- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

>In article <130120101058204210%le…@me.alone>,
> Curmudgeon <le…@me.alone> wrote:

>> Domenicali says an adjustment to the new points system is already
>> in the cards "amid suggestions of a minor tweak to give a greater
>> percentage separation between the first and second place scores."

>I think they’re taking the wrong approach – instead of trying to finesse
>the ratios between finishing positions, they should give points for
>activities they want to encourage. As examples:

>Passing (on track) – a pass of a non-teammate should be worth a point.
>However, being passed by a non-teammate means you lose a point.

>Fast lap – two points

>Pole position – two points

>Finishing the race – A car that finishes the race will receive no less
>than one point for the race. A car that does not finish the race will
>receive zero points. (You can’t score negative points in a race, unless
>it is the result of a penalty.)

>Points for finishing position will remain unchanged.

>Penalties – a car that is disqualified from the race shall receive a
>penalty of five points. (Yes, getting a black flag is worse than not
>racing.)

>If a car enters the pits to serve a penalty, it is still considered to
>be on-track for purposes of passing. (A car that loses three positions
>due to a penalty would be docked three points, and each car that passed
>it would receive one point.)

>Thoughts?

Too much to figure out without a large computer.  Make it simpler, but
reward true performance.

Pole – 1 pt
Fast lap – 1 pt
Win – 3 pts over 2
2nd – 2 pts over 3
3rd – 2 pts over 4
4th through whateverith – 1 pt sepration

By giving a win an extra 3 points, it keeps 2nd from leapfrogging
first.  By giving points to fast lap, you encourage someone with a
fast car and a bad qual (cut tire in Q2?) to still haul it.  Pole is
just kind of one of those recognitions of being able to put together
two decent laps and one thunderous one.

What I don’t want to do is something like NASCAR, where cars that
should be parked are still out there, toddling along, getting in the
way, because they get points just for finishing laps.  It almost seems
like they give points for anything.  Most water drunk during pitstops.
Most braless 44DD women wearing their t-shirt.

Too many points for little accomplishments makes the racing silly.
This is about winning, not tooling around in 5th for half the season.
—

- dillon  I am not invalid

I love my country, It’s my government I fear.

Hey, turnabout’s fair play.

> Curmudgeon <le…@me.alone> wrote:
>> Domenicali says an adjustment to the new points system is already
>> in the cards
> I think they’re taking the wrong approach – instead of trying to finesse
> the ratios between finishing positions, they should give points for
> activities they want to encourage. As examples:
>  ——
> Pole position – two points
> Thoughts?

I think giving points for pole is a poor idea.
Earning the pole is already one of the biggest
predictors of earning a major number of points.

> I can spot a problem with that system immediately, which is that the
> drivers with the fastest cars would want to start at the back. Yes,
> there would be passing, but a Ferrari passing a Campos isn’t exactly
> going to set the world on fire.

I understand what you mean, but I’m not sure it will be a problem. The
further back you start the race, the greater the odds that you will be
stuck behind a nominally slower but, "wider" car. You might pick up ten
or fifteen extra points for passing, but not score as many (or any)
points for finishing. It would be a desperation move – but that’s fine.

If it does prove to be a problem, we could increase the points for
qualifying towards the front of the grid. In addition to the two points
for pole, maybe two points each for making it into Q2 and Q3?

–
"Don’t let it end like this. Tell them I said something. " – Pancho Villa

"Indiana" Joe Claffey
indianaj…@gmail.com

Claffey Jr." <indianaj…@gmail.com> writes:
> I think they’re taking the wrong approach – instead of trying to finesse
> the ratios between finishing positions, they should give points for
> activities they want to encourage. As examples:

> Passing (on track) – a pass of a non-teammate should be worth a point.
> However, being passed by a non-teammate means you lose a point.

> Fast lap – two points

> Pole position – two points

I can spot a problem with that system immediately, which is that the
drivers with the fastest cars would want to start at the back. Yes,
there would be passing, but a Ferrari passing a Campos isn’t exactly
going to set the world on fire.

I thought that they missed an opportunity when extending the points
down to eight place – the points were OK except that first place
should have got 12 points, not 10.

–
Mike Fleming

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> In article <130120101058204210%le…@me.alone>,
>  Curmudgeon <le…@me.alone> wrote:

>> Domenicali says an adjustment to the new points system is already
>> in the cards "amid suggestions of a minor tweak to give a greater
>> percentage separation between the first and second place scores."

> I think they’re taking the wrong approach – instead of trying to
> finesse the ratios between finishing positions, they should give
> points for activities they want to encourage. As examples:

> Passing (on track) – a pass of a non-teammate should be worth a point.
> However, being passed by a non-teammate means you lose a point.

> Fast lap – two points

> Pole position – two points

> Finishing the race – A car that finishes the race will receive no less
> than one point for the race. A car that does not finish the race will
> receive zero points. (You can’t score negative points in a race,
> unless it is the result of a penalty.)

> Points for finishing position will remain unchanged.

> Penalties – a car that is disqualified from the race shall receive a
> penalty of five points. (Yes, getting a black flag is worse than not
> racing.)

> If a car enters the pits to serve a penalty, it is still considered to
> be on-track for purposes of passing. (A car that loses three positions
> due to a penalty would be docked three points, and each car that
> passed it would receive one point.)

> Thoughts?

I’d have to apply it to some actual race results, perhaps a full season
to see how it would affect the drivers who actually finished higher than
anyone else on a consistant basis, but I am loath to start adding points
upon points to F1 as I always have this fear of the creep into the
multiple hundred points they get for numerous drivers in NASCAR as an
example. However there must be a solution found for the lack of (will of?)
passing in F1. I personally don’t believe the drivers are pushing hard enough
because they’re worried about the no contact regulations.

 Curmudgeon <le…@me.alone> wrote:
> Domenicali says an adjustment to the new points system is already
> in the cards "amid suggestions of a minor tweak to give a greater
> percentage separation between the first and second place scores."

I think they’re taking the wrong approach – instead of trying to finesse
the ratios between finishing positions, they should give points for
activities they want to encourage. As examples:

Passing (on track) – a pass of a non-teammate should be worth a point.
However, being passed by a non-teammate means you lose a point.

Fast lap – two points

Pole position – two points

Finishing the race – A car that finishes the race will receive no less
than one point for the race. A car that does not finish the race will
receive zero points. (You can’t score negative points in a race, unless
it is the result of a penalty.)

Points for finishing position will remain unchanged.

Penalties – a car that is disqualified from the race shall receive a
penalty of five points. (Yes, getting a black flag is worse than not
racing.)

If a car enters the pits to serve a penalty, it is still considered to
be on-track for purposes of passing. (A car that loses three positions
due to a penalty would be docked three points, and each car that passed
it would receive one point.)

Thoughts?

–
"Don’t let it end like this. Tell them I said something. " – Pancho Villa

"Indiana" Joe Claffey
indianaj…@gmail.com

> Assuming the powers that be are enamored with 25 points for first
> place, might I suggest they change the ordering to 25-19-14-10-7-
> 5-4-3-2-1 to provide a 6-5-4-3-2-1-1-1-1 arrangement of gaps?  It
> seems so simple once written down that I’m amazed they didn’t get
> it right the first time.

The Aesculus hippocastanum scoring method should be used. Everyone
taking part in a race gets points based on their finishing position,
let’s say there are 10 runners so points go 10, 9, 8 etc. This is called
the basic score. There is also a total score which works as follows:
If someone with a lower total score beats someone with a higher total
score then the two scores are added together + 1. so if a 10er beats an
11er he becomes a 22er. Following this Aesculus hippocastanum score, the
finishing position scores are then added to make a new total score.

This will build excitement throughout the year right up until the final
race when a total back-marker can nip through and take the crown. A bit
like a noner beating a 65er.

You know this makes sense.

> Domenicali says an adjustment to the new points system is already
> in the cards "amid suggestions of a minor tweak to give a greater
> percentage separation between the first and second place scores."

> Assuming the powers that be are enamored with 25 points for first
> place, might I suggest they change the ordering to 25-19-14-10-7-
> 5-4-3-2-1 to provide a 6-5-4-3-2-1-1-1-1 arrangement of gaps?  It
> seems so simple once written down that I’m amazed they didn’t get
> it right the first time.

How would one know? They’ve certainly changed it enough and the last one
had little if any effect on the reason for it. Just leave it alone I say
to quote a line from Red Dwarf.

> Assuming the powers that be are enamored with 25 points for first
> place, might I suggest they change the ordering to 25-19-14-10-7-
> 5-4-3-2-1 to provide a 6-5-4-3-2-1-1-1-1 arrangement of gaps?  It
> seems so simple once written down that I’m amazed they didn’t get
> it right the first time.

It seems to me you may have fallen into the same trap as the F1
commission. A solution which appears elegant rather than necessarily
achieving the objective. 6-5 is not so different from 5-5 and 2-2. Many
might see it as half a step in the right direction.

–
Bigbird
#
You’ll be laughing when I’m dead!