Race points system

In the Spring 2005 BHPC magazine (issue 80) Mike Burrows wrote:

"I would also suggest changing the points system back to what it used to be; at the moment it favours consistency over performance, for example two fifteenth places equals a win! also everyone gets some points which makes them meaningless in themselves whereas stopping the points at say 8th place gives people something to race for, as in F1."

This would be unlikely to affect my own placings in the Championship, so I think I'm in a pretty good position from which to disagree most passionately. 

Stopping the points at 8th place gives everyone unlikely to place 8th or above in a class absolutely nothing to race for.  The current points system gives full scope for those not in the running for a podium place to get enjoyment from their racing by having individual rivalries; it's quite possible that, had it not been for the scraps I had with Paul Whitehead in my first full season, I would not have caught the racing bug. 

Also worthy of mention is that the old system did, in fact, give everyone points (2 for going the distance, 1 for a DNF), making (in 2001) turning up three times and pootling around waving at the spectators worth two eleventh places; now, I think that did devalue the efforts of middle-ranking racers.

There is, perhaps, a case for giving higher places greater weight, by reducing the points awarded on a steeper curve than currently (was the current system devised for larger - continental? - fields?), but I'm quite sure that the principles of the current system are the right ones.

It's one of MBs current rant, along with class rules, I personally favour consistency over points but then my current performance is so low it will make no difference... I suggest a compromise, if Mike finishes below 8th he won't get any points!

Bit of a problem with the tyre bit is where do you get Bridgestone 406/700c tyres?

Andrew S wrote: PS: I speak as an obvious beneficiary of the present system, having for several years finished the season well above many (including Mr B) who could beat me soundly in a race. Sorry - this is probably all my fault...

Probably not...

If you place higher in the Championship than faster riders it's because they haven't scored points in enough rounds, which was a feature of the old system, too.

The system as it stands now was devised by Stevie D for the Worlds in 2001 and adopted for general use in 2002, mainly as it reduced the likelihood of forty-seven people all tying for 33rd place in the championships.  Changing the distribution is trivial, but I wouldn't want to see a return to an F1-stylee system, as there would be too many Minardis.

"The winner of each NASCAR race receives 180 points. The runner-up in each event scores 170. From there, the point total declines 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, or last-place driver, gets 34 points. "

is another way of doing it, though apparently it used to be possible for a NASCAR driver to win all but one of the races, come second in the other and still lose the championship because of the way other points are allocated for time spent in the lead.  Happily we shall not be going there.