What points system in 04????

[deeks6]

Originally posted by RaceTime
You can suggest that, but if the point spread is such that the difference between say, 11th and 10th is only 1 or 2 points, then quite often (and this is what currently happens) a driver will take it easy on the car and not risk damage or being punted out.

RT, are you seriously suggesting that if there was 1 pt for 10th and none for 11th, that the 11th (and, presumably 12th and 13th etc) are going to conserve their car and not go for the position?
Conserve their car for what?
1 point becomes more valuable if you only pay them to 10th (or even less).

[Raglanparade]

I once read someone on an official V8 realease on the website a few years back is the reason that they give points all the way down to 32nd place is to attract sponsors..
Guys like DJR and Morris can go to sponsors and instead of saying we didnt score points in the first 4 rounds, they can say, we scored 34 points in the first 4 rounds.. maybe for a string of 15th places..
basically it was my belief that the points went all the way down to the bottom to ensure the lesser teams got points so the sponsers would be satisfyed and at the end of the day there would be more money in the sport.

i think the points system that i suggested earlier in the forum would be the most appropriate..
the reason i suggested 4 points for the shootout is so that on a saturday, you would see drivers pushing really hard for that 5 points. If you make the pole lap only worth 1 point, then it wont make the drivers be pushing 110%..
make pole worth 4 or 5 points.. then you will have drivers pushing the limits of there cars and more incidents in qualifying... more mixed up grids lead to more passing as the chargers come thru the field at 120% again..

i think only the top 10 should get points at the most
32 points paying positions is ridiculous and if sponsers are gonna be that naive to hear.. "oh yay, we got a point"... maybe forbes and his milk might buy that rubbbish but i think the points need an overhaul..

please TC.. listen to us

-jason

[RaceTime]

What? And have certain race control officials have a heart attack every meeting?

[Raglanparade]

the fans go to the races to see action.. not a procession..
if you entice the drivers to push the boundaries of there macheniery by offering a 5 point pole prize.. you would be bound to see some mixed grids as the some drivers would come to grief trying to get that sweetener...
mixed grids mean that more passing would occur..
there needs to be less points to encourage guys to drive like the stink to get into the top 10..
in other words guys like forbes and romano and noske and tratt and the likes shouldnt be getting any points..

reward those who dare to test the boundaries, not those who turn up.

-jason

[deeks6]

TC once said on V8 Superstars that he personally thought it was not a good system and couldnt see any reason to pay more than 15th place so TC may not be the problem - I suspect that AVESCO is more the problem here, for the reasons that you state (sponsors etc).
You logic isnt bad with the pole but its too much fo something that is not a RACE. Imagine someone winning the title by getting pole every round (65pt) and coming 2nd every round to a guy that wins every round except one DNF. Extreme, I know, but possible when pole is worth a 5th place finish.
Maybe the TEAMS need lobbying also.

[Raglanparade]

well i know it would be bad if a guy won the championship from his pole positions. Maybe in that case you award
25 points for a race win, and 15 for second place. and 10 for third. that way if the guy who gets pole finshes second he doesnt equal the guy who won the race on points.

this system would also reward race wins, and and the shootout would be worth watching.

-jason

[RaceTime]

deeks6 - yes I am seriously suggesting that if the difference between, using your example, 11th place, and 10th place is only 1 point then it will pop up as something to consider as to whether or not the driver in 11th will have a go.

This is exactly the reason there are usually 3, 4, 5 or 6 point gaps from 1st to second.

The stupidity of the whole current system is that you don;t even have to finish to pick up points - as long as you have completed 75% race winners distance - you get points. Now that is complete and utter stupidity!

[Raglanparade]

Well say if you have a race where only 8 guys finish, then only the top 8 should get points..

either way.... the system f1 had for years only had 1 point intervals.. and it worked fine..

i just think we need to entice action on the circuit.. and then with any luck ill get some on the carpark on the way home !!

-jason

[RaceTime]

Well - nearly one point - 10-6-4-3-2-1 - so anyone from 7th down tried to get to 6th but, if they were in 12th, generally the only way of getting into the points was by attrition.

But V8's, because they pay points so far down, it isn't worth pushing it.

[Kerri]

From my experience with points systems, if you put everyones different systems on a piece of paper & compare them, then ask each person to comment on which one they think is the best, everyone will have a different answer.
Although I have only been involved with two categories in 12 years I have noted 7 different points systems including the dropped round i.e. V8's 2003 & every year someone complains that we should run the F1 points, v8 points, Cart points etc etc. So when does it stop.
I think every system has its flaws, if it didn't why would people always want to change them.
My point of view anyway.

[RaceTime]

AT present, when used across full fields of cars, IMHO the Carrera Cup point sore is one of teh most equitable.

It pays for wins and top 10 finishes whilst also providing points well down the field but in a way that says the last 10 or so positins are simply points for having run. From memory, there are 60 points for first with the last 10 or so receiving 1 point each. No points for DNF's.

[Kerri]

Doesn't sound to bad RT

[deeks6]

Originally posted by RaceTime
deeks6 - yes I am seriously suggesting that if the difference between, using your example, 11th place, and 10th place is only 1 point then it will pop up as something to consider as to whether or not the driver in 11th will have a go.

This is exactly the reason there are usually 3, 4, 5 or 6 point gaps from 1st to second.

The stupidity of the whole current system is that you don;t even have to finish to pick up points - as long as you have completed 75% race winners distance - you get points. Now that is complete and utter stupidity!

I think you misunderstood me. I was talking of the situation where points were awarded to only the top 10 finishers...so 10th is worth 1 point but 11th is worth zero.
Agree on the 75% rule too.

[RaceTime]

POssibly have misunderstood you then - for which I apologise.

[Kerri]

I still think points should be paid to last. Even though they may not win, it still makes them think they are part of the Championship. That is from my experiences anyway.
The previous point about being able to present finishing points amounts to sponsors is very true in most categories not just V8's. Again my opinion.

[deeks6]

Absolutely no need for that RT.

What does amaze me is that many of the things that are wrong with the V8SC (points, CPS, formats etc etc) are blatantly obvious to the vast majority of fans (and drivers)... but simply ignored by those who have the power to change.

[deeks6]

Originally posted by Kerri

The previous point about being able to present finishing points amounts to sponsors is very true in most categories not just V8's. Again my opinion.

I have no doubt that this is the reason why it does happen but I am flabbergasted that it holds any water. Now I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but if a driver approached me for sponsorship and his presentation said that he got 432 points for the season, I reckon I "might" just ask how many the winner got.

"Oh, so the champion got 2000 points and you came equal 27th in the championship? Hey , well that just sounds great - how much do you want?"

[Kerri]

Very good point deeks

[Kerri]

What do you think about the dropped round?

[deeks6]

Originally posted by Kerri
What do you think about the dropped round?

Like most other people...it's dumb. But if you have large points paid all the way down the field it can lead to problems, like non-deserved winners.

Kerri, take a look at NASCAR.com site and look at the results from last year. Matt kenseth won ONE race and finished in the top 6 ten or eleven times and won the title. Ryan Newman won ten (yes TEN) races and finished in the top 6 18 times from memory...and he came 8th or 9th in the title. Now THAT is RIDICULOUS!

But that's what our system almost is and last year is a good example. On any fair system, Ambrose would have had the title wrapped up long before the last round but the rule makers are intent on making the title "go to the wire". All it does is promote what RaceTime was saying - drivers cannot risk a DNF (without a dropped round) and the next position is only worth 3 or 6 points more (out of 192!), so they will go into "holding pattern" in a race, destroying the spectacle completely. You even hear them on the radio "Mark, its only 3 points, bring it home.."

IMO, you have to make the points precious AND you have to reward the winner, so that they go for it.

[mjt57]

I had a look at the scoring system. Another convoluted and unnecessarily complex system which rewards mediocrity.

Some reckon that it's good to reward the last place getters. I disagree. It encourages them to cruise around. If there's a cutoff, then they'll be encouraged to do better, particularly mid-fielders.

And what's the point in awarding different races different points? A win's a win, after all. And all competitors are still racing under the same conditions.

[jiminee]

Wait till you see the NASCAR points system for this year then!
Now I may not get this 100% right but I will do my best.
They have a 36 race season and the season is split into 2 parts. The first part consisting of 26 races works as normal. Now after the 26th race, the top ten in the points are then put into their own race for the title. They all start on zero points so basically the championship is decided over the last 10 races of the season but only one of those top 10 drivers can win it.
Does that make any sense, by that I mean they way I have explained it, not their way of doing things, lol.
I cant decide whether I like it or not, from a pure racing sense it it terrible but from an entertainment sense (and thats what matters now) it has its advantages.
It almost reminds me of a footy season, you start with a regular season, then if you make the finals, you can try for the championship.
The only difference is all the guys who didnt make the finals still get to show up and join in.

[deeks6]

Agreed, its a farce. And look at it this way - you could win half those 26 races but have a few DNFs as well...and you won't even make the top 10. That is NOT what we want to see in Australia.

[jiminee]

Deeks I agree with you, but in this day and age of wanting a championship to go down to the last race (for the sake of TV, sponsors, viewers with short attention spans etc) it is not the worst idea I have ever seen. They have also increased the number of points received for winning a race to.
As for seeing it in Australia I dont think it would work, there are simply not enough rounds in the series to justify it.

[Raglanparade]

i think they need to get away from this down to wire championship BS in motorsport. it might bring fans thru the gates.... but... last year in F1... Kimi had the chance to win the title with only one win to MS's 5 or 6..
If the championship is decided with two rounds to go, who would turn up to watch the last two races???

The problem with Motor Sport is that it is driven my money, not sport. I think just as many fans would turn up to a race if they knew Ambrose had made a mistake in the shootout going for those extra 5 championship points, and then had to start at the back of the grid to get up to 10th to get in the points. If there were only 10 points paying positions, then you would see top top 25 drivers who all have a chance of getting in the top 10 fighting tooth and nail for victory. Also, i think double points should be brought back for bathurst.

If sponsers are going to beleive "we got 245 points last year", then maybe it will take a few sponsors to wake up it and maybe then things might change (could Ozemail be setting a trend??)..

Either way, i think just having one long race a weekend (250km-300kms).. and having the top ten getting points

1st - 25 points
2nd - 15 points
3rd - 10 points
4th - 8 points
5th - 6 points
6th - 5 points
7th - 4 points
8th - 3 points
9th - 2 points
10th- 1 point

Pole Position = 5 points

There is a 32 car shootout on the saturday, in order of slowest to fastest of the saturday morning practice session. Same rules as F1.. cars must be in race trim (fuel loads and tires).. You would see the cars on shorter strategys up the front of the shootout and the cars on longer stratgies down the back... Mix up the grids a bit!

I think this is what V8's need to does.. The current points system is too hard to understand. If you only have 25 points a race, then the championship only goes up to 400 points max.. not 3000 points !!!

-jason