[Roman Yakubovich]

For personal reasons I’d welcome being able to miss a race or two, but I’m not sure if that would be fair for those who do attend each race.. But I can’t really say why, it just feels not right for me. If you want to be part of the championship, you should also attend all the racesI t hink.

Someone with 5 perfect scores and a zero due to a no show should not win over someone with 5 second place finishes and 1 first place finish. The first secret of success is showing up.

I don't think it would be fair for someone to win a champ with five 102 compared to someone racing the whole 6 tracks and getting the best results overall of all the participants. I could see how it would even lower participation as everyone would rule out the tracks they are less comfortable with in the series.

I don't understand this. Driver 1 practised a lot, watched some videos from real life, gave efforts to dig in the car's setup, won 5 races comfortably, thus being the fastest, probably the most consistent and really careful on track. Driver 2 was constantly slower (at the very least), lost all head-to-head battles to Driver 1. Then Driver 1 had to miss a race due to some sudden circumstances. How does it suddenly make Driver 2 deserve the championship win more than Driver 1? Since when attendance started define more in racing, than speed, consistency and crash proneness?   Driver 2 comes to that race without his main rival. Ok, he is good boy (really). Grab the victory (easier without Driver 1), enjoy the driving and your rating points gain. Why should he be awarded the championship win for that one race? How giving a title to Driver 2 can be fairer than to a faster and more consistent Driver 1 over the distance of the championship?

Would it be fairer to take away the championship from Lauda in 1977 just because he didn't attend last races? From Rindt in 1970? Definitely no.

I would disagree as well. If you want to fight for the championship, show up and do so technical issues a part of it, it happens, happened to me too few times and there is no way I would blame the srs system for that.

Marek, technical issues is a part of it, yes, as well as mechanical issues in real racing. But there is a major difference between SRS points system and real series', which I described in my second post in this thread.
SRS is not to blame in any way, it is definitely the best one available. I appreciate the job done by its developers and maintainers. However, it doesn't mean the system can't be improved.

There's also the reverse effect i think, like people with very agressive behaviors showing up for the last races of a series when they have no points and can cause havok between those who had actually competed during the whole championship.

James, what can stop these people from doing so with the current system? The damage in such a case really depends on the particular championship situation and damage these pseudoracers do to the others.

There are probably all sorts of other pros and cons of the idea, which have been discussed. But the bottom line for me is in principle, it's always a bad idea to add complication to anything without a very clear, well-defined benefit for it.

Martin, as for me complication is building a neural network to compute square roots. Adding at most 20 lines of code and a sentence to rules page is not a complication.
Benefit is pretty clear - championships will be won by those who deserve them most more frequently, thus the whole system being fairer.