Bathurst: Points or no points?

[Steve Holmes]

In the last few years Bathurst has been a points round for the V8 Supercar championship. As the race is held in towards the end of the season, some teams are in the championship hunt, while others are out of the points. So some teams race at Bathurst to gather safe points, while others are there to win the event.

But Bathurst is such an important event in itself, one which every team wants to win, and in some ways, still carries more bragging rights than winning the championship. So should Bathurst be a stand alone event, with no championship points offered, or do people prefer the current situation, having it as a championship round? What do people think?

[aj_308]

i dont know how many people dont have a real go at winning bathurst and forget the championship, maybe ambrose does a bit. its sad to see people not giving it 100%.

[HRT #1]

Bathurst should be the left in the championship along with the points, but moved so it becomes the grand finale of the season, after all it is the largest event on the V8 calendar.

[woodbine]

Bathurst and Sandown should be stand-alone events. They are totally different from the rest of the season. These are the races that can make or break a driver's championship even when he's not in the car, just remember Marcos and Russell at Sandown in 2003.

Let the teams race for a decent monetary prize for these races. Think of the PR that could be made from a $1 million prize fund for Bathurst (split maybe 500k for 1st, 300k for second and 200k for third).

[Henry]

Get rid of the points! I was bitterly disappointed with the last 20 laps of Bathurst this year as people very obviously settled in for the points.... can you imagine how it would've been if the top half-dozen had nothing to lose after the last pace-car? I would've dearly loved to have seen a fight to the line...

[Raglanparade]

I think it should be for points.

We should have the 'normal series' during the year (each race at 2 week intervals)

And then at the end of the year, we should have the 'endurance series' with a race at Sandown and a race at Bathurst.

Sandown cant be pushed any later then September because all of the international racehourses that come out for the spring carnival are kept there, and i can hardly picture the Gadolfin stable out of Dubai subjecting their millions of dollars of horses to the load roar of V8's a week or two before the Melbourne cup.

Also, a lot of motorsports purists would not like to have Bathurst in Novemeber, and wuold prefer the traditional October date.

Do we have 3/4 of the "V8 Supercar Series", then our Two Round "Endurance Series", and then the final two rounds of the normal series. It all sounds a bit silly.

Im pretty sure that if you kept it has a points race (the way its been), but added $1 Million in prizemoney, the drivers would be racing a little harder.

What is the average V8 Supercar driver earning ?? well we all know AVESCO had revenues of $400 Million or something like that (as reported in this thread, as internet threads never tell lies)..

A normal winners cheque goes to the team and driver.. give the drivers a $1 Million Carrot to win the race, and no matter how much the teams tell them to back off for the points, the drivers wont be able to resist a Million (except for maybe Skaifey).

Its about time our premier race had some big bucks as a reward for the winner.

[HRT #1]

What is the average V8 Supercar driver earning ?? well we all know AVESCO had revenues of $400 Million or something like that (as reported in this thread, as internet threads never tell lies)..

Quite a number of drivers already earn close to $1mil as it stands. What your proposing will force gate fees, merchandising, food and beverages etc to rise considerably so are you prepared to pay the extra just to see the winner get that $1mil.?

[Steve Holmes]

V8 Supercars are an artificial series, just like NASCAR, DTM, BTCC etc etc. The cars are created to be even, and the whole series, and each individual meeting, is created to provide maximum entertainment. That's the way of the world these days. And it works pretty well, though some may argue that.

At Bathurst (and every other race), the Safety Car is deployed at any opportunity to close the field up, as this adds to the intensity of the race, and the unpredictability of it. NASCAR were first to do this. It works well in V8SC, so why then, when you have a race such as Bathurst, which carries huge clout, do the drivers have to race for points, when this can actually have the reverse effect, and create 'safe' racing, ie, driving to the finish to gather points.

If Bathurst this year had been a stand alone event, would the outcome have been different? Its hard to know if anyone could have caught Murphy after the final Safety Car, but it would have been nice to have seen Ambrose, at least, gunning for the win, rather than consolidating his points lead.

There is no right or wrong answer to this thread, the question is, would the championship be worse off if Bathurst was a stand alone event, and would Bathurst be better for it?

To any V8SC driver/team, there are two goals in the year. Win the championship, and win Bathurst. Which is more important? Once upon a time it was the latter. But maybe it isn't any more. But would the V8SC season be better if the championship and Bathurst were separate?

[lcfp2297]

IIRC Ambrose only backed off once a problem with the car developed, so he slowed for points...had he not backed off, their was potential for the car not to finish.

IMO having no points tied to the race would mean drivers will go for the win...but risk breaking the car in order to do it (so drop out of the race)...having the points means that they go flat out for the win until a problem develops and then settle for points...

The question is, do you want 20 finishers or 5?

[Henry]

Originally Posted by lcfp2297

The question is, do you want 20 finishers or 5?

Who remembers who finished where, apart from the winner? A placing is a worthy goal if your gear/talent isn't up to a shot at outright victory.... BUT...

A hypothetical only (due to lack of talent, money, cojones, etc)....

Fifteen laps left, a 5-second deficit to the leader, a car potentially 1/2-3/4 sec per lap quicker than the bloke in front IF you're willing to chance your arm and extend the gear and roll the dice in traffic, no points to be lost in the hunt for a championship... I sure as s__t would cane the ring off the thing for a shot at a win, even if there was a chance that the car wouldn't last.

It's the sort of scenario which inspired drives like Brock's in 1985.... Bond in 1976.... Brad Jones in 1994.... hero drives all. While none of these guys (with the debatable exception of Bond, although the records will forever show otherwise) succeeded in the attempt. While everybody loves a winner, you can't help but admire the man who won't go down without a fight, even if the odds are stacked against him.

[aj_308]

ill take 5, racing flat out, rather than 15 nursing it.
it only takes 2 cars to have a good race.

[jetsetter]

I'd like to see Bathurst as a non championship round & encourage teams to put everything in to winning the race.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by aj_308

ill take 5, racing flat out, rather than 15 nursing it.
it only takes 2 cars to have a good race.

Exactamundo!

[racer69]

Sandown and Bathurst should be part of a series, an Endurance Series.

The way the thing is currently structured, they both should be stand-alone events, two-driver races have no right to be a part of a series that is a Single Driver championship.

Why should Ambrose's championship have been up in the air last year because of what Ingall did at Sandown? If it was an Endurance Championship were each round consisted of 2 drivers, then that would be acceptable, but not in a single driver series

[woodbine]

If you're going to have an endurance series you really need another event, otherwise there would be too great a possibility that two cars could end up tied on points. Add a third race at somewhere like Queensland Raceway, or leave them as races for cash. As for pushing up costs, after seeing the amount that the support events are charged I would think there would be plenty of cash laying about.

Another advantage of being stand-alone races would be that we could get rid of the silly rule limiting entry to holders of L1 and L2 franchises. Allow in anyone that can field an eligible car. More entries mean more entries fees for AVESCO so they can afford the prizes.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by woodbine

Another advantage of being stand-alone races would be that we could get rid of the silly rule limiting entry to holders of L1 and L2 franchises. Allow in anyone that can field an eligible car. More entries mean more entries fees for AVESCO so they can afford the prizes.

I just opined on the other Bathurst topic that this restriction hasn't hurt the 1000 at all. I (and this is the opinion of a wombat in his armchair only) thought that it eliminated the cr@p that we had seen over the years, where some of the lesser lights would get ambitious/carried away/excited at a pace car restart on cold tyres and cart a half-dozen cars into the fence. We saw it time after time for years, but there didn't appear to be much of it in 2004.

The old endurance championship never seemed to mean much in the old days, but back then entry was non-compuslory, many teams would stay away from the earlier enduroes to avoid showing too much of their hand before Bathurst... and then anything after Bathurst was a bit of an anti-climax anyway...

... or that's how it seemed

[Jason Whittaker]

When will this debate end?

Bathurst is the jewel in the crown. It has triple the attention of any other V8 event. Therefore it's VITAL that AVESCO can leverage coverage of the series when they have that attention in October.

Let's face it, take Bathurst out of the picture and things like television contracts and sponsorship arrangements would be fairly worthless.

It's important for marketing, it's important for revenue, and that benefits teams and the sport. And having it burried in the championship negates some of the 'we can't afford to give it 100 percent' stuff.

It has to be part of the series. Can't we all just accept that?

[Henry]

Originally Posted by Jason Whittaker

It has to be part of the series. Can't we all just accept that?

Maybe... but we don't have to like it

Personally, I have never felt as disenchanted with the whole spectacle as I did as they went back to green after the final pace car at Bathurst this year. Lowndes had a bit of a go, but it seemed that they all settled down pretty quickly.

Granted, it was doubtful that anyone had the pure carspeed to catch Murphy....

...but we'll never know, will we?

[lcfp2297]

So if there's only 5 cars on the track, there is far less probability that they'd be grouped together...or even on the same lap...

And two cars dicing may make a race...for those watching on telly anyway...

racer69,
Why has Lowndes had to suffer not winning a championship just because his engine builder can't do his job???

There is a good line in Bill Woods book. It goes something like... Motorsport is the MOST team based sport of all sports. Many have lost championships/races etc from somebody elses stuff-up...whether it be a team mate or a competitor...

[pete55]

Bathurst is still 'Bathurst' whether it is part of the championship or not. It would be better if it was the grand final of the championship but with the date it is held it is impossible to do.

[louonline]

I would like to see the championship settled before they get to Bathurst.
Bathurst should be a grand final/stand alone event where ALL the drivers go all out to win rather than nursing championship points.
They should be there to be "King of the Mount", they can't really do that if they have to take their championship points into consideration.
If only five finish it means they all had a go and gave it their all!

[Hazza]

Well if you ask me (which you didn't) I'd make L1 liscences for V8s, l2 for Feeder and l3s for brutes (or something) and then make Bathurst, Adeliade and Sandown open to L1, 2 and 3, and let the fastest 35 ruddy chaps be the 35 on the grid! (maybe more, depending on the circuit, and maybe steal the Nascar provisional system which is a tonking great idea to make sure that the fan favorite is allways on the grid...)
Simple!
Actually, why don't you make say, the Adelaide race an endurance one (Too start the year off) with Bathurst, Sandown and say the Calder Park 600 and have a AEC championship again, with the onus that L1s have to race in both ATCC and AEC. Drop one of the 3 gagbillion NSW rounds so Garry Rogers won't kick up a fuss and to even the costs and then you've got a NASCAR esq money making machine.

[MRJUCY]

i'd prefer to see the co-driver races seperate to the championship as I thinks it's unfair to the drivers that there championship can be stuffed cause they have to share there car with a once a year pinhead & also I want to see the drivers at least once or twice a year just cut loose & actually race each other tooth & nail.

[EGG]

If the racing is getting a bit slow at the end of the race, maybe change the points scaling? Drastically more points for winning, and less of the "everyone gets a cookie" style of points which goes for the rest of the season.

I'm not sure if under the current points system for an end of year bathurst, everyone would be trying to coast home, or go for broke for a points-shunt up the ladder.

At any rate, Bathurst is the premier round of the year and every effort should be made to keep it that way.

[lcfp2297]

The points system is a good point...

As it stood in 2003 and 2004, most rounds had 194 points for offer, with increments of 6 points per position...

EXCEPT Sandown and Bathurst which had 4 point increments!!!