Target Times

[Mark Stanton]

QUOTE

it's always been the Comp sec, directors of WSCC Motorsport Ltd and SS mentors, plus anyone who wants to help.

      still applies and if you check all info that Comp Sec issues from start of season    

[Evo,s 7SE]

how about a radical way of thinking

fastest man or woman in each class gets most points 2nd fastest gets 2nd most points etc at the end of the year the person with most points wins if its a draw the one with the  most wins in there respective classes wins

the difference between 1st and last can be enormous in some classes and very close in others

why not keep it simple

[Mid life crisis]

Agree Evo!!! and Class winners become members of the SSOT to express the views of the competitors. In place of the secret society!

[V 8]

Class winners become members of the SSOT to express the views of the competitors.

If I'm not mistaken, I think you'll find they're mentors then  

[davidgh]

Despite its potential for shortcomings (which all systems have), I believe the 2010 scoring scheme is a significant step forward. Justifying that view is going to take another small dissertation though  --  sorry to those who like sound bites.

The starting points of my thinking are:

1. the nature of our championship

2. the principle of merit in a scoring system.

Our SS is a chapionship for amateur exponents of motorsport, many of whom are subject to financial or time constraints. We want a series where people can compete against friends in similar machinery. We therefore run a series which allows us to choose from seven classes and takes place at around thirty events over the year in various parts of the country  --  perfect for our target audience. In order to be able to do this we "borrow" other peoples sprints (all-but-one of the events are organised by other clubs).

However, we have around 75 active competitors who attend an average of about six events each  =  450 entries per year, or an average of 15 entries per round (split into 7 classes).

The Speed Series is the absolute antithesis of Bernie's jamboree where all competitors contest every round in only one class.

This brings me on to the principle of rewarding merit. The SS is a competition, therefore it seems logical that the class and championship points awarded should favour the best driver/car combinations. To do that, each competitor must be compared to a benchmark.

To date, we have used an internal benchmark (the time set by the second fastest SS class competitor on the day, which scores 16 points). 16 points earned in a class of 10 at Curborough is quite an achievement; to do that you have to have beaten 8 other similar cars on the day.

Unfortunately though, our average entry at an event is around 15 split between 7 classes  --  an average class entry of 2 . This means that, all to often, you are going to score 16 (or 16.5) points no matter what your merit  --  i.e. whether you are Rushpuff or Captain Slow  --  and it's very difficult to ascribe equal merit to those points and the 16 you might have richly deserved at Curby.

So, now we are looking at external benchmarks  --  times set by other people (hopefully not just WSCC people) in equivalent machinery at the same circuit. This will give real merit to the scores you get when you are lonely in your SS class on the day (which our series structure dictates will happen quite frequently) and is a major step forward. It means that your 16 points earned at Goodwood really will have the same merit as the 16 at Curby.

Clearly there are disadvantages, even if the target times are well judged. The main one is the question of track conditions on the day  --  and rain will inevitably mess up a few events' scoring. But, most events are dry  --  and I think that the problems are a small price to pay for a system which brings merit to every point scored in our very diverse SS.

Well done SSOT (whoever you are).

[GuyH]

Seems that all this concern with the overall championship award stems from a natural desire for the trophy to stand for something more than simply 'beating the rest of your class'. Everyone wants it to go to the 'right', the 'deserving' driver. Well given that it's a cross-class-handicap-trophy the system never has been, and surely never will be, more 'accurate' than picking a name out of a hat. Hit and miss.

Unless you want to go with Mr Hill's elegant idea of a few years back (to just remove the overall champ title completely) you just have to admit that at the end of the day it doesnt really mean very much. But so what ? It's just a bit of fun and a good excuse to take the mick out of very fast line-dancing types or jocks.  

The real competition is within the classes, and if this new system helps here by stopping people being penalised for only being able to compete at poorly attended rounds then great.

[V 8]

Well put David, you highlighted points that had evaded me, being more focussed on the low class entry disadvantages and the short/long, wet/dry anomalies of the past and proposed systems

The merit attributed to 16 points earned at Curby v Goodwood when substantially more than the requisite 3 entrants are present is a very relevant observation.

In addition, a description of any current course "benchmark" actually being the second fastest time had also eluded me until put in those terms.

[davidgh]

...short/long....anomalies

I do however still think it should not be beyond the wit of man (even SSOT man) to score percentage time differences rather than absolute seconds. As Annie correctly observes, being five seconds behind the leader on a 120s course like Pembrey clearly has more merit than being 5s behind on a 30s single lap of Curby.

[Matt Seabrook]

God I am glad I dont have to sort this lot out. Best of luck to the organisers.

[Mark Stanton]

"merit" perhaps - what that can also demonstrate is the more BHP one car has over another on such circuits with long straights, where power is key - surely whatever system is used, it's also about driver strategy to choose the optium circuit for their car / ability be that all out power long sprint circuits or tight twisty hill-climbs - the SS fixture list should provide sufficient diversity to ensure drivers can plan their events to suit, without being reliant on more than 3 from their class.

Also bear in mind that the SS is still a comparatively "young" championship and yet has become successful and respected    

[GuyH]

It's the puzzle that they like. Gives em something to do at xmas to try and work out how to measure one thing against another when you're not allowed to compare them in any way.

[Mark Stanton]

Rubiks cube was so much easier            

[davidgh]

what that can also demonstrate is the more BHP one car has over another

Gosh Mark, you'll be arguing for a cross-flow class soon

[Mark Stanton]

ssssssshhhhhhhhhh          

[mark.anson]

Despite its potential for shortcomings (which all systems have), I believe the 2010 scoring scheme is a significant step forward. Justifying that view is going to take another small dissertation though  --  sorry to those who like sound bites.

The starting points of my thinking are:

1. the nature of our championship

2. the principle of merit in a scoring system.

Our SS is a chapionship for amateur exponents of motorsport, many of whom are subject to financial or time constraints. We want a series where people can compete against friends in similar machinery. We therefore run a series which allows us to choose from seven classes and takes place at around thirty events over the year in various parts of the country  --  perfect for our target audience. In order to be able to do this we "borrow" other peoples sprints (all-but-one of the events are organised by other clubs).

However, we have around 75 active competitors who attend an average of about six events each  =  450 entries per year, or an average of 15 entries per round (split into 7 classes).

The Speed Series is the absolute antithesis of Bernie's jamboree where all competitors contest every round in only one class.

This brings me on to the principle of rewarding merit. The SS is a competition, therefore it seems logical that the class and championship points awarded should favour the best driver/car combinations. To do that, each competitor must be compared to a benchmark.

To date, we have used an internal benchmark (the time set by the second fastest SS class competitor on the day, which scores 16 points). 16 points earned in a class of 10 at Curborough is quite an achievement; to do that you have to have beaten 8 other similar cars on the day.

Unfortunately though, our average entry at an event is around 15 split between 7 classes  --  an average class entry of 2 . This means that, all to often, you are going to score 16 (or 16.5) points no matter what your merit  --  i.e. whether you are Rushpuff or Captain Slow  --  and it's very difficult to ascribe equal merit to those points and the 16 you might have richly deserved at Curby.

So, now we are looking at external benchmarks  --  times set by other people (hopefully not just WSCC people) in equivalent machinery at the same circuit. This will give real merit to the scores you get when you are lonely in your SS class on the day (which our series structure dictates will happen quite frequently) and is a major step forward. It means that your 16 points earned at Goodwood really will have the same merit as the 16 at Curby.

Clearly there are disadvantages, even if the target times are well judged. The main one is the question of track conditions on the day  --  and rain will inevitably mess up a few events' scoring. But, most events are dry  --  and I think that the problems are a small price to pay for a system which brings merit to every point scored in our very diverse SS.

Well done SSOT (whoever you are).

Well said David.