24 replies to this topic

[chrislonie]

Alesi up to sixth!

1 M.Schumacher 2034
2 David Coulthard 1870
3 R.Barrichello 1829
4 Ralf Schumacher 1724
5 Jean Alesi 1654
6 Kimi Raikkonen 1620
7 J.Villeneuve 1612
8 Nick Heidfeld 1583
9 Jarno Trulli 1580
10 Mika Hakkinen 1571
11 Olivier Panis 1560
12 Juan Montoya 1558
13 Jos Verstappen 1556
14 Jenson Button 1524
15 Eddie Irvine 1491
16 G.Fisichella 1490
17 Fernando Alonso 1408
18 Enrico Bernoldi 1386
19 Tarso Marques 1320
20 H-H.Frentzen 1307
21 Luciano Burti 999
22 Pedro de la Rosa 970
23 Luciano Burti 515
24 Gaston Mazzacane 457
25 Ricardo Zonta 249

[KinetiK]

Fifth.

I've done a bit of digging and this is what I have found out about the NASCAR points system: it sucks. It doesn't reward winners and you can get into the top 5 just by running a lot of laps and hoping that others drop out. Not much of a challenge... I'll bet I could get into the top 4, just by running a slow, reliable car... such as my Cherokee (yes, I am assuming they drop the 107% rule just for me! hehe)

The NASCAR points system for those who don't know (I didn't until I just looked it up here: http://www.nascar.co...lain/index.html)

I've just merely cut & pasted the information from the NASCAR page for your pleasure:

1st: 175 points
2nd: 170 points
3rd: 165 points
4th: 160 points
5th: 155 points
6th: 150 points
7th: 146 points

The winner of a Winston Cup race pockets 175 points. From there the points given decline in five-point increments for places two through six, points awarded drop four points per driver for positions seven through 11 and three-point increments separate drivers' points for finishers in 12th place or lower.

The 43rd-place finisher gets 34 points. Drivers who lead a lap earn five bonus points. The driver who leads the most laps in a single event earns 10 bonus points.

NASCAR also has a Constructors Championship with a points breakdown as such:

Manufacturers have a points race of their own. The car maker who has a driver take first place in a race earns nine points for that race. Second-best performance by a manufacturer gets six points, third place earns four points and fourth place, three points. At Daytona: Chevrolet, nine points; Ford, six points; Dodge, four points; Pontiac, three points.

[tifoso]

Not so surprising that Alesi would move up in the standings if the NASCAR point system was used. His reliability this year has been one of the best on the grid. The NASCAR system rewards reliability much more than winning it seems to me. Why else would cars with mechanical problems and body damage tool around at the bottom of the track? It's the thing I dislike most about NASCAR.

[Cheever]

Well this was interesting reading, I'll vote for NASCAR-points in F1;)

But FYI they only have points for akademic reasons i the US they only count a thing that looks like this $

[Locai]

All of these scenarios (and there have been a bunch of them posted) of driver's standings using some other system are, if you'll pardon the pun, "pointless".

Under the current F1 system, there is little need to get a car back on the track if the repairs are going to take more than a couple of laps. If you can't get into the top 6, then there is little to be gained by patching up the car just to rack up laps.

How often do you see cars in NASCAR running around the bottom of the track with no front-end just to get more laps in than the guy who demolished his car 10 laps later? ALMOST EVERY RACE!

That works when you have plenty of room on an oval, but that's way too dangerous on a tight road course.

Furthermore, if an F1 driver knew they could get extra points for leading a lap, I can guarantee you that somebody's pit stop strategy would have changed at some point this year. The same goes with getting extra points for winning the poll and leading the most laps.


Yeah, it's interesting to debate the merits of different points systems and what effect they would have on the standings.

But, don't kid yourself into believing that they mean ANYTHING at all. Strategy is based very much on the reward system; you can't change the system without changing strategies.

[KinetiK]

In NASCAR there's a 2.8% difference between 1st place points and 2nd place points. CART, on the other hand, gives the winner 20% more points than the runner up. F1 has a 40% gap.

I don't know why NASCAR does this. Are there any dyed in the wool NASCAR fans here who can lucidly explain to me why NASCAR chose to use this points system based on 'merit' instead of one that rewards wins?

[Turbo]

I have always found the Nascar points system incredibly silly. Just one of many reasons I can't bear to watch those "shows"...err I mean "races."

I think the F1 system is best in that it rewards winning. I want to see all drivers striving to win. The thing that is too bad is that only six people score points. The CART system is nice in that 12 people get points (plus 1 for pole and 1 for most laps lead), but I would like to see more of a difference between 1&2, 2&3 etc.

If I were starting a new racing series, I would try something like:

1st 50
2nd 30
3rd 20
4th 15
5th 11
6th 8
7th 6
8th 5
9th 4
10th 3
11th 2
12th 1
pole 3
fastest lap 1
most laps lead 1

Positions 1-4 are the same as the F1 system (X5), then 5th-12th descend in a logical progression (difference between positions is 20/10/5/4/3/2/1/1/1/1/1). Top 12 earn points, but the emphasis on winning is retained. Also, qualifying becomes important in and of itself for three points (equivalent to finishing 10th in the race itself). A "sweep" (win, pole, fast lap, most laps lead) yields 55 points.

What do you think?

[AlesiGOD]

Clearly these rules should be adopted... he he he...

[John B]

I can give you a partial explanation before heading home, and maybe JoeFan or Pacific or someone can follow up. Years ago there were concerns that with so many races, teams would run partial schedules hitting the big, rich events at Daytona, Darlington, Charlotte, etc and skipping events with less $$$ and prestige. The current system makes it almost impossible to win a championship while missing a race, considering that even 43rd place gets you a number of points. Follow Kevin Harvick as an example - with a spectacular season he is in the top 7 in points after succeeding Dale Earnhardt, but it will be hard to crack the top 5 since he missed Daytona and gave his challengers a big head start. Jeff Burton several years ago also missed a race and that hurt his points placement. Rarely is the series decided by more than 185 points, though Jarrett and Labonte have had confortable margins the past 2 years.

Personally I would like to see NASCAR winners get a few more points.

There is a slight discrepancy in the comparison: NASCAR fields 42+ cars in events, F1 has 25 drivers listed. So rating the 25 F1 drivers on a system based on 43 cars isn't a true indicator of the 1st-to-last distribution of NASCAR points. Interesting though...DC's title chances would be helped dramatically with a win and MS last place!

[orange]

F1 should reward points till 8 places and also reward pole and fastest lap time .
Probably to spice it up reward points for most number of passes
We'll see top teams qualifying at the bottom...

[ray b]

in all most all usa races list drivers money won after place #
in newspapers ect
do F-1 ever say who got what $$$ for the race postion
or is there cash for year end points position ? how much?

[Pacific]

The reason NASCAR uses their system is to encourage large fields of cars. Back in the ol' days, NASCAR came up with this point system as a reward/incentine to drivers to race all the races. You couldn't win the championship just showing up for a select number of races, winning them all, etc. This way, David Pearson, Richard Petty, and crew were at all the events. Nowadays NASCAR is a big deal money wise and people would show up just for that.

The NASCAR points system has its pluses and minuses, like any other system does. NASCAR rewards consistent top 10 finishes, which, in a field of 43 cars is pretty good. I mean, F1 is rewarding 6 out of 22 as things stand, it will be 24 soon.

I like the Winston Cup point system for Winston Cup, F1's for F1, CART's for CART, and whatever for the IRL. It doesn't make sense for each of these series to have the same points systems. Why have a different series?

The nice thing about Winston Cup's point system is, it's very easy to compare the drivers/teams lower down on the points chart, than to compare those cars who haven't scored points in F1 and go through all the races looking for best finishes. Again though, I'd be up in arms if F1 were to adopt one of the other series' points systems. I guess if it were to become more CART-like, but, certainly not NASCAR like. That's just not the elite open-wheel way. CART rewards finishing, but of course, things are very weighted towards winning and finishing well.

[nordschleife]

F1 revenue distribution is based on a complex constantly-modified formula which takes into account every conceivable aspect of achievement, exposure and history. If it were available for publication (it is not) it would be a daunting but worthwhile read that no US newspaper editor would make room for. Why? Because interest in anything but NASCAR is insignificant in the States. How is this possible in a country that thinks of itself as technology innovator to the world?
I propose a moratorium on all reference to NASCAR, the black hole that is perverting and retarding the very concept of what motor racing should aspire to be.

[skylark68]

It's an inducement to make sure everyone attends all events and it was also developed when there were a lot of regional events. Drivers tended to stick to their region as the cost was too great to attend all events. Nascar was a backyard mechanics race for a long, long time.

With no more regional events and the money involved now, it is rather stupid to continue with the existing points system.

I mean, they put cars back out held together with duct tape, just so they get points. That looks ridiculous.

[doohanOK]

Notice where Heinz-Harald Frentzen is on the points board.

Certainly interesting.....

regards,
doohanOK.

[Viss1]

Nothing against Minardi, but their position under the NASCAR system is proof of that system's inadequacy. A car that can barely make the starting grid shouldn't rank higher than a car that has podium potential.

[mhferrari]

Formula One has the best point system, which awards points, with a 22 car grid, to the top 27.27%, with this CART would award the top 7 with points, IRL would award the top 5, and NASCAR would award the top 11. The NASCAR system is stupid, because the 2nd place driver can have more points in the race than the race winner, and drivers who retire and place last actually get points.

[Melbourne Park]

This is a good giggle and the work to do it is appreciated.

But its irrelevant.

[MuMu]

There's one strong message in this - Alesi to NASCAR !!!

[Pacific]

There are actually rumors Mark Blundell will be going to NASCAR.

[TheDestroyer]

Point scales in NASCAR suck...

It's that old addage, everyone is a winner so long as they try...

[bob_gilliland]

Many of the posters on this thread have hit most of the reasons why NASCAR awards points the way it does. There is one other reason to add to this:

NASCAR has always raced on a wide variety of tracks. In the early days it wasn't uncommon for a driver to race on a large, paved superspeedway like Darlington or Charlotte on Sunday and then race on a 5/8 mile dirt track later in the week. There are drivers who can rfinish in the top-5 at the superspeedways but have a great deal of trouble on the short tracks, and vice-versa. The NASCAR POV on this is that a champion must consistently finish in the top 10 or 5 each week no matter what type of track is being raced on.

[chrislonie]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
This is a good giggle and the work to do it is appreciated.

But its irrelevant.

Thank you, MP, for getting to the root of my original post.
Chris

[Inness]

Thanks for the perspective, but NASCAR SUCKS!!!!
F1 RULES:up:

[mhferrari]

I remember in 1980 and before, Indycars had a point system like NASCAR, with champions scoring 5000 points, though I do not know how the points were distributed.