Season 21 - Rule Changes

[Hristo Itchov]

It's very Button-esque, isn't it? Cruise and preserve your lead which you gain through misfortunes of others early on in the season.

And Paul, how can you say it's been given on a plate? We stick to Hondas in Works. We (Tim, Evil and myself) are put in Cooper and BT7 in PROs/AMs. We have to work our ass off just to compensate for the lack of power of those cars. If you watch replays, we make MUCH less mistakes and that's why we win, not because we have any advantage. Those with fast cars can easily afford to make mistakes and they compensate for it as soon as they step on the throttle. On a fast track like Spa, you can just about forget to win whatsoever, even if you drive perfectly. So tell me, where is the serving on a plate here?

With the previous system, a win really meant something, you got something in return for winning. With this system you have to keep winning all the time, not retire at all, and even so, you may lose all of it in the last race, with a single case of bad luck. How about that? What a way to make winning lose its purpose and meaning...

You support the new system because you want to score points in the lower positions, I'm fine with that. If that's what the idea is, fine. But the reward for winning and the top 3 spots should be more profound. You can't seriously put winning a race and finishing 10th on equal terms, it's two entirely different things.

As for trying hard, the implication is that you can afford to drive a fast car and it will be your mistakes which would decide the outcome, while in the case of those running at the top, especially in PROs, it will be the car which makes the difference, even if they drive an absolutely flawless race.

In the end, you say I shouldn't want it served on a plate, but it seems many of you at the back do want it served on a plate instead of earning it the normal way by improving as we did over all those years. As I said, it's fine by me that more positions score points, but it's not fine if those who come on top score just a little bit more than those behind.

You're only really concerned about how it affects backmarkers and not how it affects the battle for the championship. Don't you see yourself becoming better over time and reaching a point where you become a contender as well? I can guarantee you will be seeing it differently then.

[Syd Drake]

Might be worth cobbling together a spreadsheet of the last couple of seasons and apply both points systems to them to see the results race over race. Then both sides can argue the facts rather than their opinions. As back marker, I'm with Badblood, it is nice to get some points for finishing a race.

Actually, that's not realistic as drivers mindset would have changed with the points changes.
And if we're talking of real F1, I'm all for using the current system 25-18-15...

[BadBlood]

You really haven't understood me at all H.

I DO see myself improving but much as I know I won't win the Masters at Augusta I do not believe I have the necessary skill to achieve your level.

I support the new system because it is good for the majority. It is about prolonging the competition, not rewarding backmarkers. The point is that it might be harder to win a championship now - so a worthier achievement.

The new scoring will however allow battles all the way down the grid. My battles are with Nigel, Al, Karliss, Fragfritz etc (sorry guys). They are better than me but I will strive to beat them. My battle will be live until the last race. By race 7 last season it was down to me and Karliss for last place.

It is beneficial to the midfield at some expense to the top guys but the winners still get heavy rewards. I have a feeling we will never agree though.

If you think we are cruising at the back, you need to think again. We are trying 110% just like you.

[Hristo Itchov]

Paul, there are two separate things here:

1) Finishers in the lower position wanting to score points - I don't mind about it at all, it's better than scoring zero and that's fine with me.

2) Finishers in lower positions still remaining in contention for the championship and those who get beaten for victory (i.e. 2nd to 5th) still remaining very close to those who win. That I can't agree with it AT ALL! Why should anyone who loses a race have almost equal chances for the title as those who defeat them? How justified is having people finishing 3rd or 4th stay so close to people who win? It devalues winning, it's as simple as that.

You speak of majority, but that's only true if you assume and believe the majority have no chance to compete otherwise, and have no chance to improve and reach a level which would allow them to compete on equal ground. You may have no belief in yourself that it's possible, but please don't speak for the majority, because facts show differently. I see a lot of potential in the majority in improving over time, as long as they put in the effort and have the right approach. It's not so much a matter of talent, but a matter of self-belief and hard work. I've been in UKGPL and other leagues long enough to notice that.

You're misunderstanding my words about cruising. I never said you're cruising at the back. I said that you can choose to cruise and finish 2nd or 3rd, or 4th, instead of fighting for victory, and you'll still score enough to remain in contention. It's the logical choice of someone who has taken a commanding lead in the championship through the misfortune of others, and that's what I never want to see happening, not in this way.

Show me one post where someone EVER complained recently about the points system or evidence that it didn't work well, and I'm talking about the points assignments of the top 5 places. Why change something which obviously works? You could simply extend the points to cover more positions towards the back if that's the intention.

[miner2049er]

I ignored the dropped results on purpose, since it makes it even worse lol. It's worse enough without that.  

Actually no, it is much better, you're suggesting the driver who wins 8 races and has a DNF loses but he doesn't, he wins.

Driver 1
00,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,00 = 400
50,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45 = 365

[Hristo Itchov]

I ignored the dropped results on purpose, since it makes it even worse lol. It's worse enough without that.  

Actually no, it is much better, you're suggesting the driver who wins 8 races and has a DNF loses but he doesn't, he wins.

Driver 1
00,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,00 = 400
50,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45 = 365

Even so, check it out with the current system:

00,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,00 = 400
50,41,41,41,41,41,41,41,41,41 = 337

And what's staggering is that if you tweak the example to 1st and 3rd places with the new system, you get this:

00,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,00 = 400
50,40,40,40,40,40,40,40,40,40 = 330

And this is an extreme example obviously, as you can't expect someone to win 8 races in a row, but it's much more believeable for someone to finish 9 races in 2nd or 3rd place, especially in some divisions where it's only 2-3 drivers fighting it out for the podium places.

Look, unless we have all drivers in a division fighting for victory, so you get diffierent top 3 every race, this new system (or to be exact, its top 5-6 position point rewards) doesn't really work out at all. You could take its lower portion of points so more people score points, but the rest is ridiculous.

[BadBlood]

We just aren't going to agree on this BUT to be clear I believe I will improve and I would like to believe that I will become really competitive in the Novices but I do not believe that I will ever achieve your level - not whilst I have got four kids at home

[EvilClive]

All that the moderators have attempted to do is to make the championship a little closer and more interesting towards the end of the season, when grid numbers tend to dwindle because the points table is so widely spread.
The crucial thing here is the dropping of your 2 worst scores at the end of the season and the effect that has on the points results.

Using Hristo's examples.............

under the existing system

00,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,00 = 400 ........deduct 2 lowest scores= 400
50,41,41,41,41,41,41,41,41,41 = 419.........deduct 2 lowest scores= 337  ( edit ...Hristo spotted my error here!!)

proposed system with the same results would give

00,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,00 = 400 ........deduct 2 lowest scores= 400
50,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45,45 = 455.........deduct 2 lowest scores= 365

 if you tweak the example to 1st and 3rd places with the existing system you get this:

00,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,00 = 400........deduct 2 lowest scores=400
50,33,33,33,33,33,33,33,33,33 = 347........deduct 2 lowest scores= 281

and with the proposed system

00,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,50,00 = 400........deduct 2 lowest scores=400
50,40,40,40,40,40,40,40,40,40 = 410........deduct 2 lowest scores= 330

Under the existing system the driver in second (or 3rd) place is more likely to play safe and drive for a reasonable points finish in the last 2 or 3 races because he cannot catch the leader but wishes to protect his 2nd place position in the championship.  Under the proposed system there would still be a chance of closing that gap.

[Hristo Itchov]

You're wrong, Clive. Our examples already have the 2 worst results calculated in...

And I see nothing interesting in losing a championship by having one or two bad races, even after beating your opponents on the track, just because they happened to score almost as many points as you did by finishing right behind.

Even with your calculations though, it becomes clear how much better the current system is and winning has a lot more value (and not just winning in relation to 2nd and 3rd, but top 3 in relation to the rest). It relies much less on luck and it shows a much truthful picture of having the top drivers occupy the top spots in the championship standings.

I really don't understand why do you insist that someone who kept being beaten by someone else SHOULD still have a chance to win the title in the end. How deserved would that be?

[EvilClive]

I am not suggesting that someone who is continually beaten should have a chance of winning the title and the points examples above clearly show that they would not.

Likewise the driver who wins most races should obviously be high in the reckoning for the honours, but it should not be the case that the points system gives an advantage to the driver who risks everything ( car mechanicals and incidents) and although he wins 50% of the races he enters, he fails to finish in the other 50%?

Part of the "art" of racing and winning is the old saying.."to finish first, first you have to finish"

[vosblod]

This isn't the Season 21 discussion forum it's the published rule changes and I can assure you we don't do things on a whimsy. Please Register if you want to join us for a fun season.

[Hristo Itchov]

Since there was never any discussion on a change in the points system and there isn't a separate thread about it, and you're still not convincing that is a better system, I'm going to be loud about it.

Evil, you're only looking it from the point of view of everyone attending all races and nobody retiring from a race. Once either of that occurs, the new system fails miserably. Not to mention the even more negative impact when you combine it with the newly introduced 50% race distance rule. I'm really puzzled you guys can't see all the implications and the downsides of going with this.

Oh and why did you suddenly ignore the examples of points? How can you disregard it as not viable evidence how inferior the new point system is? Your own calculations were incorrect, so go back, do them again (or just look at mine above), and consider if you still think the new system is better...

If your intention is giving points to more people, why not just tweak the old system to cover more positions down further back?

And just to point out two more imbalance issues of this new points system:

1) If you want to run with it, why not lift up the handicap on chassis choice? You're bringing drivers closer in terms of points, so it's really just another form of handicap for those running slower cars.

2) The difference between 1st and 2nd is the same as between 2nd and 3rd.  

[fpolicardi]

I think this time H has some point to argue
I think that the difference in point between the first positions should be more proportional.
For example 50, 42, 36, 31, 27, 24, 22, 21 etc. (just giving numbers)  

To be more clear:
we have max 19 drivers to reward in points. We want the first gains 50 and the 19th 1. Now we have to decide who gains half points than first: 25. I'd put it to 3/4 of high positions, let's say 6th?
So we have to spread the points rewarding more the first positions.
50, 43, 37, 32, 28, 25, 23 , 21, 19  , 17  , 15  , 13  , 11  , 9  , 7  , 5  , 3  , 2  , 1

Just giving numbers again 

[Hristo Itchov]

OK, just to prove you how bad the new system is, I made extensive conversion of Season 20 Works and Amateurs top 5 standings, so we can see a clear comparison. I've also gone through each race and made alternative standings with the new 50% race distance rule, just so you see how it impacts the results.

Here are the results first, then I'll give you my conclusion down below:

S20 Works
==========
Current points system:
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th
50  41   33  26  20  15   11  8    6    5     4     3      2     1

New points system:
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th
50  45   40  36  32   28  25  22  19   17   15    13    12    11   10     9     8     7      6

*With current system (2 worst dropped):

1. Hristo - 50, 15, 50, 3, 0, 4, 50, 33, 50, 50 = 302
2. Tom v. - 41, 50, 20, 15, 6, 41, 20, 50, 41, 0 = 278
3. Al - 20, 41, 33, 8, 11, 11,   26,   41,   8, 41 = 224
4. Tim - 26, 11, 4, 41, 26, 26, 41, 4,   20,   33 = 224
5. Tom - 33, 0, 15, 0, 20, 2, 33, 11, 15, 26 = 155

*With new system (2 worst dropped):

1. Hristo - 50, 28, 50, 13, 0, 15, 50, 40, 50, 50 = 333
2. Tom v. - 45, 50, 32, 28, 19, 45, 32, 50, 45, 0 = 327
3. Tim - 36, 25, 15, 45, 36, 36, 45, 15, 32, 40 = 295
4. Al - 32, 45, 40, 22, 25, 25,   36,   45,   22, 45 = 293
5. Tom - 40, 0, 28, 0, 32, 12, 40, 25, 28, 36 = 241

*With current system (2 worst dropped + minimum 50% race distance):

1. Hristo - 50, 0, 50, 0, 0, 4, 50, 33, 50, 50 = 287
2. Tom v. - 41, 50, 20, 15, 0, 41, 20, 50, 41, 0 = 278
3. Al - 20, 41, 33, 0, 11, 11, 26, 41, 8, 41 = 224
4. Tim - 26, 0, 4, 41, 26, 26, 41, 0, 20, 33 = 217
5. Tom - 33, 0, 15, 0, 20, 0, 33, 11, 15, 26 = 153

*With new system (2 worst dropped + minimum 50% race distance):

1. Tom v. - 45, 50, 32, 28, 0, 45, 32, 50, 45, 0 = 327
2. Hristo - 50, 0, 50, 0, 0, 15, 50, 40, 50, 50 = 305
3. Al - 32, 45, 40, 0, 25, 25, 36, 45, 22, 45 = 293
4. Tim - 36, 0, 15, 45, 36, 36, 45, 0, 32, 40 = 285
5. Tom - 40, 0, 28, 0, 32, 0, 40, 25, 28, 36 = 229

S20 Amateurs
=============
Current points system:
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th
50  41   33  26  20  15   11  8    6    5     4     3      2     1

New points system:
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th
50  45   40  36  32   28  25  22  19   17   15    13    12    11   10     9     8     7      6

*With current system (2 worst dropped):

1. Tim - 11, 50, 41, 41, 26, 50, 41, 41, 50, 3 = 340
2. Hristo - 50, 8, 50, 50, 50, 15, 2, 50, 20, 41 = 326
3. Evil - 0, 33, 33, 33, 41, 33, 20, 26, 41, 8 = 260
4. Tom - 33, 41, 1, 5, 0, 0, 50, 33, 33, 50 = 246
5. Goran - 41, 15, 20, 11, 33, 41, 33, 20, 11, 20 = 223

*With new system (2 worst dropped):

1. Tim - 25, 50, 45, 45, 36, 50, 45, 45, 50, 13 = 366
2. Hristo - 50, 22, 50, 50, 50, 28, 12, 50, 32, 45 = 355
3. Evil - 0, 40, 40, 40, 45, 40, 32, 36, 45, 22 = 318
4. Goran - 45, 28, 32, 25, 40, 45, 40, 32, 25, 32 = 294
5. Tom - 40, 45, 11, 17, 0, 0, 50, 40, 40, 50 = 293

*With current system (2 worst dropped + minimum 50% race distance):

1. Tim - 11, 50, 41, 41, 26, 50, 41, 41, 50, 0 = 340
2. Hristo - 50, 8, 50, 50, 50, 0, 0, 50, 0, 41 = 299
3. Evil - 0, 33, 33, 33, 41, 33, 20, 26, 41, 8 = 260
4. Tom - 33, 41, 0, 0, 0, 0, 50, 33, 33, 50 = 240
5. Goran - 41, 15, 20, 11, 33, 41, 33, 20, 0, 20 = 223

*With new system (2 worst dropped + minimum 50% race distance):

1. Tim - 25, 50, 45, 45, 36, 50, 45, 45, 50, 0 = 366
2. Evil - 0, 40, 40, 40, 45, 40, 32, 36, 45, 22 = 318
3. Hristo - 50, 22, 50, 50, 50, 0, 0, 50, 0, 45 = 317
4. Goran - 45, 28, 32, 25, 40, 45, 40, 32, 0, 32 = 294
5. Tom - 40, 45, 0, 0, 0, 0, 50, 40, 40, 50 = 265

Conclusions:

1) With the new point system, the main observed pattern is that finishing further towards the top matters a lot less than retiring from a race, missing a race or (with the new rule) retiring before reaching 50% race distance. In other words, fighting for better positions has a lot less weight than participating AND just getting to the finish. That means you can't afford to miss a single race, disconnect, screen freeze, whatever, but you can afford to give up a fight for position because you'll still score well and not drop much back.

2) The positions below the top 3-4 move about twice as close to the top with the new system compared to the previous one. Notice the much narrowed gap for Tom towards those ahead of him in the Works, and also how Goran actually jumps a whole spot in the AMs, despite being so further back otherwise with the current system and his worse results compared to those ahead (nothing personal of course, just using as an example).

3) With the new system, those in top 4 maintain a chance for winning the title up until the last or the penultimate race, even if they have never won a race.

4) As Syd says, knowing you race with this new system would make matters even worse, because those who otherwise took risks to try and win or finish higher with the old system, won't have to do it anymore, thus maximizing their chance to get to the finish and score well, instead of retiring because of a mistake, whatever it is (overdriving, blowing the engine, colliding with someone else, getting stuck in a fence, etc.).

5) Something I noticed while doing this - the new system does not even have a 1 point score, the minimum is 6. It means that the difference between last place and retirement/sub-50% finish is not 1, but whole 6 points, and I find that disturbing. There's not a single point system in real or online racing which ends on 6 instead of 1.

6) Despite the 2 worst results drop rule, the gap between drivers, regardless if they took podiums and wins consistently or not, has narrowed by big margin. If it wasn't for the 2 worst results drop rule to balance things out a bit, winning and finishing higher would've had even less weight, while missing a race or retiring would decide championships.

7) The new minimum 50% distance rule adds an additional negative impact with the new system, as it creates even greater gaps which can not be closed up for the rest of the season, even if you keep finishing consistently in front of your competitor.

I think Fulvio's proposed system is OK, but do we really need to score up to 19th place, especially with the new minimum 50% race distance coverage rule? We don't even get full fields, let alone witness all drivers finishing a race to score points. Those who would end up in the last spots are 99% likely to have retired before reaching 50% distance, so they won't score anyway. It means it will be an extremely rare case when we'll see anyone getting those final points from the points system, even with the current system.

Anyway, in case you insist that we should score down to 19th place, here's my proposal:

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th
50  41   33  26  21  17   14  12  11   10     9     8     7     6      5     4      3     2     1    

The system would allow people to score points, yet not give chance to beat those who finish consistently on the podium by finishing behind them all the time and just benefit from any bad luck of those ahead. It's simply less chance-based and attendance-based than the new system, and it has most of the benefits of the current system.

[john roberts]

as Tim has said Hristo the rules for next season have now been published .

so the system we will be running is

50, 45, 40, 36, 32, 28, 25, 22, 19, 17, 15, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6

john