ULLLOSE

iTrader: (1)

I would be OK with a change to tighten things up, but I do think 1st place should have a bigger gap on the rest.

Also we have not been getting a really big group so we could go to a smaller scale.

How about:
1st 10
2nd 8
3rd 7
4th 6
5th 5
6th 4
7th 3
8th 2
9th+ 1

ULLLOSE

iTrader: (1)

Or yet another option... It would make it a little more work but we could do points like Cal Club and SD do, your points are based off of how close you are to the winners time. Again it is more work but it is consistent with how both clubs do points.

Points for slower time = (fastest / slower time) x 100

kwescott

Interesting proposal....I do agree that it would make for more work...I didn't realize that was how they assigned points. I thought it had to do with how many people were in the class....learned something new today.

ULLLOSE

iTrader: (1)

Goes something like this:

Winner runs a 60, 2nd runs a 60.2 and 3rd runs a 62, these are all times after the index is used.

1st 100pts
2nd 99pts
3rd 96pts

The other bad thing is if you run within a tenth of someone you get the same points. If you beat someone they should not get the same score imho.

Again a LOT of extra work. I would be happy with the 10-1 system with the 2pt gap from 1st to 2nd.

FastRX8

(Excel Nerd talking)
If we could get the exact figures for that points scale, I could put together a spreadsheet that would do all the calculations for us.
Then all we have to do is plug in the times and class, and it would give you the points.

kwescott

I kinda like the "weighted" point system...it makes sense to reward those who are faster by assigned them points by their margin of victory....because a 0.02 win is different from a 2.00 second win.

I would be interested in doing this because it is consistent with the other rule changes that we have made for the 07 season...having rules that are consistent with CSCC and SD region.

Are you familiar with the exact formula they use to determine points?

ULLLOSE

iTrader: (1)

Points for slower time = (fastest / slower time) x 100

But again some of the bad things about this is if I win by a tenth 2nd place still gets the same points as 1st place. If I win by 2 secs I only get like 4 more points. Not worth the extra work. Plus with 100pts being a win if you need to take more than the 2 allowed drops, or just want to run a few events you will be WAY behind. It makes a win less important.

ULLLOSE

iTrader: (1)

Points for slower time = (fastest / slower time) x 100

1st 60=100pts
2nd 60.1=100pts
3rd 63=95pts

So a win means nothing in this case and a guy that is 3 secs off the pace is only 5pts back. Sucks.

1st 60=10
2nd 60.1=8
3rd 63=7

kwescott

If we decide to be consistent with CSCC, don't they use decimal points....doesn't it go to thousandths? If so, I editted your post to include the new point totals based on your example.

I do like this idea...it does reward you for the win...cause you get 100...and whether we are talking tens, or tenths....by the end of 12-14 events, there is still going to be the same spread....proportionally.

EDIT: I think this would be consistent with our removal of RAW time as well...now that we are "PAXing" our times...it would only make sense to reward the winner by the amount of time they won by (now that all cars are basically equal with the realtive handicaps assigned to differently prepped cars0....this would also reward a guy on street tires who really drove well one day....but still finished in 5th....but was only 3 or 4 seconds off the pace...I don't know, sounds like something to consider.

kwescott

If we used this example...and just for argument sake....assume that the 1st place finisher was the same all year, and the second place finisher was the same...always finishing 1 tenth behind. with 14 events, throwing all the lowest 2...equalling 12 scoreable events.

With weighted values...
1st place = 1200.000
2nd place = 1197.996 (margin of loss = 2.004)

With second option (10 points for first, 8 for second, 7 for third...)
1st place=120
2nd place=96 (margin of loss = 24)

With current scoring (20 points for first, 16 for second...)
1st place=240
2nd place=192 (margin of loss = 48)

This is accounting for only two drivers, assuming that the finishing positions and margin of victory are the same for all 12 scoreable races (throwing out event 13 and 14, since we throw out lowest two events)....but we will have more drivers, and finishing positions will vary.....

ULLLOSE

iTrader: (1)

So we need one of our resident excel nerds to do the Oct and Nov event using the index and lets see how it looks with the current points system, 10-1 point and Cal Club points system.

kwescott

Jason M 58.646 BSP Index = 58.059 (2nd Place)
Jason I 58.931 BS Index = 57.457 (1st Place)
Casey 59.544 BSP Index = 58.948 (3rd Place)
Jennifer 60.808 BS Index = 59.287 (4th Place)
Keith 60.887 BSP Index = 60.278 (5th Place)
Erica 63.060 BSP Index = 62.429 (7th Place)
Michelle 64.326 BSP Index = 63.682 (9th Place)
Cesar 65.405 STU Index = 63.115 (8th Place)
Ken Sterk 66.001 BSST Index = 62.040 (6th Place)
Denward 66.011 STU Index = 63.700 (10th Place)
Kevin Sequeira 68.459 BSST Index = 64.351 (11th Place)

kwescott

63.841 (Ulllose) BS Index = 62.244 (1st Place)
63.988 (Kwescott) BSP Index = 63.348 (2nd Place)
65.346 (Fast Jennifer) BS Index = 63.712 (3rd Place)
65.763 (Speeddemon32) BSP Index = 65.105 (6th Place)
66.264 (MP5) BS Index = 64.607 (5th Place)
66.443 (Cesaralaniz) STU Index = 64.117 (4th Place)
69.128 (SPT05) BS Index = 67.399 (7th Place)
71.823 (Car 100-BS)-Ron Horn BSST Index = 67.513 (8th Place)
74.263 (Car 499-BS)-Kenneth Sterk BSST Index = 69.781 (9th Place)
74.991 (Michelle) BSP Index = 74.241 (10th Place)

kwescott

Ulllose (100.000) (100.000) = 200.000
MP5 (98.960) (96.342) = 195.302
Jennifer (96.913) (97.695) = 194.608
Kwescott (95.320) (98.257) = 193.577
Speeddemon32 (97.470) (95.605) = 190.075
Cesar (91.035) (97.078) = 188.113
Kaliken (92.612) (89.199) = 181.811
Michelle (90.224) (83.840) = 174.064
SPT05 (0) (92.351) = 92.351
Snowfl8k (92.035) (0) = 92.035

kwescott

Ulllose (20) (20) = 40
Kwescott (9) (16) = 25
MP5 (16) (9) = 25
Jennifer (11) (13) = 24
Speeddemon32 (13) (7) = 20
Cesar (5) (11) = 16
Kaliken (7) (4) = 11
Michelle (4) (3) = 7
SPT05 (0) (6) = 6
Snowfl8k (6) (0) = 6

Interesting to see the change for Jennifer when removing the weighted results...as well as making MP5 and I look like we finished the same

I am liking the weighted results...

kwescott

Ulllose (10) (10) = 20
Jennifer (6) (7) = 13
Kwescott (5) (8) = 13
MP5 (8) (5) = 13
Speeddemon32 (7) (4) = 11
Cesar (2) (6) = 8
Kaliken (4) (1) = 5
SPT05 (0) (3) = 3
Snowfl8k (3) (0) = 3
Michelle (1) (1) = 2

Interesting to see the changes here for Jennifer and Mischelle

mp5

I just wasted a bunch of time with Excel making a mad tight spreadsheet that will calculate all that crap for you... still tweaking it. Just in case you're tired of crunching numbers.

kwescott

gonna go eat dinner......see what you have for me when I return

kwescott

booo, back from dinner and no spread sheet ....booooo

mp5

Haha, Excel was pissing me off. Check it out, it's all automagical, the only data you enter manually is the raw time and class.

All scoring based off indexed time. 2006 column is 20 pt system, 2007 is 10 pt system, CalClub is time from quickest.

SnowFl8k

I think I am voting for the weighted scores. It seems most fair for everyone involved taking into consideration how well they did in comparison to everyone else and not taking it for face value how they placed on a particular day. At least this way, those of you that always finish within a second of each other can get the credit you deserve for doing so well in comparison to ....well.......me

ULLLOSE

iTrader: (1)

Looks like that is the way to go... Added bonus, there is a about zero chance of it ending in a tie.

ULLLOSE

iTrader: (1)

That kicks @ss... btw we gave STU a break down to .965.

mp5

Change the value then, everything will update. I'll keep working on it so we can use it to track next season.

speeddemon32

wow I missed a lot!

ummmm.........

well yeah teh weighted system is much more complex, but I agree it does make for a even more interesting points chase. and is even more "fair" when you consider that it does give credit for a slaughter vs a squeek of a win. and if Keith and I go back to running within tenths of seconds like we used to, then it will make the points between us very fun!

as long as we have an excell points sheet that does all the work for us, I am down with it.