• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

2016 AFM club questions

Holeshot said:
Because you started the race and completed at least 1 scored lap.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes soooo...I know this is something you have been pushing for for several years, but hasn't passed a motion or a rules committee, but at a minimum, how does this or where does this align with the Rule Book?
 
Next thing you know people will want points for just showing up to the track. "But I paid my entry fee and drove 200 miles! Shouldn't I get something???"

Seriously, giving out points to DNF's just because our tools make it hard to score DNF's isn't a good argument for giving them points- it's an argument to use better tools or train people better.
 
synfinatic said:
Next thing you know people will want points for just showing up to the track. "But I paid my entry fee and drove 200 miles! Shouldn't I get something???"

Seriously, giving out points to DNF's just because our tools make it hard to score DNF's isn't a good argument for giving them points- it's an argument to use better tools or train people better.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be that hard. Finishers should still get points for 'passing' the people that DNF. I remember it being that was before.

I can see a point to Berto's contention that if you lap someone and crash on the final lap, you should get points because technically you did beat the people who were one lap down.
 
There's the old saying, about if you want to finish first, you first must finish. I don't see why scoring championship points is any different.

The whole corner case of granting points to people who crash on the last lap, only after passing someone a lap down doesn't IMHO mean we should now allow everyone who completes at least one lap and then crashes to earn points. Much easier to draw a clear and concise line and say DNF = no points.
 
Does anyone remember the origin of the "X + number of starters" pointing system in the first place? AFM is the only place I have seen that and am curious where it came from.

As for the DNF part, I agree with @synfinatic, DNF = no points makes the most sense.
 
to be eligible for points, rule 6.2.3 says you must complete 80% of the laps of the winner. I just don't understand how you'd get a finishing place with a DNF

ie. if you are the leader of a race with 10 starter, and you crash out on the last lap. So you are within 80% of the eventual winner given number of scored laps (8 lap race, you completed/scored 7, so you are within 87.5% of the finisher.) However you didn't complete the race due to the crash which is scored a DNF, so I don't understand how you could collect the 5 points for a 10th place "finish" with a DNF. It appears that the current interpretation is the "scored laps within 80% of the winner".

Rule book does not address the issue of DNF and scoring. It should.
 
MZarra said:
Does anyone remember the origin of the "X + number of starters" pointing system in the first place? AFM is the only place I have seen that and am curious where it came from.

As for the DNF part, I agree with @synfinatic, DNF = no points makes the most sense.
Click to expand...

This came out because in the late 70's, people could go race a class with 3 racers, and get the same amount of points as someone racing a class with 25 or more riders who were all doing Nationals (think TZ250's). Well at the end of the year, guess what, the racer in the class with 3 racers in their class was going head to head for Top 10 overall points (before the FP 1-5, there was just Top 10 Overall Points). So a rule was developed that rewarded the racer going up against 20, 30, 70, other racers, in the quest for not only Class Championships, but Top 10 plate as well.

That rule has stayed in effect since. In short summary, this put a hurdle in front of the sandbagger for the coveted Top 10 plates.
 
KazMan said:
This came out because in the late 70's, people could go race a class with 3 racers, and get the same amount of points as someone racing a class with 25 or more riders who were all doing Nationals (think TZ250's). Well at the end of the year, guess what, the racer in the class with 3 racers in their class was going head to head for Top 10 overall points (before the FP 1-5, there was just Top 10 Overall Points). So a rule was developed that rewarded the racer going up against 20, 30, 70, other racers, in the quest for not only Class Championships, but Top 10 plate as well.

That rule has stayed in effect since. In short summary, this put a hurdle in front of the sandbagger for the coveted Top 10 plates.
Click to expand...

Aha I like that reasoning, that makes me want the X points + 'number of starters you finished ahead of' to stay in. If you can win in 600 prod, I think you deserve a chance at a top 10 plate.

But I still don't see why we are giving points for DNFs, especially if it's extra work for the officials. If it was no extra work I'd be OK with it, but I'm in the '0 points for crashes' group.
 
SonoraMike said:
to be eligible for points, rule 6.2.3 says you must complete 80% of the laps of the winner. I just don't understand how you'd get a finishing place with a DNF
Click to expand...

I think this rule is to weed out the super slow people? Like if you are in a 6 lap race and you only complete 4 laps before the race is over (lapped twice), then you're too slow to earn points.

Not that they adhere to that. I was pretty regularly lapped twice by Joy when I was on a 250 last year. I never got more than 4 laps when we were gridded with AFemme. But 4/6 is 67% and I still got points. I'm not saying that's bad, I think fully half of the 250 field got lapped twice in those races.

I guess the rule ought to be if the total of your lap times is > the winners time. But even then, if you are in the second wave and you are faster than the winner but not enough to pass them, then you have a problem. Maybe faster than the winner -30 seconds? Haha it gets fuzzy. I see why there's confusion, but maybe it should just be 'must complete the race.'
 
McLovin said:
I was pretty regularly lapped twice by Joy when I was on a 250 last year. I never got more than 4 laps when we were gridded with AFemme.
Click to expand...

Joy was in a diff race, its within 80% of your race, so you'd need to be on the same lap as your races winner (1 lap down on a 4 lap race is 75% which would disqualify you for points elig)
 
SonoraMike said:
Joy was in a diff race, its within 80% of your race, so you'd need to be on the same lap as your races winner (1 lap down on a 4 lap race is 75% which would disqualify you for points elig)
Click to expand...

Ah, that makes sense!
 
Calculate points for this 2 guys.

Racer #1. Wins 3 races, finishes 2nd in 3 races and crashes in round 4
Racer #2. Wins 3 races, finishes 2nd in 3 and crashes in round 5

Who wins championship? :)
 
They have a tie breaker Road Rage style. Seriously though, it depends on the number of finishers each race. I'd say if they have exactly the same points, then whoever was playing catch-up at the end gets to hold the 2nd place trophy.
 
TWF said:
Calculate points for this 2 guys.

Racer #1. Wins 3 races, finishes 2nd in 3 races and crashes in round 4
Racer #2. Wins 3 races, finishes 2nd in 3 and crashes in round 5

Who wins championship? :)
Click to expand...
Me thinks this might be a loaded question.
 
It is not loaded. Every round is different number of entries.
Championship would be decided by number of entries in 2 rounds they crashed.
If 1 of those 2 rounds had 35 entries and other had 34 entries the guy that crashed in race with 34 entries wins by 1 point.
 
Wouldn't that first be determined by the number of riders passed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top