Points per 6 hour?

[Audi Racer]

Its the first time ive heard of this but in the Blancpain endurance 24 hour at Spa they had a system where after 6 hours the leader board was frozen and the cars awarded points at the 6 horu mark. Then im assuming after another six hours the same thing was done.. Correct me if im wrong im unfamiliar.

But i though it was a genius idea. Personally i want to see it used at Lemans for all the classes.. then suddenly there's incentive to race the other cars for position in and enduro rather than just get to 2 hrs remaining in a 24 hour race and then go racing.

Then thered be no teams lagging behind trying to wait for everyone else to falter. Thats boring to watch. Anyone else wanna see this rule at Lemans?
It would certainly be fun to watch. Especially in the GT category.

[Speed-King]

On the other hand, a car could be rather dominant and have a 1 minute lead for most of the race, but lose out on top of the hour because they are on another pit sequence than some contenders, who then slip by for a few minutes until their own stops...

[Audi Racer]

but as long as the teams know the rule is in place theyre going to adjust theyre strategy so they're not pitting on 5hours and 59 minutes into the race

[Stefvh]

They've been doing this since the race was part of FIA GT champ'.

[duke_toaster]

Yes, it took about two pages of the GTR2 manual to explain it . It was 50% points after six hours, 50% after twelve and 100% at the end of the race for a total of 200% points.

I like the idea, but I'm not sure how exactly I would do it for Le Mans though. In the WEC, 25 points will be on offer for all races apart from Le Mans, which will be 50 (I agree with that, but if Sebring or another 12 hour race were to form part of the calendar I'd hand out 50 points for that and 75 for Le Mans). 12 and 24 hour races could justify intermediate bonuses, but not anything shorter really (although possibly a bonus after an hour might be an interesting idea).

[Deleted]

Sorry to say but I really hate it, why award points for mediocrity? It's supposed to be AN ENDURANCE EVENT and tough for everybody, in order to gain something you must finish first.

But I suppose it fits BoP-GT3 since half of the field is likely to hit mechanical gremlins or safety barriers way before finish line anyway

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by Chiana

Sorry to say but I really hate it, why award points for mediocrity? It's supposed to be AN ENDURANCE EVENT and tough for everybody, in order to gain something you must finish first.

But I suppose it fits BoP-GT3 since half of the field is likely to hit mechanical gremlins or safety barriers way before finish line anyway

Mediocrity? could you expand on this a little more..i dont quite understand.


What Mediocrity have you seen from the top entries at Lemans....Audi vs Peugeot, Porsche vs ferrari vs bmw vs corvette. Sarrazin vs Mcnish vs Bergmeister vs Magnussen vs Hand vs Melo..hardly mediocre.....in fact its the exact opposite.

[gregtummer]

No, I don't like it.

Leading at Le Mans is its own reward.

[Audi Racer]

Do you want "leading" or racing.....we all know that most teams are complacent and just want to wait for attrition to play its part...Thats boring. Atleast give the guys an incentive to actually race during he race.

it doesnt even have to be many points......maybe just 5 points to the leading guy and 4 for 2nd and 2 for 3rdplace......

i want it small enought so that it doesnt create a large gap for the car that leads the entire race while not too small so its worthless and the guys dont race for it.

in addition finally someone who has lead the entire race but gets take out by a P2 car on the final lap gets some points.

[MitchZ06]

The point of a 24 hour race is to actually finish that 24 hours, not earn points that you may just be taking away from someone else with this silly 6 hour mark thing if you were to crash out.

As it looks to me, Chiana means mediocrity in the form of the GT3 cars and how most are generally unrealiable. Some cars started from the pits at Spa and ended up in the top 5, those unreliable cars were mediocre indeed. (Correct me if I'm wrong but thats how it looks.)

[AGD]

I like the idea of there being no reward unless a team finishes. Then, if they finish, they get double points. It really reinforces the endurance aspect of the race. Plus, we have enough trouble as it is with the difference classes not respecting each other. Changing the point structure can only make the problem worse. I know patience isn't as entertaining, but I don't think any of us want to be "entertained" by the crashes we saw this year again.

[gregtummer]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

Do you want "leading" or racing.....we all know that most teams are complacent and just want to wait for attrition to play its part...Thats boring. Atleast give the guys an incentive to actually race during he race.

it doesnt even have to be many points......maybe just 5 points to the leading guy and 4 for 2nd and 2 for 3rdplace......

i want it small enought so that it doesnt create a large gap for the car that leads the entire race while not too small so its worthless and the guys dont race for it.

in addition finally someone who has lead the entire race but gets take out by a P2 car on the final lap gets some points.

But you act like the cars are just cruising around doing nothing. I'll take P1 for example. They no longer can do that.

2007 (won by 10 laps)
2008 (2nd place on same lap)
2009 (2nd place within 1:30)
2010 (2nd place 1 lap down) (Peugeot #1 blew up just over 3 hours left while being on the same lap, so your 6 hour points wouldn't apply anyways)
2011 (2nd place 13 seconds behind)

I don't know if you watch the Eurosport broadcasts at all, but their point is that the days of running off and trying to break the other cars is over. We'll probably never see a 2007 10 lap margin of victory again. So the cars are already pushing hard for 24 hours.

[rich07]

Originally Posted by Stefvh

They've been doing this since the race was part of FIA GT champ'.

Yeah indeed nothing new here.

Whilst most might seem opposed to it I think awarding points at six hour intervals has its merits. Say for example you were leading your class from start til just after halfway through the race (just over 12hrs) and you were then taken out by someone else by no fault of your own at least you'd get a consolation prize for your efforts, especially if leaving the race wasnt your fault.

I can see why people dont want the points system included like this but I think it works for 24hrs race that are part of a championship like Blancpain or FIA GT in the good old days.

I wouldnt want to see it at Le Mans (and ILMC) though, thats a different kettle of fish. Le Mans is Le Mans.

[arakis]

I think its a realy cool system, because it pushes the cars to race from the start to the finish, and not lag behind and wait for those infront to crash/breakdown.... If you think about it a little more it is even better for endurance, because if a car does good in the 6h and 12h mark and wins the 24h it means it was driving like a bat out of hell and still finished the race.....

[Audi Racer]

It encourages people to actually finish and push hard till the end knowing anything can happen.....

Remember back in (09 i believe) when the Risi ferrari broke the radiator running over the kerbs......And then Guiseppe basically said we have nothing to gain so where just going to reetire the car? yep he said that...
would he have don that if he knew Ferrari would score points for his car running at the 18hr mark. Heck no he wouldnt have.

Im not sure if anyone is afraid of change lol but it actually does sound like a fantastic idea.

Knowing that the teams will be trying to be in the lead at all oparts of the race and not just at the end.



Heres the defacto example of the rule being in place vs the rule not being in place.......

At Lemans: BMW's get punctures etc... and go 2 laps down...They basically give up and run pretty poultry lap times in the 4.03 range compared to the 3.57's they were cracking in qualifying(they resigned)......

At Spa(6 hour rule in place)......The 98 Audi loses second gear and then sits in garage for a while and goes 30 laps down..... Piccini, Rocky,and Fassler come out GUNS BlAZING.....setting race lap records at a 2.20.2(??!!bonkers lol)...and motor there way back from 28th spot up to 14th spot in the end(3-4 retirements helped).

you get where im going right?

[AndrewF31]

ummm, audi racer, they didn't get any points. Sorry to burst your bubble. Plus only Fassler is competing in the blancpain series. Those guys are just racers, and there are plenty of them out there.
So don't use them as your trophy examples for your argument.

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by AndrewF31

ummm, audi racer, they didn't get any points. Sorry to burst your bubble. Plus only Fassler is competing in the blancpain series. Those guys are just racers, and there are plenty of them out there.
So don't use them as your trophy examples for your argument.

who didnt get what points?

[AndrewF31]

rocky, fassler and piccini for finishing 14th so they ran like crazy for nothing theoretically.
Maybe they ran in hopes of getting points.

[gwyllion]

Originally Posted by Audi Racer

It encourages people to actually finish and push hard till the end knowing anything can happen.....

The whole point of racing and a lot of other sport disciplines (cycling, running, swimming, rowing, ...) is to finish first at the end of the race. Points for pole, fastest race laps, position after 1/4 or 1/2 race distance, etc. don't match with the spirit of endurance racing.

In fact, this idea reminds me of the stupid super rally rule where you could crash, return the next day and still score points.

[Audi Racer]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The whole point of racing and a lot of other sport disciplines (cycling, running, swimming, rowing, ...) is to finish first at the end of the race. Points for pole, fastest race laps, position after 1/4 or 1/2 race distance, etc. don't match with the spirit of endurance racing.

In fact, this idea reminds me of the stupid super rally rule where you could crash, return the next day and still score points.

Sure you can preach about the good virtues and the ideal world. etc.....

but where all humans.....And humans feed off of motivation otherwise they simply give up....

in addition the super rally rule wasnt stupid.......Those guys dont purposely crash if thats what your suggesting....give people a break or they will leave your series. you need to accomadate for the fact that were only human.

[JAG]

This points system was brought in because some cars and teams weren't fully prepared for a 24hr event.

Teams didn't want their championship bid ruined by one event.

[NaBUru38]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The whole point of racing and a lot of other sport disciplines (cycling, running, swimming, rowing, ...) is to finish first at the end of the race. Points for pole, fastest race laps, position after 1/4 or 1/2 race distance, etc. don't match with the spirit of endurance racing.

Not always. Cycling has points races and points classifications.

I love to invent competition rules and this idea has some adventages. I wouldn't use it for Le Mans or any WEC race, but a separate competition could use it.

It has some benefits. Since there's a finish line closer, drivers are encouraged to race harder. To make it work, I believe that the points scale should increase every sprint. For example, after 4h points could be 3-2-1, then 5-3-1 after 8h, 10-6-3-2-1 after 12h, 20-12-8-6-4... after 16h and 50-35-25-20-16... after 24h (I'm supposing a 10-15 car field.)

[Jameson]

Originally Posted by rich07

I wouldnt want to see it at Le Mans (and ILMC) though, thats a different kettle of fish. Le Mans is Le Mans.

But this point system wouldn't change anything in that respect. Le Mans would still remain Le Mans and the winners and podium scorers still need to finish the race to be up there.

However, when a 24-hour race becomes a part of a championship, like it is now with LM and Spa, it makes sense to give out points to people running high at 6h and 12h. You still need to finish to grab the most points and that rewards the ones managing the endurance race until the end.

So, in short, this rule takes nothing away from nobody and offers a small reward to teams being up there and fighting but hitting trouble in the end. It actually gives more to target than just cruising until the end hoping others will fall out.

[AGD]

Originally Posted by gwyllion

The whole point of racing and a lot of other sport disciplines (cycling, running, swimming, rowing, ...) is to finish first at the end of the race. Points for pole, fastest race laps, position after 1/4 or 1/2 race distance, etc. don't match with the spirit of endurance racing.

In fact, this idea reminds me of the stupid super rally rule where you could crash, return the next day and still score points.

I tend to agree. You don't get points for leading after the 1st and 2nd period of a hockey game. You don't get tiebreaking boxscore points for leading a basketball or gridiron football game after 3 quarters. And so on. Just like in any other form of racing, you only get points if you finish, or at least where you place at the finish (excluding any bonus points for pole or leading the most laps, etc.). The winner (or finishers in this case) grab all the marbles. The checkered flag = pay day, not the 6 hour mark.

I guess changing the point structure for the Le Mans 24 Hours would not be a huge deal as nobody really cares about points as it is at Le Mans even though it is a double points event (except for the race losers looking to change the direction of the discussion), but at the same time, why change things just for the sake of change? Is the race too boring for you guys? Is the championship too boring? If the former is true, I don't think changing the point structure is going to do much. If the latter is true, I say hang on! We have not even seen how the ILMC championship will play out.

[Audi Racer]

I dont think any part of lemans is boring the way it is currently...it lemans afterall....but you have to ask yourself is their a way to improve.....Whats with the complacency you guys? "why change things for the sake of change" its not for the sake of change its for the sake of improvement.....

And dont be so literal in my point scheme that i suggested......i mearly said that to guide the discussion....So no the points dont become insignificant if the ACO changes the point schematic

this thread would be alot more constructive if people actually proposed ideas about something that does have merit.....No one can deny that its not a good idea....anyhting that encourages more hard racing is good for a series...see what DRS and pirelli have done for f1....sure the DRS is a gimmick but hey.....

if you break on the 384/396 lap your sentenced to the ultimate punishment of failure and you deserve absolutely nothing....thats the vibe you guys are putting off.....am i right? should teams who have spent so much to do Lemans get absolutely nothing? teams are like dogs...you give them a reward and they keep coming back...why do you think the gt-am class makes so much sense...Thank god for Psych 101....humans are feeble creatures...fortunately you can get them to do pretty much anything with a bit of knowledge of psychology.