The one that got away.

[Kristoffer Gjevre]

Read all about it here, section 7

http://solo2.com/supp_regs/SCCA_Cal_Clu ... s_2010.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note that the one in four wording in 7.6 is incorrect. Refer to Appendix D only.

George can you specify what is should be? I have the Word document and can update it and create an updated PDF and upload it.

Take a look at this thread: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3254&p=49811#p49811" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[George Schilling]

Read all about it here, section 7

http://solo2.com/supp_regs/SCCA_Cal_Clu ... s_2010.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note that the one in four wording in 7.6 is incorrect. Refer to Appendix D only.

George can you specify what is should be? I have the Word document and can update it and create an updated PDF and upload it.

It presently reads

"A competitor will drop their lowest event scores at the rate of one drop per four events held, as shown in Appendix D."


It should read something like this, but this will need to be approved at the committee meeting before a change can be made.

A competitor will drop their lowest event scores at a rate as shown in Appendix D.

[Giovanni Jaramillo]

It should read something like this, but this will need to be approved at the committee meeting before a change can be made.

A competitor will drop their lowest event scores at a rate as shown in Appendix D.

Agreed....I'll wait 'til Committee approves and Curt (Rules Chair) makes the change and I get the updated Word doc.

[Doug Teulie]

Can averages be drops? I notice that in some cases 100 points are marked as drops but not Averages that are less than 100 points.
Perhaps that is why the results are still preliminary?

[Theo O.]

Can averages be drops? I notice that in some cases 100 points are marked as drops but not Averages that are less than 100 points.
Perhaps that is why the results are still preliminary?

Average is a derived number. I don't see how it can be used as a drop.

[KJ Christopher]

Can averages be drops? I notice that in some cases 100 points are marked as drops but not Averages that are less than 100 points.
Perhaps that is why the results are still preliminary?

Average is a derived number. I don't see how it can be used as a drop.

That would depend on whether the average was including all events (no drops - I guess zeros would count) or would consider drops.

[Doug Teulie]

Can averages be drops? I notice that in some cases 100 points are marked as drops but not Averages that are less than 100 points.
Perhaps that is why the results are still preliminary?

Average is a derived number. I don't see how it can be used as a drop.

Your 3 lowest scores are drops??? ?

So if your points look like this:

100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 [Ave] [90,000] [90.000]

Your Ave would be one of the 3 lowest scores. ???? ?? ? ?? ?

[Doug Teulie]

Can averages be drops? I notice that in some cases 100 points are marked as drops but not Averages that are less than 100 points.
Perhaps that is why the results are still preliminary?

Average is a derived number. I don't see how it can be used as a drop.

That would depend on whether the average was including all events (no drops - I guess zeros would count) or would consider drops.

Ave = all earned points divided by # of events driven that are not Ave.

If your points look this:
95.000 100.000 90.000 Ave 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 [0.000] [0.000] [0.000]
Ave = 95.000

0 X 3 are your drops.

[Rick Brown]

Instead of speculating, why not just wait for Christine to post how she has the spreadsheet set up? Then maybe you can discuss if she interpreted the rules correctly or not.

[Christine Grice]

The way I put the formulas into the spreadsheet assumes that the average will always be higher than the dropped events. This is true almost all the time, except I looked back though the points and in Doug's case, the average would be the drop. I will have to go in and manually fix that. Luckily it doesn't happen very often. ;)

And the points are preliminary because of issues like these and because last time I printed them to PDF Rick hadn't given the official final stamp on the Dec event results.

[Doug Teulie]

The way I put the formulas into the spreadsheet assumes that the average will always be higher than the dropped events. This is true almost all the time, except I looked back though the points and in Doug's case, the average would be the drop. I will have to go in and manually fix that. Luckily it doesn't happen very often. ;)

And the points are preliminary because of issues like these and because last time I printed them to PDF Rick hadn't given the official final stamp on the Dec event results.

I was not sure if an Ave could be a drop by looking at the spreadsheet. Sometimes our rules change and I am not sure.
Thanks
I thought that is how the spreadsheet was done. It makes sense to do it that way up to the final event because you just don't know what the Ave is till the last lap of the year. Happy holidays Christine. Thanks for your (and Rick's) great work on this stuff all year.

[Rick Brown]

And the points are preliminary because of issues like these and because last time I printed them to PDF Rick hadn't given the official final stamp on the Dec event results.

[Jayson Woodruff]

San Diego's point system isn't much different. They use a very similar formula just without the 'amplification' we do (the x400 thing). For the most part, using the ampflication just spreads out the numbers, it doesn't make it any easier or harder to gain points. In LA, 1sec is about 7pts, in San Diego, 1sec is about 1.5points. So the races look tighter in San Diego, but you'd never make up a 10pt gap.

Jay W

I know what you mean. A few years ago, I beat someone else every event (even won most of the events that year), but they were right on my tail. They no-showed one event, while an out of town-er spanked me. I used all my drops for missed events, so did the other person. They beat me in year end points, even though they never beat me once on the track. That's one thing I don't like about our formula. If we used one like S.D. and most other regions, it wouldn't have happened. I've always wondered why we have this strange formula.

[John Fendel]

San Diego's point system isn't much different. They use a very similar formula just without the 'amplification' we do (the x400 thing). For the most part, using the ampflication just spreads out the numbers, it doesn't make it any easier or harder to gain points. In LA, 1sec is about 7pts, in San Diego, 1sec is about 1.5points. So the races look tighter in San Diego, but you'd never make up a 10pt gap.

With the original points formula, you had to have a time within 10% of the winning time to earn points. It was felt that this was too tight a formula and that they wanted more cometitors to be able to earn points. So the new formula was devised which gives a 20% time differential to earn points. Now, between 70 and 95% of the drivers earn points at any event.

[Craig Naylor]

[quote="Jayson Woodruff"]San Diego's point system isn't much different. They use a very similar formula just without the 'amplification' we do (the x400 thing). For the most part, using the ampflication just spreads out the numbers, it doesn't make it any easier or harder to gain points. In LA, 1sec is about 7pts, in San Diego, 1sec is about 1.5points. So the races look tighter in San Diego, but you'd never make up a 10pt gap.

Jay W


If every course was exactly (as an example) 45 sec, that would be true. But their not so it also amplifies the differences in lengths (time wise) of courses. You could beat someone else every event at 45-50 sec Fontana course, and have a bad day on a extra long course (110-120) El Toro , and loose the season. Winning (or for that matter loosing) at El Toro due to the extra long courses and the larger time difference gap, could take multiple events at Fontana to make up (or lose) the difference. In S.D. the course length (again, time wise) is a non issue that works for or against you. Every event is worth the same points in relation to every other event.

It would be like some imaginary off road series that used both the Baja 1000 and stadium events.
(LA points system) Win the Baja by 5 minutes, and your competitors could never make up the 5 minutes in a stadiums no matter how many there are in the season.
SD System) A win is a win. Weather the Baja or a stadium.

[Kristoffer Gjevre]

If every course was exactly (as an example) 45 sec, that would be true. But their not so it also amplifies the differences in lengths (time wise) of courses. You could beat someone else every event at 45-50 sec Fontana course, and have a bad day on a extra long course (110-120) El Toro , and loose the season. Winning (or for that matter loosing) at El Toro due to the extra long courses and the larger time difference gap, could take multiple events at Fontana to make up (or lose) the difference. In S.D. the course length (again, time wise) is a non issue that works for or against you. Every event is worth the same points in relation to every other event.

It would be like some imaginary off road series that used both the Baja 1000 and stadium events.
(LA points system) Win the Baja by 5 minutes, and your competitors could never make up the 5 minutes in a stadiums no matter how many there are in the season.
SD System) A win is a win. Weather the Baja or a stadium.

This appears not to be the case.
The same percentage time diff at a long or short course yields the same points:

time-points.JPG (21.33 KiB) Viewed 8911 times

So it does not matter if you have a bad day at a long or short course, the points you have to make up is the same, right, or am I missing something here?

[Marshall Grice]

So it does not matter if you have a bad day at a long or short course, the points you have to make up is the same, right, or am I missing something here?

you got it right. the points are normalized to the fastest lap time in both equations (SD vs LA).

[Craig Naylor]

Hmm... I've messed with this before and there is difference between us and S.D. due to the formula we use. I guess I've set up the example wrong. I'll need to think about it.

[George Schilling]

Hmm... I've messed with this before and there is difference between us and S.D. due to the formula we use. I guess I've set up the example wrong. I'll need to think about it.

You'll be thinking about it a long, long time Craig. But either way, as long as everyone knows or has access to the rules in advance, what's the difference?

[Marshall Grice]

Hmm... I've messed with this before and there is difference between us and S.D. due to the formula we use. I guess I've set up the example wrong. I'll need to think about it.

the main difference is if you show up in SD the worst you can get is 70 points and the same performance percentage wise would result in zero points in LA. So if you get blown out in LA it really hurts.

[Theo O.]

Great post Kristoffer

[Warren Leach]

the main difference is if you show up in SD the worst you can get is 70 points and the same performance percentage wise would result in zero points in LA. So if you get blown out in LA it really hurts.

While it is true that the lowest you can get in San Diego is a 70, virtually every time that happens it's because of all runs being DNF'ed. It only happened twice this year that a 70 was not all DNF's. And in every single case that a person got a 70, it ended up being a drop. A non drop 70 (or a 80, for that matter), would make it virtually impossible to win a contested class, so that makes it 'really hurt' in San Diego also.

That said, if it is possible to get a 0 in LA (and have it 'count'), then our two systems are a LOT different. Not better or worse, just different. It would be hard to come up with a system that the actual person who wins did not deserve to win. The key to having the best chance of winning? Don't miss events. If a participant misses events they take the results out of their hands and put them in someone else's.




nalbar

[Rick Brown]

Hmm... I've messed with this before and there is difference between us and S.D. due to the formula we use. I guess I've set up the example wrong. I'll need to think about it.

the main difference is if you show up in SD the worst you can get is 70 points and the same performance percentage wise would result in zero points in LA. So if you get blown out in LA it really hurts.

When I used AXWare's built in points system (which has our formula as one of the options and is adjustable) it also had an option to set a minimum number of points a person gets. I set it to 20. The AXWare system works pretty good if it wasn't for all our extra conditions, mainly averages. Had to go and manually edit any place an average was given. So I was glad when Christine took it over.

[Jayson Woodruff]

Hmm... I've messed with this before and there is difference between us and S.D. due to the formula we use. I guess I've set up the example wrong. I'll need to think about it.

the main difference is if you show up in SD the worst you can get is 70 points and the same performance percentage wise would result in zero points in LA. So if you get blown out in LA it really hurts.

Actually a '0' floor in LA is worth about an '80' floor in SD (because of that amplfication thing again). So yeah it looks worse losing 100pts in LA, but the 30pts you lost in San Diego are actually a lot harder to make up.

Jay W

[Marshall Grice]

Actually a '0' floor in LA is worth about an '80' floor in SD (because of that amplfication thing again). So yeah it looks worse losing 100pts in LA, but the 30pts you lost in San Diego are actually a lot harder to make up.

Jay W

well technically it's a '75' floor. Either way, you're not going to recover from getting blown out in either region unless you can drop that event, like warren said. It's just more obvious in LA because you get a zero instead of the false hope of getting a 70.