Target Times For 2017

[B.RAD]

I hear what you're saying John and I'm sure the team would be happy to make changes if a solution can be put forward that doesn't raise issues elsewhere.  It sounds like some really good ideas have been put forward here, perhaps the proposers could volunteer for the SSOT and get involved?

[B.RAD]

1 hour ago, John said:

 

I think John's times were excluded because his engine was a 2.2 litre.

As to being too late to debate 2017s regs, its only the target times which we are debating and not the regs. Target times can change at any point through the year unlike the regs which are approved by the MSA before the season starts

Yes I understand that to be the reason too, but wonder if they've been removed from the calcs for 2017? The Anglesey TT's suggest they may have been left in as technically the class D record should be mine, not Johns.

[John Williams (Panda) - Joint Manchester AO]

Speaking Openly: as I always try to do Terry and Graham have put hours this year into this and had to present to the committee; we know that Target Times have flaws; but with being new to the role and such shot notice it was agreed it was the system to use for 2017 was Target Times.

I know some people think "Terry Times" exist and the team have tried to avoid them where they can; but sometime a calculated time is needed;

We have problems over class records; number of classes etc... 

2018 is the year we will look and see if that TT are the way forward; I know that @terry everall, @graham frankland & @Nick - Joint North East AO have done a brilliant job.

[John Loudon - Sponsorship Liaison]

5 minutes ago, terry everall said:

John

You are incorrect as we do not have a record or TT for every class at all events

In which case I apologise for my error but can you give an example?

[John Loudon - Sponsorship Liaison]

11 hours ago, John Williams - WSCC Competition Secretary said:

Speaking Openly: as I always try to do Terry and Graham have put hours this year into this and had to present to the committee; we know that Target Times have flaws; but with being new to the role and such shot notice it was agreed it was the system to use for 2017 was Target Times.

I know some people think "Terry Times" exist and the team have tried to avoid them where they can; but sometime a calculated time is needed;

We have problems over class records; number of classes etc... 

2018 is the year we will look and see if that TT are the way forward; I know that @terry everall, @graham frankland & @Nick - Joint North East AO have done a brilliant job.

I don't think any of us dispute the hard work put in by those that you have mentioned. However, the published list of target times has artificially set times for classes where they already existed, for example, class E at Anglesey, Aintree and Pembrey. The times that I set at these venues this year were new event class records (and obviously also new TTs) but for some reason they have been reduced by a further 3+ seconds for some reason related to calculations. What was the point of that when a realistic time already existed?  Fine if no time did exist but that's not the case. If someone wanted to do well in class E next year then they would have to break the event record by more than 3 seconds to do so? Realistic? I don't think so....

[John Williams (Panda) - Joint Manchester AO]

1 minute ago, John said:

I don't think any of us dispute the hard work put in by those that you have mentioned. However, the published list of target times has artificially set times for classes where they already existed, for example, class E at Anglesey, Aintree and Pembrey. The times that I set at these venues this year were new event class records (and obviously also new TTs) but for some reason they have been reduced by a further 3+ seconds for some reason related to calculations. What was the point of that when a realistic time already existed. Fine if no time did exist but that's not the case. If someone wanted to do well in class E next year then they would have to break the event record by more than 3 seconds to do so? Realistic? I don't think so....

 

@John I think there have been a few where a genuine mistakes have been made (and we need to know where they are)... I'll have a chat with the team and see how the Time was set either record or calculated.

cheers

 

john "panda"

 

[Terry Everall]

John I think your statement that" I think there have been a few where genuine mistakes have been made " comes as a surprise to myself and Graham

[Terry Everall]

2 hours ago, BCF said:

Yes I understand that to be the reason too, but wonder if they've been removed from the calcs for 2017? The Anglesey TT's suggest they may have been left in as technically the class D record should be mine, not Johns.

Barny

John  times for class D in 2014 and 2015 have not been used fro records or TTs

His times for Anglesey in 2013 were legitimate and thats were the records and TTs come from as they are quicker than you achieved in 2016

[XTR2Turbo]

I of course was joking with 'Terry Times' as we all appreciate the huge amount of effort Terry and others put in.

But I think what a lot of the comments highlight is that the reasoning is known to Terry and not publicly.  Perhaps the setting process could be more scientific and transparent

If the reasoning could be shared without everyone calling Terry or Graham for a chat it might help.  I think when anyone has done this they are satisfied with the explanation afterwards

With modern technology its quite easy in a spreadsheet to add a comment and a red triangle appears that anyone could see.  e.g. John Hoyle record 2013 etc.

 

[Barry S]

Hi Terry

Just for accuracy, John had the big engine at Anglesey (provided we are talking Sept) in 2013, I know cos I broke the gearbox trying to keep up!!

So my times were shall we say S***,,,,

Cheers

Barry

[Nick Algar - Competition Secretary]

On 15/12/2016 at 17:40, woodman said:

For me ,( my initial thoughts) the main problem with 'First past the post system' is that there is often only one or two cars in your Speed series  class on the day . So without a Hard/competitive TT you can just have a bit of a cruise and score max points.

Also ,if you are in a not very well supported class in the SS,but you drive up the hill/track like a demon you can still score good points on the day with the TT system

As an example, I remember when Ash Mason was competing . Ash set and broke National records at most events but because there was virtually no one else in his SS class he was unable to score highly.

Rich Kerrs idea of bonus point for breaking record does help this though and could be introduced into this or most other systems

I know the debate has gone a bit beyond the comment I am about to make. But just so there is a full understanding of some of the History.

Stu's comments above are exactly why we moved to Target Times, to try and have a system where the Overall Champion who was an excellent driver and recognised as such by his/her fellow competitors.

It also has the advantage that a single competitor in a class can go to an event and score decent points. Under the previous system which rewarded big class turn out this did not happen.

However as this debate has pointed out actually deciding the Target Times is an almost impossible task, where no matter who does it. You will never please all of the people all of the time. As has been pointed out we have tried wherever possible to use the actual class records as the Target. In fact during 2016 we tried to do this as much as possible. It does leave the problem that a apparently "slower" class can sometimes have a faster time than the "faster" class depending on which competitor sets the time.

In my Personal view it's not a perfect system and I would really like to see a better system, but have really struggled to actually get something that is any better. The complexity of it being a big bugbear, probably of everyone's.

I have also got the say that "setting the targets" is an awful and very difficult task and one which I personally hated having to do. As I said above you will never please everyone all of the time. If you take one approach then you end up with one class looking odd, so then you try another approach and this kicks up some other class as having odd times. So I have a great deal of sympathy for those that do the job. 

Hope that helps with the history, even if it doesn't solve the current issue. Good luck.

[maurici]

I really appreciatte all the explanations that have been done.

First when I saw the TT and i wrote my first "moaning" I had to write it 4 times, as my lack of fluenty, and understanding was making me write wierd things. I ended with something quite polite at the end i think... (it was an effort from my side tring to moan in a polite way in english, as saing "what the devil" is allways easyer)

Now, after all this debate, at least, I understand how the things are being done. I may be agree or not... Actually I think nobody is, but thanks to all the patient explanations of terry and all the SS comite now all we have a bit more clear view about how things are done.

To be fair, no matter if im happy or not with the system, as I'm UNABLE to find a better way to do it without changing the spirit and the diversity of the series. My only proposal would be that we should leave the times alone, and after several years, they may be realistic times. Also have the strong conviction that the class records stablished in dry, should be respected.

Anyway, thanks Gents for you effort trying to make a fair sistem. I would not like to be in your position, as I told you I cant thing in something that would really make me happy... leave alone, make everybody happy.

Cherrs.

Maurici. (fashon award 2016)

[woodman]

I am not sure why the formulas of

A<C<E<G

B<D<F<H

are not still being used though?

[mark.anson]

As I mentioned earlier there is a sub commitee which includes myself who will be looking at alternative scoring systems and will be evaluating these next year.

ITo repeat my earlier post that does NOT mean we will change from the TT system if the future as that will be a decision to be made once other systems have been evaluated. We may well find what we have is the least imperfect system after all but we won't know if there's anything better  until we explore them.

Dont forget the whole issue is about finding a simple, fair scoring system that is still gives the regular competitor something to aim for whilst not putting new competitors from joining the SS and after all there is no denying there has been a slow decline in the numbers competing in recent years.

There is some evidence to show there was quite a reduction after targets were introduced but clearly there are a whole combination of reasons such as the economy and the MSA debacle over ROPS and tyres.

There is s lot to consider I all this.

For the record I competed under the old " first on the day" system so I'm fully aware of the advantages and disadvantages of such a system.

We already have some alternative ideas for alternative scoring systems to evaluate and as previously mentioned we will be meeting very early in the new year to decide what systems we are going to look at and to decide how we are actually going to go about evaluating them.

What we won't do is start looking at ideas debated on here.

Clearly we can't stop anyone fielding an idea on the forum ( and neither would we want to) however, there has to be set process so therefore will only consider sensible suggestions formally submitted via John Williams at the Comp Sec email address. He in turn can pass them to the sub commitee for discussion and consideration. 

Therefore if you have any ideas on how the current system can be made simpler or better or thoughts on alternative scoring methods then please let us have them. 

In light of some of the earlier " Terry time" comments, it won't have gone unnoticed by a few ( and I've heard comments to the same) that I compete in a single seater in class J and therefore may question why I'm on a committee making decisions on Westfields. My personal view is that I have no vested interest in any of the Westfield classes so therefore hopefully avoids any suggestions that any decisions I influence on the commitee are made to the benefit of any of any particular class and are therefore impartial. 

For the benefit some of the newer competitors I competed in the Speed Series for 10 Years in class F and G of the SS under both scoring systems so do have a bit of an incite of how the SS works. 

Mark 

[Terry Everall]

10 hours ago, woodman said:

I am not sure why the formulas of

A<C<E<G

B<D<F<H

are not still being used though?

Stu.

Since that approach was used things have changed. It was comparing CECs and then BECs separately but now classes E,F, G and H have BECs as well as CECs. 

We still look at cars getting quicker as they go from C<D<E<F<G<H