agree, if someone is good, he should be allowed to be, not to try to make other look better artificial way.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Mirek Fric [Cze
Printable View
agree, if someone is good, he should be allowed to be, not to try to make other look better artificial way.Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Mirek Fric [Cze
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Mirek Fric [Cze
As far as I'm concerned 2008 was rather silly - Loeb won 10-11 Rallies, more than double the amount Mikko won, yet he only won the Title on the penultimate round. This clearly is ridiculous - and artificially keeps the series alive. There should be a 5 point difference between 1st and 2nd.
Lol, that looks like Eurovision! Televoting from all the parts... make a call or send an sms! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by alleskids
Wasnt so difficult to discuss it at the Motor Sport Council? :p
110% agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyRAC
Any news or hearsays how this turned out? It's comfirmed tomorrow, but deadline was today, right?
Everyone who wins a WRC event is worthy IMO. :uhoh:Quote:
Originally Posted by N.O.T
Loeb wins almost all the events despite Hirvonen pushing hard.
Richard Burns and Carlos Sainz always used to go for points rather than wins but I think that no WRC driver does that now.
I think the top 16 drivers should score points. :)
New point system after all:
http://wrc.com/jsp/index.jsp?lnk=101...s%20allocation
That is huge, huge news for me. That means Loeb will run away with the title as he will win so many rounds. It also (sadly) puts an end to any lingering hope I had of Petter winning - there is no chance a driver who only wins 1 or 2 events could win the title in this format.
For better or worse - it's hard to say.
Yeah, bit funny system.Quote:
Originally Posted by bennizw
this system gives slightly bigger advantage to winner and much bigger advantage to drivers who finish below 6th place. If you look last year results then 9 points difference between Hirvonen and Loeb was halfly thanks to Loebs 7th place superally finish in Poland. So, dont count anyone down.
1. 10*2.5=25
2. 8*2.25=18
3. 6*2.5=15
4. 5*2.4=12
5. 4*2.5=10
6. 3*2.67=8
7. 2*3=6
8. 1*4=4
So, nearly no change at the top but big changes on the lower places.