Why can't CCS have more purse races and run qualifying?

[wolf44]

  I think that for a regional club organization, gridding by points is a good way to generate a grid based on some customer loyalty.

+1

[EX_#76]

Forget about paying out in races.  I am sure that Kevin had to finance everything he owned to purchase CCS.  He probably would like to earn more cash, so he can pay the mortgage and maybe eat better food? LOL

If you want pay out, you and your friends can throw you money in a hat and the best finisher can can have the prize.  This way my entry fees will not go up just to fatten up Ed Key's or Hall's wallet.

If we really need to change the way we grid then, grid by finshing position of the last race that was held at that track.  If you were not there at the last race go to the back of the grid.  If you are fast you should end up near the front, earning a better grid spot for the next race. 

Points wont work, Ed is in second place in the region.  The person wining the points race has a performance rating of like 300.  Leading the points is not an indication of speed.  Finishing order is.

CCS is not going to have enough man power to change what we are doing right now.  What is the benefit to CCS to change?  They will not make more work for themselves unless it is a good financial decision for their business.

[Cyklracer]

Points wont work, Ed is in second place in the region.  The person wining the points race has a performance rating of like 300.  Leading the points is not an indication of speed.  Finishing order is.

Then why not use the performance rating to determine grids?

I raced with GLRRA a number of years back, and they used the points system to determine grids.  It generally worked pretty well at sorting the grids according to the riders' abilities and speed.  My personal view is that it made the racing a lot safer by not having a bunch of procrastinators closing in on a bunch of pigeon-toed early birds through the first several corners.

Hey Guy - looks like you've got a pretty good feel for how people feel about you - matching your plate number to your Karma!  With that kind of foresight, do ya have any stock tips for us?   

[EX_#76]

Then why not use the performance rating to determine grids?

I raced with GLRRA a number of years back, and they used the points system to determine grids.  It generally worked pretty well at sorting the grids according to the riders' abilities and speed.  My personal view is that it made the racing a lot safer by not having a bunch of procrastinators closing in on a bunch of pigeon-toed early birds through the first several corners.

Hey Guy - looks like you've got a pretty good feel for how people feel about you - matching your plate number to your Karma!  With that kind of foresight, do ya have any stock tips for us?  

Performance index would work, but the likelyhood of having two people with the same index might cause a few problems. 

I didn't even notice the karma and number plate thing..  that's cool.  If anyone used my advice on stocks the negative number would grow logarithmically!!!

[Spooner]

Race great plains-there are a number of money races!

[barb_arah]

  Gee, I took alot of hits due to my comment...I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be so harsh.  I think this should be the place for people to vent in any fashion they so choose.  I apologise to anyone I may have offended by my comment.  

[barb_arah]

Hello Barb, I am only going buy Your picture on the post. I was at Barber over the weekend and working with the Chechs & Slovaks. I noticed a gal walk in with a sling on her arm and she kinda looked like the post photo. If that was You I hope that You are going to be good with that broken arm! If the gal that I am refering to is not Yourself, please excuss me.

Thanks, fortunately I haven't broken my arm.  Maybe I have a twin.  I hope she heals up fine!

Thanx
Dan

[Court Jester]

....
If you want pay out, you and your friends can throw you money in a hat and the best finisher can can have the prize.  This way my entry fees will not go up just to fatten up Ed Key's or Hall's wallet.
....

ha. that's what i do with a buddy of mine. him and i are always fighting to keep from being dead last. that does seem to help take the sting out of losing to everybody else.

[fatboy122]

While we are complaining, Why was the entries the same for the Barber weekend or slightly higher than other weekends and we only had 5 lap races?? Seems like a damn rip off to me!! Or getting to the track at 8 pm friday night and being charged 35 bucks for a bracelet instead of 25 for sat and sun. I was at the track for a total of 45 min friday night for 10 bucks, its bullshit. Oh and being undercharged at registration for the 3rd consecutive weekend and later in the morning having to take them more money, i dont mind the money, its the hassle of having to go do it that bothers me all because someone doesnt know how to use a calcualtor. And thanks to the trophy people for tossing my VIR plaque in the trash when i was told at VIR that i could pick it up at Barber. Went to get the plaque and thats what they told me. I pay my entries and earned that award so now they expect me to pay for the plaque if i want it. Ok im done! Yall have a good day!

[ahastings]

I have been preaching grid by points as long as I can remember. I race equal amounts with WERA and CCS , and gridding by points is a far more equitable system than by pre-entry.  Yes a couple more money classes for experts would be good too.

[fatboy122]

I have been preaching grid by points as long as I can remember. I race equal amounts with WERA and CCS , and gridding by points is a far more equitable system than by pre-entry.  Yes a couple more money classes for experts would be good too.

+1

[GSXR RACER MIKE]

In 2003 I was by far the slowest Expert on the track (I'm still one of the slowest Experts - though I recently decided to bring my pace back up a bit). Toward the end of that season I happened to be looking at the points and realized that I was the points leader in 9 classes - yet I was undeniably the slowest Expert out there (I actually stopped racing at that point so those faster racers behind me in the points could 'catch-up' and get the championships). By a points based gridding system I would have had pole position at every race I was going to when I was actually intentionally registering late so I would be gridded at the back. Points are not an indication of speed, they are an indication of consistency.

Performance index (P/I) is also very deceptive, it's a nail in the coffin because it punishes those who run lower entry classes. If you take a lightweight race that had 15 racers in it that saw the top 5 break away and fight the whole race long, the 5th place finisher would have a P/I of 733 , in a 60 rider race the 5th place finisher would have a P/I of 933. While both 5th place finishes get 21 points it doesn't take into account how close of a finish the lower entry race was, instead in penalizes the 5th place finisher in the lower entry race with a substantially lower P/I. This really comes into play when you look at the overall points which combines your points and P/I, the racer in the 60 rider race would end up with 19.60 points, the rider in the lower entry race would end up with only 15.40 points for their 5th place finish that they had to fight the whole race for. Due to this the overall championship will only be won by someone who finishes well in the larger entry classes, I predict as long as this system is in place we will only see overall champions who run middleweight classes - in fact almost all of the Top 10 will be from the middleweight classes - you will never see someone who runs only 1 bike (other than a middleweight bike) as an overall champion and they would be lucky to even get a Top 10 plate. Someone like Ed Key is mathematically eliminated from ever winning the overall championship due to the lightweight classes he's running not having as many riders as the middleweight classes, the only reason he was even able to get a Top 10 plate was because he wins so many races.

If it were a choice of points or P/I, I would definately go by points. The P/I is flawed since it's an average of both low and high turn out races and how badly a poor finish in a low turn out race could damage your average P/I. It would actually be better to not go to an event that you knew you wouldn't do well in (P/I wise) due to it's damage to ALL the points you have scored over the season. Points at least award consistency, though not always the fastest racers. The electronic scoring system is vulnerable to glitches or crashes, so depending on it to determine grid positions would be a potential nightmare in the event of problems. If the electronic scoring system was a for sure thing (consistently) then I would say we should use a 'gap' multiplier instead of the current P/I system. What I mean is as you cross the finish line the electronic system records the gap between the leader and yourself, this gap is then used as a multiplier to figure a much more accurate P/I. The total race time from start to finish is already recorded, it would be simple to have a program that figured the percentage that your gap from the leader was and use it as a P/I to be multiplied by the points you get for a finish, here's an example:

For ease of calculation in this example the leader finishes an 8 lap race in 12 minutes (720 seconds) which averages out to 1:30 (90 seconds) lap times and gets 35 points. The 2nd place finishes 3 seconds down from the leader, that's 723 seconds as compared to 720 (720 divided by 723), which equals 99.585% - multiply this by the 2nd place points of [30] points and you come up with an accurate overall performance oriented score of [29.876] (using traditional rounding up and down). Now let's say you have a racer who runs away from the pack and the 2nd place racer is 40 seconds down, the 2nd place racer would end up with 760 seconds or a 94.737% multiplier which calculates out to a score of [28.421]. In a lapped rider situation you still use the gap between the leader and the lapper at the finish line plus use the average lap time of the leader as the penalty per lap (for ease of score keeping). So purely for example if you have a 2nd place rider who is a lap down and crosses the line 20 seconds behind the leader they would be at 830 seconds (720+90+20) or a 87.805% multiplier for a score of [26.342]. All of those are examples of a 2nd place finish based on actual performance and would provide a true overall championship chase that is representative of a racers performance. In the event of a scoring system failure you could revert to points paid at full value (instead of a calculated value) based on finishing position and no performance index issued in any way, this way your previous and future performace indexes will average out that rare event of an electronic system failure. CCS could also have your P/I listed as the percentages I used in this example, that way you can see if your at a 98.564% Performance value or 72.620% - In my opinion a much more representative way of displaying a Performance Index.

With a system as I just described gridding by actual performance calculated points would be a great way to do it, otherwise you could regularly end up with mid-pack racers unding up in the front on the grid because they were consistent or the fastest racers missed some events. This would also allow the fastest racers to still have some bad finishes or DNF's and retain a good position in the points because they would regularly earn the most calculated points.  8)