2024 - New Point Scoring System

[CeskyOndra]

Others solutions I have seen here are so so complicated, that even I dont understand.

[wyler]

I think this has been suggested here before that I really like Power Sunday idea. It would be like the year before but instead of pushing just on the last stage, we would have multiple stages, where the drivers who want, can drive for points.

So the overall would be 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1 and for Power Sunday, it would be 7-5-3-2-1 (or make it 6 instead of 7, if we don't want that 2nd can get the same amount as the winner). So the maximum that the second place can get is 18+7=25.

powerstage will stay. i'd go with this general idea with the power stage taken into account...

[Backa]

If we want some change, then this is it.. No complicated, so simple.. Absolutely agree man.

Current system create more incentives to push also at the end of saturday, not only on sunday. We saw that in Monte Carlo where Neuville and Ogier were very close and fought for extra 3 points instead of keeping things safe and waiting for sunday.

Keeping it while securing rally winner gets most points makes more sense for me.

It's also not that complicated, no one that actually enjoys WRC will stop watching just because point system needs little more time to understand.

[HKSjbg]

Long time reader, first time poster of this forum.

I agree with the rationale of changing the points system but not wholly convinced by what has come up with. My two cents worth is as follows:

1) Overall classification (end of Sunday). Points to the top 10 finishers on the following scale - 20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1

2) Power Stage points as current 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

3) Best Stage performance points bonus - 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Essentially the top 5 stage performers get the bonus points. To apply this to Sweden it would be 5 (Rovanpera for 5 stage wins), 4 (Lappi for 4 stage wins), 3 (Neuville for 3 stage wins), 2 (Evans for 2 stage wins) and 1 (Katsuta for 1 stage win - same as Tanak/Linnamae/Fourmaux so then it would be most 2nd places as a tiebreak, or most 3rd places etc to break the tie).

I think this would make it much more difficult for the overall rally winner to not get the most overall points at the end as they are likely to have several stage wins in order to win the rally so would typically end up with at least 22/23 points before any power stage points are added. Also, it would incentivise pushing throughout as every stage counts towards points.

For Sweden the points under this system would be: Lappi 24 (20+0+4), Evans 21 (15+4+2), Fourmaux 12 (12+0+0), Neuville 16 (10+3+3), Rovanpera 10 (0+5+5), Tanak 2 (0+2+0), Katsuta 2 (0+1+1). This feels generally fairer and Lappi ends up scoring the most points!

Remember when Colin McRae won the Safari Rally without even taking a stage win? That was a calculated strategy to take the win on a tough event. Granted WRC rallies are nothing like as tough as an old-style Safari, but it is still possible and creates an interesting talking point every once in a while. Even Richard Burns had an ambition to win a WRC title without taking a win all season, having taken just the one win in his title winning year.

Now there’s this modern day obsession with every single moment must be ACTION! ACTION! ACTION! We can’t possibly have a moment where anybody lets up the pace otherwise millions of eyeballs will immediately switch off and the sport will die!

To me it’s all just more steps towards homogenising the WRC in the hope that every event will be as exciting as the last.

A point on specifically Rally Sweden, someone on the Youtube comments put it quite well: Lappi had earned the right to take less risks on Sunday to guarantee the win for him and the team - why should that strategy result in fewer points than 2nd place?

[Backa]

Now there’s this modern day obsession with every single moment must be ACTION! ACTION! ACTION!

Trying to make latter stages of rally to be more eventful instead of risk-free cruise is not really obsession. It is common sense, rally is professional sport, it has also business side and care about viewiership.

Lappi had earned the right to take less risks on Sunday to guarantee the win for him and the team - why should that strategy result in fewer points than 2nd place?

I agree that rally winner should get most points and point systems that don't acknowledge that are too extremely focused on "show" but I also think that leader or any other driver who has safe advantage with few stages to go should have some extra incentive to keep pushing. It's healthy balance between sport side of things and business/viewiership side of things.

[WRCStan]

Cruising is a part of motorsport, most series will have it at the end of races where there are big time gaps......That's just how it is...accept it. No other series has decided to change their points system to stop it.......(though most other series have decent entries).

It's another sign that those running the WRC really don't know what they're doing.......

WRC decided to change their points system. They know exactly what they're doing. That's just how it is, accept it.

Or what are you going to do about it?

[Kenneth]

I think this has been suggested here before that I really like Power Sunday idea. It would be like the year before but instead of pushing just on the last stage, we would have multiple stages, where the drivers who want, can drive for points.

So the overall would be 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1 and for Power Sunday, it would be 7-5-3-2-1 (or make it 6 instead of 7, if we don't want that 2nd can get the same amount as the winner). So the maximum that the second place can get is 18+7=25.

That wouldn't really solve much, as it would make sense to push on Sunday only for drivers who retired before. That wouldn't fix cruising caused by 1 minute or so gaps.

Imo the best system would be to get rid of PowerStage and instead distribute the points for overall standings. Make it 5-3-1 for example. But yeah that won't happen, but imo it would be a solution.

Or to get it more simple: Just give the overall winner 5 extra points. But that would make too much difference between P1 and P2 if someone had perfect rally like Neuville on Monte.

Or 3rd solution, give less points on Sunday. Make it 5-4-3-2-1 and 3-2-1 for PS.

[HKSjbg]

Trying to make latter stages of rally to be more eventful instead of risk-free cruise is not really obsession. It is common sense, rally is professional sport, it has also business side and care about viewiership.

I would counter that with what I've seen on a lot of comments on Youtube, instagram etc. that 'Lappi should have pushed right to the end'. And I feel like that is the thinking the rule-maklers had when creating this system - because if he doesn't push until the last stage he doesn't deserve 25 points clearly. That to me falls into this obsession that 'every driver should push 100% every kilometre of the rally because otherwise we won't have enough entertainment to fall back on.'

Motorsports rule-makers these days (not just WRC) are too afraid of an event being a tense, hard to predict affair on occasion and think the solution is it must be 100% action the whole time. Instead there is a depth of different outcomes that can be allowed to happen in all forms of motorsport which help to make it even more exciting when you have an event which naturally results in two or more drivers going toe-to-toe until the very end.

...I also think that leader or any other driver who has safe advantage with few stages to go should have some extra incentive to keep pushing...

Why? Take the old motorsport adage of 'the aim is to win going as slowly as possible.' I've bastardised that somewhat, so maybe someone can correct me and if it was Moss, Fangio or Lauda who said it. Sometimes you will have to push right until the end because your closest competitor is that closely matched with you that weekend. Other times you will be able to build a healthy lead then for the rest of the event perhaps reliability concerns or the rough nature of the event means it is sensible for you to not risk losing yourself and your team a win. To me there is no justification for a sport to say 'but that approach will earn you fewer points, that way of winning rallies/races is now frowned upon so get a wriggle on.'

The problem is the overall competitiveness of the sport, not whether the drivers have incentive to drive at a particular pace at a particular part of the event.

[WRCStan]

How about two championship titles, one of the endurance/touring kind as tradition; and one of the sprint/stage kind, made of every stage being a power stage. Include that in mixing up the events and itineraries.

[HKSjbg]

WRC decided to change their points system. They know exactly what they're doing. That's just how it is, accept it.

Or what are you going to do about it?

And what are you doing about it Stan? I'm autistic and even I could see the point Andy is making It seems like you will accept whatever rule changes WRC will make because 'they know what they are doing'. The counter argument to that is why should a controlled cruise to the end be a 'wrong' way to win? It happens all the time and we can appreciate that it was still not easy and admirable that the driver is able to achieve that. Like how Colin McRae won the 1999 Safari Rally without taking a single stage win - it is far beyond the ability of any of us here to achieve that and necessary to bring the result home.