Target Times For 2017

[Terry Everall]

There were insufficient A and B attendance at many events so we did not have realistic times to use for all events and the approach used this year is the same as last year for classes A and B

[AdamR]

Thanks Terry.

So, why does the SSOT elect not to set TTs for A and B from actual times where they are available, like is done in all the other classes? Again, just wondering if there is a reason for this procedure. To me it seems to be at odds with all the other classes and I'm confused by this (not hard ).

If the reason is 'because this is how it's done' then would it be worth a re-think? It seems to me that the whole idea of using target times is to set realistic time for each class and these will 'narrow down' the more years the system is used (and thus the system gets better / more accurate). If the idea also is to make it as simple for you guys as possible then surely it's better to use an actual time rather than a calculated one.

 

[Terry Everall]

Adam

The "rules" for setting times are as follows

For classes A1,A2 add 2% to the TTs for class C and for classes B1 and B2 add 2% to the TTs for class D times

In addition for novice classes (including class A1 and B1) add a further 1.5% to the class C and class D TTs respectively

Thats how it works this year. 

[Terry Everall]

Adam

B2 time for Anglesey International analysis

The 2016 TTs unadjusted  were 92.32 class C, 94.37 class D, 90.88 class E  etc. This clearly shows that class D was an easy target compared to the others and was used to calculate the class B2 TT time of 96.26 secs which was therefore also easy.

For 2017 we have adjusted the TTs as follows class C92.32, class D 91.50, class E 90.88, which is a much more realistic comparison of respective class performances. Hence the B2 calculation uses class D and is therefore 93.33secs for 2017.

 

[AdamR]

Thanks Terry. Yes, I understand how the maths works. I must be asking the wrong question... I'll try again and try to be really direct.

When there are real times available for classes A and B, why not use them?

 

[stephenh]

4 minutes ago, AdamR said:

Thanks Terry. Yes, I understand how the maths works. I must be asking the wrong question... I'll try again and try to be really direct.

When there are real times available for classes A and B, why not use them?

 

Perhaps because as the target times are only really relevant for the purposes of comparing the performance of one driver against another in a different class, in effect that means that target times are primarily for the purpose of finding the overall championship winner and runner ups. In which case, it would be unfair to the drivers in the other classes for the novices to have an easier target? You might have a novice who has little or no experience competing in cars, but has a lot of experience in racing karts, for example.

As I am not on the committee, and no longer competing, I don't know but it seems logical and reasonable?

If a new F1 driver was to argue that they should have a 30 second head start on Hamilton would that be a reasonable way of finding the next F1 champion? Obviously it would be a nonsense.

[AdamR]

Good point Stephen - I didn't think of that, and I agree.

So, same question again for classes A2 and B2 specifically?

[Paul Morcom]

Hi Adam,

Let me have a go at explaining from my perspective as a member of SSOT but not on the Target Time team.....

The problem the Target Time setters have with Classes A and B is that with the introduction of these new classes for List 1A and 1B tyres (MSA did not do us any favours here) all previous A & B results became void for target setting purposes and therefore we have very few real results to work with.  This added to the relatively small entry "on the day" in these classes means that the times achieved last year are sometimes not representative times. If we used them it would create an plethora of soft and hard targets and therefore not a level playing field across all events. The Target Time team have taken all the results and data they have to hand and considered this extensively and developed the fairest set of targets that they can at this point in time.  There is always the risk of the odd anomaly that slips through the net but in the main they have been developed to create a fair and consistent competition throughout the season.

The same logic applies for Novices running the other classes - very few representative results to use so the same issue as Classes A and B.

The other thing to remember is that Target Times are simply a benchmark to score against and the same for all in a class on the day.  Yes is an honour to be recognised as the setter of a record and having your time used as the Target Time for the next year but the combination of the Target Times and the scoring formula means it is not essential (but preferable) for actual records to be used as Target Times.

I think that has answered second part of your question, as for "When there are real times available for classes A and B"..... It's very hard to say but I am sure the Target Time team will start to use once they become representative and we have enough data to confirm that is the case.

Hope that helps (and sorry Terry/Graham for stepping in with a reply),

Paul

[XTR2Turbo]

43 minutes ago, AdamR said:

Thanks Terry. Yes, I understand how the maths works. I must be asking the wrong question... I'll try again and try to be really direct.

When there are real times available for classes A and B, why not use them?

 

Adam

I think the issue is that you can have novices in all classes.  For example I am a novice but in class F (megabusa) which is an expert class.  I would need to buy a new car to be In A or B

So to be fair to all novices, the target times we are compared to are always what an expert would achieve in that car. 

 

[B.RAD]

1 hour ago, stephenh said:

Perhaps because as the target times are only really relevant for the purposes of comparing the performance of one driver against another in a different class, in effect that means that target times are primarily for the purpose of finding the overall championship winner and runner ups. In which case, it would be unfair to the drivers in the other classes for the novices to have an easier target? You might have a novice who has little or no experience competing in cars, but has a lot of experience in racing karts, for example.

As I am not on the committee, and no longer competing, I don't know but it seems logical and reasonable?

If a new F1 driver was to argue that they should have a 30 second head start on Hamilton would that be a reasonable way of finding the next F1 champion? Obviously it would be a nonsense.

The Novice and Overall Championship are separate, Novices don't appear in the overall Championship. I was a firm advocate of separating them out in order to have a novice championship that would encourage people to enter, with a feeling of accomplishment for getting near to or beating the TT's, without it affecting the experts.

[Terry Everall]

All novices in any class  have a TT which is 1.5% easier than the Expert Times. This is an arbitrary figure which is 0.5% easier than 2016.

[graham frankland]

As long as we have the target time system we will need to monitor closely the actual times achieved in each novice class to ensure that the up lift factor we have applied is appropriate year on year.

It seems to make sense to me at the moment that Expert Times are the master reference grid and Novice Times are scaled from that. I guess it could be reversed in the future if we get a broader spread of Novices competing than we do Experts!

The championship is won by the highest number of points over 10 rounds not the one who has beaten the highest number of target times in the year!

Anyway if Paul's sub committee do actually find an alternative measurement and scoring system I am sure that there will be a whole new raft of issues to disagree with just for a change!

Graham