Awarding position points for DNF

rick_bostrom

rick_bostrom

Onda Kattan Racing
[Administrator: This portion of Rick's original post cut/pasted from another thread.]

Related to KK's comments about final lap, checker, etc - remember that in spite of my repeated attempts to get a rule change over the last few years that drivers MUST cross the line under their own power within five minutes of the display of the checkered flag ending a race to be considered a finisher and not a DNF. I'll start early - give some thought to supporting a rule change that rewards those who bring a car out, race door to door, and support our events. We should be scoring people on laps completed not an arbitrary requirement that they be running at the end. Currently if your car coasts to a stop 1 foot from the finish line on the last lap and cannot cover the last foot under it's own power within the time alloted you recieve (1) point for completing tech and (2) points for taking to the track and a DNF. You recieve (3) more points than people who left their car in the garage and stayed home. I am in favor of raising interest by keeping points races alive longer and rewarding people for financially supporting the clubs by entering and participating in races. Vote for people to get last place points not just (3) points. Off soapbox, sorry for the rant.
 
Gee, Randy, are we then also going to start handing out "participation" trophies, like they do for kids' sports? It's a COMPETITION that we're engaging in and should be treated accordingly. If you have the bad luck (or bad preparation) to DNF a race, well, them's the breaks. If you have DNF issues with any kind of regularity, then maybe you should examine your car preparation. Is it unfortunate that people spend a lot of time and money, only to fail to finish? You bet, and I've certainly felt that way for my one DNF (self-inflicted) and two mechanical DNSs, but that's no reason we should start coddling people who can't get a car to last for 30 minutes.
 
Steve Adams said:
DNF a race.....well.... no reason we should start coddling people who can't get a car to last for 30 minutes.
Click to expand...

Well, in a 30 minute race one guy may 'limp' across the S/F line after completing only 14 of a 20 lap race and get beaten by a guy who 'limps' across the finish line after completing 15 laps of the 20 lap race.

Is that worth a WOO-HOO on the results sheet? Perhaps. As I recall, in addition to the limp across you have to have completed 50% of the racing laps.

I mean come on. It isn't like somebody will win a class championship with 8 or 10 DNF's for the season. But it will make him feel a little better going home at night and not hang up his gloves.

Placement for DNF's can become very valuable in Endurance racing where we are talking about 3 hours or more of racing and there's a purse to be spread around.
 
DNF is a philosophical issue. Not all series use it.

Where's the harm in rewarding everything it took to take the green? If it's the tipping point between someone giving up because there is no hope of staying in a championship hunt, and coming back out to race some more, isn't that a worthwhile incentive?

Maybe we should only award points for a win, after all, it is racing, and the second place car is really just the first loser.
 
Randy Blaylock said:
giving up because there is no hope of staying in a championship hunt
Click to expand...

Well, I've never been IN a championship hunt, and I keep coming out... :D

Seriously, though, every road race series of any note has the concept of DNF and only awards points to X positions. Racing is a results-oriented activity, not a "thanks for showing up and participating" activity. Sure, some endurance racing series will award points to non-finishers who have completed some percentage of the victor's lap count, but that's not what we're talking about here.

Isn't the chance to pit your car and abilities against those of other people incentive enough, regardless of whether a win is in the offing? If not, why do any of us mid-pack buys even bother to come out?
 
What *are* we talking about here? Conference is what we make it.

You're letting your personal biases cloud an objective consideration. I think my record proves that I'm not advocating because it serves my needs, I am thinking of ways to incent greater participation for others.

Define "results". Some series count laps or acrued time relative to other competitors and assign a scored position regardless of whether or not they actually were running when the leader took the checkers. They did finish, just before the leader did.

I could make a philosophical argument that anyone that doesn't finish on the same lap as the leader has not completed to full distance, and is therefore DNF.

Plus there is the very real safety aspect to consider. If we choose to maintain status quo, it's my opinion that the "administrative finsh" or whatever it's called, where someone parks on pit lane with a car that can't maintain a safe racing pace, only to go out in race traffic to salvage points, should be eliminated as an option. Last year this scenario facilitated a collision on the back stretch at Portland, and two fine gentlemen were injured. Perhaps not much, but that's an issue of degree. As long as we're going to be so black and white about the safety component of PUYs we should at least be consistent in the application of that objective.
 
Last edited:
Randy Blaylock said:
You're letting your personal biases cloud an objective consideration.
Click to expand...
And you're not?

Randy Blaylock said:
I could make a philosophical argument that anyone that doesn't finish on the same lap as the leader has not completed to full distance, and is therefore DNF.
Click to expand...
You certainly could make that philosophical argument, but you'd be going against decades of racing history.

Randy Blaylock said:
Plus there is the very real safety aspect to consider. If we choose to maintain status quo, it's my opinion that the "administrative finsh" or whatever it's called, where someone parks on pit lane with a car that can't maintain a safe racing pace, only to go out in race traffic to salvage points, should be eliminated as an option. Last year this scenario facilitated a collision on the back stretch at Portland, and two fine gentlemen were injured. Perhaps not much, but that's an issue of degree. As long as we're going to be so black and white about the safety component of PUYs we should at least be consistent in the application of that objective.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you.
 
ICSCC was racing long before the "bang for your buck" business model. If it wasn't for ICSCC there wouldn't be venues for any spin-off groups like"HPDE/PDX/TnT" that make up a club "Drivers' Training" event as we know them today. And so things evolve in their own right.

As costs go up, I suppose it shouldn't be any surprise that increased services would be naturally expected to help soften the impact of unexpected loss of investment.

An insurance, if you will. Even though you may not achieve the expected goal of finishing (as defined by the regulations) you have kept your premiums up to date, so you should be recompensed certain consolation points determined by your weekends efforts thus far, your time on course, and maybe one or two for good conduct. With all hopes that you will return as soon as you can to continue your loyal patronage of our sporting events.

"Pardon me, sir. Shall we stop the race so that we may pull your car to safety, sir? No? Oh, yes sir. We'll go around and into the pits, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. I certainly hope that you get it fixed in 10 minutes, sir. Have a nice evening, sir."

No guts, no glory. Vote it out if you like. It's all about who's got the power, isn't it. On or off the track.

And I thank you folks for providing me with this quality entertainment. (No, really. I am snicking so hard, my cheeks hurt.';@)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top