Endurance points system discussion

[gary holden]

Believe it or not,I wasn't complaining,just pointing out that whatever method of deciding when an endurance race is over can cost someone a whole lap when they are not far behind.It can work the other way too.Someone about to be lapped will be saved a whole lap if the flag drops between them and who was going to lap them.

[kirbster]

You are 100% correct. We have been lucky to have just crossed the line shortly before the flag dropped for the leaders.

Waiting to give the checkered to the leader is also a sprint hold over. Never happens in endurance.
The flag just flys when the clock hits the time limit.

[kirbster]

i have uploaded a word file with the season final standings that also includes the 2 alternate points systems.

In the files section of our FaceBook page here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/18352114680/files/

please have a look and make any comments either here or on facebook.
Thanks

[kirbster]

Cross post from bulletins board

When we are saying that the championship is about furthest distance, but we only calculate in whole laps. we will always have teams finish the race with identical mileage. Because we only count whole laps. The order that they finished in is easy to determine, just exactly how far they are apart is not a really simple process. Calculation of their average lap time and then applying that as a percentage of a full lap would be fairly accurate, just really difficult to calculate.
on some tracks you could be nearly 5km (points) behind but still get counted as the same distance. You could be 5 inches( a tiny fraction of a point) behind and still be counted with the same mileage. Neither of these scenarios present a truly fair result. It's like wiping the slate clean and starting the second race with no advantage, even though you had one at the end of the race.
You earned that victory over your opponent. This should somehow be reflected in the "score".
Sometimes it's luck, but it always comes down to the fact that on that day, in that race, you went further than your opponents behind you and not as far as the ones in front of you.
The question is, what is the best method to capture this?
Best is a relative term, it can mean different things to different people. The goal is to try and quantify it, without making it overly complex.

So we have two choices here, in my opinion.
We use a simple points matrix to create a separation between finishing positions. These separations do exist on the track. There is never a tie (well ok it could happen but with timing to the 1000Th of a second, not very likely). So the scoring system should reflect that there is no tie. We don't necessarily have to use the matrix i suggested, it just seems like a logical choice as it is the matrix we use for every single race we run other than endurance. No one seems to mind that the guy who beat you by .001 second, gets between 1 and 3 points more than you do in a sprint race. So i am struggling with why you would feel differently if it happens in the endurance race.

The second option is the time at the end of the race. The separation of time from you to the one in front and the one behind. But how do we make that fit into the scoring? As we decided the race was about mileage, how do we make time become miles? we go back up to the top of this post and calculate average lap times of the team, then figure out how far behind they were by taking a lap distance and applying the percentage of a lap they completed and giving them the roughly equivalent miles. Far more complex.

The points matrix attempts to do this but in a simplified way. it won't be as accurate, it won't be perfect. There will be times when the points are a bit too much and times when they aren't really enough. compared to reality.

The artificial tie in middleweight all season, had the potential for a team to win which really didn't earn it.
Joe Bar won the first 2 races, Ludicrous speed was 3rd in the first race second in the second race and won the 3rd race. how does that equal a tie going into round 4? It really doesn't. Who benefits the most from this type of situation? The team that is behind. And why should the team that was beat have an advantage going into the next round? If a team should have an advantage going into the next round, it should be the team that earned the advantage. Shouldn't it?

I had a closer look at the lightweight results tonight. Shannonville is the shortest track. Pro track is only 2.47km. Mountain High was down 11 laps at round one. They did win the next 3 races, but did not recover enough miles to take the overall win. Both of my points matrixes reversed that finishing order. The points for the wins made up the difference. Let's look a little deeper. Mount Pleasant also had several penalties for the season. A lap at Mosport plus a 5 minute stop and go at the final round at Calabogie. It could be argued that the points system would not have mattered if they had not been penalized. take the penalties out and they would have won clearly and cleanly in any of the scenarios. So was it the points system that cost them or the lost laps? food for thought.

The reversal of 5th and 6th positions in middleweight, we use whole laps, and ended the races artificially, so are you sure the mileage was really accurate? we let everyone get the last lap. that can be almost 5km on the long tracks and 2.47 on the short track.
Plus one of those teams was running a bike that got them a 5 lap handicap according to the rules. Handicaps might be more accurate as a set distance rather than a set number of laps. as the track length varies a lot, the miles awarded changes a lot as well. 12.5 km at mosport, 25 km at Calabogie and 20 km at Mosport. That likely played a big role.

so maybe a slight tweak to the points matrix solves the issue? or maybe it really does work ok.

We had an artificially close series this year, due to teams being highly competitive and the race not ending the way a race with a set time period should end.

The points system needs to be:
Fair
Simple
Reward overall speed
Reward consistency

I truly believe this system can do all of those things. Perhaps with a slight tweak to the points matrix.
But my gut tells me it works pretty well as is. Not perfect, but better than what we are doing now.

[kirbster]

Any further input on this?

My plan is to finalize the series scoring and handicaps before the end of January.
As it stands, I plan to move P4F3 to lightweight and adjust the handicaps to make the playing field more level.
Essentially all current lightweights will get 2 more laps and P4F3 will have 0.

On top of that i also plan to have the race timing end at the race end time. So, your last completed lap before the checkered will be the one that counts.

I also plan to add the points matrix.

Thanks for input up to now. If you have anything to add please do so.

[Darrell1]

If I was racing endurance in 2018 I would not be a fan of the last proposal. If you race till the clock hits the designated time and go back a lap you create additional risk and complexity. By way of example, two bikes racing hard cross the line in a heated battle and the clock clicks over between the two bikes. The first is credited for the lap while the second is not, despite racing full out for a lap not credited. The flip side is a bike just about to get lapped clicks over and does get to finish the lap and be scored the same although almost a lap behind. Same rule benefits the opposing participant pending track placement. Racing is to the checkered flag while laps or time determine when the flag falls. If a change is to be made, I would suggest going back to the first post of this thread and apply the mileage divided by 10, plus designated points per finishing position. As we run 4 events a tie is still possible. At that point, cumulative time differential between the two tied teams from all four rounds would determine the winner. If that is still a tie, go buy a lottery ticket.

[Dewey]

From the WERA rulebook:

35. A Team’s last counted lap will be the last lap the Team is able to complete during the time frame of the endurance event. (i.e. last possible time to record in a 4-hour would be 3:59:59, in a 6-hour - 5:59:59 in a 24-hour- 23:59:59). When the checkered flag is displayed at start-finish the event is complete and no times are to be recorded.

So for a 2hr 1:59:59.....If you have a savy scorekeeper, your last lap MAYBE the fastest of the day....

pd

[Darrell1]

Do you like that finish structure?

[kirbster]

From the WERA rulebook:

35. A Team’s last counted lap will be the last lap the Team is able to complete during the time frame of the endurance event. (i.e. last possible time to record in a 4-hour would be 3:59:59, in a 6-hour - 5:59:59 in a 24-hour- 23:59:59). When the checkered flag is displayed at start-finish the event is complete and no times are to be recorded.

So for a 2hr 1:59:59.....If you have a savy scorekeeper, your last lap MAYBE the fastest of the day....

pd

Except its electronic Dewey!

Write whatever you want. it only gets looked at as a backup.

[kirbster]

If I was racing endurance in 2018 I would not be a fan of the last proposal. If you race till the clock hits the designated time and go back a lap you create additional risk and complexity. By way of example, two bikes racing hard cross the line in a heated battle and the clock clicks over between the two bikes. The first is credited for the lap while the second is not, despite racing full out for a lap not credited. The flip side is a bike just about to get lapped clicks over and does get to finish the lap and be scored the same although almost a lap behind. Same rule benefits the opposing participant pending track placement. Racing is to the checkered flag while laps or time determine when the flag falls. If a change is to be made, I would suggest going back to the first post of this thread and apply the mileage divided by 10, plus designated points per finishing position. As we run 4 events a tie is still possible. At that point, cumulative time differential between the two tied teams from all four rounds would determine the winner. If that is still a tie, go buy a lottery ticket.

We we will certainly miss you in endurance this year Darrell.....

But you do raise a few valid points.

I think the points matrix does resolve the race finish issue.
So if we continue to allow the race leader to take the checker and all teams finish that lap, the points become the separator for any teams finishing on the same lap. eliminating the tie completely.
No one gets robbed a near full lap. No one is tied when nearly a full lap behind.

Makes sense to me.

[Michael Vinten]

The longer the lap times and track, the greater the penalties imposed on those who are just in front of the chequered flag. I think the points system proposed is worth trying.

[gary holden]

The longer the lap times and track, the greater the penalties imposed on those who are just in front of the chequered flag. I think the points system proposed is worth trying.

The chequered flag should come out when the leader crosses the finish line after the race time is up.Everyone scores their finishing lap.No penalties.It doesn't matter how every other organization does it.
Time interval behind the winner is an accurate and real measurement of distance behind the winner.Time interval,which means partial lap distance,should be used to break any mileage tie after 4 races.Time interval is better than points,or most wins,or most 2nds,or most whatevers, to break a tie because it directly represents distance.
Our series is based on total distance over 4 races.We are racing for distance,not points.Distance= speed x time.Distance behind the winner is in direct proportion to time behind the winner.
There is no formula that uses points to calculate distance.Points do not relate to distance.The point spread between 2 riders can represent 1 foot,or 1 lap minus one foot.
Let's keep it pure - most distance wins.
In one case of which I have direct knowledge,points would have taken a position away that was earned with mileage,albeit handicap miles.That means that points can negate handicaps?

Also,handicaps should be mileage,not laps,because of the differences in the track lengths.

[mccoy]

I agree with Gary on this. Time differential is simple and already kept track of.

[Darrell1]

Gary, looking to understand your post.

Flag comes out at 2 hours or flag comes out the first time the leader passes the flag after two hours? Either way each bike on track races to the flag and that is the last completed lap?

Under a differential scoring system, as I interpret your explanation, how would the following play out. Team A beats Team B the first three races by 5 seconds each race for a total gap of 15 seconds. Team B wins Race 4 by 20 seconds to have a season ending differential of 5 seconds. Who is the champion?

[mccoy]

The way I interpret it is that time is only used if there is a tie.
If team A wins three races and team B only wins one race then there is no tie, so time wouldn't come into play. Team A would be the champion.

Another scenario;
If team A wins two races by 5 seconds over team B, and team B wins one race by 5 seconds and wins another by 6 seconds over team A, then team B would be the series champion. Both teams had two wins and two 2nd place finishes creating a tie, but since team B won the second race 1 second faster than team A, team B would be the champion.