Alternative champions

[John]

In the past - specifically thinking of the late 80s there were different classes of cars and each class contributed the same number of points to the overall championship.

By this I mean that the after round one the winners of all the different classes would be joint overall leaders. This is how Cleland and Sytner in particular became champions despite the fact they were not in the fastest (class A) cars.

This got me thinking as we now have two classes what would have happened had those rules still applied (prepare for a stats overload!.......)

-In 2002 Thompson had 183 points to Kaye's 210 (so Kaye would have been champion instead of Thompson)
-In 2001 Plato had 336 points to Harrison's 227 (so Plato would still have won)
-In 2000 Menu had 195 points to Morrison's 264 (so Morrison would be champion)

Putting another variable in though gives some very different results.... The Indy championship scoring system is the same as the overall championship scores (ie 15-12-10........ 1) so it may be possible to argue that these championships could be compared as well (so that the one with the highest overall points was overall champion) If that were the case it would mean that Neal was overall champion in 95,99 and 2000, and Lee Brookes would have been 96 champion! (97 and 98 would remain unchanged)

I know that last paragraph would probably not be the case but the Class B / Production versus the main Class is a valid point as it was the case in the past. So what do you think of that rule?

Personally I dont agree with it as I think the driver who was fastest overall (ie the Class A / Tourer driver) should be champion and the 'lower' classes should be a stepping stone to the top class. Also there are problems with competition, for example in 1989 there was a very competitive Class A, but Class C (which Cleland ran in) was very uncompetitive by comparison, meaning he could easily get class wins and maximum scores. This is the same as 2000 where Class B was much less competitive than Class A (typically if all finished Morrison Kaye and Lemmer would be the top 3 and sometimes Collard whereas there was any number of 10 drivers in the tourers that could finish on the podium).

[The Stig]

BTCC should maintain the Production and Touring classes, with the production class being a stepping stone as you say, a sort of apprenticeship for Tourers. Talented debutantes and improvers invariably move up in a class and many do really well. Sorry John far too much arithmetic in your original post, but can you recall the old days of F1 where only 10 or 12 scores counted towards your tally. You used to have to discard your worst results. Would that work in the BTCC

[John]

Originally posted by The Stig
Would that work in the BTCC

Dropped scores? They already do - or at least they did until 2001. The dropped scores cost Reid the title in 2000, which is a bad thing! But on the plus side it makes better racing because drivers will be more willing to undertake a risky overtake if they can have 4 scores that dont count at the end of the year.

[King Cleland]

Silly way to work it seems this day!

[Claw]

I hated the dropped scores system as it cost Reid a title he deserved! :mad:

[McKay]

If Reid had won in 2000 then each super touring year would have had a different champion. How many BTCC titles do you need Alain! The Super Touring period was so competitive, Reid was denied of two titles he so badly deserved, if he was put in a Vauxhall, he could be champion and i hope he is. I dont want Vauxhall to become the next BMW,

[John]

Think Rydell deserved 98s more than Reid, but definately think Reid should have been champion in 2000.

Unfortunately if he doesn't do it soon I dont think he ever will :(