum on Southern Cross network in Launceston today and they did a "nine" ....they repeated a whole segment between ads.....after all the years of practise you'd think that they would have got this TV broadcasting thing down pat........not as if its rocket science

anyway, I digress, one topic was raised concerning the pointscoring system.....I favour the CART method with points paying down to 15th and a point for Pole with another point for FTD anyone else have a thought on this??

[Crash Test]

Welcome aboard Frederick!

It all depends- the current system really does reward winning, and that's fine for the championship, so long as there are multiple winners. I think CART goes down to 12th, which is fine for them having 18-25 starters, but in V8s you have 32+ starters, so a lot of people are going to miss out.

But I guess you could argue the fors and againts of any point system all day long...

[RaceTime]

So what if some drivers miss out? Isn't the object of a championship to find the most consistent performer? And would that person usually befound at the tail end of a field?

frederick - personally - no never - no points for pole and anything other than race positions. Why? Too bloody complicated for the average person to work out at the race track. These extra points also get 'forgotten' (unintentially)

However, IMHO, points should NOT go beyond 15th place, preferably 10th or 12 th at the most. An F1 style 10-6-4-3-2-1 is, again IMHO, the best system to use regardless of field size.

[mac]

The absolute FIRST thing that should happen with the point system is the removal of double points rounds. There is no reason why these races should be worth double. Particularly when co-drivers are thrown in. At Adelaide, yeah, have standard points for both races and keep the races separate (in a Superbike manner), but on the whole, double points rounds stink.

I think a CART-style system would be best.

Welcome frederick!

[rocket]

definately get rid of the double points
the worst thing with adelaide is the winner only comes from the second race even if they dont finnish the first

[The Tool Man]

Yeah Im for aboloshing Double Points thats the first place to start. From there I don't know where to go, I agree with CT in saying you could argue the For and Against of all systems all day long.

Its a hard one and I sympathise with those having to make the decision.

[racer69]

Same points for every race.

Points down to 15th maximum, preferrebly 10 or 12. Why not use a system something like 20-16-13-11-9-7-5-3-2-1? no points for qualifying, fastest lap etc.. for the same reason Racetime said, it's too confusing.

[Morris 1100]

Score one point for winning.
no points for anything else.
Who cares who came second!

[The Tool Man]

Originally posted by racer69
Same points for every race.

Points down to 15th maximum, preferrebly 10 or 12. Why not use a system something like 20-16-13-11-9-7-5-3-2-1? no points for qualifying, fastest lap etc.. for the same reason Racetime said, it's too confusing.

Yeah thats it - I Like that one

[Crash Test]

Originally posted by Morris 1100
Score one point for winning.
no points for anything else.
Who cares who came second!

Let's figure this out-
6 Skaife
2 Bright
0.5 Besnard
0.5 Wills

[RaceTime]

Crash - maybe this is really the answer.

Instead of double points for enduros, score half points - half to each driver.

That would soon sort things out.

Or if you really want to be confusing, score based on number of laps driven.

Eg - Bathurst - 161 laps. Skaife drive 102, Bright 59 - if 320 points on offer, Skaife gets 202.7 points whilst Bright only gets 117.267.

Now THIS would confuse poor old Barry Oliver no end

[silvervsix]

No double points and less points should be on offer instead of the hundreds at the moment. A case for double points can be scene at Canberra with Greg Murphy didn't finish the first two races and finished fourth in the third and was in the top five for the day that is just full of BS.

[Crash Test]

Originally posted by RaceTime
Crash - maybe this is really the answer...

Now THIS would confuse poor old Barry Oliver no end

Heheh, for the 500 we stuffed Stats boy coke drinker Mark Jones in the commentary box with an abacus, and he fed stat after stat to Barry, although I don't know how Mark would handle fractions

I'd like to see someone win the title by 0.7 to 0.6

[woodbine]

Points down to 15th maximum, preferrebly 10 or 12. Why not use a system something like 20-16-13-11-9-7-5-3-2-1? no points for qualifying, fastest lap etc.. for the same reason Racetime said, it's too confusing

I'd make the gap to 1st a bit bigger and go for something like 20-15-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1