2013 Rule Change Suggestions CLOSED

[Jon]

I just want to know when the round everyones going to skip, miss or drop is. Currently I've decided the one that's the same weekend as MotoGP at Laguna.
Wouldn't it make even more sense to just have a 6 round series though like the USBA?

[Jon]

The solution boys and girls is to have a one event, winner take all series. All the contingency, all the purse. One set of tires, one entry fee, No need to worry and bicker over anything but what track and where.
My opinions to have it at HPR North course. Early July. No need to have the corner workers sweat it out all semmer, no need to have the board work their arses off all year long.
Summers are for vacations and family fun. Let's all realize what fun REALLY is. Lake Powell here I come!

[TRK]

Chris like we discussed this is the current AMA SBK scoring system.
30 25 21 18 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

It only rolls 15 placed deep, but addresses some things

[Scored51]

Here is a summary of a few different points systems and if they would cover a zero point round in the seven planned for 2013. We need to look at the information carefully as automatically covering the spread at every position may not be the best idea. It builds in a mulligan for everyone in the championship. Possibly the best business sense will be to make it close, but not quite 100% assurance since mathematical possibilities are not always reality.

Disclaimer: I am not trying to push a new scoring system onto the club or say mine is better than any other plan. Since this will be discussed at the rules meeting, I thought it would be helpful to be able to visualize some of the data that will be thrown around at the meeting. Personally, I feel as though the points system perfect, but it ain't broke either. A lot like the red flag rules: the least of all evils. But it is a good exercise to explore different options and allow the membership to voice its opinions. At least one racer has perceived a problem with the scoring system as it stands. We owe it to ourselves to make an honest attempt at creating a better plan. Even if nothing changes in the rulebook, the improvement will be an educated membership as to why the points system exists as it does.

[rybo]

Chris -

For a heads up comparison can you do the same chart with the current MRA points system and the current system with double points at the last round?

Thanks

Scott

[Scored51]

[TRK]

Chris, I dont think that is what Rybo was getting at.

[gsnyder828]

While I love Chris's analysis... I'm missing something

What's the problem we're trying to solve here?

I've read the current system's unfair, it's designed around a 10 round season, etc. but I've missed a statement of the problem we're looking to solve.

Is the problem that our current point system does not allow a racer to miss a round and still win a championship if there's a consistent rider who places 2nd in every race?

If so - that doesn't seem like a problem to me. 8)

[TRK]

No that is not the problem we are trying to solve. We are trying to create a fair and equitable point system that rewards and challenges racers over the course of a seven race season. The reason we had a double points round this year, is the current system does not do that.

Chris Dale came up with the parity throughout the field on his own and I am in no way suggesting that we have parity from top to bottom. Others have suggested this is about giving riders the option to miss a round. I am not suggesting we give riders an opportunity to miss a round. I am suggesting we come up with a system that challenges racers and rewards them appropriately.

I did state that if one of our racers wins 6 of 7 rounds he or she should win a championship and I stand by that. This doesn't mean everyone should have the ability to miss a round or there should be parity between every position. Please read the article posted earlier.

I looked at the scoring system organizations are running throughout the world, and why. Most run the FIM/AMA spread, because it challenges and rewards racers.

I think the AMA point structure would be perfect, for our seven round season even though it only provides points 20 spots deep. Several board members have also run scenarios through the scoring systems, in an effort to evaluate the results of a new system.



I am sure we will come up with a fair and challenging system at the rules meeting.

[Mforza]

The solution boys and girls is to have a one event, winner take all series. All the contingency, all the purse. One set of tires, one entry fee, No need to worry and bicker over anything but what track and where.
My opinions to have it at HPR North course. Early July. No need to have the corner workers sweat it out all semmer, no need to have the board work their arses off all year long.
Summers are for vacations and family fun. Let's all realize what fun REALLY is. Lake Powell here I come!

You are right Jon, let's run it like the European Championship
They also have 1 race - winner is the European Champion
It used to be very nice championship back in the days

[nobasin]

I am suggesting we come up with a system that challenges racers and rewards them appropriately.

shannon, could you further explain or give more of your insights as to why you think the current system does not do this? some have pointed out that if somebody misses a race or round for whatever reason they could lose a championship. but it seems like that is just an inherent and essential part of a championship points series; if you crash, if you have a mechanical, if you miss a race, isn't that a key component and part of what can happen over the course of a season championship? it seems like trying to protect racers from the core parts of what makes racing, racing.

[Jon]

That's my thoughts as well. For instance Dani Padrosa being taken out at Misano is a result that he will either make up or not regardless of the fact that Lorenzo had a similar instance earlier in the season. I always thought racing rewarded those who were consistant, well prepared and present for the season regardless of how long or short that season is.
I guess with such a short MRA season, we need to figure out how to keep all the racers eligitable to win regardless if they are present or not? I for the life of me don't see why that's imporatant as there will always be obligations that force certain people to miss a round. I for instance put getting married and having a honeymoon in front of winning another championship. Others, Otis and Donna for instance, choose to get married at the track and have thier honeymoon elsewhere. I am sure that there's a way and maybe if the racer who is present and finishes well all season long is asked or required to give up his worst result in order to let the one who finished well in spite of missing a round we can acomplish that but it just for some reason doesn't seem quite fair.

[TRK]

Jon, like I said before this has nothing to do with making a system so you don't have to race 7 rounds.

The article I posted pretty much sums up my thoughts. The changes proposed makes the scoring almost the same over a 7 race season as our current system is with a 10 race season. If you want talk about it give me a call. And Jon, Moto GP runs the FIM point system.
AMA is close. I am unsure what the attachment is to using the current system over a 7 race season (one in which we tried to make a double points equalizer and caused all sorts of drama).

I am off to enjoy my weekend.

Have a good weekend. Hit me up at the General Meeting or call me if you want to discuss.

Thanks everyone for taking a interest!!!

Mohammer

[The GECCO]

In an effort to provide some real world data (and to prove I'm just as big a geek as Chris), here are some examples of how some of this years classes would have turned out under the various point structures.

Each spreadsheet has four sections. The first shows how the points ended up this year. The second shows how the same results would have been scored under the AMA structure. The third is the FIM structure. The fourth is the structure Shannon is proposing.

Each of the new structures highlights in green where a rider would have advanced in the standings, and in red where he/she would have finished lower in the standings.

Here is MWEND:


You can see that Keith Easton (#7) missed two rounds and finished 5th overall. Under the proposed system (and the other two) he would have finished third overall.

Also look at Peter Tabor (#599). He only ran two of the eight rounds (remember the 7th counted twice) and finished 23rd overall. However, when he DID run, he did very well and under the FIM system he would have finished 13th overall - a ten place improvement. Under the proposed system, he would have improved to 19th.

Using Peter as an example, when he ran he averaged 22.5 points. Lets pretend he ran a third round and earned 22 more points. Under the FIM system he would have had 67 points and finished in 7th place overall. Under the proposed system he would have earned 165 points and finished 9th. In a class where 59 people earn points someone who skipped more than 50% of the events finishes in the top ten?

MWSB:


RoR GTO:


AM GTO:


Here's an interesting case - MWSS:


Here we actually see an instance where changing to the FIM structure would have effected who won a championship, but the proposed system would not have. In all the other examples neither of the top 2 riders have a "0" round, but here we do. Under FIM, the championship changes, but not under the proposed system.

This boils down to a single decision - do we want a points system that rewards consistency, or flashes of brilliance?

If I am an average rider and I know that in a "heads up" race I simply cannot beat Rider X and the points system overwhelmingly rewards wins, then I'm pretty much screwed. However, if Rider X has a tendency to either "win it or bin it" then I know that I have a reasonable shot at beating him in the standings by simply being consistent. I think the professional organizations are justified in using a system that places a premium on winning races. However, at the club level I think consistency should count just as much. I think this is a better incentive to keeping participants coming back and filling the grids.

The other point goes back to what a few people have asked - what is the problem we are trying to solve? I will also add - will the proposed solution solve the problem? Granted, I didn't run every MRA class, but I tried to pick those that are more populated and more competitive, and looking through the examples above, the proposed change would not effect who is winning championships.

So, is this change even worth making? I think this is a solution in search of a problem. And if there IS a problem, this doesn't fix it.

[Jon]

Here as I see it is what I think the problem is but I surely could be wrong with this assumption.
The membership is missing races during the season and once they do the board believes they are losing interest and therefore their missing further rounds losing revenue for the club. Is there a way to the membership to not become disinterested and still be able to compete for a championship once you miss a round?
I'll say this. This year I missed a couple rounds, but knew if I did compete, remained consistant and did really well at the last round I'd move up and finish top five in my two classes.
So that's what I did and after missing the rounds I did was rewarded with top three in one, 4th in the other. I really never would ask or expect to do any better than that as I know if you miss races, miss having your head down you aren't going to win a championship but being there in the end rewards being in it.
As we see there are numerous people who are interested in this discussion but we're not trying to cause an argument but would ask that the problem that we're trying to solve be clearly stated so we can work together to do so if it's actually possible. Is the probelm what I state above or another?

[oldtimer]

Would the number of red flags be reduced if we didn't pay points for a DNF?

Yes I know the unfair side is if you get taken out. Just thinking about the points discussion. :-k

[The GECCO]

Would the number of red flags be reduced if we didn't pay points for a DNF?

Yes I know the unfair side is if you get taken out. Just thinking about the points discussion. :-k

Doubt it, most racers don't have that thought factoring in when they're making the decision that results in a tumble.

Besides, I like the idea of paying points even if you don't take the checkered. If I spend all the time and money (supporting the club and the vendors) to come out and race and then I fall down on the last corner of the last lap, I should get SOME reward for that effort. To go home with the same amount of points as the guy who stayed home in bed just doesn't seem right to me.

[Fastt Racing]

One more great point Glenn. I believe strongly that there is a big difference in the points structure needed for AMA Superbike than the one we need at the MRA club racing level. I agree with basically everything that you have stated about this topic,and can only imagine it is likely due to our experiences with different types of racing clubs (local and national). Clubs that made it, and clubs that didn't survive as well. Thank you for running the scenerios with some of our class results. I think they show the points structure we have still works well with a seven race season, and will work even better when we go back to eight.

One final thought I had is that it seems some may have won so many races over the years that they are now undervaluing "a" race win. This may be an incorrect interpretation. When you win a race you get contingency money, a thoughtfull trophy, bragging rights, as well as a great cool down (victory) lap. A championship win should be about a lot of the factors of a racing effort, not solely about race wins as those are rewarded seperately every round!

[T Baggins]

Here as I see it is what I think the problem is but I surely could be wrong with this assumption.
The membership is missing races during the season and once they do the board believes they are losing interest and therefore their missing further rounds losing revenue for the club.

In my opinion, Jon, this is a significant part of the problem that we are trying to solve. Let's be honest - As racers, we're all a bunch of fatheads with big egos... and for some - once they know they're "out of it" for the championship they bail on the season. This is hurting the club financially for sure.

That's a big part of why we did DOUBLE points at the last round this year... To get people who otherwise would have skipped it to come out. And guess what - IT WORKED! We had people come out of the woodwork to finish the year on a good note, or to start off 2013 with some points in the bag for preferential gridding.

It would be nice to have a set points structure in place that automatically set up the same scenario without having to be "gimmicky" like a double points round.

I think another part of it is this...

Let's say, for example, that you HAVE to miss a round due to a wedding, funeral, graduation, Pikes Peak Hillclimb, illness, accident, mechanical, blah blah blah... Under the current system there is NO way you can make that up. If you win 6 and get zero for one - and the other guy wins the ONE you miss and takes Second the other Six times... you have no chance at a championship. 228 pts to 216 pts

Maybe that's ok, and the way it should be... Maybe it isn't. We are club racers after all, this isn't MotoGP.

That's the other part of the equation in my mind - and what we need to work out at the meeting.

[Jon]

Boy that's a tough call and I wouldn't want to be on the decision side of that one. I just feel the club doesn't have the hardcore racers like the oldtimes and that's one of the reasons for the decline and of course the increasing cost associated with a whole season.
Regardless, I'm the type who decides early in the season if I'm going to be running for a championship. I plan the summer, plan on making every round and hope the stars align themselfs to allow me to do so. I've fallen down through the years and still won championships and so far I've never needed a points system to help but if we can come up with one that allows for such things to happen as missing rounds, falling down and etc. I'm all for it but presently just not seeing it happen in a 7 round season. My hats off to the job you guys have done to this point and I'll trust you with this new math to make it happen.

[Fastt Racing]

I finally don't agree with Tony on something,Lol. I don't believe that we are using real data to make these assumptions. Tabor, and a couple others are the only front runners that missed a race or two. The majority of poor paticipation and people that bailed on the season were not people that were finishing 1st or 2nd. A points structure like Moham's proposal only hurts the top 5 or top 10 riders more by creating a larger gap between 5th and 4th, or 6th and 7th in the championship chase after a few races. Look at the numbers. I believe we need to reward the mid pack, and keep them in the hunt for a top 7 in the championship to keep there ego's bringing them out every round.

[dave.gallant]

The majority of poor paticipation and people that bailed on the season were not people that were finishing 1st or 2nd.

Really? I must be the minority (as usual)?

[KFinn]

I spent hours reviewing the thread related to the points systems and combed through all of the results that Glenn posted for each system. Here is what I have come to as a conclusion in a summary format and let the examples of current classes and number crunching to the resident number nerds (Glenn, Chris and Shannon).

FIM:
This system rewards flashes of brilliance much more than consistency at the mid pack (around 4th) all the way down to the lower levels of points. Therefore I feel it highly encourages the win it or bin it mentality all the time or the strategic skipping of classes on various weekends. This also penalizes a rider that races 100% of the rounds but always finishes in the back of the pack. Ex going from 10th to 22nd in this system. This does seem to appropriately address the top 5 or less riders that have bad luck once in the season but ride very well otherwise. Points go down to 15th place

Moham proposal:
This system seems to reward people that finish well but race rarely to still be able to manage a lower top 10 finishing position. (More flashes of brilliance) whereas it penalizes active riders that are consistently finishing and with some points. The affect on the top 6 riders seems ok and logical to reward the faster riders that earn a championship but have rare incidents that cost them to lose points. Points go down to 30th place.

AMA:
The AMA proposal seems to appropriately address champions with one bad weekend to remain a champion. It also supports the mid to lower pack of riders that ride well for their group and also have an off weekend. Again rewarding the faster riders with some leniency for bad luck. Points go down as far as 20th place.

Misc Info:
On the whole regardless of system though it does seem to be that from the mid pack back, many riders skip numerous rounds. Thus no system will 'fix' their position if they ultimately don't attend more rounds.

Also I did spot a possible issue with our 4 hour endurance and how it affects the points. I think we should address it to fix it for coming years. What I found was that in all of the systems, a rider that only races the 4 hour endurance is better rewarded for a local rider that races all 6 normal endurance's and finishes in the mid to back pack. Rather than rewarding 4 hour endurance participants with a 1st place points system. We should give them a single point. This would reward someone that races all 6 normal rounds better than the visitor or local that only does the 4 hour. It also rewards the 6 round person more than someone that races the 4 hour plus a round or two of the normal endurance. Lastly, it also rewards the person that does all 6 in the back and the 4 hour endurance more than the individual that only does the 4 hour. This should 'fix' virtually all issues created by awarding so many points as we do today.

My Personal Opinion:
I am in favor of 3 options. First and foremost I think regardless of which system change we make, that fixing the 4 hour endurance is a must.

I don't see a need to give points down to 30th. Typically the only needs are points are: podiums at each round, Top five or 6 for season plaques, top 5 for graduating out of the Amateur classes, Top 10 for graduating out of Novice classes. Only giving points down to 15th doesn't seem to help the consistent mid to near the back of the pack finisher for still collecting enough points to finish top 10 and graduate. Going as far as 30th seems like an overkill solution that doesn't actually work to the converse of 15 position. Therefore 20 seems like it is a decent compromise.

My first preference, if we really do want to reward a champion over our current system, then I would vote for the AMA version. It seems to carry the least amount of negative effects.

Then second in line would be a very minor tweak to the AMA version (only if needed beyond the current AMA system) to help ensure a winner is the champion by changing the 1st place points only. Maybe 32 instead of 30? Again, this option is only needed if we are still a point or two away from making the change work as intended.

Otherwise my 3rd vote is to keep the system as it is today as it has the next least negative affects if we want to put focus on rewarding consistency, prudence and attendance. As mentioned above, we still need the 4 hour endurance change.

I wanted to ensure I got my summary posted several days before the meeting so that others have a chance to digest the info, research my thoughts and validate or bust my overall outlook on the differences. This way we can all come better prepared to the meeting to hopefully make a better decision for the club and all the members.

I did do my own example for only the AMA number version to help give me an idea if it really did fix the perceived problem.