Apologies for the delay. See attached for more detailed breakdown.
Pos Name Grand Total
1 Pete Sparrow 567
2 Kris Tovey 528
3 Jon Davis 485
4 Richard Lambert 440
5 Matt Lambert 435
6 Nick Crispin 375
7 Nick Clarke 370
8 Matthew Hollis 345
9 Louis Tyson 338
10 Paul Taylor 335
11 Mick Storey 310
12 Alec Graham 305
13 Steve Walford 275
14 Julie Walford 275
15 Philip Myatt 255
16 Caryl Wills 235
17 Tom Perry 210
18 Chris Yates 205
19 Sammie Fritchley 150
20 Katy Storey 150
21 Simon Turner 120
22 Paul Robertson 120
23 Glenn Oswin 110
24 Simon Crook 105
25 Martin Fox 85
26 Nigel Hollis 85
27 Ash Carter 80
28 Adam Bollons 75
29 Chris Hall 75
30 Peter Rundle 70
31 Ian Arnold 65
32 Neil Savage 60
33 John Widdowson 60
34 Christine Savage 60
35 Nick Roads 50
36 James Dartiailh 45
37 Michael Fox 35
38 Ian Beale 25
39 Jamie Chadwick 0
I see Jon Davis has points for sharing with Pete Sparrow but Pete Sparrow does not have points for sharing with Jon Davis and that Nick Crispin has points for sharing with Pete Sparrow but Pete Sparrow doesn't have points for sharing with Nick Crispin,this cannot be correct either he was sharing with Davis or with Crispin .
As per our regs Matt,please note it says car not cars.
"Drivers competing in two cars in an event must nominate their points scoring car prior to qualifying. If no car is
nominated, the first car driven will be counted."
Where is this rule written paul ? I was wondering the same thing but could only find rule 1.6.2 which don't mention nominated cars ?
It would be strange to compete in a race and not get the points you scored but those of someone else
The rule Paul refers to is in the 24hour race section.
So the points shown are incorrect?
It used to be 1.6.1 as well ,but would appear to have been removed from that section.
i would have thought so Richard,Pete should either score 45 or 60 points for the second race and either nick or jon score nothing as they didn't have a points scoring second driver in their car.this might be one for the BARC to sort out .Especially as it will change the standings so much.
All going to be a bit mixed up if it don't say in regs :(
I can't see how you can have 3 lots of winners points awarded from two races
I'm certainly not happy with the scores, Matt can you explain please?
Once you make a commitment to a car then thats how it should be otherwise, you smash your car in race 1 and then use another for race 2, how can that be right?
Might as well give up trying to win the championship now....... ::) Paul, Sammie stop working on the car please!
The points have been done like this for the last 2 years at least.
Mick races 22 in race 1 and gets the points he scores while I get my points in 77 then in race 2 mick drives 77 and gets the points he scores and I share the points with him,
So I get mine and micks from 77
Mick gets what he scores in 22 & 77
Katy gets what mick scores in 22 in race 1 with what she gets in 22 in race 2
the way I understand it is this. You score the points from the car you. Qualified.you qualify in car A for race 1 you race car A in race 1 you score points from your result in car A for race 1. You qualify car B for race 2 you race car B for race 2 your score points accordingly. You score from your results. If Joe blogs is racing car A in race 2 then he/she benefits, or otherwise from your result in that car in race 1. And so on.
Simple. Ish
Quote from: Nick clarke on May 29, 2015, 23:22:56
The points have been done like this for the last 2 years at least.
Mick races 22 in race 1 and gets the points he scores while I get my points in 77 then in race 2 mick drives 77 and gets the points he scores and I share the points with him,
So I get mine and micks from 77
Mick gets what he scores in 22 & 77
Katy gets what mick scores in 22 in race 1 with what she gets in 22 in race 2
It doesn't mean it was right though Nick,according to last years rules it was definitely wrong .
I have not said what's right or wrong just the way it's been done while I have shared micks car, no one questioned until as we are not title contenders
How do we go about sorting this out?
Hi all,
Sorry been away for a few days.
OK, I figured this would get queried one day. These are the two rules concerning this anomoly:
1.6.1 Points will be awarded to Competitors listed as classified finishers in the Final Results as
follows:-
1st – 100, 2nd – 90, 3rd – 80, 4th – 75, 5th – 70, 6th – 65, 7th – 60, 8th – 55, 9th – 50, 10th – 45,
11th – 40, 12th – 35, 13th – 30, 14th – 25, 15th – 20, 16th – 15 and 10 points for all other finishers
In addition five points will be awarded to the driver setting the pole position time and three
further points awarded to the driver setting the fastest race lap.
1.6.2 Drivers who share a car at a meeting other than the 24 Hour meeting shall score the total of
their own points and the points of the driver with whom they share the car.
The question is, which one takes precedent?
1.6.1 stipulates that all people listed in the results score the points based on where they finish. Quite clear.
1.6.2 stipulates that if you share a car you also score the points of the driver you share with. Again quite clear.
But if a driver drives more than one car the rules contradict each other. Or do they?
On the basis that Paul suggests the points would be like this:
Pete Sparrow:
Race 1 - 103 points (1.6.1 applies)
Race 2 - 45 points (1.6.2 applies)
Jon Davis:
Race 1 - 100 points (1.6.2 applies)
Race 2 - 45 points (1.6.1 applies)
Nick Crispin:
Race 1 - 60 points (1.6.1 applies)
Race 2 - 100 points (1.6.2 applies)
However, Pete Sparrow is listed in the results of Race 2, so 1.6.1 also applies for him there. Therefore, technically it should actually be:
Pete Sparrow:
Race 1 - 103 points and 60 points = 163 points (1.6.1 applies and 1.6.2 applies)
Race 2 - 108 points and 45 points = 153 points (1.6.1 and 1.6.2 applies)
Jon Davis:
Race 1 - 100 points (1.6.2 applies)
Race 2 - 45 points (1.6.1 applies)
Nick Crispin:
Race 1 - 60 points (1.6.1 applies)
Race 2 - 100 points (1.6.2 applies)
Nowhere in the rules does it say that 1.6.2 overules 1.6.1 - it simply should be read in conjunction.
I believe the nomination of cars was removed from the rules when it was made clear that all drivers competing would score points (to do away with the unneccesary rule of having to register for the championship.
In effect, what is being suggested is that Pete should not have scored the points for where he finished in one or the other races. If for instance it is claimed he shared a car with Jon, and should only score points for that, then nobody won the 2nd race, apart from Nick Crispin - an impressive achievement given that he wasn't even on track!!!!
Just to let you know - After every meeting I calculate the results on behalf of the BARC and send them to Ian Watson, copying Mervyn in. Ian will check my calculations against his and query any differences. I started calculating the results because the way our scoring works is so complicated that they struggled to do it themselves. One year the BARC championship table was so incorrect, I offered to do it for them. It's worked well since.
However, I do accept that this is an odd situation. As Nick Clarke points out, I have applied this successfully with Rosie Racing over the years, but this does not mean it is right.
So the only thing I can do is contact Ian at BARC for his opinion. Ultimately the BARC administer our championship and should decide how the points are awarded. Once I have a response from Ian I will post it here. If people are not happy with the response I will pass it to the Board - I do not believe they have any jurisdication to decide how the points are awarded, but they should be allowed to decide how this goes forward. I will copy them in to my correspondence with Ian.
Thank you for the explanation Matt and we do need some guidence from the powers that be.
I'm sure it can be sorted out as I don't think Pete would want to win the championship this way!
I second Alec's understanding.
At first Paul's point seemed correct to me. However, having considered a literal meaning of 1.6.2 and its purpose, I think that the current table should stand. Of course the club may dislike the result and wish to change the rule for future years.
First, I dont think 1.6.2 applies to Pete's situation, but it does to Jon and Nick's. Pete did not share 'a' car, he shared two cars. If my memory serves me correctly, in 2011 Paul argued that a rule that said competitors in the 24hr must use a tuff jug meant they could use one tuff jug. To apply that wisdom here, 'a' in 1.6.2 would mean one car. So it does not apply to someone who shares two cars. Jon and Nick shared one car, so they get the points of the person with whom they share the car for points scored in that car.
Second, i think the purpose of 1.6.2. is to cover drivers sharing one car. It allows drivers driving one race to compete in the championship. Drivers competing in two races do not need the protection of the rule. Why should it matter whether someone drives two races in one car or two races in two cars?
I see one argument against this looking at the results of the current situation. Where a winning driver drives two cars, the sharing drivers get an advantage.
So yer, bottom line=i have too much time.
Quote from: RLambert on June 01, 2015, 14:43:14
Thank you for the explanation Matt and we do need some guidence from the powers that be.
I'm sure it can be sorted out as I don't think Pete would want to win the championship this way!
Agree with Rundle, no idea why it should be different to Pete entering and racing his own car. As for Nick / Jon their points should be the same any other shared car.
I think it'll probably be sorted with BARC taking Matt's stance, as historically this has been they way rules have been applied - if you want to make any rule changes I think there is about a month left to put them in.
I also imagine you wouldn't want to improve your championship standing by taking advantage of uncertainty in the rules?!
Either way, just win all 3 races at Croft and the 24HR and it won't matter how the points are allocated ;D
The points system rules need amending but the essence of the rules is that you can only score points once for each race finish. Excluding the individual points for pole and fastest lap, if a driver drives 2 cars sharing both cars with another driver then they should get half their own points and half the points of the driver they have shared the car with in each round giving them the same average of their combined total points in the same way that they would do with 2 drivers with one car. If there are 3 drivers driving 2 cars the one who drives in both rounds will again share half the points split between the 2 cars finishing positions with the other 2 drivers sharing the points as usual.
How can 3 drivers score winning points when there are only two wins available ?
Quote from: Paul on June 01, 2015, 19:08:27
How can 3 drivers score winning points when there are only two wins available ?
Agreed it seems odd however in the instance of two races surely there 4 sets of winners points available and this is accepted?
However I think that it is a quirk of the rules and as such should remain until such a point that the rules are changed.
If there were only two sets of winners points available then I'd imagine it would be Jon or Nick who were effected, not Pete as it would surely be a travesty that he should not receive the points for his hard earned (or gifted) position? I also can't see a way of fairly deciding who should be effected?
If it can't be accepted that only two points scores are available at each round for each driver then one driver in the 2 hour race could race in several cars (having also qualified 3 laps in each) and then score points for every finish in each car. The only other way would be to place a maximum score per round of the championship of 100 points excluding the already accepted principle that only one driver gets the points for pole and fastest lap.
I don't think any one has obtained more than two points scores. The 150 odd was hypothetical from Matt.
Quote from: Louis on June 01, 2015, 19:28:52
Quote from: Paul on June 01, 2015, 19:08:27
How can 3 drivers score winning points when there are only two wins available ?
Agreed it seems odd however in the instance of two races surely there 4 sets of winners points available and this is accepted?
However I think that it is a quirk of the rules and as such should remain until such a point that the rules are changed.
If there were only two sets of winners points available then I'd imagine it would be Jon or Nick who were effected, not Pete as it would surely be a travesty that he should not receive the points for his hard earned (or gifted) position? I also can't see a way of fairly deciding who should be effected?
Shared between two drivers,you can't have 3 different winners but only two races. Last year's regs are quite specific that you have to nominate your points scoring car,this year's suggest you share points for each car you race therefore Pete should have scored Jon's and nicks points , this would mean he would score 316 points that cannot be correct.
1.6.2 Drivers who share a car at a meeting other than the 24 Hour meeting shall score the total of
their own points and the points of the driver with whom they share the car.
It is clear that rule 1.6.1 in the 2014 regulations prevented confusion in the number of points which should be scored for each driver in each race. Matt has apparently been generally applying this rule consistently either with or without any knowledge of the car the driver has chosen to nominate. For whatever reason this rule has been removed from the 2015 regulations and without any other rule which contradicts any other, as far as I am aware, there is nothing to prevent any driver competing in 2 different cars and scoring the total of all the points allocated to each other driver they share a car with. On this basis Pete would score all of the points won by car 97 and 89 in each race plus his individual fastest lap and pole position points which would be 163 for race 1 and 153 from race 2.
While on the subject of the regulations, considering the 2 hour race at Croft regulation 3.1.2 states "For each event, except for the 24 Hours, there may be a maximum of two drivers per car who may enter." Is there going to be some sort of final instructions change, which overrides our rules (assuming this is permitted), which allows more than 2 drivers?
Dear all,
Please see below the email response from Ian Watson. The entire email thread follows below that. There is a board meeting tonight and Mervyn has confirmed this issue will be discussed.
RE: 2CVParts.com Championship standings (after Cadwell Park)
Ian Watson
10:23
To: Matthew HollisCc:
[email protected], Mervyn Rundle
Matt
I can see that we have a bit of a can of worms here then!! To my simple mind we have done the right thing by following these simple principles:
1. Pete Sparrow appears in both results and hence scores the points he earned
2. Pete's car 97 was then driven by Jon who earns his own points from race 2 and Pete's from race 1
3. The 89 car is treated as above so Nick scores his points from race 1 plus Pete's from race 2
As you say this is exactly as we have done with Mick Storey so we are being consistent in the way we have applied the points rules.
There is no rule to cover this situation and to write in something now will require the agreement of all competitors registered for the championship. If it gets to the point that people do not like the way in which we have interpreted the regulations then they have the right to take the matter to the championship stewards who can make a ruling on the matter and advise us how to apply the points for the championship.
I hope this helps.
Best regards
Ian
Ian Watson
General Manager
British Automobile Racing Club Limited
British Automobile Racing Club Limited is registered in England. Company Registration Number 516639. V.A.T. Registration Number GB673972391
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this e-mail or its attachments.
Prior to transmission this email was scanned for viruses, nevertheless no warranties or assurances are made in relation to the safety and content of this email and any attachments thereto. No liability is accepted for any consequences arising from it.
From: Matthew Hollis [mailto:
[email protected]]
Sent: 01 June 2015 23:08
To: Ian Watson
Cc:
[email protected] Subject: RE: 2CVParts.com Championship standings (after Cadwell Park)
Hi Ian,
Funny you should reply with this, I'm not sure if you have been looking at our forum, but there is a mighty argument at the moment about the points scoring. You can access the thread here:
http://www.2cvracing.org.uk/forum/index.php?topic=2372.0
To summarise:
Pete Sparrow drove 2 cars (no. 97 - race 1 and no. 89 - race 2) at Cadwell Park and won both races - scoring 103 in race 1 (win and fastest lap) and 108 in race 2 (win and fastest lap and pole position).
Jon Davis shared no. 97 with Pete, thereby scoring 100 in race 1 (win under the shared driver rule 1.6.2) and 45 in race 2 (10th)
Nick Crispin shared no. 89 with Pete, thereby scoring 60 in race 1 (7th) and 100 in race 2 (win under the shared driver rule 1.6.2)
The argument is that Pete should have scored the points of one of his shared drivers, so either 103 in race 1 and 45 in race 2, or 60 in race 1 and 108 in race 2. It is unclear how it would be decided which set of points he should have had, but the assumption being made is that it should be the first car driven (no. 97) - therefore 103 in race 1 and 45 in race 2.
The issue surrounds the following rules:
1.6.1 Points will be awarded to Competitors listed as classified finishers in the Final Results as
follows:-
1st – 100, 2nd – 90, 3rd – 80, 4th – 75, 5th – 70, 6th – 65, 7th – 60, 8th – 55, 9th – 50, 10th – 45,
11th – 40, 12th – 35, 13th – 30, 14th – 25, 15th – 20, 16th – 15 and 10 points for all other finishers
In addition five points will be awarded to the driver setting the pole position time and three
further points awarded to the driver setting the fastest race lap.
1.6.2 Drivers who share a car at a meeting other than the 24 Hour meeting shall score the total of
their own points and the points of the driver with whom they share the car.
If a driver competes in 2 separate cars he will appear as a classified finisher in results for race 1 and race 2 - therefore 1.6.1 applies. However if those cars are shared with other drivers then rule 1.6.2 also applies. There is no allowance for one rule taking precedence over the other. If anything, both rules should apply, therefore Pete should have scored 103 (race 1) + 60 (race 1 shared points) + 108 (race 2) + 45 (race 2 shared points) = 163 points (race 1) and 153 points (race 2).
It is my opinion that if a driver finishes a race, he only scores the points for where he finished as per 1.6.1, regardless of whether or not he shared. This is a calculation I have used previously but it has not been questioned before. I do not claim to be correct - I believe it is the fairest solution.
As administrators of our championship, I feel I have to refer this to BARC for advice. I am certainly not in a position to make a ruling on this.
You will see that in my forum post I indicated I would contact you about this and will post your reply on the forum. I am also copying in the Classic 2CV Racing Club board for info, as they may need to become involved.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Kind regards,
Matthew
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
[email protected] To:
[email protected] CC:
[email protected] Subject: RE: 2CVParts.com Championship standings (after Cadwell Park)
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 14:08:21 +0000
That looks spot on to me, thanks
Ian
Ian Watson
General Manager
British Automobile Racing Club Limited
British Automobile Racing Club Limited is registered in England. Company Registration Number 516639. V.A.T. Registration Number GB673972391
This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the addressee and may also be privileged or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee, or have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete it from your system and do not copy, disclose or otherwise act upon any part of this e-mail or its attachments.
Prior to transmission this email was scanned for viruses, nevertheless no warranties or assurances are made in relation to the safety and content of this email and any attachments thereto. No liability is accepted for any consequences arising from it.
From: Matthew Hollis [mailto:
[email protected]]
Sent: 28 May 2015 13:13
To: Ian Watson
Cc: Mervyn Rundle
Subject: 2CVParts.com Championship standings (after Cadwell Park)
Hi Ian,
Apologies for the delay. Please find attached the latest standings for the 2CVParts.com Championship.
Kind regards,
Matthew
Any update from the Board meeting?
So a week after the board meeting and there is no further information.
Apparently if we want to appeal to the championship stewards Richard it costs £432, I havent' managed to find out if this is returnable if we win but you would have to hope so.
i want to know if you race 4 different cars in the 2hr race if you score 4 cars worth of points.
I thought the championship was won by a driver not a car ? I'm struggling with this because I can't see how anyone would think it was right for someone to compete in a race but get the points of another competitor who they are racing aggaints.
I thought the only reason for sharing points was so people who could only race in 1 race per meeting could still have a chance in the championship ? Mick races in both races so gets the points he scores not mine or katy's in race 2 if he was to get katy's points he would have to loose to her to get more points for himself and less for me how could that ever be right? Having to loose a race to get more points.
I thought to be sharing you needed to be in 1 race per meeting as lots of us are if you drive in both races then your not sharing so you drive both races you get the points you score if you drive in 1 you SHARE the points the person gets who drives the car you use. I personally feel matt has done it the best way for the last few years
Perhaps an average ? Number of points for DRIVER and divide by number of races competed in? They way it's done at the minute doesn't show a true reflection of performance by one driver, I am sure it's happened in the past where one particular driver finishes well every race but ends up way down the final standings due to shared points.
First race get pole set fastest lap and win race then sit back for the year :)
Totally agree that Matt has made the best of a slightly confusing scoring situation.
The only minor problem, is the interpretation of the number of cars that can be driven in an endurance race, surely that can only be one. Marshalling/Policing anything else would be a headache.
I don't think there is a better points system than the one we have in place. Nominating a point scoring car (if you drive two cars at a meeting) would be a bit daft. Imagine if you nominated the car for scoring that you drove in race 1 and then you were taken out, only to win race two, but not get the points for winning. That could lead to sort of tactics we saw (fail spectacularly) at Croft, in 2012, occurring on a regular basis.
How confusing would alternatives (bar dropped scores) be for most of us? Never mind spectators, followers etc.
On the 24 Hour question a driver may only compete in one car per class during an endurance race as noted at the beginning of this thread and clearly in MSA blue book.
A driver can compete in a different class in the same endurance race - subject to meeting the driving hours rules.
Makes perfect sense Nick.
Quote from: Nick clarke on June 10, 2015, 00:30:17
First race get pole set fastest lap and win race then sit back for the year :)
Good point!
Quote from: abfitness2cv on June 10, 2015, 06:23:19
Totally agree that Matt has made the best of a slightly confusing scoring situation.
I don't think there is a better points system than the one we have in place. Nominating a point scoring car (if you drive two cars at a meeting) would be a bit daft. Imagine if you nominated the car for scoring that you drove in race 1 and then you were taken out, only to win race two, but not get the points for winning. That could lead to sort of tactics we saw (fail spectacularly) at Croft, in 2012, occurring on a regular basis.
That is the gamble you take driving two cars Adam.Maybe we should just say you cannot race two different cars at the same meeting, that would stop this.Or you can only score points with the driver you entered the championship with .
It all makes the championship a farce in my mind, fare play to Pete for using the points idiosyncrasies to his advantage, but really he has chosen to drive with John and he needs to score points with John.
Drive another car by all means but the results shouldn't apply to that driver. How can it be fair to swap in your not so good driver for a top driver to help win a championship, isn't this about you and your chosen driver working as a team??
The big loser here is Kris as he should be leading the championship.
I did think that Matt and I would have a shot at the championship but it's all a bit 'pointless' now.
I thought u shared points to give people who could only afford 1 race a chance if you can drive in both good luck to you and you get your own points
It's starting to look like people think if pete drives both races he will win championship well if he did how could that be wrong ? Are people saying if your good you have to share a car with another driver so you get less points and give others a chance ?
I'm not saying the best driver shouldn't win, what I am saying is that the points system shouldn't be manipulated to give a driver an extra advantage when things aren't going well.
If you can afford to do both races you should be doing it in one car, not picking and chosing cars or circuits where you can gain an advantage. if your partner mucks up you need to take the rough with the smooth.
It's just wrong!
I think the issue here is with the rules, Pete probably didn't think about the knock on - in this instance I have no problem with the way it has worked, but I may have a different view on that in Richard's shoes. I think if there is a belief that the way the points work is incorrect then Richard, Paul and Simon should put together a proposal and submit it for the AGM.
We have yet to get an official update from board meeting though, I guess this will come in the form of the minutes - can't these be written up in Word as they are taken, saved as a PDF and then uploaded the day after the meeting?
I'd probably spend the £400 on making the car faster, not protesting the championship stewards as I think they'll probably side with barc and the club.
I suppose it's different ways of looking at it I don't see it as a team mate I see it as I get the points of the car I use when I can't afford to do both races if I got offered a drive in race 2 I would take it and expect to get the points I earn not the points mick gets.
I think if we're not careful we could end up only getting the points you earn so any double drivers could never win :(
I guess all of this debate just serves to highlight (as if we needed any proof) how good Pete is. At least by sharing he's giving others a chance.
Pete has been suprisingly absent from this thread ;)
It is clear that rule 1.6.1 in the 2014 regulations prevented confusion in the number of points which should be scored for each driver in each race. This rule was removed from the 2015 regulations for whatever reason. I would propose that it is simply put back in.
1.6.1 Drivers competing in two cars in an event must nominate their points scoring car prior to qualifying. If no car is
nominated, the first car driven will be counted.
I still don't belive it's right that you could drive in a race but get the points of another driver.
So if mick races 22 in race 1 then 77 in race 2 it don't matter if he wins he gets points Katy scores ? So if he wins in 77 does he not get the trophy ? Who gets first place points ? I'm sorry but that would be terible . I have read nothing that makes me think the way it's been done for the last 2 years is not the best way.
If you drive you get your points if you only drive 1 race at a meeting you get the points scored by the car you drove at that meeting.
It's the way it has been for at least 5 years if not 8 the difference this year is the removal of the regulation that said you had to nominate your points scoring car. The way it has been done for the last couple of years is in direct contravention of our regs,if i had been racing lastyear and was looking at the points table as a competitor i would have brought it up then.
the rules are the rules not what is thought the rules are,black and white as written down.
So according to the rules as written and ratified by the MSA and published by The BARC Pete should" .1.6.2 Drivers who share a car at a meeting other than the 24 Hour meeting shall score the total of
their own points and the points of the driver with whom they share the car."
By only scoring his own points he is in contravention of this regulation.
So you want Nick and Jon's points adding to Pete's total?
Well that's what the rules say Louis,rightly or wrongly without the Nominating regulation that is the rule as written., I would like to know if you have multiple drivers in one car if you score their points as well,if so is there the possibility of 400 points for the 2hr race.
1.6.2 Drivers who share a car at a meeting other than the 24 Hour meeting shall score the total of
their own points and the points of the driver with whom they share the car.
Suggests to me that if 3 other drivers score 100 points you share their points.
Dear all.
I have not knowingly raced for a points advantage. I'm sorry that I did well.
I am very upset that people should think this is the case.
I took a drive in reasonably unknown car for 2 reasons, A) I love driving at Cadwell and wanted the chance to race twice (there was no rule to say I can't) and B) I wanted to try and help a fellow competitor out with their car set up. (as I do for anyone that askes me to whether I race the car or not). I did ring round looking for a second drive and this is the first one that came up.
I was unaware of the current rule when I took the drive and previous to knowing this, emailed Mervyn with a nominated car. I could have driven any car and would have happily taken those points. The car i drove has not had a pole or a win previously.
Just so its out there, for Croft I am racing with Kris Tovey in the 2 hour, this was organised at Brands well before any of this came up.
I'm sorry this has become a problem, the rule applies to others as well, not just me. However, it is clear that it is an issue because it looks like I have benefited. I feel sure no one would have noticed if it was someone else.
Matt has scored me mick and Katy the same way all last year pete no one said anything
Nice reply Pete. Situation not your problem. The club needs to resolve this issue to ensure another scenario doesn't ensue. To all others who believe Pete needs to use this situation !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can someone please explain why Pete has an advantage from the scores? All I see is Pete has been awarded the points for two wins as he won both races.........
It was a fantastic performance Pete with Nicks car. I'm not saying that I was a deliberate act to gain an advantage especially as I don't think anyone was aware of the rule anomaly anyway it's just worked out that way.
Does anyone know why the particular rule Paul is referring to was dropped for 2015 and who requested it?
Quote from: RLambert on June 04, 2015, 11:39:54
Any update from the Board meeting?
I have now had it confirmed that the Board agreed with BARC about the interpretation of the rules and the consistency of application.
Oh dear. If we are not running to our regulations can someone show me the regulations we are racing to please.
No one? I thought not, what a farce! First we don't get our rules changes included (something that has never happened before) then we find out that some rules have been changed without informing any/the whole of the board.
I can't wait for the 2hr 2 driver race at croft , a bit of a waste of time for those wanting to get their 24hr teams together.
If we don't have a set of rules to race to that mean anything I can't see the point of entering the 24hr race, think I might join Team Gadget and stay at home.
Hello Paul
ive been flat out trying to get Rigoletto out the door, harder than it sounds, I can tell you! Finally closed the truck doors about 2am this morning.
So the regs. The way I see them
If you and I share a car at croft for the 2 hour endurance then we both score 100 points. that's 100 points each. Same applies to the 24 hour race.
If you race my car (that's not an offer btw)! in the first sprint and Adam Bollons car in the second sprint. then you score wherever you finish.
in this scenario:
I share your points when you drive my car and Adam shares your points when you drive his car.
Adam and I have shared our drives and therefore points. You haven't shared a drive because you are competing in both races..
To compete in both races, same car or otherwise.by definition you aren't sharing.
I'm not sure ive quite got to where your contradiction lies, but that's the way I read it..
All drivers have to share points Alec, at present Pete has only scored his own points he has not shared any other drivers points as stated in the regs he shall do.
So if you and I swap cars for the second sprint. we score each others points? whose points do we score for the first race our own or each others? or both?
it doesn't make sense.
How it makes sense is this:
if you and I swap cars we aren't sharing.
we are only sharing if we share the 'competing' not the 'car'
when you look at it like that it makes sense surely.
Yes, If there are two drivers driving the same car they are sharing. If they are sharing as the regulations are this year they score each other's points, so if you share two cars and do not have to nominate which car you are going to score points in (as per the last 7 years) then you score the points for sharing both cars for both races.
The fact is that the rules are crap but rules are rules and they are not being applied correctly.
I've written to Ian Watson to try and see if we can come up with a solution.
If it stays as it is I'm going to have to reconsider if it's worth doing the 24hr race.
After reading this I still struggle to understand how you can not be scored the points for the races that you enter ?? however the points system is worked then I still think that you should score the points that you achieve in the races that you race in regardless of which car you are in
if the rules are rules and need to be applied exactly as written then Pete should be awarded the 316 points that the two cars earned at Cadwell. as it is I think that common sense has been used and the points are correct.
This would have to be applied to Mick Storey too then ;D
Don't give mick more points I'm enjoying being in front of him :)
Does that mean that he doesn't like being behind you???? :-\