2CVParts.com Championship standings (after Cadwell Park)

[RLambert]

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!

[Peter Rundle]

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.

[Louis]

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 

[simon turner]

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.

[Paul]

How can 3 drivers score winning points when there are only two wins available ?

[Louis]

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?

[simon turner]

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.

[Louis]

I don't think any one has obtained more than two points scores. The 150 odd was hypothetical from Matt.

[Paul]

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.

[simon turner]

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?

[Matt Hollis]

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: board@2cvracing.org.uk, 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:hollis_motorsport@hotmail.com]
Sent: 01 June 2015 23:08
 To: Ian Watson
 Cc: board@2cvracing.org.uk
 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: iwatson@barc.net
 To: hollis_motorsport@hotmail.com
 CC: mervyn@solicitorstitle.co.uk
 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:hollis_motorsport@hotmail.com]
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

[RLambert]

Any update from the Board meeting?

[Paul]

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.

[Nick clarke]

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

[naughtybear]

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.