85 replies to this topic

[Ross Stonefeld]

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.

 

I missed that, where's the recalculation?

[Prost1997T]

I missed that, where's the recalculation?

 

http://thesetupsheet...ng-2014-points/

[redreni]

As I said on the F1 double points thread, I'm not against some races awarding more points than others if there's a sensible reason for it, like the race being run over a longer time or distance (like in V8 Supercars where the points tend to go in proportion to the race distances) or having special significance or prestige (like Le Mans). I'm against doing it for cynical, artificial reasons. There's nothing special about Abu Dhabi - the track is special because of the sheer lunatic, obscene extravagance of it, but the actual event couldn't be more ordinary if it tried.

 

I've got no problem with Indycar doing this. Does this mean that prior to this decision the Indy 500 only awarded regular points? If so I didn't know that and I think that can't have been right.

Edited by redreni, 21 March 2014 - 23:37.

[FerrariV12]

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

 

Not as bad.

[RealRacing]

The should also make circuits count more than ovals...

[Andrew Hope]

The should also make circuits count more than ovals...

 

 

[Jimisgod]

500km of Spa F1 race? Oh baby.

[Tomecek]

Weeks ago I argued that F1 could possibly introduce double point races on "Grand Slam" basis. Same like in tennis ATP wourld tour. Makes sense to me, in IndyCar's 500 races.

[PayasYouRace]

500km of Spa F1 race? Oh baby.

 

That's an idea. For F1 circuits that were around back then, go back to pre-1958 race distances. Have an F1 "Grand Slam" of Monaco (300 km) and Spa, Silverstone, Nurburgring and Monza (500 km) and make them worth double points. Given the efficiency of the new engines, they wouldn't need much more fuel than they carried last year.

 

If F1 had done that, I'd have been happier about it.

[ArnageWRC]

I'm not against this, it actually makes sense. Whereas the F1 'double points' makes no sense at all.

I actually like the idea of PayasYouRace - have the 'classics' in their pre-1958 distances; that would be fantastic. Of course it can't happen due to the 2 hour TV window.

[Risil]

I actually like the idea of PayasYouRace - have the 'classics' in their pre-1958 distances; that would be fantastic. Of course it can't happen due to the 2 hour TV window.

 

What two hour window? Every live broadcast I've seen lately contains over an hour of pre- and post-race balls. 

[redreni]

I'm not against this, it actually makes sense. Whereas the F1 'double points' makes no sense at all.

I actually like the idea of PayasYouRace - have the 'classics' in their pre-1958 distances; that would be fantastic. Of course it can't happen due to the 2 hour TV window.

 

Which is why if there's a red-flag delay, the TV broadcasts finish before the race does.... oh hang on....

 

I'm sure if TV companies are willing to stick with a race that overruns thereby messing up their schedules and forcing their presenters to commentate on wildlife (remember the Montreal Beaver?) they'd also be willing to stick with longer races which they know about in advance and can plan for and which might actually be entertaining.

[Tsarwash]

Does the Indy and other 500k races last a lot longer than the road and street races ? The distance is double, but are they not doing double the average speed too ?

[Collombin]

Not quite - yellows always slow things up. Last year's Indy 500 was the fastest ever, but still well below 200mph average.

Anyway, the length of time the race takes shouldn't be a factor really - a race that's twice the distance and twice the speed would on the face of it seem more of a challenge.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Yes, basically. The street races pre-Indy were 130-140kph race average, Indy was 300k. Texas 285, Milwaukee 220, Iowa 239(all km hour)

[SR388]

These jackasses.

[Frank Tuesday]

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.

Well, one of the races was Baltimore, which had many, many cautions.  It reminded me why I quit caring about CART/IndyCar many years ago. 

[Prost1997T]

Well, one of the races was Baltimore, which had many, many cautions.  It reminded me why I quit caring about CART/IndyCar many years ago. 

 

It's not on the schedule this year, and was a crappy layout. Combine that with double file restarts and no cranes to remove stranded cars..

[Ross Stonefeld]

Because street races have things to hit and you almost always have to use the safety car because of it?

[Prost1997T]

Because street races have things to hit and you almost always have to use the safety car because of it?

 

I suppose he has a point. Monaco last year had 3 safety cars and a red flag period, Baltimore had 6 cautions.

[Collombin]

Yes, basically. The street races pre-Indy were 130-140kph race average, Indy was 300k. Texas 285, Milwaukee 220, Iowa 239(all km hour)

Well the 500 milers were comfortably the longest races in duration, so I obviously picked the wrong reason as the explanation - speeds do seem to be double in that case, but the distances are usually much more than double that of the road and street races.

[RealRacing]

 

"I don't agree with it so it must be trolling"...

[Collombin]

If you were actually being serious then my only response would be "you can't be serious".

[RealRacing]

If you were actually being serious then my only response would be "Surely you can't be serious".

Of course I am and stop calling me Shirley

 

Just wanted to show how sensitive some people get when the driving merit of circuits vs ovals is discussed...

Edited by RealRacing, 22 March 2014 - 14:37.

[PayasYouRace]

Does the Indy and other 500k races last a lot longer than the road and street races ? The distance is double, but are they not doing double the average speed too ?

 

The race durations from last year are as follows

 

St. Pete, 198 mi, 2 hr 22 min

 

Barber, 207 mi, 1 hr 52 min

 

Long Beach, 157 mi, 1 hr 50 min

 

Indy, 500 mi, 2 hr 40 min

 

Detroit, 164 mi, 1hr 48 min (race 1), 1 hr 46 min (race 2)

 

Texas, 331 mi, 1 hr 52 min

 

Milwaukee, 253 mi, 1hr 51 min

 

Iowa, 223 mi, 1 hr 30 min

 

Pocono, 400 mi, 2 hr 4 min

 

Toronto, 149 mi, 1 hr 41 min (race 1), 1 hr 35 min (race 2)

 

Mid-Ohio, 203 mi, 1 hr 43 min

 

Sonoma, 202 mi, 2 hr 20 min

 

Houston, 147 mi, 1 hr 54 min (race 1), 1 hr 52 min (race 2)

 

Fontana, 500 mi, 3 hr 13 min

[PayasYouRace]

"I don't agree with it so it must be trolling"...

 

 

Of course I am and stop calling me Shirley

 

Just wanted to show how sensitive some people get when the driving merit of circuits vs ovals is discussed...

 

So you were trolling. 

[RealRacing]

So you were trolling. 

Nah, maybe deviating from the subject a bit...

[HoldenRT]

Copycats!

[Dolph]

I think having 500 mile race with more points than other oval races makes sense.

 

However, I don't think giving 500 milers double points makes sense when we compare them to road races. Because:

- they maintain a very high average speed. The only reason those races are 500 miles and not 200 miles is that the race would be simply too short in terms of time. If you could average 230 miles per hour over a lap at Long Beach it could also be 500 miles long.

- even though the 500 mile oval races are quite long it is still a bit of a crapshoot who takes the checkered flag first. Case in point last year's Indy 500 where the first 4-5 guys could have easily won. It was really just decided in the last moments.

[Lotus53B]

Maybe F1 should introduce an endurance race of 500km+. Having regularly driven distances in excess of this, I think it would be relevant to modern cars - and probably worth double points

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think having 500 mile race with more points than other oval races makes sense.

 

However, I don't think giving 500 milers double points makes sense when we compare them to road races. Because:

- they maintain a very high average speed. The only reason those races are 500 miles and not 200 miles is that the race would be simply too short in terms of time. If you could average 230 miles per hour over a lap at Long Beach it could also be 500 miles long.

- even though the 500 mile oval races are quite long it is still a bit of a crapshoot who takes the checkered flag first. Case in point last year's Indy 500 where the first 4-5 guys could have easily won. It was really just decided in the last moments.

 

Yeah but they have 250 and 330 mile oval races, and the 500 milers are the longest in both time and distance. So they are genuinely the closest thing they have to endurance events.

[RealRacing]

Maybe F1 should introduce an endurance race of 500km+. Having regularly driven distances in excess of this, I think it would be relevant to modern cars - and probably worth double points

F1 races already are endurance...

[August]

F1 should follow IndyCar and have a longer distance in double-points race(s).

[JHSingo]

It amazes me that other forms of racing have had chance to witness the backlash from when F1 announced its double points idea, yet still think "Hey, that's a good idea! We should do something similar."

[Ross Stonefeld]

But they're not doing it 'for the championship' but for their longest races. Which are considerably longer than the others.

[HammyHamiltonFan]

I can understand it I guess for the Indy 500, not sure about the others though