Points scoring

[TM BILL]

Is there a better (fairer) way to score VMX ( or other lower less than 20 rider fields ) than the current FIM system we use ?

Current system MX 1st 25 , 22, 20, 18, 16 , 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 , 3, 2, 1

Great if you consistently get grids of 20 or more in each class .

However if you grids of 6 to 10 or so I find the system unfair on the top place getters

I'm struggling to put it into words but will come up with some scenarios .

[John Orchard]

I feel that all racing in the world, be it MotoGP, Formula 1, should be scored in the following way ....

5 finishers in the race ..... 5 points for the win, 1 point for fifth.
20 finishers in the race ..... 20 points for the win, 1 point for twentieth.
60 finishers in the race ..... 60 points for the win, 1 point for sixtieth.

You beat more riders, you get more points.  If you beat any riders you deserve something, if you beat a lot of riders the points should reflect it.

[Ted]

If you win a race but drink no beer the night before you get 25 pts

If you come stone motherless last but drink 26 beers the night before you get 26 points and move to the top of the podium.

Ya reckon MA would buy that?

[Zarro21]

I agree with Ted. means I should have been world champion years ago. !!!

[Digga]

You could do it another way as used in yacht racing where the winner gets 1 point, 2nd 2 pts, 3rd 3pts etc........ lowset score wins.

A DNS (as used in a series) or DNF (for series &/or individual races) gets the field + 1 pt.

So for a race of 27 starters:

example (1) 27 starters,  1 pt for 1st...... & 27 pts for last (if all starters finish), or:

example (2) 1 pt for 1st.......24 pts for last & 28 pts for the 3 DNF's (27 starters + 1).

[Davey Crocket]

Bills system works alright in Qld.

[KTM47]

Great if you consistently get grids of 20 or more in each class .

However if you grids of 6 to 10 or so I find the system unfair on the top place getters

Bill why is it unfair.  If there is only 6 finishers then they are the ones who get the points.

You could go back to what was in place for each era.  In 1977 we only scored the top ten.  But why make it more complicated for the scorers.  Also if we use transponders I think they have the system in place in the software.

At least we don't do what happens in the Supercross.  James Stewart crashed out at Anaheim but was given 17th place points and prizemoney. However I think this is the correct thing to do.  Why should someone who qualifies not receive more points and prizemoney than someone who doesn't qualify.

Leave things alone.  Really I don't think it will make a big difference as to who wins etc.

[TM BILL]

I think your missing the point ( which I haven't made very well  )

I think the system needs to be scaled differently depending on the number of riders entered . The current System suits me fine as I win more races than I lose and I ride smart if I have a problem .

Scenario I am leading a race with 8 riders in it 2 laps into a 5 lap race and the bike develops a bad misfire , I coast it to the finish line but don't cross the line . I wait until the leader crosses the finish line and follow him over to be classed as a finisher 2 laps down .Assuming the other 7 riders all finish I will get credited with 8th place and 13 points , if I had continued racing and the bike died out the back of the track I would have got no points .

If there were 20 or more finishers I would get no points , but due to the low number of competitors all I have to do is wait and pick up at least 13 points .

Same if I crash in a race and take a while to get going again , even if all the others pass me and I finish last I still get 13 points . If it was a field of 20 or more and all pass me no points .

All im saying is that points scoring should be relative to number of competitors .

[John Orchard]

All im saying is that points scoring should be relative to number of competitors .

AGREED

[Davey Crocket]

KISS.....If it ain't broke, don't fix it.....if you had 30 in the race and 15 DNF and you add in Bills scenario it's the same result....to finish first, first you must finish. If you change the rules as you go it just gets complicated....ie.....1st meeting...10 riders enter...2nd meeting, 17 riders enter, 3rd meeting, 8 riders enter, 4th meeting, 23 riders enter....bla, bla, bla....a different point scoring system for each race meeting and a lot of confusion.

[John Orchard]

KISS .... if it aint improving & moving with the times, change it.

[JohnnyO]

Faark how much more difficult do you need to make it for everyone if you change the points scoring system for each race depending on entries..! You go to one round and win all 3 races and get 30 points cos there were less entries then you miss the next round and Joey Freestyle wins all 3 races and gets 75 points cos there were more entries. Then you win all 3 at next round with no Joey but only get 30 points cos less entries. End of 3 round series you've got 60 points from winning 6 motos at 2 rounds but Joey wins series with 75 points from 3 motos at 1 round.. Not to mention trying to work out all the place getters from the rounds.
Leave it alone.. It works!

[Nathan S]

Bill can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's trying to address the situation where a slow-arse numpty comes dead last in a ten bike field, but gets more points than the rider who has to fight hard for 11th place in a 40 bike race.

I've often wondered about "weighted" points allocations - stuff like John Orchard's suggestion of points for the number of riders you beat.
Basically, I reckon the best way would be a mix of the two. Keep the normal points weighting, and then add an extra point for every rider who you beat.

BUT this would be unfair to the medium-fast riders who turn up regularly, while advantaging the faster, irregular riders.

The real way to figure these things, is to look back at a previous race day/season and apply the proposed changes there - see if you've made a more or less deserving person the winner.

Most of the time, you'll decide that the changes have created as many unworthy winners and they've removed...(pretty much what JohnnyO said).

One thing that I have seen work well, is giving a point (or two) to EVERYONE who starts the race, and the same number of points to everyone who finishes.
It means that the slower guys who turn up to every race are rewarded, but I doesn't upset the race day/championship standings.

[TM BILL]

Joan get fuct 

Johnny O I see what your saying , but I think the 20 place scorers 25 pts to 1 pt was designed for 40 gate starts PER CLASS so if all starters finish the race only the top 50% of finishers score points .

Often you will get a near full grid at big events but its generally  3 classes combined in one race ,and even at the nats we get fork all of those ( fork off Joan I know you may get those at the CC but that's one event )

Nathan has got my point ( if there is one ) im not suggesting that the whole system NEEDS changing but opening up discussion 

Every Kunt moans that its all shit on here  well this is just a point for discussion , lets face it even if there is a better way you would never get it past your governing body anyway   

So as Wally would say its only tomorrows fish and chip wrappings 

[KTM47]

All im saying is that points scoring should be relative to number of competitors .

You have got to be kidding.  There already is rules on how many entries consitutes a class so the clubs should use that if they want to.  But why penalise someone because other riders don't enter.

As for someone really slow or after a crash or bike trouble getting points for only completing a small number of laps.  Read GCR 12.11.2.1.  "Has completed not less than 75% of the event distance"  That is 3 laps of a 4 lap race.  Problem solved and already covered by the GCRs or the supp-regs.  No need for anymore bullshit rules.