Endurance points system discussion

[racerdude413]

I would argue that technically the endurance series is one race that takes place at four racetracks. Whoever completes the most laps, wins. In the event that any teams finish with the same amount of laps, the team that crosses the line first at the final track would be the winner of their class. Using a hockey game as an analogy, for the first and second periods team A has the lead, but in the third period team A is tired and makes some mistakes and then team B scores and holds the lead at the final buzzer. Team A doesn't get the win because they held the lead for most of the game, team B does because the were leading at the end.

Om but if you are leading 1-0 after the first period, it doesn't reset at 0-0 at the start of the second. This is what is happening here...

[mccoy]

Om but if you are leading 1-0 after the first period, it doesn't reset at 0-0 at the start of the second. This is what is happening here...

Okay, so change the score to 1-1 at the end of the first period, 2-2 at the end of the second period, 3-3 at the end of the 3rd period. (In effect, the score is reset to 0-0 at the end of each period) It then goes to overtime. Each team is trying to be the first to get the winning goal.
A team isn't rewarded extra points for being the first to score a goal in each period, and I don't think an endurance team should be rewarded with extra points for being the first to get the checkered flag. Being the first should only apply in the event of a tie at the final event.

[kirbster]

But this isn't hockey. Its racing.

The four races equaling 1 race makes a bit more sense to me. But winning a round should still provide some advantage. even if it is a small one.

Regular VRRA points gives first a 3 point advantage over second then 2 points for second to third and then it drops down from there.

If you use the 4 races equals 1 race then we should be making sure we start and finish with the same riders and same equipment (no switching of bikes/riders through the season).
We should therefore be registering all riders and the bike frame numbers at the start of the season. A registered rider does not have to ride all/any rounds but he must be registered at the beginning of the season. So no riders who were not registered at race 1 can ride.

I look at it as a championship.
4 Races
Each stands on their own (we award trophies each round!).
The team that wins a round should have an edge going into the next round. Just like any championship.

If we go back to hockey- you get season points for winning a game- not for losing.

Many ideas - the mileage could very well sort itself out.

What about cumulative race time being the tie breaker? That would still tend to favour the leading team- but only in the event of a tie for mileage.

So for instance in round 1 the race time was 2:01:03.251
Second was ten seconds back at 2:01:14.024
Third was over a minute back at 2:02:15.679

so in the event of a mileage tie- we add/subtract the time differentials among the tied teams. That way it should work out that the team that went the furthest in the least amount of time wins...?

Thoughts?

[eddy321]

All this analogy to hockey...
The way I see it, we did not score the first goal or came out leading after the first period, we won the first game of the playoffs.

[kirbster]

Perspective is important here.

I lean towards your analogy Eddy. I think Marks idea is interesting, but some more of the riders should weigh in.

[Percy W]

I also think that Marks makes total sense.
I would vote for that one for sure.
With the possible exception of a couple of bikes that the handicap points may need adjusting, the scoring and handicap system has worked very well.
Extra points for winning doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Personally , I like how close things get and there is a certain 'buzz' at each race because of that. Which I think adds to the success of what has developed.
I think if you start adding extras for 'placing' it interferes with the handicap system already in place and can serve to create a bigger points buffer for the usual 'top teams' to be more comfortable going in to the next race. Making the whole championship less exciting.
The 'race' is all 4 rounds. IMO.

Perc.

[gary holden]

"What about cumulative race time being the tie breaker? That would still tend to favour the leading team- but only in the event of a tie for mileage.

So for instance in round 1 the race time was 2:01:03.251
Second was ten seconds back at 2:01:14.024
Third was over a minute back at 2:02:15.679

so in the event of a mileage tie- we add/subtract the time differentials among the tied teams. That way it should work out that the team that went the furthest in the least amount of time wins...?"

This to me is the best way so far.
But what about taking it one step farther and using the time differential from the fastest time as the method of scoring.In other words,the overall winner gets 0 and every team has a number of seconds as a score.This takes into account partial laps as well.
The formula:
Team X's time in secs.behind o/all winner=(# of laps down X winners last lap time in secs.) + or - the finishing interval,which is the time difference ahead or behind the winner when the flag drops
Example:
In Mwt bike 825 did 82 laps including handicap(5) and penalties(0),so they are 10 laps down from the o/all winner(92 laps),times the winners last lap time in secs.(1:18.5=78.5) 10X78.5=785 plus how far behind the winner at the (flag 23 secs) for a total of 808 secs.Their score 808,o/all winner 0.
This was worked out fairly quickly so I'm sure I haven't thought of everything.But it takes into account finishing order on the same lap as well as partial laps at the finish. Fire away.

[gary holden]

Perspective is important here.

I lean towards your analogy Eddy. I think Marks idea is interesting, but some more of the riders should weigh in.

"The way I see it, we did not score the first goal or came out leading after the first period, we won the first game of the playoffs."
eddy321

The endurance series is not about winning individual rounds,but is a "total points" series where your score is carried to the next round.Hate to say it,but more like a golf tournament.

[mccoy]

First round there were three teams on the lead lap at the end. That doesn't constitute a tie. Even if the same teams were to finish on the lead lap in each race it still doesn't constitute a tie. Their times are different so there is still a first, second and third etc. In the event of a mileage tie at the end of the season, the lap times of the final race could be used to determine the finishing order.
I wonder if we are trying to fix something that isn't broken?

[gary holden]

First round there were three teams on the lead lap at the end. That doesn't constitute a tie. Even if the same teams were to finish on the lead lap in each race it still doesn't constitute a tie. Their times are different so there is still a first, second and third etc. In the event of a mileage tie at the end of the season, the lap times of the final race could be used to determine the finishing order.
I wonder if we are trying to fix something that isn't broken?

I agree on mileage total only,no points, and use total race time of the final race to break any ties at the end.
Unless you want to try my "to the second" scoring method. I volunteer to do the math using Kirby's spread sheet and Speedhive.

[kirbster]

First round there were three teams on the lead lap at the end. That doesn't constitute a tie. Even if the same teams were to finish on the lead lap in each race it still doesn't constitute a tie. Their times are different so there is still a first, second and third etc. In the event of a mileage tie at the end of the season, the lap times of the final race could be used to determine the finishing order.
I wonder if we are trying to fix something that isn't broken?

That makes sense- except why only the time difference at the last round? It should be cumulative if you want to do d it that way. Otherwise all you have to win is the last leg and finish on the same lap in the first 3. Doesn't make sense to me there.

IT is a championship. We give medals for the classes at each round and the winners of the classes get the team name on the "Championship trophy".

We may be trying to fix something that isn't broken, i'm just trying to figure out what makes the most sense.
You win a race- i think that should give you at the very least a slim lead over the next team.

There are a few of us that raced endurance for a number of years back in the golden era of Endurance, I would like to hear their take.

Tim Ruhl ? Ben Martinez? there are a few more.


Gary- your method is overly complex. Interesting idea- but remember- someone (me) has to manually score all this. Plus- this will create even larger points differences over time than the mileage + Finish points.
Finish points can also help a mid pack team gain on the leaders if the leaders have a less than stellar round. Because you would gain mileage and finish points.


And all rounds of sprinting use points that carry forward each round. The more successful your weekend the more ground you gain on the competitor behind you. Even if you are mid pack.

Good discussion.

[kirbster]

I guess i want to avoid any artificial leveling of the playing field.
Like "the amazing race"- ever notice the equalizers- like a flight they all have to be on? Suddenly your 2 hour advantage is gone. The one you worked so hard for....

Not a fan of that type of racing.

[mccoy]

That makes sense- except why only the time difference at the last round? It should be cumulative if you want to do d it that way. Otherwise all you have to win is the last leg and finish on the same lap in the first 3. Doesn't make sense to me there.

Assuming multiple teams have equal mileage going into the final round, the final lap of the final round is when it would become apparent whether there is or isn't going to be a mileage tie. if more than one bike is on the lead lap, the first to take the checkered would win the round. If all the bikes on the lead lap have equal mileage throughout the season, the first bike to take the checkered would win the championship. It takes a lot of work from a lot of people to keep multiple bikes on the lead lap for the entire season. I don't know what the odds are but I would bet they are astronomical.

IT is a championship. We give medals for the classes at each round and the winners of the classes get the team name on the "Championship trophy".

Medals would still be awarded at each round based on each teams finish time and the trophy would still be engraved with the winning team of the championship.

I don't think we need to complicate the scoring by making calculations to figure out who gets what points per round in the unlikely event there is a tie. We already have the data to determine who is first, second, third etc., in the event of a tie.

[kirbster]

That makes sense- except why only the time difference at the last round? It should be cumulative if you want to do d it that way. Otherwise all you have to win is the last leg and finish on the same lap in the first 3. Doesn't make sense to me there.

Assuming multiple teams have equal mileage going into the final round, the final lap of the final round is when it would become apparent whether there is or isn't going to be a mileage tie. if more than one bike is on the lead lap, the first to take the checkered would win the round. If all the bikes on the lead lap have equal mileage throughout the season, the first bike to take the checkered would win the championship. It takes a lot of work from a lot of people to keep multiple bikes on the lead lap for the entire season. I don't know what the odds are but I would bet they are astronomical.

IT is a championship. We give medals for the classes at each round and the winners of the classes get the team name on the "Championship trophy".

Medals would still be awarded at each round based on each teams finish time and the trophy would still be engraved with the winning team of the championship.

I don't think we need to complicate the scoring by making calculations to figure out who gets what points per round in the unlikely event there is a tie. We already have the data to determine who is first, second, third etc., in the event of a tie.

I actually don't mind this scenario- right up to the "first team over the line at the last round wins".

That's the amazing race finish. No No No. not in the spirit of true competition. I could theoretically come in third in the first 3 rounds and win the last one and i win the championship- nope nope nope.

To the victors go the spoils... not let's spoil the victory.!

[mccoy]

Okay, again assuming there are multiple bikes on the lead lap of the final race and the same bikes have been on the lead lap of each race in the championship, all bikes would have different finish times throughout the season. But for simplicity I'll use the same times for the first 3 rounds.
Bike A. Bike B. Bike C
Rd1, 2:01:03. 2:01:14. 2:02:15
Rd2, 2:01:03. 2:01:14. 2:02:15
Rd3, 2:01:03. 2:01:14. 2:02:15

Total, 6:03:09. 6:03:42. 6:06:45

In this scenario, bike C would need to finish better than 3 minutes and 36 seconds ahead of bike A in order to be the championship winner.