Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

IndyCar introduces 'DOUBLE POINTS' for 500 mile races ... sigh ;-(


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#1 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,232 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 21 March 2014 - 17:20

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

 

:down:  indycar follows F1 and joins the madness ...  :down:

 

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  :mad:

 

 

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


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


Advertisement

#2 GSiebert

GSiebert
  • Member

  • 1,902 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 21 March 2014 - 17:29

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



#3 aray

aray
  • Member

  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 21 March 2014 - 17:30

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



#4 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,232 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 21 March 2014 - 17:35

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

 

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 ... :mad:  since t20 was introduced, my love for cricket has faded almost to zilch. :down:   



#5 jonpollak

jonpollak
  • Member

  • 13,713 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 21 March 2014 - 17:37

Poor Eron.

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

I'm fine with it too
Jp

#6 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 21 March 2014 - 17:38

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.

#7 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,510 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 21 March 2014 - 17:38

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.



#8 jrg19

jrg19
  • Member

  • 6,118 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 21 March 2014 - 17:39

Great IDEA!



#9 Jimisgod

Jimisgod
  • Member

  • 2,949 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 21 March 2014 - 17:40

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.

#10 Radoye

Radoye
  • Member

  • 847 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 March 2014 - 17:42

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.



#11 DampMongoose

DampMongoose
  • Member

  • 1,390 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 21 March 2014 - 17:43

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.



#12 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 March 2014 - 17:44

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.



#13 Jim Thurman

Jim Thurman
  • Member

  • 4,188 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 21 March 2014 - 17:53

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. :lol:

 

 

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


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


#14 Victor_RO

Victor_RO
  • RC Forum Host

  • 2,863 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 21 March 2014 - 17:53

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.



#15 ollebompa

ollebompa
  • Member

  • 717 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 21 March 2014 - 17:57

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

 

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


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


#16 E.B.

E.B.
  • Member

  • 1,965 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 21 March 2014 - 18:05

...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.

#17 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Writer of 2013's Best Opening Post

  • 7,070 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 21 March 2014 - 18:09

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



#18 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,453 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 21 March 2014 - 18:11

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.



#19 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,443 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 21 March 2014 - 18:16

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.



Advertisement

#20 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,872 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 March 2014 - 18:21

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.


#21 jonpollak

jonpollak
  • Member

  • 13,713 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 21 March 2014 - 18:24

Bodes well for a certain Mr.Carpenter.
Jp

#22 FBJim

FBJim
  • Member

  • 147 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 March 2014 - 18:34

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.


#23 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 March 2014 - 18:47

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.



#24 Jim Thurman

Jim Thurman
  • Member

  • 4,188 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 21 March 2014 - 18:50

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.



#25 HaydenFan

HaydenFan
  • Member

  • 2,107 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 21 March 2014 - 19:05

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. 



#26 TimRTC

TimRTC
  • Member

  • 878 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 21 March 2014 - 19:20


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  :mad:

 

 

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



#27 ollebompa

ollebompa
  • Member

  • 717 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 21 March 2014 - 19:31

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.


#28 jonpollak

jonpollak
  • Member

  • 13,713 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 21 March 2014 - 19:32

Brilliant Timmy !!!!

How about McMahons Law?
Jp

#29 paulb

paulb
  • Member

  • 2,557 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 21 March 2014 - 19:38

Brilliant Timmy !!!!

How about McMahons Law?
Jp

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



#30 FerrariV12

FerrariV12
  • Member

  • 415 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 21 March 2014 - 19:44

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.



#31 jonpollak

jonpollak
  • Member

  • 13,713 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 21 March 2014 - 19:48

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

#32 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,706 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 21 March 2014 - 19:49

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.

#33 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 932 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 21 March 2014 - 19:56

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.  



#34 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 932 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 21 March 2014 - 19:59

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. 



#35 maximilian

maximilian
  • Member

  • 481 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 March 2014 - 20:01

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



#36 FenderJaguar

FenderJaguar
  • Member

  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 21 March 2014 - 20:03

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.


#37 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,510 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 21 March 2014 - 20:05

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



#38 maximilian

maximilian
  • Member

  • 481 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 March 2014 - 20:15

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.


#39 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,453 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 21 March 2014 - 20:24

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?



Advertisement

#40 Frank Tuesday

Frank Tuesday
  • Member

  • 932 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 21 March 2014 - 20:46

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? 



#41 FBJim

FBJim
  • Member

  • 147 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 March 2014 - 21:00

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.



#42 dweller23

dweller23
  • Member

  • 688 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 21 March 2014 - 21:17

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.



#43 sabjit

sabjit
  • Member

  • 692 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 21 March 2014 - 21:20

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 ... :mad:  since t20 was introduced, my love for cricket has faded almost to zilch. :down:   

 

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.



#44 jonpollak

jonpollak
  • Member

  • 13,713 posts
  • Joined: March 00

Posted 21 March 2014 - 21:22

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


And there you have it.
Jp

#45 dweller23

dweller23
  • Member

  • 688 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 21 March 2014 - 21:26

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.



#46 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,741 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 21 March 2014 - 21:31

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.



#47 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • Member

  • 7,469 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 21 March 2014 - 21:38

 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.



#48 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 57,872 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 21 March 2014 - 21:42

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.


#49 Prost1997T

Prost1997T
  • Member

  • 2,020 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 21 March 2014 - 21:45

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.



#50 dweller23

dweller23
  • Member

  • 688 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 21 March 2014 - 21:47

 

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.