NSW Supersprint Championship - round 3

Guran · Postby **Guran** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 9:58 pm

greenMachine wrote:this is amateur club-level motor sport, and people do have lives outside it.

While I agree with the "amateur" part, the supersprint championship is not club level motorsport. It is a CAMS NSW state championship.

Tony · Postby **Tony** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:10 pm

Guran wrote:It is a CAMS NSW state championship.

And as such I believe you need both performance and consistency to win it.

I dropped the ARDC round in August last year as it was the weekend straight after the Phillip Island Six Hour. I didn't know it at the time, but had I run in that round I would have won the Class Championship for the year.

C'est la vie.

greenMachine · Postby **greenMachine** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 12:21 am

I am not sure what the definition of 'club level' motorsport may be, but that is the way I see it - yes it is a State championship, but there is no prizemoney just some pots.

But that is quibbling, which really does not have a direct bearing on how the points should be allocated. I agree with Tony, performance AND consistency are, and should remain, important.

I see the point of a merging of class and type points, but I don't agree with it. We only have to look at the Lotus situation to see that the (current) only hope of those of us watching a Lotus disappear into the distance is that it will have a problem or miss a couple of rounds - it can cut both ways. Class points are class points, and type points are type points - the scoring is separate, and your pot can be for both - Stewart won Type 1 (as well as Class 1B) last year, I think Guran came second one year, and I came second in Type 2 the year I took out 2B.

I think our principal competition is within our class, and using the results of people in other classes to boost the gap between you and your class competitors is just muddying the water. It certainly downplays consistency, IF you have the car performance to capitalise on it.

Just my 2c, and I have no problem with anyone proposing different scoring systems to those who decide these things.

:mrgreen:

StillIC · Postby **StillIC** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 9:01 am

Tony wrote:I think our principal competition is within our class,

Agreed. But......

7 Types multiplied by 4 capacities within each Type, equals 28 classes. For a maximum field of 120 at a big circuit, this gives an average of 4 cars per class. For a smaller circuit with limited numbers this average drops to less than 3. This is not much competition if one looks only within one's own class.

And it is rare to have 2 almost equal cars/drivers in the same class battling it out at each round. Bryan V Stewart is one such (recent) rarity, now that they are both in 1B. Normally we fall into our regular finishing spots and that's how the season plays out. The only major variable then becomes whether a competitor drops more than one round. And if they do, its quite often all over for the Championship, as with what happened to Tony. C'est la vie that year, but the system can be changed.

Dan · Postby **Dan** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:34 am

StillIC wrote:
Tony wrote:I think our principal competition is within our class,

Agreed. But......

7 Types multiplied by 4 capacities within each Type, equals 28 classes. For a maximum field of 120 at a big circuit, this gives an average of 4 cars per class. For a smaller circuit with limited numbers this average drops to less than 3. This is not much competition if one looks only within one's own class.

And it is rare to have 2 almost equal cars/drivers in the same class battling it out at each round. Bryan V Stewart is one such (recent) rarity, now that they are both in 1B. Normally we fall into our regular finishing spots and that's how the season plays out. The only major variable then becomes whether a competitor drops more than one round. And if they do, its quite often all over for the Championship, as with what happened to Tony. C'est la vie that year, but the system can be changed.

From the MX5 competitors I speak to complaints about the Lotus' ruining peoples chance at a decent place in the lower classes and Porsches in the upper classes seems to be a big point of conversation (I have two Lotus' in my class but I see it as a challenge), if you start opening it up to cross class I think that problem would just get worse.

greenMachine · Postby **greenMachine** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 10:42 am

Don't let the averages cloud the issue, there are a lot of classes with lots of competitors, I suspect (but haven't checked) there are some classes that are not taken up, or poorly populated. Not all competitors front for every round of course.

I may have been spoilt, but two of my three (and a bit) years of serious participation (running every round) were intensely competitive, in 2006 it was the last session of the last round that got me over the line, last year I failed by one lousy point! The third year was easier, I had the legs on the 2nd place car, but still had to front up every round and do the business or he would take it away from me. Can't ask for much more than that as far as competition goes.

This year is different, but a change such as you are suggesting would see the class leading Honda even further ahead (the gap to 2nd is measured in seconds!). I am back in the chasing pack this time, and you can see why I am unenthusiastic about slipping further behind. Maybe if I was in the Honda I would have more interest in such a scoring system.

By all means talk to the panel, I'd suggest a yarn with Mike first (not sure if he is still on the panel).

:mrgreen:

Dweezle · Postby **Dweezle** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:12 pm

I think in such grassroots level motorsport that attendance should make results more than performance.

After all is it not better with more entrants at each event to stop low numbers??

Rewarding laptimes heavily is just rewarding bank accounts generally and that i believe is a quick way to kill a grass roots level anything!

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

StillIC · Postby **StillIC** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:32 pm

Who would you prefer win a championship:
1. A car/driver who wins his/her class in 6 events but does not attend 2 others.
2. A car/driver who finishes 5th in class in 6 events and wins one round.
3. A car/driver who finishes 2nd, 3rd or 4th in class in 6 events and manages at least one lap in another round.

At the moment both the second and third scenarios win more points than the first, and therefore the championship (if no one else has more). Imagine if a Formula 1 driver won all but 2 rounds of the championship but didn't win the championship. It would be a laughing stock!

The question is, how many of the points should be awarded for merely turning up, versus actually driving competitively. I believe the balance is too far towards turning up and not enough in favour of driving competitively.

Dweezle · Postby **Dweezle** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:36 pm

I do not follow F1 but i hope you can not win a Championship if you do not even show up to a round.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Dan · Postby **Dan** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 8:09 am

Dweezle wrote:I do not follow F1 but i hope you can not win a Championship if you do not even show up to a round.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Yeh you can, actually both of the Mercedes drivers could go sit on a beach for the next round and still be 1st and 2nd. The points system they use rewards winning a lot more than the 25, 24, 23 type system supersprints use since its 25, 18, 15 in F1.

Like someone said earlier supersprints is entry level motorsport so rewarding participation makes sense and I don't disagree with the scoring system.

You need to allow people to miss a round, in ametuer racing people could have a something they need to do for their personal life which means they can't go and in professional motorsport people can have legitimate reason not to be able to race like the medical issue Alonso had earlier in the season when he woke up after being knocked out and thought he was still in karts, if something similar happened to Hamilton he shouldn't just lose the championship because of it.

Guran · Postby **Guran** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:02 am

I agree with your point Scott. The point scoring favors participation much more than performance. This works in our favor with respect to the club championship but against individuals in class and type championships. The scoring was recently changed from 10, 9, 8.... to 25, 24, 23.... Clearly that was done with a view to ensuring all participants earn points in class and type. That was an issue before because there was usually far more than 10 drivers in each type. However the current scoring does not give sufficient reward to the fastest drivers. I feel the pointscore should be scaled similar to F1 in order to reward performance better. Or return to the previous 10, 9, 8... system and simply rule that everyone from 11th down gets 1 point rather than 0.

Dweezle · Postby **Dweezle** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:15 am

I agree with that too Bryan.

That F1 point scoring would work well in allowing someone to establish a proper lead.
To make it perfect to me i would then demolish the "minus your worst round" rule.

Sent from my SM-N9005 using Tapatalk

Jeo · Postby **Jeo** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 9:53 am

I'm not playing so have very little skin in the game here, but have enjoyed reading the discussion.

What strikes me as probably the most relevant part of the discussion so far though is that this isn't F1. Yes, if an F1 driver won all but two rounds but didn't win the championship, it would be an outrage. But that's not really relevant to club level motorsport, is it?

As Dweezle said, rewarding attendance encourages more people to compete more often, and isn't that better for all involved? I know from my own experience that I have a hell of a lot more fun in our local motorkhanas, partially because there's a number of drivers, all closely competing for the top sport. Just last weekend, my main rival for the year and I were separated by less than a second over the entire day (or <0.6% if you want to get technical). Conversely, at our local hillclimb, I won the series championship one year, purely because I was the only car in class for more than half the rounds, and one of two for all but one of the remaining rounds. Despite getting a nice shiny trophy at the end of the year, I've barely been back since.

Dan · Postby **Dan** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 10:24 am

^ I agree, the problem is that you aren't really rewarding attendance if you put in the system Dweezle posted above as someone can create a dominant lead that can't be caught and possibly discourage people who want a shot at a trophy in the later rounds.

The MX5 NSW club uses a ramping points system and I benefited this year winning my class even though I missed a round and only placed in a couple of the earlier rounds given I improved my times significantly over the competition and won the last few rounds. That didn't really reward participation and had I been at the times I was at by the end I could of created a lead that was unmatchable in the second half of the competition year which is shitty for the other guys in the class.

zossy1 · Postby **zossy1** » Fri Jun 26, 2015 1:58 pm

We aren't pros people. We all have families and other commitments. We also have limited budgets (speaking for myself), and sometimes cars break unexpectedly at the last minute (ask me how I know). It is inevitable, therefore, that even a serious competitor may miss a round or two during the year, and is this such a bad thing? Should this disqualify that person from competing for the championship?

That said, I do think that there should be just reward for superior performance.

My 2 cents.