85 replies to this topic

[eronrules]

ALL ANIMALS Races ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS races ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS ... Orwell (a sad racing fan   )

 

 indycar follows F1 and joins the madness ... 

 

http://www.autosport...t.php/id/113037

 

 

 

Under the new system, which will take effect from next weekend's season-opener at St Petersburg, a win worth 50 points at a regular event will pay 100 points at the Indianapolis 500, Pocono and Fontana, with all other positions also worth double.

 

may i ask  WHY??? 

 

why do we need these??? who makes these stupid decisions??? why do we need overhauling the 'RACING' part of Motor-racing??? 

 

it started with T20 cricket (those who follows cricket knows what it is), and now F1 is also following the same path. what's next??? penalty shootout instead of a 90 min football match??? it seems people are more interested in making WWE out of racing 

 

 

btw, people who were touting IndyCar as last resort for pure racing enthusiasts ... can now start weeping 

Edited by eronrules, 21 March 2014 - 17:28.

[GSiebert]

Hmm I found the double points rule in F1 stupid, but here it makes more sense, these are pretty special races after all. 

[aray]

what's with T20..?!..it is not like boundary is considered 8 and over-boundary 12....

[eronrules]

what's with T20..?!..it is not like boundary is considered 8 and over-boundary 12....

 

i hate 20 over baseball version of cricket  (or Mccricket happy meal as i call it) ... it lacks the strategy aspect of tests or one day games, it has become more like a penalty shootout, bowlers have no value, mindless ball bashing by batsmen who sometimes i think plays eyes closed ...   since t20 was introduced, my love for cricket has faded almost to zilch.    

[jonpollak]

Poor Eron.

It had been done like that for ages
Just not recently.

I'm fine with it too
Jp

[Collombin]

Umm, no offence to the OP but the longer races were worth more points back in 1916 and for most of the championships since.

I think the longer races ARE worth more points, but not in exact proportion to the mileage as used to be the case.

IMO they've got it just about spot on.

And I hate the rule in F1. But that's different.

[Bloggsworth]

Makes a lot more sense than the F1 double points, after all, the 500 mile oval races are a different kettle of fish entirely. It's the difference between Le Mans and a 1,000Km race; the difference between the ordinary tennis tournaments and a Grand Slam event, between a 3 set match and a 5 set match.

[jrg19]

Great IDEA!

[Jimisgod]

They had a similar thing in the V8 supercars years back, double points rounds that handed massive leads to the fortunate.

Of course V8SC prides itself on having the most confusing points system ever devised. Rumor is the moment a single person understands it, the points system is changed.

[Radoye]

500 miles ~ 800 km, more than twice (actually almost 3x) the distance of a "regular" Grand Prix or Indy race. it does make sense to score it differently

 

Besides, in this case there is a precedent - back in the USAC days races of different length were scored differently - 100 mile races would earn you less than "regular" GP distance races which would earn you less than 500-mile races.

 

I would not have any objections to the last (or last 3) F1 races in a season being scored with double points, if these would be made to offer a bigger challenge to the drivers - such as increased race distance. But they do not, the only thing making them "special" is that they are placed at the end of the calendar and Bernie wants to decide the championship at the very last race.

 

So please let's not compare apples to oranges.

[DampMongoose]

This makes perfect sense.  Such as when Le Mans had/has double points within the WSC when all the other races were 6 hours.  Le Mans is tougher to complete, therefore it's reward is higher.  I don't agree in F1's usage of double points as the races are all relatively equal in mileage and time so none are different and as such worth more, perhaps only in prestige.  To a worldwide audience the Indy 500 at least deserves a higher emphasis over the season.

[PayasYouRace]

Indycar is showing how to do double points correctly. Those races are considerably longer than normal, and have a greater prestige (mostly). Makes perfect sense and has historical precedent.

[Jim Thurman]

First, F1 didn't start this and Indycar isn't following it.  The U.S. National Championship used a points per mile based system almost from the beginning. With AAA and USAC sanction, the format was in use through 1979.  Double points events were quite common on the U.S. short oval scene as well from the 60s on.

 

So, for Indycar, it marks a return to a historical point system...*

 

for F1, it means they are imitating an old, old format used in the U.S.

 

 

*at least as it pertains to rewarding more points in 500-mile races.

Edited by Jim Thurman, 21 March 2014 - 18:52.

[Victor_RO]

Double points for blue riband events that actually ARE twice as long/difficult as the regular events. Look at the WEC too, most races are 6 hours, but Le Mans is 24 hours, so it's worth having double points for such an event. Double points for a F1 race that isn't different from any of the others is nonsense though.

[ollebompa]

for F1, it means they are imitating an old, old format used in the U.S.

 

...and applying it in a way that's stupid beyond belief.

Edited by ollebompa, 21 March 2014 - 17:58.

[Collombin]

...and applying it in a way that's stupid beyond belief.

I disagree, it's better than the old points per mile way, which allowed eg. Tony Bettenhausen (0 wins) to beat Johnny Thomson (4 wins), or Bob Sweikert (2 wins) to beat Jimmy Bryan (6 wins), just because of a good Indy finish.

The 500 milers should be worth more than the average race however, and double seems fair to me.

[Andrew Hope]

I don't mind this, but the focus should be on doubling viewers before doubling points.

[Risil]

Forget Indy, it's the double points at the Fontana finale that's going to have the most effect. Last year all the Hondas barring Dixon failed to finish and half the field crashed.

 

And it's legit insane that in both of the past years there were five drivers within a double-points victory of the championship going into Fontana. And if anything I'm surprised the number of contenders wasn't higher.

[johnmhinds]

Makes more sense than F1's double points because those are much longer races.

 

But it does in effect give a double penalty for drivers who retire from those races.

[Ross Stonefeld]

By type of track, here are the 2013 race distances in miles

 

Street

St Petersburg 198

Long Beach 157

Sao Paulo 190

Detroit Race 1 and 2 164.5

Toronto Race 1 and 2 149.175

Baltimore 153

Houston Race 1 and 2 147.06

 

Road Course

Barber 207

Mid Ohio 203.22

Sears Point 202.715

 

Oval

Indy 500

Texas 331(500km?)

Milwaukee 253.75

Iowa 223.5

Pocono 500

Fontana 500

Edited by Ross Stonefeld, 21 March 2014 - 18:22.

[jonpollak]

Bodes well for a certain Mr.Carpenter.
Jp

[FBJim]

This makes sense, there are legitimate arguments that the 500 milers are more challenging, or important than the rest of the calender, and that performance on them should be weighted more. This is different than F1, where the decision to give Abu Dhabi double points is arbitrary at best, and cynical at worst.

 

For fun, check out the points system CART used in its first year.

http://en.wikipedia....oints_Breakdown

Edited by FBJim, 21 March 2014 - 18:34.

[PayasYouRace]

Makes more sense than F1's double points because those are much longer races.

 

But it does in effect give a double penalty for drivers who retire from those races.

 

But even they get double points under Indycar's system.

[Jim Thurman]

I don't mind this, but the focus should be on doubling viewers before doubling points.

 

They have to concentrate on what is possible, thus, double points.

[HaydenFan]

It actually gives meaning beyond the historical background to Indy. It gives a bonus for those who succeed at these races, and penalize those who struggle. 

[TimRTC]

it started with T20 cricket (those who follows cricket knows what it is), and now F1 is also following the same path. what's next??? penalty shootout instead of a 90 min football match??? it seems people are more interested in making WWE out of racing 

 

 

Okay, I'm calling a new version of Godwin's Law for comparisons between motor sports and WWE. Call it Hogan's law perhaps?

[ollebompa]

I disagree, it's better than the old points per mile way, which allowed eg. Tony Bettenhausen (0 wins) to beat Johnny Thomson (4 wins), or Bob Sweikert (2 wins) to beat Jimmy Bryan (6 wins), just because of a good Indy finish.

The 500 milers should be worth more than the average race however, and double seems fair to me.

I ment stupid in F1. The way IndyCar has done it is alright with me.

Edited by ollebompa, 21 March 2014 - 20:56.

[jonpollak]

Brilliant Timmy !!!!

How about McMahons Law?
Jp

[paulb]

Brilliant Timmy !!!!

How about McMahons Law?
Jp

That may already be taken pertaining to laughter and jokes that are not funny.

[FerrariV12]

This is far less-worse than what F1 has done. Assigning double points to longer-distance races throughout the season, rather than arbitrarily to one or more just because they happen to be scheduled at the end of the calendar. I might not have thought up and instigated this change if I was in charge, but it hardly offends me in the same way the F1 double points rule does.

[jonpollak]

Ahh Ed McMahon...
You're right paulb.
Jp

[P123]

At least the double points can be justified by the race distances, whereas in F1 it's a cynical attempt to add a bit of shine to the sandpit GP with there being nothing sporting wise to differentiate it from the other races.

[Frank Tuesday]

Who cares.  Individual races are real, but championships are artificial constructs.  Any point structure is completely arbitrary, so there is no "correct" way to determine a champion, only what the rules dictate.  

[Frank Tuesday]

At least the double points can be justified by the race distances, whereas in F1 it's a cynical attempt to add a bit of shine to the sandpit GP with there being nothing sporting wise to differentiate it from the other races.

So since all of the F1 races are ~305km, except for Monaco, would it be acceptable for Monaco be worth fewer points than the rest?  260km, so I recon a win at Monaco should only be worth 20 points. 

[maximilian]

OK, so would it have made a lot of difference in the outcomes in past seasons?

[FenderJaguar]

In F1 they should get real and if they insist in keeping the double points in the final race they should also have it in Monaco and maybe Spa.

Edited by FenderJaguar, 21 March 2014 - 20:04.

[Bloggsworth]

Could I please have a translation of less-worse? Does it equate to better, okay, worse but not disastrous....

[maximilian]

I like this.  It gives further additional importance to the Triple Crown events, and a boost to OVALS - it makes for a better balance between the oval events and the non-oval events.  It also works, since in Indycars every starter gets at least some points, so if you DNF, the overall bad-luck impact is still less.

 

As most of you, I also dispise the F1 version of it.  IFFFF (and that's a BIG IF) they would really have to implement that in F1, it could only apply to the true classics, but I don't think there are really 3 or 4 totally clear candidates to pick out, because most races are the same length, and many have the same lengthy tradition.  Monaco for sure, but then what?  Silverstone probably next on the prestige list.  Then?  Spa has a great track, but the German GP is also very important.  Suzuka is much-loved.  Brazil?  Very important.  Where to draw the line?  Ultimately it makes no sense in F1, because there are no real classics that even seem to be totally safe - Bernie could move out of Germany or even Britain in a heartbeat to run another Tilkedrome in some newly-rich dictatorship. 

 

And most certainly, AbuDhabi is NOT one of the 4, no matter what!

Edited by maximilian, 21 March 2014 - 20:17.

[Risil]

Who cares.  Individual races are real, but championships are artificial constructs.  Any point structure is completely arbitrary, so there is no "correct" way to determine a champion, only what the rules dictate.  

 

So Scott Dixon was as worthy a champion last year as Takuma Sato?

[Frank Tuesday]

So Scott Dixon was as worthy a champion last year as Takuma Sato?

I have no idea.  I watched a couple races and got bored of the constant full-course yellows.  I couldn't even tell you who won the races I watched, much less who the champion was.  Can't even remember who won the Indy 500. 

 

Does this question have a point behind it?  Did one of them win last year, and the other would have won if the 500mile races were worth double points? 

[FBJim]

A championship system is an attempt to answer a qualitative question in an objective way- that is, "who is the best driver of the season?" It's imperfect, but of course it is- any time you try to use a quantitative system to answer a qualitative question, you're going to run into imperfections. This doesn't mean that one system can't possibly be better than another system.

[dweller23]

Okay, I see the point people are making - sure, 500 miles is a lot more than regular IndyCar road course or street race. However, the spread of tracks variety was fair so far - similar number of road courses, short ovals, longer ovals and a lot more street races mostly due to double headers. So will it screw up the championship? It will be similar to double header on street track, but if you are hit with mechanical trouble - you don't have second day to show up. Additionally, in terms of time-consuming, 500 miles oval races surpass regular races, but they rarely take twice as much time (it's down to yellows, really).

 

Overall, I'm against it. It could swing the championship towards oval people like Ed Carpenter. However, I keep in mind that we have a lot of street track races. I am not sure why Schaefers 500 should be worth more than Long Beach Grand Prix, both take a lot of skill and while the distance is different, so are the speeds, amount of room for error, amount of corners etc..

 

This is quite controversial, but still, at least it has SOME logic to it, unlike F1. Nonetheless, I treat it as artificial thing to spice up the championship and I am against it.

[sabjit]

i hate 20 over baseball version of cricket  (or Mccricket happy meal as i call it) ... it lacks the strategy aspect of tests or one day games, it has become more like a penalty shootout, bowlers have no value, mindless ball bashing by batsmen who sometimes i think plays eyes closed ...   since t20 was introduced, my love for cricket has faded almost to zilch.    

 

Disagree, I think good bowlers (in particular spinners) are more important than ever. Yes a lot of people talk about Pieterson, Gayle, Finch etc but so do people talk about Narine, Tredwell so on and so forth.

[jonpollak]

I have no idea......
Can't even remember who won the Indy 500.

And there you have it.
Jp

[dweller23]

I have no idea.  I watched a couple races and got bored of the constant full-course yellows.  I couldn't even tell you who won the races I watched, much less who the champion was.  Can't even remember who won the Indy 500. 

 

Does this question have a point behind it?  Did one of them win last year, and the other would have won if the 500mile races were worth double points? 

If this is a trick post, then 10/10. 2013 was really clean season, Indy had one or two yellows and a lot of street races were caution-less.

[ensign14]

You know, for years the Indy 500 was a constant.  Whatever else happened on motor sport, Indy was the Month of May, the unique qualifying system, the marching band, balloons and so on.  And over 100 entries for a coveted starting position.

 

Then Tony George came along and decided to rescue it.

 

So now Indy is a bog-standard race with ever more convoluted qualifying to try to make 33 cars filling 33 places exciting.

 

Therefore they have to make it ultra-special by doubling its points tally.

 

The only thing is that this is a slight throwback to the days when championship points in the US were based on race length - 1,000 for winning Indy, 200 for winning a dirt track 100 miler - but that was based on a consistent logic.  This is going to make it far easier for the Indy winner to fall into the title.  Indy itself ought to be sufficient prize.

[PayasYouRace]

 This is going to make it far easier for the Indy winner to fall into the title.  Indy itself ought to be sufficient prize.

 

Not really. It's only double points. If it was more then maybe, but winning Indy is only worth two normal races, and everyone else get's double points at Indy too. Not to mention the other 500 mile races have the same boost.

[Ross Stonefeld]

What it does, mathematically is give us this schedule

 

8 Street

4 Road

9 Ovals

 

There are now 9 25-point oval sections where before there were 5

 

So no, the 500 winner doesn't lock up the title. 

 

When someone eventually recalculates the 2013 points, there will be a shift or two but I don't think anyone will be dramatically out of place in the final standings. Maybe some of the one-offs(definitely Munoz) will jump a bunch of spots midtable but otherwise normal.

[Prost1997T]

They already did. Dixon still has a similar margin over Castroneves. Power moves up from 4th to 3rd (Pagenaud drops to 5th), and the other changes are maybe one spot here or there.

[dweller23]

 

What it does, mathematically is give us this schedule

 

8 Street

4 Road

9 Ovals

 

There are now 9 25-point oval sections where before there were 5

 

So no, the 500 winner doesn't lock up the title. 

 

When someone eventually recalculates the 2013 points, there will be a shift or two but I don't think anyone will be dramatically out of place in the final standings. Maybe some of the one-offs(definitely Munoz) will jump a bunch of spots midtable but otherwise normal.

 

One problem with that logic is the fact that if you are out of one "double" oval races, you are effectively out of two oval races. Somewhat similar to what 'Dinger did at Belle Isle last year.