The way I have seen is: You finish 1st you get 1
point, 2nd - 2 points and so on. Add the two days
together and lowest point total wins. If you only run
1 day you get last place points for day two. You could
finish in the top half of the field. A perfect two
days would be 2 points and a win. Nice response, Josh!
Don
--- Josh Hadler <jhadler@rmi.net> wrote:
> Don Miller wrote:
> >
> > A posssible way is to do it like some of the
> > motorcycle groups. Add the two days and the lowest
> > point total wins.
>
> That would entail a points scoring system instead
> of raw times. What
> would be the points basis then? Considering that
> there are sometimes
> more 40 people in a single class? Would it be an FIA
> style points
> scoring system, such that the differential from 1st
> to 2nd is greater
> than the differential between 2nd and 3rd and so on.
> Then the person who
> places first on day one will have a distinct
> advantage over the second
> place driver, and even a glorious "pulled one out of
> their a**" kind of
> run will not get someone a 1st place trophy if they
> didn't get it the
> day before. However, that same run on day one will
> give them a huge
> cushion for the next day.
>
> > It rewards consistency but a person
> > who has coneitis on day 1 could really jump on day
> 2.
>
> I'm not too sure it really would reward
> consistency. I think it'll
> reward the people who really can explode off the
> blocks on day one,
> making it harder for people to come back on day two.
> Hmm, I'll have to
> think about that one...
>
> I took at quick look at the top DSP results from
> this last year. I
> picked DSP 'cause I know they had a clean, rain-free
> course both days.
>
> Using an expanded points scale for each days
> placings, (200, 160, 130,
> 110, 90, 70, 50, 30, 20, 19, 18...), and looking
> just at the trophy
> winning drivers, there would still have been a good
> shake up of the standings.
>
> placing Times Points
> ======= ====== ======
>
> 1 # 127 # 127 (400)
> 2 # 1 # 1 & 33 (tied at 250)
> 3 # 131 # 131 & 48 (tied at 240)
> 4 # 33 # 83 (100)
> 5 # 48 # 45 & 106 (tied at 98)
> 6 # 83 # 21 & 31 (tied at 50)
> 7 # 21 # 126 (38)
> 8 # 31
> 9 # 45
> 10 # 106
> 11 # 126
>
> Apart from the shifting of trophy positions all
> around, there would
> then be a much higher likelihood of a tie. How would
> you decide a tie?
> Give the higher position to whomever had the single
> higher score? Then
> we're no longer rewarding the consistent driver.
> What if each of them
> have the same breakdown of points? (160+90) and
> (90+160), what then? Who
> is the higher placing driver? Go to their next best
> times each course? I
> guess so.
>
> I can see the scoring alot more complicated due to
> all of the ties that
> would ensue. Still, I guess it might be feasible.
> I'm sure that Matt
> wouldn't mind trading in his 4th place trophy for a
> 2nd, but I doubt
> Chris would be willing to trade down...
>
> With this particular form, someone who managed one
> awesome faster run,
> or finally got one clean run on one of the days
> would wind up loosing
> out in the event of a tie if the other driver was
> more consistent. Hmmm,
> now I've just made the consistency argument...
>
> > Just another possibility. I personally lie what
> > someone suggested earlier in the day about buyinmg
> > cone insurance. Yes, I'd like 20 cones worth!
>
> Hey Don, buy me a few while you're at it! :-)
>
> -Josh2
>
> --
> Joshua Hadler '74 914 2.0 CSP/Bi - Hooligan
> Racing #29 - CONIVOR
> '87 Quantum Syncro - aka stealth
> quattro
>
> jhadler@rmi.net
> http://rainbow.rmi.net/~jhadler/
>
=====
|