Annual Points

[RandyC]

http://www.sdr-scca.com/solo2/results/

[CNaylor]

http://www.sdr-scca.com/solo2/results/

Randy, thank you for posting these, and also to whomever has now updated them.

I must say I don't quite understand the point of the last column, "average points". In STS for example, 4 of us are listed higher in the standings with one event each than two people who have run all but one event each. The class leader has a whole three events under his belt. Why not just list alpha or numerically rather than this odd ball ranking? Is the program not capable of sorting via points earned, with or wthout droped events?

Craig

[Willembop]

Craig,

There is no perfect way of presenting interim points -- it won't shake out fully until the end of the year. If you just show the actual raw points total for each individual, that can be very misleading because you drop up to 1/3 of the events each year -- so a missed event may not count against an individual. Four events are dropped this year (assuming we have 13 championship event, as currently planned), so someone that has not missed any events may appear to have a lead over someone who has missed a couple of events. However, assuming that each completes the minimum of nine events, what will matter is the average per event (for their best nine events). Of course you can't know how many events will be missed until we complete the last one. Also, the rule book says that even if someone does not complete the minimum number of events for a year-end trophy, their results will still be shown in the points list. Anyway, you can mentally eliminate anyone who has already missed over four events -- then the average of the remaining competitors is what matters. That's why I'm showing the average per event.

When we complete the 10th event (and subsequent events), I'll try to have the results show the average for the best nine for those that have all ten. Also, I could eliminate the average for those that have already missed five or more events. That might show a more realistic picture of the standings.

Regards,
Bill Schiller

[nino]

Bill, Unless I'm reading it wrong, there's a couple of events with multiple winners in STX and STU. Were those ties? ;)
-nino

[Willembop]

In a couple of cases the times were so close that the spread sheet comes up with 100 for 1st and 100 for 2nd when it rounds off to the nearest tenth of a point. I guess I should take it out to 2 decimal points to make it come out right. I'll try that.

Bill Schiller

[chaz572]

Thanks for the update, Bill!

Minor correction: looks like Mara C is listed twice in P2.

[froggy47]

Thanks Bill & Randy.

:)

[nalbar]

Bill, thanks for all the hard work on what is a difficult job!



nalbar

[Willembop]

Thanks for the correction.

Bill Schiller


Thanks for the update, Bill!

Minor correction: looks like Mara C is listed twice in P2.

[Bimota Guy]

Randy, thank you for posting these, and also to whomever has now updated them.

I must say I don't quite understand the point of the last column, "average points". In STS for example, 4 of us are listed higher in the standings with one event each than two people who have run all but one event each. The class leader has a whole three events under his belt. Why not just list alpha or numerically rather than this odd ball ranking? Is the program not capable of sorting via points earned, with or wthout droped events?

Craig
Craig, Read 4.2.4 of Supp Regs.

[CNaylor]

Back at you :eek:

Craig, Read 4.2.4 of Supp Regs.

STEVE....
I don't need to need thm, apparently you may :eek:

4.2.4 says an average will be listed for those with less than 2/3 of the events. Many on the list have more than 2/3, of not only those event actually held, but also 2/3 of the total planned.

I was indirectly asking why 4.2.2 (to be specific) wasn't listed, more specifically I was asking if the program had the capability, and if it did, why it wasn't used?

[LarryC]

... more specifically I was asking if the program had the capability, and if it did, why it wasn't used?

If you're referring to the AXWare program (software we use for timing and scoring of championship events) then the answer is no, we're not using that program to calculate championship points because it does not have the capability to meet our points requirements.

I believe Bill is using Excel to do the points calculation. See his posting about spread sheet and rounding errors.

[Bimota Guy]

Back at you :eek:


STEVE....
I don't need to need thm, apparently you may :eek:

4.2.4 says an average will be listed for those with less than 2/3 of the events. Many on the list have more than 2/3, of not only those event actually held, but also 2/3 of the total planned.

I was indirectly asking why 4.2.2 (to be specific) wasn't listed, more specifically I was asking if the program had the capability, and if it did, why it wasn't used?
Craig, Apparently you did need to read 4.2.4 since you asked why he listed averages. It is obviously easier to do for all and clean it up at year-end.

Moreover, what you were doing, intentionally or not, was being critical and not offering up any real reason for requesting something different. You called what was posted an "oddball listing" and suggested an alpha (why is this better?) or numeric sort (with no real explanation of this, I might add.) If you would find a sort by total points acceptable (presumably what "numeric" meant), you would sometimes find the person at the top of the list to be someone who has attended more events than the person who is truly the points leader based on 2/3 of events.

[RickRacer]

OK, just read section 4 for the first time (so far haven't competed in enough SD events to actually worry about points) and I don't really understand it. Is the year end class winner the person with the most points in 2/3 of the events? What is the reference to "season average" and "year-end average" for? I don't see them refered to elsewhere.

[CNaylor]

Rick: Apparently if you have the 2/3 events you get your total: 800 900 1035.67 whatever points. If you don't have 2/3 event you get your average 99.878 87.453 or 70.000 the absolute minimum, as you get 70 pts per event just for crossing the start line.

Before I started the uproar, I was asking why the total points weren't listed for competators, vs "average" as has been done every year since I started in 1997 and ranked accordingly. Since we have never used the "average" in that time period for ranking mid year, I wondered aloud, why that option was chosen rather than some other random sort method. I personally was not aware of the "average" ranking for those who had less than 2/3 events.

Steve answered that question by posting the rule. Although it states that at the end of the year those without 2/3 events will receive averages, the other rule also deals with end of year, so I guess the use of either could be used, one just makes more work for the individual to figure out where they stand in relation to the others in the class. (ie they need to personally add up every competators totals)

I must admit in all the years I have received final copies year end results, it has never been used. As such I didn't know the rule existed. Looking over old rules books, back to 1998, the rule has apparently always been there. I did not mean to post negativly, critically or any other chosen word, I saw something I have never seen in 9 years, and asked why it was different.

Ok Steve I'll make it positive, Thank you Larry C and Robby R for doing that work for us in the past. To the current points keeper, thank you for bringing to light a rule many of us probably never new existed. Moving on....

[RickRacer]

Rick: Apparently if you have the 2/3 events you get your total: 800 900 1035.67 whatever points. If you don't have 2/3 event you get your average 99.878 87.453 or 70.000 the absolute minimum, as you get 70 pts per event just for crossing the start line.

That still doesn't make sense to me, unless I'm reading it wrong. Does it say you get your average for each event less than the 2/3 minimum? That would mean you get more for a missed event than an event you attend but only get the minimum of 70. It would make some sense to get 70 for a missed event, although I really don't see why you should get anything for a missed event.

[Willembop]

At the end of the year, if you haven't competed in at least 2/3 of the events, you are not eligible for year end awards -- i.e., you get nothing. Until the end of the year, it's not possible to calculate everything, so I am showing an average per attended event as an interim to help people see where they stand in their class. The averages mean nothing at the end. You can disregard the averages of people who already missed more than 4 events. Hey, that's a good idea -- I'll stop showing an average for those folks -- that would give a more realistic picture. Total points for best 9 events (this year, assuming we run the 13 scheduled events) will determine the winner.

Regards,
Bill Schiller

[Bimota Guy]

That still doesn't make sense to me, unless I'm reading it wrong. Does it say you get your average for each event less than the 2/3 minimum? That would mean you get more for a missed event than an event you attend but only get the minimum of 70. It would make some sense to get 70 for a missed event, although I really don't see why you should get anything for a missed event.
Rick, No points for a missed event. If you have a really bad best run and your score calculates to less than 70 points you get 70 points. Also, as Craig was saying, if you cross the start line even just once and don't even finish the run you get 70 points for that event.

[RickRacer]

Rick, No points for a missed event. If you have a really bad best run and your score calculates to less than 70 points you get 70 points. Also, as Craig was saying, if you cross the start line even just once and don't even finish the run you get 70 points for that event.

OK, so you just have to make 2/3 of the events to qualify and your score is the total (of your best 9 or whatever). Pretty simple. So the two references to averages in the rules have no meaning.

[Steve35]

I did the points for a couple of years and I’m not fond of the system we are using. I’d love to see a F1 style point system, but with all legal competitors getting points. 1st 10 points, 2nd 8 points, 3rd 6 points, 4th 5 points, 5th 4 points, 6th 3 points, 7th 2 points 8th and down 1 point. Keep all of the other qualifiers we have, i.e. must be a Club member, 2/3 of the events completed, etc. I’d want to see any DSQ’s getting 0 points.
I feel this would be much easier to calculate, and the AXWare program might be able to calculate this as we go. But as Willembop told me in a email:

“I like the current system. It gives credit for getting close. This puts the emphasis on running a good time, not on what position you finish. This is especially good if there are only a couple of competitors in a class.

The only problem I see with it is people can't do the math -- it's pretty hard to understand. Nonetheless, I think it works well.”

He makes great since, but I still think the system is hard to calculate and as we’ve seen in this thread hard to understand. But is all fixable.
That’s my 2 cents worth. Any thoughts?

Steve Coe

[Steve35]

just to see what it would look like here is C stock with the F1 style points
I hope this copies from excell OK..


Edit
Oh well it didn't
Does anyone know how to post an Excell spread sheet here? I'll send it to you and let you post it.
Thanx

[Bimota Guy]

OK, so you just have to make 2/3 of the events to qualify and your score is the total (of your best 9 or whatever). Pretty simple.
Yes. Although we often also do an average. It jsut seems to be a better index of performacne to know someone averaged, for example, 98.7 points vs. they scored a total of 888.3 points.

So the two references to averages in the rules have no meaning.
No, not meaningless. If you do not make 2/3 we post your average and how many events you made. This gives you an idea of how well you performed. Especially comparing it to the averages of the people who did make 2/3 of events in your class.

[Bimota Guy]

Oh well it didn't
Does anyone know how to post an Excell spread sheet here? I'll send it to you and let you post it.
Thanx
I think you can attach the file (?) if not too large. (EDIT - You can attach as a text file.)

I don't think wheel-to-wheel point schemes translate to Solo. Amongst other reasons I have yet to see a Solo driver take a defensive line. :eek:

Also, I don't think the points calculation is difficult at all, nor is the "best 2/3" rule difficult. But, I am the son of a math teacher... :p :D

[Sebastian R.]

So is it 2/3 and the rest of the events are dropped? Or if you do all of the events, then all of them count for points?
Sorry, I'm confused, I just want to see if there is still a chance for me to win if I do the rest of the events and perform around my average.:o

[CNaylor]

So is it 2/3 and the rest of the events are dropped?

Sebastian:Though the % is different, this part is the same as LA. You need a minimum # of events to qualify. If you meet that minimum (what ever 2/3 rounded up to the nearest whole number) you add the points you earned for each event. If you exceed the minimum, your lowest scoring events are droped to bring you to the minimum, so all qualifying class members are ranked upon the same number of events.

[RickRacer]

I did the points for a couple of years and I’m not fond of the system we are using. I’d love to see a F1 style point system, but with all legal competitors getting points. 1st 10 points, 2nd 8 points, 3rd 6 points, 4th 5 points, 5th 4 points, 6th 3 points, 7th 2 points 8th and down 1 point. Keep all of the other qualifiers we have, i.e. must be a Club member, 2/3 of the events completed, etc. I’d want to see any DSQ’s getting 0 points.
I feel this would be much easier to calculate, and the AXWare program might be able to calculate this as we go. But as Willembop told me in a email:

“I like the current system. It gives credit for getting close. This puts the emphasis on running a good time, not on what position you finish. This is especially good if there are only a couple of competitors in a class.

Steve Coe

The AXWare software will do that system and it will also do CalClub's points system with the latest update (we had asked for custom programming but Vitek liked our system enough to just incorporate it, or rather modify one of the existing formulas). The CalClub system was specifically designed to reward closeness to the class winner and consistency. It does have a cutoff for points so you can get zero if you are a certain percentage from first. That is adjustable in the software so you can compress or expand the points spread and a fixed miminum can also be set. It will also let you specify how many events to drop. Still playing with the reports it can generate.

[RandyC]

updated!

[lost won]

Good work, folks!

How about that Robert H guy? 110% in IS2!!! What an accomplishment! ;)

Seriously, keep up the good work, it's appreciated. :)

THANKS!

[Willembop]

Whoops! Robert's average for his best 9 events should be 98.25. Will be corrected in the next edition.

Bill Schiller