Rule Change #3

B

bob

Guest
Can somebody who has been around Conference long enough to have seen the evolution of the points system answer a question? How did we arrive at the system in effect today? How does it differ from what preceded it - what problems in the old system does the current system fix? I understand the reasons behind the proposal to change the current system, but before deciding how to vote I'd like to understand how we got where we are.

Thanks,
Bob Mearns
 
Bob, my mind is a bit cloudy, as usual, but we simply changed the old format to entice racers to compete at the outlying tracks. Mission, Spokane, Port Orford, etc. have never acheived the same level of sucess as PR and PIR, and the new points system awarded those who ventured to the "less traveled" venues.
It used to be 5 points for first, or 8 points if someone else in your class showed up. So to win a championship was pretty easy if you just ran the I-5 series, collected the big points and ignored the tracks where you knew there would be little participation. Now, as we all know, if you don't go to Mission or Spokane, or soon to be ORP you won't be in the points hunt in most cases.
Losing a potential 25 points for a win, or even say 18 for a 5th place is just too much to throw away for most drivers looking to take a podium spot at years end. It seems to work, and has for quite a few years now. I hope it won't be messed with too badly, but I suppose I should check the rules change proposals, because I apparenlty missed this one.
 
Having finally gotten through with the CSCC ballot, my own voter's pamphlet and the Enduro, I finally got around to reading through the ICSCC proposals and I wanted to make a comment on this one. There is already a racing organization that in the area that rewards just trying to race, I don't think Conference should follow their example. If you can't build a car to finish a 30 minute race, don't bring it to the track. (I've been taken out by competitors with only a few laps to go, so don't throw that argument at me.) This proposal even goes so far as to say that if you try, that's good enough. (removes the requirement of half the laps of class leader)

Sorry, but I've always heard the quotes "to finish first, first you must finish" and "to finish first you must first finish" around racing, and I'd really like for our origanization to keep with those ideals. Besides, this change could mean that someone could build a car that could never finish a race and still win a championship. Not a pretty thought.

Margie B
Grp 1 #49
 
I'm not sure which proposal you have a problem with Margie, but I do disagree with your view.

We need to keep car counts up for ALL of us to be able to race. If someone pays their entry fees and supports their club by going through all the trouble and expense to come and compete then it seems kind of arbitrary to punish them for not finishing ONE lap - the last one.

Under our current rules, if you can do half of the laps and roll across the finish line under your own power within five minutes of the checkers you can beat someone who was out racing for the entire time and coasted to a stop one inch short of the finish line on the last lap.

I strongly endorse scoring cars to the place they attained based on laps completed. Why kill someone's championship run because they had a mechanical problem that kept them an inch from finishing? It has the additional advantage of encouraging people with wounded cars not to limp around at well below race speeds in order to try for half the laps and an official finish, which has proven to be a safety issue.

That rule change is not, however, the one being discussed above if there is some confusion.
 
Actually Rick, the proposal you're talking about is the one I was asking about. Maybe I should have been more specific - we have the concept of a DNF now, but did we always? If not, what was the rationale behind instituting it?

Thanks,
Bob Mearns
 
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Under our current rules, if you can do half of the laps and roll across the finish line under your own power within five minutes of the checkers you can beat someone who was out racing for the entire time and coasted to a stop one inch short of the finish line on the last lap.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

Has this ever happened? Even if it did once or twice, is that really enough to radically change the way points are awarded? Hell, fourth place in SPM went to someone who scored ONE POINT in each of 6 races... the first driver who scored in 5 races ended up with 14 times the points, but didn't qualify for the championship. Maybe we should change that, too?

I'm with Margie on this... it's just a sop to people who run with underprepared cars. Taking it in the shorts every so often because of a parts failure is just part of racing. We've all been there.
 
I will go with Rick on this one.

I quit sprint racing after the Spokane race this year after I went from 1st place to completely out of contention. I took the checkers on the last lap but missed the number of laps required. If I had been scored where I finished I would have left Spokane in 2nd place and close behind 1st. As it was, I was out of contention.

Every race I go to I have to travel many hundreds of miles each way. I had invested a significant amount of money to get to that point. The lure of competing for a season championship kept me going but after Spokane that incentive was gone. Racing is fun, racing for a season championship is a lot more fun.

Enduro and Sprint racing are two different things and should be treated differently as far as points and requirements to finish. In spring racing you should get points for your finishing position regardless of how many laps you complete or if you take the checkers. Enduro racing as the name suggests is an endurance event and points should only be rewarded to those who finish.

Steve, Margie, I respect your opinions experience and expertise but it has nothing to do with how well a car is prepared or not. If you want to discourage new drivers from participating and competing, keep punishing them as they gain experience and go through the learning process. I don’t know about everyone else but I don’t get paid to race. I do it because I enjoy it. Due to the travel distances and related expenses I have to pay more than many of you to race. If you take the fun out of it I will take my money and do something else with it.
 
But you see, Randy, there are choices to be made: My car is down at least 40 horsepower from where it could be because I chose to dial it back in the interest of reliability. There are other compromises I've made for this, too: The question of outright speed vs. reliable points is something car builders and drivers at all levels of motorsport have to answer for themselves. I've gone one way, you maybe have gone the other.

Interestingly, I also take the opposite view from you when it comes to enduros vs. sprints: I think we should award points to everyone in an enduro, simply because it IS so hard to get a car to run 4-25 hours.
 
Ok, small concession on the enduro. Points to everyone but no one who finishes the alloted time should finish behind someone who breaks no matter how many laps are completed.

As far as sprint racing the loss of position due to breaking is penalty enough, no reason to add to it.
 
Totally agree about enduros.

As for the sprint racing... Under "your" points system, a DNF wouldn't necessarily be any worse than a bad race, so consistency isn't actually a virtue. A guy who either wins or breaks near the end of a race could theoretically end up with more points than a guy who consistently finishes in the top 3 every race.
 
Under the current rules, we can count up to 10 races; anything over that is thrown out - and it's the lowest position earned that gets thrown out (or the fourth PIR race as only three races from any one track are counted).

Case in point: this year, Andrew Newell in Pro3 had a kill-switch fail him at Spokane and he finished 11th for that race. That was one of his throw-aways and he still managed to tie Jeff VanLierop at the final race of the season.

Second example: I suffered extensive damage to my car in Spokane this year causing a DNF (throw-away) for that race; then spent the next couple of months to front-clip the car and get it back in action for Mission. I borrowed Fred Wright's car for the August PR event, then missed PIR (my other throw-out) and managed to hang onto enough points for Fifth place in Pro3 (I know, fifth place is not anything to scream about, but in Pro3, that's actually an accomplishment! And it's worthy of a pretty little trophy, thank you very much!)

My point is that perhaps the current system needs to be tweaked; I'm not sure the proposed rule change as written is the way to go about it though.

If you are running for the chanpionship, then shouldn't you already expect to attend every race? At least in Pro3, if you only get to 10 events, you better make them good!

Also worth noting, next year it appears that we are going to have Grass Valley on-line. If that's the case, and they host a double race weekend, we're looking at potenatially 14 races. But the rules still only allow 10 races to count to points.

Furthermore, and finally, I would like to see the points adjusted upwards to allow for better reflection of the larger classes (specifically Pro3). As it is now, we had a grid of 28 cars in August; those who finished 20-28 earned 4 points. That's only one point ahead of a DNF...and they finished the race!
 
Good points Mike.

The point system needs change. It needs to encourage participation and keep competition as close as possible. The way it works now encouraged me to quit.

Your example of each car from 20-28 getting 4 points is a great example of a system that needs fixed.

The simple solution for your example would be to adjust the total points for a class for each event according to the number of cars entered in that class. It would be more reflective of how you actually did that day in class.
 
"Under our current rules, if you can do half of the laps and roll across the finish line under your own power within five minutes of the checkers you can beat someone who was out racing for the entire time and coasted to a stop one inch short of the finish line on the last lap."

Yes, but Rick, the trade- off is that if I'm running for points in a relatively small class (SPU) and something happens to SLOW my car but not DISABLE it, I can pull myself off the track for a few laps, stay out of everyone's way, and then get a finish without endangering myself and others. Take away this rule, and I stay out, maybe at 1/3 the speed of the group, and that's just ugly.
And yes, this has happened to me a number of times in the last 5 years.
I think the benefit of getting the 'walking wounded' cars off track outweighs the chance of your scenario. But that's really 'just my opinion'!

"Furthermore, and finally, I would like to see the points adjusted upwards to allow for better reflection of the larger classes (specifically Pro3). As it is now, we had a grid of 28 cars in August; those who finished 20-28 earned 4 points. That's only one point ahead of a DNF...and they finished the race!"

Sadly, Mike, your case is unique. There are no other classes in COnference right now that consistently have your numbers. Changing things in the points system for big classes may have unintended consequences for the smaller ones- especially those whose level of competition is high...

I guess all I'm really trying to say here is 'tread carefully...'

t
 
Actually, you are only reinforcing my point. If you retire with your broken car to the paddock you will still be scored based on the number of laps you completed - not as a DNF and awarded 3 points.

There was more than one intended benefit from this rule change -

1) Reward participation. If someone goes to the trouble of paying to support our races and invests the time and effort required to get a car to the track and start a race they should be scored based on where they finished. If they finish less laps than 1st and 2nd but more than 4th and 5th they should be awarded 3rd place regardless of whether they are running on the last lap which is a pretty arbitrary measure.

2) Encourage attendance - Only 16 percent of drivers finished the six races required to qualify for championship consideration. That tells me that most people currently lack the funding, the time, or the effort to do the full ten races allowed for points. Considering the economy, there is the possibility of next year being worse. If DNF's aren't such a disporportionatly large penalty it will help keep points races closer and that gives our members reason to attend more races. Pro-3 is a great example. There was a buzz about that race and the closness of the championship and people were genuinely interested in the outcome. I'd like to see more classes have those kind of tight points races.

3) Retirement of wounded cars - Under the current system, a car that is running 40 mph under it's potential because of a mechanical issue has an incentive to stay on the track and attempt to finish half of the laps before the expiration of time for the race. Many of us have nursed a wounded car around trying to stay out of the way so we could qualify for points and stay in the championship hunt. Under the revised system, anyone who takes a legal start can then retire to the paddock immediately and recieve last place points instead of limping around at high closing speeds.


Some of the resistance to this rule has been from people who feel that it harms the competitive balance by not hurting people who can't finish races enough. In my opinion, finishing ahead of your competitors is still obviously what is rewarded by this system. As a matter of fact, it accentuates the need to CONSISTENTLY finish ahead of your competitors because their DNF won't then allow you a big cushion they have to catch up from.

In our current point system someone could win his class eight times and DNF once and you could still beat him by finishing second eight times and winning the race he DNF'd. If a guy beats me at eight out of nine races I'm going to be a little embarrassed stepping in front of him at the banquet to claim the jacket - especially considering there are a fair amount of ways to DNF that might not even be that driver's fault.

Lest we forget, most professional racing series score their races in a similar fashion to what is being proposed here and it doesn't seem to hurt their level of competition at all.

At any rate, this has already been voted on by IRDC and BMW CCA that I know of so the time for discussion may already be over.
 
Rick said: regardless of whether they are running on the last lap which is a pretty arbitrary measure.

Um, yeah, that's kind of why we bother with the checkered flag, isn't it? To let people know when the race is over?

Rick also said: If DNF's aren't such a disporportionatly large penalty it will help keep points races closer and that gives our members reason to attend more races.

Well... I suppose that all depends upon WHY people are racing in the first place. Have you checked?

Finally, Rick said: In our current point system someone could win his class eight times and DNF once and you could still beat him by finishing second eight times and winning the race he DNF'd.

Yup, and that's racing. As I said in an earlier post, both car builders and car drivers are perpetually making the trade-off between reliability and outright performance, all the way down to the driver wondering whether it's better to make the agressive move and hope the other driver gives up, or to stalk the other car and pressure the driver into a mistake.
 
Your use of the phrase "that's racing" is pretty amusing. It's one of those types of phrases that people toss out there when there is no logical and well-reasoned explaination for something. It's a commentary on the human condition. Just becasue "life ain't fair" it doesn't mean you should give up even trying to be fair. Just because "sh*t" happens" it doesn't mean that we should quit striving every day to prevent "sh*t" from happening. It is a fundimental truth that people face many challenges every day, not all of which they have any control over. That doesn't make it OK for them to say "that's life" and quit trying. Saying "that's racing" implies that you feel you don't have any control over what constitutes "racing" in Conference In reality you have ample opportunity to affect how we operate.

Several people had talked to me about this rule over the course of the season and someone reminded me of it while I was at the IRDC rules proposal meeting. I volunteered to write it up on the spot and we voted to include it in the rules to be proposed to the Conference drivers as a whole. Anyone who holds a license has the right to vote for or against the proposal at their individual member club rules meeting. As a loyal Conference driver member I will be satisfied that a fair and democratic process indicates the will of the members and modify my behavior to best exploit whatever ruleset ends up in force.

We have the power to change the "that" in "that is racing" to whatever we feel serves us best as an organization. It is one of the things that makes Conference better than a lot of other organizations - drivers making rules for drivers.

"That" is racing. Vote your concience if you haven't already and I will be happy to support the majority. It's my last post on the subject.

Thanks.
 
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Your use of the phrase "that's racing" is pretty amusing. It's one of those types of phrases that people toss out there when there is no logical and well-reasoned explaination for something.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
OR... it's because I feel that it's one of the defining aspects of the sport/hobby of racing: The ability to finish the race. You have a different perspective.
 
I find it hard to accept that a car that DNF's may receive more points than a car that finished. That just isn't racing in my old book. Take the checkered under whatever power is afforded to you, or you are a DNF and you get the resultant points. Rewarding drivers with substantial points for not taking the checkered is seriously flawed IMHO, but hey, after what happened both in this State and nationally last week anything is now possible in this lifetime.
If the majority rules and the points are changed, after many years of consistency and trouble free implementation, then so be it. May not be right, or my cup of tea, but it is what it is at that point.
Everyone up front in CF this year had at least one DNF, and mine cost me second in points, but in my book, that's racing.
 
IMHO

I guess it comes down to what our collective goals are. This is not F1 or anything close. It is a group of likeminded people who want to experience the many aspects of racing cars. Unless I am really doing something wrong we are not getting paid for this. I do it because I enjoy it, it is fun. If it is not fun I will find a different way to spend my money.

I feel there are changes in the rules that could help many of us to get more enjoyment out of the dollars we are spending. When talking about rule changes like this we need to consider what is best for our group as a whole, not just what is best for our individual situations.

As with most things in life the way we do things in racing changes. Name me one racing entity anywhere that has not experienced change in the way they do things on a continual basis?

There are many influences from many different directions that necessitate change. We can’t get complacent stuck in a rut or hung up on traditional ways of doing things. We need to be open to change and growth or we stand the real chance of losing out to others who do embrace change.
 
This issue seems to be an individual case to me Randy. No one has complained about the point structure in many years, so I'm saying think this out carefully before making a change that the majority may not want.
Seems kind of like giving trophies to every kid who is on a soccer team no matter how bad they were or how lowly they placed in the standings because they don't want to hurt their self esteem.
 
Back
Top