King of Kents FF1600

[darcym]

do tell

[Ian Sowman]

Buy it now - all good newsagents - £1.90!

(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.

[dhart]

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.

[blue nose]

Here here that man!

[dhart]

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

[blue nose]

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

[Ian Sowman]

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.

[dhart]

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.

[50-SIX]

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.

[JnrJnr]

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

[MikeM]

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

[50-SIX]

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!

[50-SIX]

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.

[jminsh]

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

[MikeM]

Whoa Steve - not that direction again please!

[Ian Sowman]

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...

[MikeM]

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

[50-SIX]

[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

[steve27]

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 :-)

[diz]

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

[Ian Sowman]

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.