2005 Rules - Points System

[Grizlbits]

I think the points system favors racers who do all the races, and not the fastest drivers.

 

For example: If one racer did one more race than another and won, and took pole that race, he would get 104 points (100 + 4 points for pole in Ohio/ Indiana region anyway). If the racer would missed a race (whatever reason, blown motor in qualifing, flat tire on pace lap - whatever) He beat the guy who did one more race than him, lets say with no pole positions, he would have to beat him 11 races in a season to overcome the 104 point advantage (110 points for beating him 10 times without pole). That is an entire season worth. Even with pole position in EVERY race, and winning each race he would still need to beat him 8 times (14 point advantage x 8 = 112 points).

 

I think this is unrealistic for a ameatuer race series without significant series sponsors. That above senario would not be crowning the fastest car series champ, it would be rewarding someone for showing up at each race and running laps.

 

I recommend changing the points system to a lower total points for each event. World Chalenge scores points 34, 28, 25, 24, 22, 21, 19, 18, 17, etc. Midwestern Council scores points 25, 20, 16, 13, 10, 8, 7, etc. SCCA National Points (and regional - I think) scores 12, 9, 7, 6, 5, etc. I think we should adopt a similar system as one of the systems I mentioned above. This would allow a fast car to still be in the hunt if a stroke of bad luck hits.

 

It is hard to plan on doing 14 races a year at $500 - $1000 per race (double that if you run Hoosier S04's - see AIX tires proposal) I think a fast car should be rewarded with a bit of separation in points for finishing well. If someone has a bad weekend, blown motor, whatever, he can still get back in the hunt if time/Job/Lack of Vacation/wife will not allow him to get to every event. Now if we had purses at each event - Nah, I won't go there.

[Keith]

The points system currently favors people who run at least 14 of the 18 events. This is similar to any points system I have ever been involved in. In our case, you drop your 4 worst of 18 assuming you run more than 14 races. As an amateur series, I think that there is a strong argument for increasing the number of "drops", but I think the concept is sound.

 

Any change to this should be based on region and not an AI rule.

 

Just my opinion running as a backmarker.

[turbolx]

Dropping one or two weekends (up to four events) toward the points total helps level things out for the bad luck or scheduling conflicts mentioned. They already do this in NMRA and FFW racing. However, there should also be bonus points available for those who make all the races to encourage more participation.

 

100 points for first could change to 50 to make for tighter season points races, but we should still encourage people to try and make as many events as possible.

[swhiteh3]

I agree completely with Chris above. In the current system, you basically have to run all the races to have a shot at it, and scheduling and finances make that unrealistic.

[onralz]

As Chris stated, the way Council does it make some sense as well. I would suggest a way to give more points to the winners. Last year I didn't clinch the championship in AGS until the 8th win and I won 9 races. There isn't much of a difference between the places. Council doesn't do what NASA does in regards to pole points either. I would suggest that NASA not change that procedure.

[Grizlbits]

I kind of forgot to mention pole points, oops. The lower totals would require only 1 or 2 points for pole, instead of 4. I like the pole points, I think they should stay.

[tacovini]

FWIW...the CMC points system started in the mid-'90s with the current AI points structure. Over the years, it was tweeked and evolved to finally be extremely competitive with the season champion typically not determined until the final race of the season.

 

100-97-95-93-92-91-90....1 point for pole position....and roughly 1 weekend of race drops.

 

More recently, we started running "best 15 count"...but got bit here in Texas when we ran more races than we thought would be possible. (Good problem to have!)

 

Why reinvent the wheel? I think the CMC points structure has been tested and proven. Each region should decide how they deem drops...i.e.- best # counts....% counts...or drop X number of races regardless.

 

-=- Todd

(Posted as a racer.)

[Grizlbits]

Why reinvent the wheel?

 

For the reason I stated in the original post:

 

For example: If one racer did one more race than another and won, and took pole that race, he would get 104 points (100 + 4 points for pole in Ohio/ Indiana region anyway). If the racer would missed a race (whatever reason, blown motor in qualifing, flat tire on pace lap - whatever) He beat the guy who did one more race than him, lets say with no pole positions, he would have to beat him 11 races in a season to overcome the 104 point advantage (110 points for beating him 10 times without pole). That is an entire season worth. Even with pole position in EVERY race, and winning each race he would still need to beat him 8 times (14 point advantage x 8 = 112 points).

 

I don't feel attrition should determine a championship.

[tacovini]

Sorry Chris...I should have been clearer, I was agreeing with you.

I think the AI points structure has too big of a spread between 1st and 2nd and I think 4 points for a pole is too much.

 

My comment regarding "Why reinvent the wheel" was suggesting that the CMC points structure works so if AI was going to change, it should not "reinvent the wheel" because the CMC folks have already been down this road.

 

The tighter points spread makes it easier to rebound and doesn't hand over the trophy solely on attendance.

 

-=- Todd

 

PS- Having one points structure for all 3 American Iron Racing Series classes (CMC/AI/AIX) also makes a ton of sense.

[racercosmo]

AI started with that system and dropped it. When you get 100 points for a win, 10 points is not a huge drop off for second place.

[Admiral]

Drops have to be in the season points system IMHO, life has too many "surprises" for amateur racers. I think it is unrealistic to think we can all make every race weekend in a season and I'd hate to see someone fall out of contention because they had to attend a family function instead of making one event.

 

I also think the current AI system allows too many points to be built up too quickly by a front-runner. I'd like to suggest the increments be brought down to say 2 or 3 points for positions and pole points be reduced some. At a minimum I'd like to suggest a change in the difference between 1st and 2nd place points (right now that's a 10 point gap). Example, one race weekend someone shows up and has you covered but you finish 2nd to this person in all the races that weekend. You leave that weekend with a serious points deficit due to the pole position points and the points for first over second place.

 

The CMC points system sure keeps the season points closer, not sure if that is a good thing or bad in everyone's mind (but it sure is exciting on the last weekend of the season!). It may keep a newcomer motivated by at least providing a mathematical chance to move up in the standings by improving on their second-half of a season if they had started out a little slow in the first half. I'd be willing to give it a shot.