36 replies to this topic

[DNQ]

Inspired by the new Supercars finals series and some of the more unusual WRC/British Superbike/NASCAR formats in recent times, I was wondering - what are the strangest points systems or championship formats?

I vaguely recall a junior category where someone won every single race (or maybe it was all but one?) but still finished 2nd. Any ideas what that could be?

[GazChed]

This reminds me of the Scottish Formule Libre championship in about 1983. The championship boiled down to a battle between between two drivers, David Duffield in a Caledon Coal sponsored Ralt RT4 and George Macmillan, Bass Rock Garage Ralt RT2. The remainder of the field at each race tended to be made up of outclassed Clubmans sports cars and Formula Ford 2000s having a second race.

The point scoring system was 10,9,8 etc to the first ten finishers with no point for fastest lap or pole position and no dropped scores. I think the championship was over ten rounds and coming into the final round Duffield had won every round with Macmillan finishing second every time. Come the final race, Duffield retired and Macmillan took the win and the championship by a single point !

Edited by GazChed, 09 October 2024 - 12:43.

[ensign14]

The competence of Tony George can be proved by the first IRL championship to have been a 3 race series, with no tie-breaker, and a scoring system that allowed a joint champion with 0 wins.

 

NASCAR had a complex one for 1973 and 1974 which relied on a multiplier of prize money.  Which ran out of control mathematically, so that Richard Petty (having won the Daytona 500) was basically guaranteed the title with about 10 races to go, so long as he turned up.  So when he came 35th at the 1974 Southern 500, he scored more points than Waltrip in 2nd.  Cale Yarborough, who was 2nd at Daytona, was also 2nd in the title, and those two had double the points of anyone else in the table.

[Henri Greuter]

The competence of Tony George can be proved by the first IRL championship to have been a 3 race series, with no tie-breaker, and a scoring system that allowed a joint champion with 0 wins.

 

NASCAR had a complex one for 1973 and 1974 which relied on a multiplier of prize money.  Which ran out of control mathematically, so that Richard Petty (having won the Daytona 500) was basically guaranteed the title with about 10 races to go, so long as he turned up.  So when he came 35th at the 1974 Southern 500, he scored more points than Waltrip in 2nd.  Cale Yarborough, who was 2nd at Daytona, was also 2nd in the title, and those two had double the points of anyone else in the table.

 

 

To this day I still believe that retaining these co-champions, come what may, was primarily inspired because of the fact that one of the drivers drove in a car entered by a team owned and named after a certain Texan ex-Indycar driver.

Had this not been the case I am not 100% sure that the one race winning driver had to share his title.

BTW, you blame Tony George for that, but I think it's more fair to also blame all those AAA & USAC originated "Living fossils" who inspired, motivated, `guided` and assisted TG  in realizing their dreams of going back to the good old days again.

 

 

NASCAR's current system is also on the brink of rediculous. In theory it is possible that a driver who did not qualify for `the chase` wins every damn'd race of `the chase', thanks to that achievement wins the most races of all drivers that year and under Pre-Chase rules would have scored the most points of all drivers that season while the title goes to a driver that has won only one single race and entered `the chase` with the worth results of all who qualified, getting through each stage as the final qualifier with the worst results of them all and only win the title with beating the other three contestants without doing well in the race.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 09 October 2024 - 08:12.

[d j fox]

I'm not a follower but was intrigued to see the recent Moto Cross GP des Nations. Here points were awarded 1 for 1st 2 for 2nd and so on. Each nation had 3 riders and the Nation with the lowest total points won ( Australia) I think there were further complications like being able to drop a highest score in one of the 3 qualifying races.....but maybe I misunderstood the somewhat hysterical announcers....

[ensign14]

NASCAR's current system is also on the brink of rediculous. In theory it is possible that a driver who did not qualify for `the chase` wins every damn'd race of `the chase', thanks to that achievement wins the most races of all drivers that year and under Pre-Chase rules would have scored the most points of all drivers that season while the title goes to a driver that has won only one single race and entered `the chase` with the worth results of all who qualified, getting through each stage as the final qualifier with the worst results of them all and only win the title with beating the other three contestants without doing well in the race.

It basically makes about 10,000 miles of racing one big qualifying session for a knockout tournament in which 75% of the field is background material.

[F1Frog]

Also in NASCAR, is it not true that one driver can win the first 35 races of the season (theoretically), then finish second in the last one and lose the championship?

[MCS]

Surprised nobody has mentioned Indylantic '76, the UK's 1976 Formula Atlantic Championship.

 

Put together ostensibly by Peter Wardle (no further comment forthcoming), the points scoring system was strange enough to begin with, providing (I think) 20 points for a victory down to tenth place.  But not content with that, after a handful of rounds it was decided to run three (3!) seven-lap qualifying races to decide on grid positions. This inevitably not only produced more non-starters for the main race, but also gave some of the main protagonisists - primarily Ted Wentz and Tony Rouff (ultimate champion and runner-up respectively) - the opportunity to drive into each other which, incredibly, they just about managed to avoid most of the time. 

 

Idiotic.                   

[Henri Greuter]

It basically makes about 10,000 miles of racing one big qualifying session for a knockout tournament in which 75% of the field is background material.

 

It is one of several reasons as of why I can not rate "N@$CR@P" as anything else but a modern day thrillseeker show with the regular guaranteed to happen certainties that could have made Barney Oldfield proud if he had invented it more than a century ago.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 09 October 2024 - 17:36.

[bsc]

In the 2004 Italian F3 championship, Matteo Cressoni and Toni Vilander finished equal on points. Although Vilander had won significantly more races (and under count back would have been given the title in most championships), the title was given to Cressoni as he'd completed in more races.

[GrzegorzChyla]

In Eastern Europe's Cup of Peace and Friendship in 1970s and 1980s (as well as in Polish Championship of the same period) scoring was 50-46-43-41-40 and so on to 1 point for 45th place.

Thing is no circuit allowed more than 30 drivers and in most cases there were about 30 starters.

This basically gave 20 to 1 points for places plus 30 for finishing the race.

I know a case in Championship of Poland where in 5 rounds a driver won 3 races and had 2 dnfs and in final classification he had less points than a driver who had four 6th places.

[uechtel]

I still find the 1931 European Championship amazing. Not only because of the absurd 10 hour races (probably in a desparate effort to keep 'pure' Grand Prix racing distinguished from profane formula libre raceing) but also that the points system seems to contradict absolutely to the racing format of the time and to the intended purpose of sorting out a proper champion. So while the racing format required two drivers sharing a car during the races - and usually the bigger teams would call in their lesser drivers in case that one of their top driver ran into technical problems so that he could take over the steering wheel and still achieve a victory or at least a good placing - only the driver who took the start was eligible for points. Ok, the replacement driver would also get the score, but only if he did the whole season together with the same partner, which made this only a theoretical option. In any case this would mean, that the best he could achieve would have been 'shared' champion together with his partner.

 

Also quite ridiculous to me is the fact, that this same points system - which also contained quite some aspects corresponding to the long distance racing (increasing points for everybody who survived 25%, 50% and 75% of the race distance) - was maintained throughout the 1930ies, when the races had been reduced to more 'normal' race distances and durations.

[Catalina Park]

My ideal championship would give 1 point for a win. That's it. 

[Derwent Motorsport]

The current WRC scoring is completely mad.

[ensign14]

So is the WRC.  Is it possible to retire from a rally if you are still alive?

[Sterzo]

My ideal championship would give 1 point for a win. That's it. 

Moses should have included this on his stone tablets.

 

Every other championship involves convoluted discussion of the points system, instead of focusing on the only thing that matters, the racing.

[lustigson]

In the 2004 Italian F3 championship, Matteo Cressoni and Toni Vilander finished equal on points. Although Vilander had won significantly more races (and under count back would have been given the title in most championships), the title was given to Cressoni as he'd completed in more races.

 

That's an odd thing to do. On Wikipedia it says that Vilander was ineligible for the championhsip, probably because he didn't compete in the first couple of races. 

 

Moses should have included this on his stone tablets.

 

In the Bible it says that Moses wanted to, but God said no. See Exodus 21:38. 

[BRG]

The current WRC scoring is completely mad.

Indeed.  On the last round of the WRC in Chile, Fourmaux came 5th and got 10 points, whilst Ogier crashed out, missed four stages and was classified 39th but still got 2 points more than Fourmaux.  Insanity.

 

So is the WRC.  Is it possible to retire from a rally if you are still alive? 

If the roll-cage is deemed by the scrutineers to be damaged,  you cannot restart under the Superally rule.  This has happened, although not very often, 

 

Or if one of the crew is injured or taken unwell. I think if you suffer a complete engine blow-up that necessitated a new PU, you are out. 

 

But it is quite hard to fail to finish a WRC event which is just as well given that there are only a handful of Rally 1 cars competing.

[ensign14]

God prefers sportscar racing, given he leads in his Triumph (2 Corinthians 2:14).

[JonnyA]

Not quite the same thing, but in the 1960s the Formula 2 Trophees de France championship was for entrants rather than drivers or manufacturers. As far as I know this is unique - ?

[ensign14]

World Sportscar Championship for Teams from 1985 (maybe a fall-out from when a Ring taxi was somehow counted for Group C points so Porsche could beat Rondeau).  Brun beat Porsche in 1987 which led to some rather unlikely wearers of the no. 1 in 1987 (Brun/Pareja/Schaefer at the Silverstone 1000km for instance).

[Jim Thurman]

The competence of Tony George can be proved by the first IRL championship to have been a 3 race series, with no tie-breaker, and a scoring system that allowed a joint champion with 0 wins.

 

NASCAR had a complex one for 1973 and 1974 which relied on a multiplier of prize money.  Which ran out of control mathematically, so that Richard Petty (having won the Daytona 500) was basically guaranteed the title with about 10 races to go, so long as he turned up.  So when he came 35th at the 1974 Southern 500, he scored more points than Waltrip in 2nd.  Cale Yarborough, who was 2nd at Daytona, was also 2nd in the title, and those two had double the points of anyone else in the table.

Tony George, like everyone else involved, were so certain that all had been so groomed for Tony Stewart, that no tie-breaker would be needed, as he would run away with the championship. They didn't count on his brick-headed driving and lack of mechanical sympathy.

 

With the caveat that I had to use Wikipedia (which I am never sure of), in 1972 and 1973, NASCAR's was even more complex, and didn't involve a prize money multiplier, but a laps/distance completed multiplier based on track length! .25 per lap completed on tracks under one mile in length to 1.25 points per lap on 2.5 mile tracks (Daytona, Talladega). This was combined with set point figures per position.

 

1974 was the year with the money earnings multiplied by races started then divided by 1000 (!). I remember how baffling it was to try to keep track of points in that era, where someone would crash out early, yet score more points than the race winner, which I believe happened once with Richard Petty scoring more points crashing out than winner Cale Yarborough did. Drivers themselves commented on this, and one writer remarked that fans needed slide rules to keep up with the points.

 

Now, the first of these, as well as one earlier point system change, were done by Bill France to prevent his embarrassment of having James Hylton win the championship with 0 wins (or 1). The change from 1973 was because Benny Parsons did win the championship with 1 win.

[Jim Thurman]

To this day I still believe that retaining these co-champions, come what may, was primarily inspired because of the fact that one of the drivers drove in a car entered by a team owned and named after a certain Texan ex-Indycar driver.

Had this not been the case I am not 100% sure that the one race winning driver had to share his title.

BTW, you blame Tony George for that, but I think it's more fair to also blame all those AAA & USAC originated "Living fossils" who inspired, motivated, `guided` and assisted TG  in realizing their dreams of going back to the good old days again.

I know your feelings about Mr. Foyt, Henri, and while he had his godson's ear, he wasn't the loudest voice in that ear. "We lost Jeff, we can't lose Tony" prompted the IRL timing, and curiously enough, despite testing, Tony (Stewart) was not placed with the Foyt team, but Menard. The IRL was not created for Foyt Racing to succeed, but the failure over a 3-race season by the driver it was created for allowed for a championship tie.

 

I only blame Tony George for who he listened to (and that he listened), and Foyt is a ways down on that list. He listened to TV people too, and see where that got NASCAR 

[Jim Thurman]

Also in NASCAR, is it not true that one driver can win the first 35 races of the season (theoretically), then finish second in the last one and lose the championship?

True.

It is one of several reasons as of why I can not rate "N@$CR@P" as anything else but a modern day thrillseeker show with the regular guaranteed to happen certainties that could have made Barney Oldfield proud if he had invented it more than a century ago.

It's what one gets when a sanctioning body lets TV executives tell them what they want. And they wanted it to be like other sports (playoffs, overtime) plus a "reality show" type of competition with weekly eliminations, turning it into "Survivor."

 

And why the knock on Barney Oldfield? What did he do to you? Barney might have been a tireless self-promoter and showman, and could even be a bit of a windbag at times, but I'm not aware of him ever supporting accidents. Quite the opposite, his later life criticism of racing grew tiresome to some. But, he had some valid points.

Edited by Jim Thurman, 11 October 2024 - 02:16.

[ensign14]

the first of these, as well as one earlier point system change, were done by Bill France to prevent his embarrassment of having James Hylton win the championship with 0 wins (or 1). The change from 1973 was because Benny Parsons did win the championship with 1 win.

At the last race he basically had half a car after being caught up in an accident.  But knew he needed to complete a certain number of laps to guarantee nobody could surpass him in points.  A points system aimed at sponsors - would help ensure their mobile advert was out there as long as possible.

[Mallory Dan]

World Sportscar Championship for Teams from 1985 (maybe a fall-out from when a Ring taxi was somehow counted for Group C points so Porsche could beat Rondeau).  Brun beat Porsche in 1987 which led to some rather unlikely wearers of the no. 1 in 1987 (Brun/Pareja/Schaefer at the Silverstone 1000km for instance).

Brun won in '86, Ens, not '87

[Henri Greuter]

True.

It's what one gets when a sanctioning body lets TV executives tell them what they want. And they wanted it to be like other sports (playoffs, overtime) plus a "reality show" type of competition with weekly eliminations, turning it into "Survivor."

 

And why the knock on Barney Oldfield? What did he do to you? Barney might have been a tireless self-promoter and showman, and could even be a big of a windbag at times, but I'm not aware of him ever supporting accidents. Quite the opposite, his later life criticism of racing grew tiresome to some. But, he had some valid points.

Barney was also known for organizing events that were pretty much planned as how to be carried out on the track with the outcome being secure and predictable

But programming a single event like Barney did, or creating a championship with near certain events taking place the attendance can count upon to see when watching the races part of that championship??

Barney would have loved such I think, even if the name of the winner of these races are not yet set in stone as in his events.....

[ensign14]

Brun won in '86, Ens, not '87

Yes, but I got the year right when they were nos 1-3.

 

Which is of course why Porsche AG were down at 17-18.

[Henri Greuter]

I know your feelings about Mr. Foyt, Henri, and while he had his godson's ear, he wasn't the loudest voice in that ear. "We lost Jeff, we can't lose Tony" prompted the IRL timing, and curiously enough, despite testing, Tony (Stewart) was not placed with the Foyt team, but Menard. The IRL was not created for Foyt Racing to succeed, but the failure over a 3-race season by the driver it was created for allowed for a championship tie.

 

I only blame Tony George for who he listened to (and that he listened), and Foyt is a ways down on that list. He listened to TV people too, and see where that got NASCAR 

 

Then, with hindsight, the IRL people should not have allowed Tony to be in a Menard car to begin with but have him in an XB powered car.

Those Buick V6 based engines were helpful in filling the field but not for getting drivers to be flagged off.

 

I am aware of one action by IRL to assist Tony that season: when almost without notice to the opposition IRL raised the maximum boost level onto the stock block V6 based engines from 55 to 60 Inch.

If my memory serves me well this was one of the things that `urinated off` (to phrase it in decent language) Ford and contributed to their refusal to be involved with IRL and Indianapolis at large ever since.
 

[Henri Greuter]

Yes, but I got the year right when they were nos 1-3.

 

Which is of course why Porsche AG were down at 17-18.

If it comes to the most memorable outings of the factory Porsche 956/962 at Le Mans many mention the 1-2-3 for the #1, #2 and #3 in 1982.

 

But the one story I also like very much and deals with a factory entered 956/962 is that of the 1987 #17.

[DCapps]

Barney was also known for organizing events that were pretty much planned as how to be carried out on the track with the outcome being secure and predictable

But programming a single event like Barney did, or creating a championship with near certain events taking place the attendance can count upon to see when watching the races part of that championship??

Barney would have loved such I think, even if the name of the winner of these races are not yet set in stone as in his events.....

 

Blah, blah, blah... Presentism in its worse form. 

 

E.A. Moross and J.A. Sloan, for example, promoted a number of events during the early & mid 1910s that were staged primarily at fair ground tracks and sanctioned by the AAA Contest Board, no less.

Just as Oldfield had done earlier, these events were more often than not the sole motor racing in any form that many of those attending would see that year.

And, they did not always go as planned, thanks to one thing and another.

Also, keep in mind that Oldfield did not always win those match races he organized. 

 

Perhaps thanks that I have now spent literally decades immersed in this era of motor sport and sport in general, as well as this era being one of my subject fields, that some still seem to not comprehend just how much of an entertainment and exciting diversion these events were for most people at the time.

Even as the second decade of the 20th century reached its midpoint, the automobile and its use in sport was very much a big deal.

It is nice and wonderful to look over a century and sneer and belittle those for being so besotted and fascinated by these events.

Racing in America was -- GASP!!!!! -- considered first and foremost as an entertainment: the marvel of watching acing cars on tracks or on road courses was a Big Deal.

 

Put another way: aren't team orders in Grand Prix or other forms of racing just another form of hippdroming? Same idea...

[La Sarthe]

The European Rally Championship from the 60s to 80s (I think) had a series of coefficients, 1 to 4. Each rally was allocated one, based probably on its alleged difficulty or 'importance'. A coefficient 4 rally scored 4 times as many points as a coefficient 1 rally. There was also a ridiculous number of qualifying rounds, so drivers just picked and choosed which rallies to do - mainly the 4s and 3s. If they were in contention at the end of the season though, they might start doing other events to win a few points. The scoring table was massive and unwieldy, and in reality only a handful of drivers actually chased the championship.

[Catalina Park]

 

Every other championship involves convoluted discussion of the points system, instead of focusing on the only thing that matters, the racing.

I once found myself in the position of being in second place in a championship with one round to go. So I did the sensible thing and didn't enter the final race. I ended up 4th in the championship and the guy that was coming 4th ended up winning. 
The reason for not running was a couple of things, I was racing for fun, and at the start of the year I set a budget and I had reached my cap. 
Plus I hate championships, they just spoil good racing.

[Henri Greuter]

Blah, blah, blah... Presentism in its worse form. 

 

E.A. Moross and J.A. Sloan, for example, promoted a number of events during the early & mid 1910s that were staged primarily at fair ground tracks and sanctioned by the AAA Contest Board, no less.

Just as Oldfield had done earlier, these events were more often than not the sole motor racing in any form that many of those attending would see that year.

And, they did not always go as planned, thanks to one thing and another.

Also, keep in mind that Oldfield did not always win those match races he organized. 

 

Perhaps thanks that I have now spent literally decades immersed in this era of motor sport and sport in general, as well as this era being one of my subject fields, that some still seem to not comprehend just how much of an entertainment and exciting diversion these events were for most people at the time.

Even as the second decade of the 20th century reached its midpoint, the automobile and its use in sport was very much a big deal.

It is nice and wonderful to look over a century and sneer and belittle those for being so besotted and fascinated by these events.

Racing in America was -- GASP!!!!! -- considered first and foremost as an entertainment: the marvel of watching acing cars on tracks or on road courses was a Big Deal.

 

Put another way: aren't team orders in Grand Prix or other forms of racing just another form of hippdroming? Same idea...

 

No smoke without fire I suppose.

 

Having said that, I don't deny the fact that these very early years in motor racing were quite something.

If you think my post is ridiculing Barney and that era, then I do apologize for the fact that it did give such an impression.

Because it certainly was not meant that way.

 

I love reading about the years of racing up till, say WWI.

I once went to the USA, knowing that I was to go to the Henry Ford and had found out on internet that "Old number 16" was not on display, much to my regret.

Imagine my excitiement when I found out while in the museum that it was there to see after all.

I rate "Old Number 16" at least as valuable for the history of motor racing in the USA as the Marmon Wasp

 

If, in my intention to express my lack of interest and apprecation for NASCAR and its doings to stage entertainment also indicated to you that I feel the same about the early years, once again, I am sorry for that because that is definitely not the case.

Give me the choise between reading about the 2nd V8 er in F1 (the 2.4 liters) or about. say, the Gordon Bennet years.

No contest.

 

Hope this helps a bit to indicate where I stand.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 11 October 2024 - 06:15.

[70JesperOH]

The current points system for NASCAR has eluded me so far, and to my surprise it hasn't bothered me! In former years it would have. At least there are some thrilling if not races then at least duels during the races.

 

Jesper

[Jim Thurman]

At the last race he basically had half a car after being caught up in an accident.  But knew he needed to complete a certain number of laps to guarantee nobody could surpass him in points.  A points system aimed at sponsors - would help ensure their mobile advert was out there as long as possible.

Indeed, he did. The number of other teams that helped work on his car to get it back on track was a testament to their support of a small, plucky team.

 

As to the latter, that's inaccurately cynical, even by NASCAR standards    Since little was televised during the era, it would have been only for fans in the stands.

 

Somewhat ironically then, Benny Parsons - as a commentator - was the first to pull open the curtain and tell the viewers that the in car cameras were paid for as advertising.

[Jim Thurman]

Then, with hindsight, the IRL people should not have allowed Tony to be in a Menard car to begin with but have him in an XB powered car.

Those Buick V6 based engines were helpful in filling the field but not for getting drivers to be flagged off.

 

I am aware of one action by IRL to assist Tony that season: when almost without notice to the opposition IRL raised the maximum boost level onto the stock block V6 based engines from 55 to 60 Inch.

If my memory serves me well this was one of the things that `urinated off` (to phrase it in decent language) Ford and contributed to their refusal to be involved with IRL and Indianapolis at large ever since.
 

We're getting far afield from point systems here, and it's better for another thread, but I agree about the Buick. Clearly, they viewed Menard as a potential Penske that could carry their favored son to the goal they had created for him. Even more advantages were given to Team Menard/Stewart the next year...

 

...but getting back to the point system, as mentioned, it shows how little thought was put into it. And, that is why. They planned (and hoped for) a runaway winner, that was one driver and one driver only.