Rule change question

westipton

westipton

Well-known member
I just reviewed again the rule change proposals before the IRDC voting later this week, and something caught my eye that I had not seen previously.
Proposal #7, by IRDC, changes the point structure for any cars finishing below 18th, giving all cars below that 4 points. But, the line item for 'DNF = 3 points' has been lined out. This implies to me that cars will now get points based on the number in class. If my class has 5 entries and I DNF, I will now receive 18 points instead of 3, am I reading that correctly?
If so, that means that any driver who breaks, makes a driving error or fails to take the checkered for any reason will still be rewarded high points. If a certain driver knows he isn't competitive in his or her class, (or worse yet knows that their car is not race ready), can simply take the green, do a lap and park it, while receiving only one point less than the driver who ran the whole 30 minutes and finished 4th.
If I am reading this right, then it will open a huge can of issues while tearing down a proven system that rewards preparation and driving, and that would be a real shame. This proposal needs to be scrutinized and discussed very carefully at both the club and contest board level. I rarely vote against my own club, but this rule makes no sense and appears to reward drivers who have not earned the points that will be given to them under this proposal.
 
For full disclosure, I authored this proposed rule change this year. While I am the author, it wasn't my idea, this is simply because I don't mind taking the time to put pen to paper. I support the proposal, and I am not alone. This rule change proposal has wide support by many people that might surprise, this is the fourth year that this proposal has been voted on at IRDC after being proposed by respected contributing members of Conference, and the second year it has passed the IRDC primary.

For what it's worth, there is no change to the points awarded to 18th and below.

There is a change in the criteria determining how points are awarded.

It really boils down to a person's perspective and philosophy, whether they feel that in order for a person to earn points they should have to meet the current rule, or in the case of the proposal, whether other factors have merit and value, and that they should not be punished for things out of their control causing them to fail to meet the rule as it is currently written.

You are correct in reading the proposed rule, that if passed, would award 5th place points to someone with 5 cars in their class, even if they don't complete half the distance, or take the checkers.

The system we now have, does indeed reward preparation and driving. But that's all.

It does not recognize the financial investments that people make, from buying a race car in the first place, to preparing it to the best of their ability and budget. It doesn't reward the time that people take to do this, the time they take off work to travel to and from races, and maybe even shifts off a weekend job. It doesn't reward the money they spend to travel to races, the entry fees they pay, and on and on. It doesn't reward this, and more, which is what really supports Conference and makes it possible for us all to enjoy this sport.

What the current system does do is penalize people for factors outside of their control, like punctures. A flat tire is something that no amount of prep in the world can prevent. It penalizes people for being on the receiving end of "racing incidents" through no fault of their own. It penalizes people that have something break, like a drive line. Are you going to suggest that we should all have our drivelines magnafluxed all the time?

Giving someone points for starting a race, if that's the simplistic view, is what this system will do. In my view, we should be encouraging participation, not finding ways to eliminate it.

Most people don't run every race, most people don't even run enough races to qualify for a championship. Many people do pick and choose a few races a year, because of budget, time off work, or whatever reason. These people don't have a shot at a championship anyway, so there will be absolutely no impact to them or anyone's championship if the way points are awarded is changed.

Then there are some people that scratch and claw their way to being able to run the minimum number of races to qualify for a championship. Maybe there are a few people like this in a particular class, so it's more interesting to race for a championship. The problem is, if they have a single problem that causes them to not finish, they get a DNF and 3 points, and now they are out of the overall points with no chance to recover.

This current philosophy about what a finish is, or how it's defined relative to awarding points, seems to be in direct contradiction to the uncommon spirit of camaraderie and sportsmanship that is plainly obvious in any Conference paddock, that we racers in Conference have an abundance of, the thing that makes us special and sets us apart from other sanctioning bodies. It's what makes a family.

It seems strange that we are all so willing to work on each other's cars, to loan or just plain give away parts, to loan or gift money, to feed each other, to share adult beverages, to tell stories about how good we were, and yet, we aren't willing to sport someone some points to keep them in the game.

I have heard of numerous circumstances where a guy was running for a championship against another guy, it's neck and neck and they're loving it. Then one of them DNFs, and because there are only so many races in the budget, it's now hopeless and they're done for the year. Instead of recognizing the effort it took to get to the starting line, and keeping them in the game. So now instead of having them come out to another race and supporting Conference, or maybe even coming to an extra race they hadn't planned to because they're still in a championship battle, they stay home.

I did an analysis of the effect of this rule on several championship battles, and the predominant outcome was no change. There were some cases where the championship would have gone the other way, but I have to believe we would all rather race it out on the track, not in the shop back at home.

Now, if someone wants to show up, do one lap and retire, and collect a championship, I think everyone is going to see right through that and how cheesy they are, and they can look at themselves in the mirror and know it's an illegitimate prize. I really don't think that's going to happen, but if it does I really don't really care about that.

That's my two cents and more.

Please vote to support this rule change proposal. If it does pass, it is not the end of the world. We may even find that it works well and promotes more entries, or keeps people coming out because they still have a reason to. On the other hand, if we don't like it, it can just as easily be changed back next year by the democratic process.
 
Last edited:
I could care less about your driveline analogy, but would definitely suggest that we are a racing organization Randy, not a charitable one. I would personally be quite offended if a competitor who completes one or two laps receives maybe only 1 or 2 points less than me when I actually completed the race. We both paid the same to enter, and all of the other expenses that go with that event, but I basically gain no advantage over the car that failed to finish. This is called racing by the way, so please, everyone reading this keep that in mind as you consider your vote. If it had been written with more than 3 points for a DNF, but only half or less of the points earned by cars in class that finished it might have been a workable proposal. As it stands it 'rewards' bad luck and/or bad prep and 'penalizes' those who race and actually finish. Racing is after all a combination of prep, driving ability, and yes, luck. If I were to lose a championship or a top 5 season finish to a fellow competitor who continually received basically the same points as me in spite of his inability to finish races I would be very unhappy. I would also have to reconsider spending that amount of money in the future, and my involvement would undoubtedly go down because of this proposed system. Handing drivers points they have not earned on track is not what racing is all about, and it will not help our sport at all. It may however attract people who aren't competitive or will actually do a few laps and then pull off and walk away with all of those points we will be giving them, but that is when the racing as we know it will stop. Is that the direction we want to take this organization?
Those who support all of the tracks have a great opportunity to finish in the points, which is why the current points system was adopted years ago. Those who seldom race will get no advantage either way, so what's the point? We continue to have drivers running in very low subscribed classes who have numerous championship trophies on their mantle, and this proposal will make it even easier for those people to go collect more of them. A championship or season podium is not supposed to be easy, nor cheap. It IS supposed to be earned by that elusive combo of elements like prep, luck, travel, support of all Conference tracks and the acceptance of both the highs and lows that racing offers to us all.
Please consider the impact this will have on Conference, and vote no on this proposal.
 
It's interesting that the championship winning drivers that I talked to this year all support the proposal. I guess their esprit de corp doesn't end when the green flag drops.

And for what it's worth, the largest racing organization in the world uses the proposed system.
 
How, in any way of thinking, can awarding points for people who pay entry fees, show up and support Conference races, and then get a puncture during a race be called "charity"?????

Lets be clear about this - nobody is suggesting that we award points out of "charity", and we ARE a racing organization - so lets incent people to come out and race with us. That is EXACTLY the intent of this rule change.

Perhaps an example would be useful -

Ten legal cars show up for an "ABC" class race. Two of those cars are Racer X and Racer Z. Both are excellent fellows who support their member clubs and ICSCC by paying $275 dollars in entry fees and adding another $20 bucks to the worker fund to support our brave and loyal volunteers. Both have invested untold sums of money and hours of loving care preparing their completely legal "ABC" class cars so they can come out and enjoy the excitement and comraderie of competing in their class with hopes of stringing enough good finishes together to win the coveted "ABC" class championship. In their race the 10 competitors battle fiercely, but cleanly until late in the race when the leader, Racer X, runs over a self tapping screw that had earlier been holding the bumper cover on a car in the previous group but at some point found it's way onto the track. Midway through the last lap Racer X rolls to a stop on the backstraight with a flat and shredded tire while Racer Z goes on to win the race.

Racer Z collects the 25 points awarded to the winner and although he would have preferred to get that win without the intervention of his competitor's misfortune, probably feels happy and understands that racing sometimes takes a little luck.

Racer X gets 3 points for a DNF and feels like he invested just as much time, money, support and friendship as everyone else did but got not only unlucky but outright punished without having really done anything wrong. Unfortunately, that punishment isn't just for that race either - barring hoping for bad luck for his competitors (which he really doesn't want to do) he now cannot really compete on an equal footing for a season points championship either. His incentive for showing up for more races over the course of the year is reduced, and if he doesn't show up maybe some of his competitors who enjoy racing with him don't feel as compelled to show up either. Bad for Conference, bad for the member clubs who put on races, bad for the individual racers.

What this rule change is intended to do is make the "punishment" for racers who pay their entry fees, prep and bring their cars to races, share their week-ends with their Conference family, and take the green flag for races a wee bit more fair. In the example above it would mean awarding Racer X 10th place points instead of a DNF which is punishment enough but doesn't destroy the rest of the season.

As for being a RACING organization, it means that drivers who consistently finish well will still be rewarded by winning championships and ends excessive benefit from your competitors misfortune. It will definitely mean that Chamionships will be closer over the course of the year and more will be decided in the last weeks of the season. This should give more drivers an incentive to keep coming out if they have a chance of winning one, should make winning one more difficult and thereby more valuable, and make it much more exciting for friends and spectators to watch.

And lest we forget, lets go back to our scenario - perhaps because there is only one lap to go, Racer X tries to finish that race with his shredded tire because he knows that a DNF will pretty much put him out of the points race. Limping around, if he can make it to the checkers, will at least get him 10th place points. That leaves him weaving dangerously down the back straight at a reduced speed among cars trying to compete for those final finishing positions on the last lap. This insures at best that those cars will be under yellow or white flags for some portion of their last lap - in other words NOT racing, or at worst trying to race around an unpredictable, dangerous, and underspeed car potentially leading to a serious incident. Under the proposed points revision Racer X could immediately take the car to a safe area secure in the knowledge that last place points were already his without endangering himself and his fellow racers.

Charity would be awarding points to drivers lottery style, without them having to show up at races. Under this rule change no one would benefit that doesn't pay a race entry, prep and bring a car that will pass tech, and complete the pace lap and take the green flag to start the race. Frankly, if someone wants to do all that and then pull off after one lap for last place points at every race of the year I have absolutely no problem with it. They are financially supporting Conference and adding almost no insurance liability ot our races. I fail to see the downside.

Don't try to make this proposal something it is not. Most drivers tend to like it once they fully understand it. The main disagreement it has met is that it is a change and some people just like things to stay the same.

This proposal enhances competition, enhances participation, and enhances safety - what is there not to like?
 
Last edited:
Wes - I wish you would rethink this. Everything you said about a Conference Championship is true - as you stated:

"It IS supposed to be earned by that elusive combo of elements like prep, luck, travel, support of all Conference tracks and the acceptance of both the highs and lows that racing offers to us all."

The proposed system actually rewards each and every one of your elements just as much, and in some cases more than the exisiting system. Championships will actually be harder to win rather than easier. It will put an even higher emphasis on prep and high finishes. It means that success will be described as beating our competitors on the track instead of just attending enough races to protect a lead gained while our rivals were parked at the side of the track.

Lucky is still lucky, it just puts us in the position of being able to wish our competitiors the best rather than hope they have mishaps that will allow us to skip races later in the year.
 
If it were written differently Rick I would possibly consider it, but I can't support it as it stands. You don't give a driver basically the same points as his competitors when he fails to finish a race. That is not racing, and if it isn't a charitable act then it's a close second. As I said, perhaps a formula that will give the DNF car half the points of the finishing cars rather than the current 3, but almost equal points for not taking the checkered is ridiculous. BTW, I always shake the hands of my competitors and wish them the best before every race, and I always have. I also feel badly for them if they have problems, but I've raced enough years to have experienced my own share of problems, and we all go through that eventually.
I also agree that this would help/benefit the driver who has an occasional mechanical or flat tire DNF. Unfortunately, it will also benefit the driver who makes a mistake and has a DNF due to driver error or a lack of prep on his car, and giving that driver a bunch of points for those issues is dead wrong. If I were having a heated battle over a race win or a championship and the other fellow flies off track while trying to beat me, but still beats me off track by this points system, I would have to go find somewhere else to spend my dollars.
I assumed correctly that this proposal was a Nascar adoption, and while it works in their high dollar world it isn't compatible here in my opinion. Every point they earn in their world is worth money, but the slow cars are still always in the back. Without the money it's just handing extra points to the slower cars that never run up front or even mid pack.
We have heard from the people who wrote this, now we need to hear from those out there who question it. There are still a lot of us around who remember the struggles we had years ago getting this current system up and running, and we know how smoothly it has worked all these years. Like they say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
 
I remember this one race not too long ago, shortly after I did a lot of work on the car and was getting it sorted out. I went out and barely made it back to the paddock. Did a quick adjustment on the car (it is me myself and I in the pits, not large crew to help) went back out and made it to the 1st turn. Discovered I had incidently hit the fuel pump switch off. Primed it again and tried to start but the car was too hot by them, no start. So I sat the race watching cars go by (enjoying the view too). Finally got it started after the checker. I got 3 point. Didn't even deserve those really for a BONEHEAD mistake. If I had gotten more points then the points chase would have definately swung in my favor this year, something I had extensive comment about on an earlier thread.

I see both sides, but having lived it I gotta say this just does not touch my fairness button. Yes I am a competitor. I love to race and do so with gusto. But I am not the sort of person to look someone in the eye and feel right about getting something I did not earn.
 
Wes, this is not a NASCAR adoption. It's coincidental that the rule change proposal has a points paying structure that has similarities, but the rationale behind the structure for NASCAR, and the proposed structure for Conference, have nothing to do with each other. What I'm reading in your message is that since it has anything to do with NASCAR, you are automatically against it. That's fine, but it may be better for others to discuss the relative merits on an objective basis, rather than invoking prejudices.

I am continuously and repeatedly amazed at how well organized and how special Conference is because of the efforts of many people. I have no doubt that thoughtful people carefully considered the current points structure, and it's a good system given the organizational challenges. But make no mistake that it is most certainly not without shortcomings, shortcomings that have, and will have a material effect on the future of Conference. Taking a look at these challenges, and looking at different ways of doing things, does not destroy anything. It may in fact improve things.

The system may not be broke, but it also isn't fixed. There are problems with it that should be discussed, and ways to address these problems should be considered. This should be done without the baggage of prejudices against NASCAR, with due respect for past practices, with appreciation for the efforts and opinions of those that came before us, AND those with us now without turning it into a popularity contest, and with as much objectivity as possible.
 
Kyle, if I won a championship because you had a mechanical, I wouldn't feel right about it. I wouldn't feel right about it so much that I would probably DNS my next race just to tighten up the points again, so I could race you on the track. Or I might DNS my next race and give you the best tires I have, and if you win, you win the championship.
 
Hi Wes -

I agree, I would like to hear more reasons why the majority of our members would either support or oppose this proposal. I have a feeling that while this board features the opinions of some of our most involved and passionate members, that we simply fail to reach a majority of the membership through this venue. I think it is a great improvement to our ability to disseminate and discuss issues that are important to the organization but never lose sight of the fact that the majority either don't know about this forum, can't physically access it, or just aren't interested enough to immerse themselves in the finer points of shaping policy. Hopefully we hook a few more all the time so we are getting a truly representative cross section of members weighing in on these important subjects.

At some point, it was decided that finishing at least half the laps and taking the checkered flag constituted an official finsih and that everything else was ruled a "DNF". My argument is that it is an arbitrary criteria and that virtiually anything else could also be arbitrarily determined to be a reasonable criteria for awarding an official finish. A quarter of the laps and the checkers? Three quarters of the laps without taking the checkers? Having successfully passed tech and made at least one lap in any practice or race session? Anyone who gets lapped by the group leader is officially a DNF? Any one of these scenarios and about a thousand more could be arbitrarily agreed upon as the difference between an official finish and a DNF - why have we decided on the system we have and what makes us certain that is the one that is the best possible compromise between fairness and continued incentive for our drivers to support races?

I also can't avoid an obvious logical argument presented in your post -

"There are still a lot of us around who remember the struggles we had years ago getting this current system up and running, and we know how smoothly it has worked all these years. Like they say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Was the previous system "broke" or did you see the current system as a logical attempt to improve it to the betterment of the membership as a whole? Maybe those of us who are writing and supporting this revision are struggling now just like you guys struggled then because we see this as an improvement for everyone.

You have always been active on the forums but fewer know that you have continually been one of the members that has supported both IRDC and Conference tirelessly by attending meetings, volunteering your time and energy, and helping keep us the organization of choice in the Northwest. When the IRDC has needed someone to volunteer their help to get something done, you have often been at the front of line and I respect that and thank you for your ongoing contributions. Because of this, I would expect you to understand that the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." mentality simply doesn't work for organizations such as ours. We proactively attempt to make things better for our membership continually and adjust things that really aren't "broke" all the time to constantly make them a little better.

If we didn't proactively tinker with our rules and operations we would have ceased to exist years ago. With the possibility that the next season will be affected by a significantly worse economy than the last we are simply trying to do everything we can to provide the best value for our member's racing dollars that we possibly can.
 
Someone famous said "The only constant in life is change".

If we do not try to move forward we will in fact go stale.
 
I've been sick and off the grid since Friday. Since Wes was looking for someone else who opposes this rule, I'll step forward and say I've been against this rule every time it comes up and I'm against it now.

I have, on three occasions in my relatively short career, had either a DNF (2) or limped around on the track rather than suffer a DNF. "A-ha," you say, "why did you limp around the track instead of pulling off? You wanted the points, right? This proposed rule change would've allowed you to get your car off-track and still get decent points."

Well, no.

To me, race points ONLY exist to illustrate my on-track performance. Points should NOT be awarded for simply paying the fees and showing up. If I have a problem that drops me down the order, or a problem that causes me to DNF, well, that's racin'. I'm not spending the time/money prepping the car, losing hours better spent at work towing my way to the track, or the entry fees for a points reward. I'm doing those things in order to get out there and RACE. It's my performance (or lack thereof!) on the track that SHOULD result in a points award. The better I do on track, the more points I get. Simple.
 
Assuming a person agrees in principle with the value of incentivising the system somehow to promote continued participation, if instead of the proposal on the table, if the utility was an increase in the points "awarded" for a DNF, what should a DNF be worth?

Also, if a person holds the opinion that on-track performance is the principle criteria for awarding points, and this criteria is the basis for the system as it exists today, how does one then explain the awarding of one point for not starting? It's intellectually inconsistent.
 
Last edited:
A point for qualifying really smells better than a point for "not starting".

Points for doing something positive might make better sense than points for not.

The DNF's may cry in their beer for all the T&M invested, but as it has been said for these many years..."That's racin'!"

But please do carry on. These perspectives (traditional survival of the fittest vs. nobody loses) are fascinating, and well worth the bandwidth.
 
Last edited:
Thanks Rick, it's nice to be appreciated for efforts that are behind the scenes and not out there in front of the public. It is also a pleasure to discuss this issue rationally and politely as it should be.
I have been constantly involved with Conference and IRDC since the mid 70's in one capacity or another, and that is why I feel the right, and often the need, to discuss these things in spite of many people saying, "oh great, Tipton again."
The points were indeed pretty much 'broke' when we finally modified it. Points were pretty meager years ago, like 5 points for a win with only one car in class. So the fast guys ran the I-5 series, and did not support the outlying tracks. We changed it to force more participation and keep those less popular tracks alive, and for the most part it has worked well every since. It was obviously more complicated than that, but it definitely needed an overhaul.
I'm not against change, but changes of this magnitude should be well thought out and presented way ahead of time so everyone, especially those hard to reach folks you mentioned, have a chance to review it. I seldom contest rules change items because I'm either not involved with a particular rule, or I have no argument against it. But quite obviously with this one I do.
To answer your question to Steve, I believe that giving more points for a DNF would be a better way to go Randy. If you have 15 or 20 cars in a class under your scenario, your non-finish will still only give you a few points, but if there are say 4 cars in class and you break, you would get 18 points for that DNF and the fellow who finished third gets only one more point for taking the checkered. That I have real issues with, and so should most drivers. Perhaps half points to the DNF'ers based on class size? Haven't really thought it about because I thought the current system was doing well, and I have not heard one driver complain about it in many years.
I took third in CF last year by being steady, and slow, but if we had run under this proposed scenario my competition would have been awarded 45 points instead of 9 for his three DNF's, and the fight for that class would have been over in July instead of mid September. Also, my DNF in Portland in September would have given me at least 16 points rather than 3, and I would have finished second overall instead of third, but it would have bothered me since the top 2 cars were always quicker than me. I deserved third, and that is where I ended up, and I was very content with that result.
I personally think this proposal needs more time and discussion before a vote, but the authors will have to make that decision.
 
Last edited:
"If a certain driver knows he isn't competitive in his or her class, (or worse yet knows that their car is not race ready), can simply take the green, do a lap and park it, while receiving only one point less than the driver who ran the whole 30 minutes and finished 4th."

Under the current rules this same certain driver can run half the race, park the car, wait for the checkered, take the flag and their victory lap, and "earn" up to 22 more points than another driver who ran the full race but on the last lap had an issue preventing him from taking the checkered and so he received a DNF. Therefore, the driver who ran 12 laps finished ahead of the driver who ran 23 laps. This seems wrong to me.

I can't ever remember anyone intentionally parking a servicable racecar just to pick up points. Any of us could have parked our car and waited for the last lap, but we are racers and our competetive nature makes us tempt the racing gods and continue to make laps. I can't think anyone would take advantage of this proposed new rule and just drive one lap each race anymore than intentionally driving half the laps and parking their car. We are racers, we come to race. What racer would park a car that still runs and give up the illusion that they can still win the race? No one that I know.
 
Getting full points for pulling off after the first lap doesn't seem right to me. To get points you should have, I don't know, maybe...raced. The proposed rule effectively gets rid of the concept of DNF. Changing the definition of DNF may be more palatable to some, rather than throwing it out. Simply removing the requirement to take the checked flag but leaving the 50% of laps requirement would seem a decent compromise. If you didn't do half the laps you weren't even close anyways.

The flat tire example doesn't carry a lot of weight with me. The flat didn't cause the DNF. It was a lack of planning or resources that did. I've DNF'd because of a puncture before. It sucked, it was bad luck, but it was my fault it was a DNF. I could have and should have (if I was running for a championship) had someone in the pits with a jack and an extra wheel. I certianly didn't feel I deserved full points for doing a couple of laps.
 
I'm pretty sure BMWCCA at their rules meeting on Oct 25 voted against this proposal, FYI.

Personally I don't agree with paying anything for a DNF or a DNS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top