Points

[Wheels]

Here are a couple of different point formats I’ve been playing with. The first one uses increasing returns as a way to give a spread between the placing’s by doubling the points but you only get points down to position 10 (512 for 1st/256 for 2nd/128 for 3rd and so on). I have made this give points for each race and not just overall round points as it is to reward a race win/top 10 position.

Marcos Ambrose 2184
Jason Bright 1473
Rick Kelly 1160
Todd Kelly 1026
Steven Richards 976
Greg Murphy 802
Russell Ingall 688
Craig Lowndes 294
Paul Radisich 138
Garth Tander 133
Paul Weel 132
Jason Bargwanna 52
John Bowe 39
Max Wilson 34
Steven Johnson 24
Craig Baird 20
Mark Skaife 18
Paul Morris 16
Jason Richards 8
Paul Dumbrell 4
Mark Winterbottom 1
Glenn Seton 1

For something completely different, I took an idea from yachting where they work on a reverse points system, i.e. the lowest score is the winner (1 for 1st / 2 for 2nd /13 for 13th and so on). This is how it looks round by round. Top 22 only, as above.

Steven Richards 12
Marcos Ambrose 14
Greg Murphy 18
Rick Kelly 20
Jason Bright 29
Russell Ingall 37
John Bowe 45
Todd Kelly 47
Garth Tander 51
Paul Weel 54
Steven Johnson 54
Craig Baird 55
Craig Lowndes 55
Jason Bargwanna 56
Paul Radisich 57
Mark Skaife 61
Paul Morris 63
Glenn Seton 69
Max Wilson 69
Mark Winterbottom 69
Simon Wills 72
David Besnard 77

And race by race (22 again)

Marcos Ambrose 34
Steven Richards 34
Greg Murphy 47
Rick Kelly 63
Jason Bright 65
Russell Ingall 86
John Bowe 106
Todd Kelly 106
Paul Weel 117
Paul Radisich 133
Steven Johnson 138
Craig Lowndes 142
Garth Tander 143
Mark Skaife 143
Jason Bargwanna 146
Craig Baird 150
Mark Winterbottom 161
Paul Morris 167
Glenn Seton 168
Max Wilson 169
Simon Wills 173
Brad Jones 176

I like the way the increasing returns format gives race winners a boost but also keeps a consistent performer in the running as well. You’ll probably notice that the four round winners make up the top four, with podium finishers also getting more recognition for higher placings. I am still working out the lower order problems.

Comments, tweaks or suggestions?

P.S. There may be slight errors but nothing too major I think.

[Morris 1100]

If you want to improve the racing then give one point for first and no other points. If you want to score a point then you have to win.

We are starting to get the situation where someone is going to settle for a safe second at Bathurst rather then having a go for a win.

[paydirt]

The 'increasing returns' scenario is obviously well thought out, but to the casual observer , the points table could suggest that the guy in first place has an unassailable lead...

That's what they were trying to avoid when they introduced the drop-worst-round system.

[deeks6]

Don't start me again...

make it 10-6-4-3-2-1 - if you want to get points and win the Title, then get up the pointy end!

[eduardo1]

The thing I hate most about the current points is the high numbers.
I'm sorry, but if the fan on the hill needs a calculator to work out the change in points (192 for 1st!!!) then there's something wrong.
25 for 1st should be the maximum. I came up with one that went down to 20th.
1-25, 2-22, 3-20, 4-18, 5-16, 6-15, 7-14, 8-13, 9-12, 10-11, 11-10, 12-9, 13-8, 14-7, 15-6, 16-5, 17-4, 18-3, 19-2, 20-1

If you're not in the top 20 then you shouldn't be getting points.
My preference is that these are Round points. So for the multiple race rounds you have nominal points to determine the placings of each round, which are then allocated those points. That why everyone can do a quick mental calculation to see where someone needs to finish in the round to win.

[SRabbit]

I'm with deeks - that looks like the F1 points system up until 2002 where points are like gold. Just have to finish to get some in our game - not good enough.

[DarthFalcon]

I think the pre 2002 F1 system is a good one to adopt.

Points start to mean something. Fans can calculate it sitting trackside with a beer, rather than at a computer with a spreadsheet!

A 10-6-4-3-2-1 race-by-race system would ensure lots of excitement at every race during the season.

The current 'everybody wins a prize' point format is pretty silly. I think it's got more to do with big numbers and teams being able to go to potential sponsors saying, "we collected 80 points last year!", and sponors say, "Wow 80 points, that would have you on top of the AFL ladder - you must be a good team!"

[Onlooker]

How about
Two points for pole,
a point for being in the shoot out,
a point for leading a lap and two for the most laps led. That way captian consistancy can cruise along for the scraps but those that are willing to have a go are able to create a gap for when things don't go to plan and they "leave the road" and regain losing many positions and points.

[Mattracer]

I'm not sure about a point for most laps led, but if so much credence is given to the shootout, then a point for the pole under that system would be worth the effort.

The F1 system is also the most suitable for the series. Trundling around at the back is meaningless for points because the fringe dwellers who often score those sort of points are never going to win the championship anyway and the heavy hitters who find themselves down there once in a blue moon are already struggling for the weekend and for the most part can't do much passing anyway.

[peckstar]

i think the GP format is very ordinary

why shaould only 6 cars get points

i agree you shouldnt need a calculator to work out points and that 192 is a stupid number

i also think you should get points for the round win and not based on races

in the four rounds this year only two drivers have got maximum points, that is wrong

[Mattracer]

The first 8 cars get points under the GP system.
The solution to the round winner/winner of three races is have one race for each round but good old facilites ie pitlane issues get in the way of that.

[peckstar]

i did mean the old system as had been mentioned

but i think eight is not enough either (maybe in gp's where thats about what finishes)

i like the idea that if there are races in the round then the points for the races add up and that decides the round winner who gets maximum points

i dont overly care if 32nd gets points, but if they do it should hardly be any and the gaps should be minor not like now where the gap is the same as at the top

[racer69]

If your not up near the front why should you score points? Just to please sponsors os no excuse. Are they going to care if you say you have 500 points, yet are running 30th in the championship?

The 'old' F1 system is probably the go.

And none of this getting points for pole, laps led etc.... motor racing is about winning the race, nothing else. Getting pole and leading the most laps are just about going after the win. Plus, on the points side, it gets too variable and confusing.

Back when the Peter Jackson Dash counted for points, Brock's only chance of staying in the points race required him winning 2 races, then making sure he drew 6th in the draw for the PJ Dash starting positions, winning the dash and getting all of the passing points

[peckstar]

why not get points when you are at the back, it matters to no one apart from yourself and all those at the back of the field

plus currently (but open to legal challenge)if you finish below 30th in the championship then you have to improve or you lose your franchise, how will we know who finish 30th or below