King of Kents FF1600

Idly reading the 2004 BRSCC regs (as you do) it seems that you could win a 13 car race at Lydden and get 13 points, yet finish 22nd in a 38 car race at Oulton GP and get 16 points.

Seems somewhat bizarre and ill-thought out, or have I misunderstood it?

Not to mention Combe effectively having an extra home round via the 'Carnival.'

I believe that is corret, doesn't make a lot of sense really does it?! So Southern and SOM drivers arn't going to have too much of a chance.

And why does Oulton NOT get a round when we have most FF1600 drivers in the country......

Cos you'll get more points for finishing 20th than we would get for winning?

The system is rubbish!!! What ever happend to the old points down to 10th place system....

the BRSCC got too involved need we say more

Thats just stupid. so not having read the regs how many would you get for a win with 35? and a race win with 13 would be 13 then? whats the system John?

1st place gets the same number of points as the number of starters Rich. 2nd gets one less etc. etc. He who finishes last gets 1 point (assuming everyone finishes).

So, win the Festival and get 60 points - win at Lydden and get 4...

Makes Lydden even less attractive than now (if possible).

Doesn't seem very fair and if you don't get to the final of the Festival or Carnival how do they work out whether you were ahead of or behind the person who finished in the same position as you in the other heat etc?

Of course, it's easy to snipe and I APPLAUD LOUDLY the BRSCC for this King of Kents mini-series but the points scoring seems hard to fathom.

It's gonna be down to email claims after the season as to who's won.

I can get my entry in, see who's entered, drop out and deliberately reduce the number of points you will score, irrespective of where you finish, to stop you overhauling my mate from the Midlands in the overall table.

Actually, could be good fun! (joke)

eh, thats ****. why change the points from before. also that means the meetings that struggle for entries will have even less as racers would want to goto large meetings. ah this is rubbish and going to really mess things up. ha you could win the festival and have more point that winning every round in the SFFC. who thought of this and were they sober?

Cheers for that John.

Alternatively you could pay my entry fee and I would promise to follow you and you would ONE MORE POINT wherever you finished. Bizarre.

If I can find out the rules on what constitutes a 'starter' you may be able to enter twice and get extra points.

Ie. enter once, finish tenth of ten and get 1 point or enter twice, qualify two cars (3 laps each) the get 2 points for finishing 10 out of 11 and another point for the 11th place qualification that failed the real start

Starts to make sense as a BRSCC coffer-filler!

I have heard that they are looking at making the points all fair as it's a cock up as is.

This point was raised to Steve Burns abou three months ago when it was initially proposed, so far heard nothing, he could not really justify why it was like this - as per!

Typical BRSCC. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't there actually more KOK races last year?

Think the Silv GP is a BRDC race Justin and Thruxton BARC?
Heard that the Silverstone race should be on again but heard nought about Thruxton although they did have about 97 entries...

John, i mentioned this points farce in the "king of kents calender" tread which i have brought back to the top - one of the leather armchair cosy FF1600 club self appointed el presidente was going to post the new points when they had sorted it out, but nothing yet! Also John do you know the date for the GP s/stone BRDC race?
PM'D you

No idea - PM to James Beckett?

I am working at getting the KoK points system revised to make it "fair" for all regional drivers and to stop the bigger grid regional scorers making it damn nigh impossible for the smaller grid series to stand any chance in the KoK National series.

The points per starters at each regional series isn't the big problem - this was the way we discussed it at the Brands Festival meeting with Steve Burns. However, it does lack a bit of a gap between positions, i.e. you only score one point less for second than winning. It could be modified to something like :
The top six score per number of starters with extra points added. Using a 26 starter grid as an example.
1st 26 + 14 = 40
2nd 25 + 10 = 35
3rd 24 + 7 = 31
4th 23 + 5 = 28
5th 22 + 3 = 25
6th 21 + 1 = 22
7th downwards 20, 19, 18, 17, 16 etc.
This would give a better points split at the sharp end.
This is only an idea / example and could be modified to make it work.

NOW TO THE BIG PROBLEM WITH THE KoK NATIONAL SCORING

You score in the 'stand alone' races and can bring 5 scores over from the regionals [no more than 3 from one region] This is where the points per starters is a major problem the way it has been proposed.
As mentioned in earlier posts, the bigger grids have an unfair advantage. i.e 3 Combe wins could carry 108 points forward and 3 SOM wins maybe only 45 points, so the SOM guy is immediately 63 points behind, knows he won't stand a chance, so doesn't even bother to 'follow' the KoK Championship.

Somebody mentioned a 38 car Oulton grid. Wrong. I think the Long Circuit max is 34 and we are lucky to get one round on it.
BRSCC don't use the Island Circuit [30] and the majority of races are on Fosters [26] and Anglesey [half the NW rounds is only 22]
Combe has the largest grid, then take in the non Mallory SOM rounds, Brands Indy [28] etc and the NW is in the lower reaches of potential grid size. Fortunately, we tend to fill them and if we didn't have two races per meeting, we couldn't get all of our numbers an entry.

So what is needed is a total revamp of the KoK scoring system. It may well need a double points system. E.g. Score in your regionals as above, but have a different system for your chosen "brought forwards" to tie in with that same system being used in the stand alones. This should make it fair for everybody.

Yes, it needs to be changed. Yes, the system as per the regs is ill thought out.

BUT the idea of more points being available if more cars are entered is sound. My method - off the top of my head - would be something like.

<=10 starters - points for the top 5
11-20 starters - points for 50% of starters (rounded up)
21+ starters - points for the top ten

Points something like: 20 15 12 10 8 6 4 3 2 1 for ten scorers and 12 10 8 6 4 if only five scorers.

Think that might be fairer?

These kind of points can never be fair but I don't really agree with points for numbers of entries. Fastest ever guy could set lap record, only class entry and get naff all points. In sprints and hill climbs, we regularly work against class record in some way or another - ie winner gets say 40 points less gap to class record, second 35 points less gap to class record etc, for instance. (Some motivation for a 40+ score!!) That gives a fair score whatever the entry. Would this be any better??

Have I missed it, but how are we scoring local series?

Any change to tyre regs?

why change it??????

Should be simple - 15, 12, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Given that everyone will be competing against a different number of people for the same championship it does seem fair that there is some degree of bias towards competitors who beat more rivals.

As for local points, as far as I know these will be the same as for the overall KoK - nothing else in the regs to say otherwise.

Thanks Ian, I suggested the points system I did because it rewards speed and allows a quick driver with no competition to remain competitive in the KOK. Otherwise, I'm happy with Redracer57's option and stay as last year

If the same for local series, we will get some very funny scores with the variable entries we get

Originally posted by MikeM
These kind of points can never be fair but I don't really agree with points for numbers of entries. Fastest ever guy could set lap record, only class entry and get naff all points. In sprints and hill climbs, we regularly work against class record in some way or another - ie winner gets say 40 points less gap to class record, second 35 points less gap to class record etc, for instance. (Some motivation for a 40+ score!!) That gives a fair score whatever the entry. Would this be any better??

Have I missed it, but how are we scoring local series?

Any change to tyre regs? Mike,
1. Frivolous of me I know, but if it is wet, would you end up with minus points?
2. Points are being revised after discussions today. Watch this space.
3. ACB10s [ACB9 or Dunlop for Pre82]

Thanks Diz, I'll wait for revised points from you.

Re tyres, I meant numbers that can be used. Sorry not very clear of me. Suits me as I don't use many but I understood this was being looked at??

Originally posted by MikeM
Thanks Diz, I'll wait for revised points from you.

Re tyres, I meant numbers that can be used. Sorry not very clear of me. Suits me as I don't use many but I understood this was being looked at?? I suggest four as it won't handle very well with any less
L :laugh: bŁoody L

Seriously, tyre number regs relate only to FF1800 [so Pikey can use as many as he wants in FF1600 !!!!]

Anyone read the (slightly inaccurate) article in MN on KoK today - feature on page 36.

do tell

Buy it now - all good newsagents - Ł1.90!

(Well, they do pay me...)

It's just a general article about the background and rationale, no new stuff. Matty J wrote it and Stevie B is quoted.

Mr sowman quanity does not = quality, the points system needs to ensure that a weak series does not give someone an unfair head start in the kok,but at the same time as an example, i saw DALY win his first race at mallory last year,2 other drivers in the race can count double figures between them in the ammount of championships they have won, at least 5 drivers had won at least one race in the recent past yet with only a grid of 9 cars.
We often hear hacks talking of quality grids,that was a quality grid ,but under the points system you would get more points for a below par southern round at B/H .
Just award points equally to the top 10 then let the stand alone races sort out the rest.

Here here that man!

Alan Any chance of a new m/mouse hat??

I am going to the Villa in March which style do you want Dave?

Dave

I agree with you - SOM had the highest quality/quantity ratio this year. I guess the problem is less with the winner than the bloke he trundles round half a lap behind, and gets points for 6th (for example).

Looks like it is all sorted now - but maybe points should only be given down to nth position, where 2n cars started the race. Or something.

Dont think it really matters about how many starters there are. There are enough stand alone races to sort out the champ positions at the end of the season,if some one gets a load of 6 th places the would only figure in the top20 in the KOK standings.

Agree totally with you Dave. It takes just as much to win a race with a 10 car grid as it does with 30, as long as you have several drivers that are capable of winning in that race. The way it stands at the mo is that some bloke coming 6th or 7th in the Castle Combe championship, for example, would be in a stronger position, in KOK championship, than someone who has been in the top three at NW. This seems strange when really the 6th or 7th place bloke would struggle to finish in the top three in NW. This is just an example! Not saying CC is a slower Championship than NW, every championship has their quick drivers.

The points system should be as such that when it comes to the stand alone KOK events, the front runners from more than one championship stand a chance at winning it. Equal points to the top ten of each regional championship, as Dhart said, is the best option. Then someone slower picking up points on their depleted regional grid would get anihilated at the stand alone KOK evants, therefore dropping them right down the order in the final standings. What about gaining a significantly greater amount of points for a win in a KOK stand alone race, compared to a regional win. Therefore the KOK events carry alot more weight than the regional scores, and a true national KOK champion can be decided.

Well put 50-six, took the words right out of my mouth......

Steve, your idea on KOK rounds sounds a good one - and it would make more people try to do the KOK events. Double points?

Hi Mike, yeah doulble points or maybe even more. Anything, just so it makes the stand alone events the determining factor rather than the regional rounds having most say. The way it stands at the moment is that one driver can have a stupidly large lead over another driver of the same calibre in the KOK championship before they have even put a wheel on the same race circuit!

If the points system stays as it is, Castle Combe is the regional series to do. Large grids so mega KOK points, plus 12 or so practice races before the stand alone KOK event held at YOUR home circuit!

Why not have one stand alone KOK round per regional Championship, at a circuit nominated by that regional championship. So Combe get Combe for their 'home' round, NW get Oulton for their 'home' round, and so on....
Would level the playing field out a bit, rather than having a KOK round at a circuit that some regional championships use all the time, yet some have never even visited.

I could go on and on... May be i should stop bloody moaning, get in the car and get on with it!

If it stays as it is, I can see Diz getting a few requests to put the post-86 and pre-87 in the one race as proposed at the end of 2002. Maximum grid = greater number of points.

Calm down Steve have the rest of the day off,but well said.

Whoa Steve - not that direction again please!

Steve, you're quite right. The standalone events should be worth more. However, we will have to see what the revised points system offers.

You also raise a good point about how to deal with the NW, which is the only championship that regularly requires two races. Is the pre 87 winner deemed to have finished immediately behind the post 86 last place man? How would that work?

Anyway, being a boring accountant I thought about the points a bit more. I think most people would agree that the winners will be of more or less the same standard across all divisions. Similarly, the last placed finishers in each will probably be of a comparable standard.

So, it would be fair if the winner of all races got the same number of points, say 25; and the last placed finisher always got the same, say 0.

In a 26 car race, you could then allocate the points 25,24,23,22,....,2,1,0. And in a 14 car race, allocate them 25,23,21,29,....,3,1,0. Just another thought...

Ian, they are run as separate races - separate (and same) points structure etc.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ian Sowman
And in a 14 car race, allocate them 25,23,21,29,....,0.

Seems the thing to do is finish 4th in a 14 car race then. "after you sir", "no sir, i insist you have the final trophy, after you"

Seriously though Ian, that sounds like a decent solution.

Now, How many sets of tyres do you think we should be allowed for the KOK championship? Because I think..... Only joking:)

well said stephen....i hope it gets sorted....otherwise you don't stand a chance of winning it....but then peter daly would have to change championships to stand a chance as well.....try answering your mobile :-)

Originally posted by Ian Sowman
However, we will have to see what the revised points system offers.

Anyway, being a boring accountant I thought about the points a bit more. So, it would be fair if the winner of all races got the same number of points, say 25; and the last placed finisher always got the same, say 0.

In a 26 car race, you could then allocate the points 25,24,23,22,....,2,1,0. And in a 14 car race, allocate them 25,23,21,29,....,3,1,0. Just another thought...
1. All of this is speculation, as there will be a revised points system announced shortly.

2. You are right Ian, accountants are boring, but I assumed they would be good at figures. I was about to pick up on it being better to come 4th in a 14 car race, when I spotted that young Roberts had already mentioned it. But back to your example. Same points for 7th in scenario 1 and 4th in scenario 2. This still wouldn't work.

As I say, just wait and see what Mr Burns will come up with - having involved Gavin Wills, Peter Daly and my good self in the revised version. If this still doesn't achieve harmony, I suggest that the new FF1600 UK Club registers itself as a trade union and we can all go on strike :laugh:

Justin Dawkins comes fourth in races with about 14 cars quite a lot...

Why don't you think that would work anyway diz? On the assumption that talent is equally spread, seventh in a race with 26 cars should be scrapping with the fourth placed guy in the 14 car race, if they were all on track in a 40 car mega race.

I'm sure the actual solution is much more... um... normal.