2CVParts.com Championship standings (after Cadwell Park)

[Matt Hollis]

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

[Paul]

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."

[Nick clarke]

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

[Alec Graham]

The rule Paul refers to is in the 24hour race section.

[RLambert]

So the points shown are incorrect?

[Paul]

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.

[Nick clarke]

All going to be a bit mixed up if it don't say in regs

[Paul]

I can't see how you can have 3 lots of winners points awarded from two races

[RLambert]

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!

[Nick clarke]

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

[Alec Graham]

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

[Paul]

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 .

[Nick clarke]

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

[RLambert]

How do we go about sorting this out?

[Matt Hollis]

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.