New Season Points Method?

[Loren]

What does being 0.5 seconds within first place have to do with anything? Mathematically, nothing. So why should we award it, or any specific time interval, for that matter?

You clearly didn't read and understand the whole proposal. The only place I used time specifically was in estimating where to set the figures. Roughly .2 and .5 seconds for the 8 and 7 point intervals on a 45-second course. (which worked out to an index of .995 and .990 respectively... or 99.5% and 99.0% of the fastest driver's time)

The ACTUAL formulas use basically a percentage of the fastest time in class.

Sure, you could do some statistical analysis and come up with a "better" formula. This one is simple enough that most people can understand it.

It doesn't need to be perfect. Just better than what we have.

[Gerry]

I skimmed over the part of the thread where people were bitching at each other, so I may have missed a few minor points. But I assure you I understand all the math involved, perhaps too well.

But still, "dT seconds for X and Y point intervals on a T second course" won't really work. If it's a N car class, one car runs a time T and the rest run a T + dT, then the T actually ran MUCH faster than the other drivers. The others weren't even close, statistically. The same could be said the other way around; if N cars ran a T and one ran a T + dT, then the T + dT car was significantly slower than the other cars; not even close.

The other problem with using a scale based on percentage of fastest time is proportioning. A percentage is a linear proportion, but difficulty of getting faster is not linear; it's something like exponential or logarithmic, depending on how you look at it. Using a proper distribution model would take that into consideration and rank times higher than average closer to each other based on their standard deviation, not absolute time.

So what I'm getting at is that although assigning points according to relative performance of a driver is a great idea, the math has to be valid for it to be truly fair.

[yamaha731]

Im beginning to really dislike this point spread based on time intervalls alls its going to is make the faster guys harder to beat. As my mom used to say keep it stupid simple
1=10
2=9
3=8
4=7
5=6
with 2 drops

[impalanut]

So you would want someone who is 2-5 seconds slower but makes eight events to beat out the faster driver who makes seven events? I think with the right formula a time basis for places makes the emphasis on learning how to be better drivers and not just showing up the most. Using a logarithmic scale makes sense, and I think the formula that Loren was using was close to that with larger steps as you get further from the winning time. It can be a percentage or a fixed time. If its a fixed time I would use a different formula for SPC and Brookesville since the average length of course is different, but the typical time for each location is fairly similar. I think the percentage method would be easier to follow.

[yamaha731]

[quote="impalanut"]So you would want someone who is 2-5 seconds slower but makes eight events to beat out the faster driver who makes seven events?
Yes if you used up your 2 drops and still miss a 3rd race then it should'nt matter how fast you are if your not there. A better scenario would be the person who consistinly wins his or her class bye 2-5 seconds should be bumped up to a faster class

[Jeremy]

A better scenario would be the person who consistinly wins his or her class bye 2-5 seconds should be bumped up to a faster class

Uh-oh, here we go. Time to get crazy.

Get rid of all the current FAST classes. Only have...

Stock with race tires
Stock with street tires
Modified with street tires
Modified with race tires

Then I doubt most people would even care about a season championship or how it's scored.
Sometimes I think the people who early on said we were ruining FAST by making all these new classes were right.

Now we have people complaining about degrees of camber, how much of your interior is left intact, why certain cars are classed a certain way, and whether or not certain parts are considered factory replacements. Basically this club has become the thing that some of the members blindly hate. (SCCA)

Sorry for going slightly off topic Loren. But... get over it.

[Loren]

Using a logarithmic scale makes sense, and I think the formula that Loren was using was close to that with larger steps as you get further from the winning time.

Yup.

0.995
0.99
0.98
0.96
0.92
0.88

Not quite "logarithmic", but certainly not "linear". Difference between each step is doubled each time except for the last step. I thought it was an elegant way to scale the points distribution.

[AScoda]

Our championship t-shirts must really kick ass for all this concern.

[Loren]

They do!

[twistedwankel]

If you really want to make things competitive, increase the dropped events. That would make it instantly more competitive, but no one supported that idea last time it was brought up. It was like pulling teeth just to agree on one or two drops, if I remember correctly. Not sure how people would react to making it ~5 drops per season.

After catching up on all this reading. I clipped the above from page one.

Best 6 out of 10 wins on the year for championship. Do whatever you want with the points/place.

Somehow I doubt this will decrease attendance at all. Competition fuels more than just a few of the members:) Personally I'm all about the FAST lunch

[Jeremy]

Best 6 out of 10 wins on the year for championship. Do whatever you want with the points/place.

I just ran through recalculating the results based on 4 drops.
The only thing that I saw happen was...
With 1 event left...

1. I cut Jamie's lead in half. - Currently I only have a chance of winning if I get first and Jamie doesn't show.
2. Loren and Greg are tied. - Currently Greg has it clinched
3. S2 gets shaken up with Doug first, Gerry second, Joe third. All three have a shot at first. - Currently Joe has a 6 point lead over Doug and Gerry could take second.

So it doesn't do much except for those classes, but it does make it more suspenseful since you really don't know until the end what events are going to be your drops. Unless someone has got 1st place in every event, halfway through the season it is still very much up for grabs. You just have to finish well.


edit: Made a mistake on #3, thought Joe had it clinched when he doesn't.

[Loren]

I don't think we'll ever get the hold-outs (Steve being one of them) to buy off on 4 drops. Personally, that's about as many as I'd accept. We have a maximum of 10 points events per season, that's getting awfully close to only requiring 50% participation to win a class. I'm not too keen on that.

As I've said before, my choice would be 3 drops. I think it's a happy medium.

By the way, I'm becoming more and more inclined to drop the whole notion of changing the way we calculate points. (aside from changing the number of drops if there is enough support for it) It's just not worth the effort.

[Loren]

Closure:

This was discussed and voted on at the annual club meeting, we'll be doing 3 drops from here on out.