Solo 1 Scoring & Classification Proposal

[lowrider]

I have given quite a bit of thought to our current scoring mechanism and here are a few of the notions I have come up with so far:

A scoring system must be clear and concise but it must also represent the fundamental aims of the motor sport organization in question. I believe the goal of Solo 1 should be to combine both speed and overall consistency.

Firstly then, every participant involved in Solo 1 should have a clear understanding of the ‘points’ system and its implications for the outcome of any event and/or the season overall. I believe, at present, we would be hard pressed to find a dozen people from the Solo 1 community who could accurately convey how the existing calculations are derived, what they really mean, and how they might affect the drivers. This is a major problem. Anyone of us should be able to give another person a quick breakdown of the championship points scoring system within two minutes or less. It shouldn’t have to be ‘rocket science’.

Secondly, if we are looking to measure both consistency of lap times and the fastest single lap for any given driver, I believe I have a simple and fair solution:

In the ‘one hot lap’ scenario our calculations are quite simple; we use the best time of the day for any given competitor in their respective class.

Scoring:

Competitors will receive points for their respective finishes according to their best lap times of the day within their various classes as follows:

1st Place 10 points
2nd Place 8 points
3rd Place 6 points
4th Place 5 points
5th Place 4 points
6th Place 3 points
7th Place 2 points
8th Place 1 point

If you are in a class with more than 8 competitors and you do not finish within the top 8 you do not receive any points towards the overall championship.

We are, however, as a racing organization also looking for ‘consistency’. Hence, we should also give points to the top eight competitors in each class for smoothness as follows: We simply take the average time of each competitor’s best six laps and place the drivers in accordance from fastest average lap time to slowest within each class. If for some reason a driver cannot complete at least six laps throughout the course of the day, that driver should not be eligible for consistency points on that day. Again, placing points for consistency should be handed out as follows:

1st Place 10 points
2nd Place 8 points
3rd Place 6 points
4th Place 5 points
5th Place 4 points
6th Place 3 points
7th Place 2 points
8th Place 1 point

Therefore, it should be possible for a competitor to achieve a maximum of 20 points at any given Solo 1 event; 10 points for having the fastest single lap in their respective class, and, 10 points for obtaining the fastest average time in that same class by way of calculating the average of that driver’s 6 best laps.

In theory then, a driver who accidentally comes up with one amazing lap will not necessarily benefit by accumulating many ‘consistency’ points towards the overall championship.

At the end of the year each driver’s six best results from both ‘hot lap’ and ‘consistency’ points totals will be used to calculate the overall scores and rankings. This system will clearly determine how a driver places within his or her specific class and it will also give the Solo 1 community a very clear and understandable points system with which to calculate the rankings of all of the participants overall.

If at any given event several drivers from different classes have the same points totals, the overall placing can be determined by calculating which driver’s 6 ‘consistency’ laps are closest to his or her actual ‘fastest’ lap. The competitor whose average of 6 laps is closest in time to their actual fastest lap of the day places first overall and so on. This calculation can easily be determined by dividing a driver’s 6 lap average time by his or her fastest lap time of the day.

I believe this would be a fair and equitable way of scoring the Solo 1 Championships.

Some additional issues:

We all know how hard organizers work to help out with our Solo 1 events. Every participant is grateful and thankful for those efforts and we are all fortunate to have had individuals step up to the plate to help carry the load. That said, I would like to propose that ‘org’ points be handed out to organizers as an average of their best 6 results throughout the season and not as simple victories. In this way we are allowing organizers to drop their worst or ‘sixth’ score and giving them the opportunity to replace that lesser score with an average which will still be superior but will not reflect poorly upon the drivers who actually drove in the event throughout the day.

Classifications:

There should be two main groups of classifications: Street Legal vehicles and Non-Street Legal vehicles. The primary sub-groups within both of these two main groups should be AWD and 2WD. After that, vehicles should be placed into classification by power to weight ratios only. Every competitor should have his or her car dyno-tested and weighed at the beginning of every season. There should be no need for ‘pips’ for suspension mods or anything else. Every car will be determined to be either street legal or not, four-wheel drive or not, and weighed and dyno-tested for placing into classification.

Thank you for reading.

Please understand that these are just thoughts. I am interested in everyone’s feedback. I am really only looking to make Solo 1 better in a fair and competitive manner for all of its participants.

Thanks again.

[ScotcH]

comment 1: Averaging is not a good measure of consitency. For that you need to use standard deviation or something.

comment 2: The current classification system works pretty well ... I don't think anyone is talking about completely replacing it, just meybe tweaking it a bit.

[MazdaMatt]

Originally Posted by lowrider

I believe the goal of Solo 1 should be to combine both speed and overall consistency.

I believe the goal of Solo1 should be a competition of speed. We're running time trials aren't we?

[lowrider]

Originally Posted by MazdaMatt

I believe the goal of Solo1 should be a competition of speed. We're running time trials aren't we?

Either way, the scoring mechanism is sound and much simpler than the existing method.

[James Mewett]

Originally Posted by lowrider

A scoring system must be clear and concise but it must also represent the fundamental aims of the motor sport organization in question. I believe the goal of Solo 1 should be to combine both speed and overall consistency.

SoloSprint results are based on best lap time (speed) and consistency is used to break ties.

Originally Posted by lowrider

I believe, at present, we would be hard pressed to find a dozen people from the Solo 1 community who could accurately convey how the existing calculations are derived, what they really mean, and how they might affect the drivers. This is a major problem. Anyone of us should be able to give another person a quick breakdown of the championship points scoring system within two minutes or less.

The winner of your class gets 100 points. Your points are 100 x his best time / your best time.

If your best time is 5% slower than his, you get a score of 95%.

Actually, only a dozen people in SoloSprint don't know this.

Originally Posted by lowrider

Secondly, if we are looking to measure both consistency of lap times and the fastest single lap for any given driver, I believe I have a simple and fair solution:

Actually, I think you overestimate the interest in consistency. I think most SoloSprint competitors would say that the fastest car in a class should win - period. The backup score is only a necessary evil to break ties.

Originally Posted by lowrider

We all know how hard organizers work to help out with our Solo 1 events. Every participant is grateful and thankful for those efforts and we are all fortunate to have had individuals step up to the plate to help carry the load. That said, I would like to propose that ‘org’ points be handed out to organizers as an average of their best 6 results throughout the season and not as simple victories. In this way we are allowing organizers to drop their worst or ‘sixth’ score and giving them the opportunity to replace that lesser score with an average which will still be superior but will not reflect poorly upon the drivers who actually drove in the event throughout the day.

I don't know who invented organizer points, but they were brilliant. What better way to encourage the keeners to get involved with the running of events. They don't reflect poorly on the drivers because they don't get scored in the days results, only in the overall.

Originally Posted by lowrider

There should be two main groups of classifications: Street Legal vehicles and Non-Street Legal vehicles. The primary sub-groups within both of these two main groups should be AWD and 2WD. After that, vehicles should be placed into classification by power to weight ratios only. Every competitor should have his or her car dyno-tested and weighed at the beginning of every season. There should be no need for ‘pips’ for suspension mods or anything else. Every car will be determined to be either street legal or not, four-wheel drive or not, and weighed and dyno-tested for placing into classification.

These distinctions are completely arbitrary with no relationship with performance potential. How would this be interesting or fair? Suspension tuning has more to do with lap times than power, but is completely ignored by your proposal.

[lowrider]

Originally Posted by James Mewett

These distinctions are completely arbitrary with no relationship with performance potential. How would this be interesting or fair? Suspension tuning has more to do with lap times than power, but is completely ignored by your proposal.

How can you possibly say that distinguishing between street legal cars and non-street legal or 'gutted' racing cars has "no relationship with performance potential" or that it is "arbitrary"? For that matter, how can you deny that classifying all wheel drive cars separately is performance related. Well it's nice to know that none of my ideas carry any weight with you. Thanks.

[dubya_rx]

Originally Posted by James Mewett

Actually, I think you overestimate the interest in consistency. I think most SoloSprint competitors would say that the fastest car in a class should win - period. The backup score is only a necessary evil to break ties.

I'll agree with all of your points except that one. backup points have ALWAYS determined the actual winner at any event I have participated in. If no one gets propositioned there are as many 100 point finishers as there are full classes. Thus most of the top three (or more) overall results are determined by backup times.

Granted it has never affected me personally because I have never won my class.

-Walter

[craig]

First of all, if rocket science is better, why not?

I do agree that the scoring system is a bit much - but to me, not a rocket scientist, the only mildly confusing part is when PAX rears its head.

The fundamental change that you are proposing is rewarding speed and consistency, rather than rewarding speed over consistency, as it is now. I believe that such a change is an entirely different kind of competition. I do not mind if separate events reward speed and consistency - SPDA ran a series like that a few years ago IIRC, and MCO scores (scored?) its 'Snowcross' series on consistency as well. In both cases, I believe, the times were just added up. Summing does what you do with your scoring, but is easier to implement and understand. However, I don't think scoring that way is SoloSprint.

Classification: The best way to check a classification idea is to take a bunch of existing cars, class them, and see what comes out. I suspect that you'll find that your system results in a greater proportion of competitors with 'there's one car to have for this class' syndrome.

BTW, my gutted, caged, car is street legal. The rules, as written, do encourage the installation of cages. That was the intent of the rulemakers, IIRC. I'm not saying this is still right or wrong, but there do have to be compelling reasons/advantages to change from the status quo.

In essence, I only see the changes you have proposed; where is the rationale or case made for the changes? Why are these changes better?

[James Mewett]

Originally Posted by lowrider

Well it's nice to know that none of my ideas carry any weight with you. Thanks.

Hey, I drafted the rule book for the last couple of years, so you have to expect that I am rather attached to it. For many of us stability in the rules is highly desired. We have spent considerable effort optimizing our cars for the current rules and don't relish the idea of wholesale changes that will require us to do the same again. Also, we have bought into the time trial = fastest car wins model. If you fundamentally change that, we are talking about a different sport. I would bet that with very few exceptions, SoloSprint competitors would rather be fast than be consistent.

Craig's post has a good suggestion for anyone interesting in changing the status quo - score an event (or the season) using your suggested rule change and show us how it produces a better result. If you have a theory about a better method YOU should be prepared to show that it actually works better with real examples.

[Dave Barker]

Originally Posted by lowrider

We all know how hard organizers work to help out with our Solo 1 events. Every participant is grateful and thankful for those efforts and we are all fortunate to have had individuals step up to the plate to help carry the load. That said, I would like to propose that ‘org’ points be handed out to organizers as an average of their best 6 results throughout the season and not as simple victories.

Mike, organizers do NOT get victories but get to match their best finishes. Having a new ( to me ) car and the series champ in my class meant no class wins at all this season and no 100 point events including the one I organized.

Believe me, even with the matching of your best finish points, people are not lining up to organize. We need a pretty big carrot.

[lowrider]

Originally Posted by Dave Barker

Mike, organizers do NOT get victories but get to match their best finishes. Having a new ( to me ) car and the series champ in my class meant no class wins at all this season and no 100 point events including the one I organized.

Believe me, even with the matching of your best finish points, people are not lining up to organize. We need a pretty big carrot.

Sure, I understand. It was just a thought. I'm kind of thinking out loud on a variety of issues here.

[lowrider]

Originally Posted by James Mewett

Hey, I drafted the rule book for the last couple of years, so you have to expect that I am rather attached to it. For many of us stability in the rules is highly desired. We have spent considerable effort optimizing our cars for the current rules and don't relish the idea of wholesale changes that will require us to do the same again. Also, we have bought into the time trial = fastest car wins model. If you fundamentally change that, we are talking about a different sport. I would bet that with very few exceptions, SoloSprint competitors would rather be fast than be consistent.

James, I know and understand that you guys have worked hard to perfect the current system. I'm just throwing out some ideas here, nothing more. Your post made it sound like I have nothing good to offer here; I don't think that's true. If SoloSprint really is about the fatsest lap then why don't we score points throughout each classification as they do in F1: 10 points for a win, 8 points for second, 6 points for third, and so on? We could easily use each competitor's second fastest time to slot people due to 'ties' in the overall points race.

If competitors are truly interested in the fastest lap scenario, then why don't we have a scoring mechanism which 'places' them according to their victories and/or second and third place finishes etc.? At present, the overall scoring mechanism is skewed to negate the importance of event placings as they accumulate throughout the year.

[Slowpoke]

Originally Posted by lowrider

James, I know and understand that you guys have worked hard to perfect the current system. I'm just throwing out some ideas here, nothing more. Your post made it sound like I have nothing good to offer here; I don't think that's true. If SoloSprint really is about the fatsest lap then why don't we score points throughout each classification as they do in F1: 10 points for a win, 8 points for second, 6 points for third, and so on? We could easily use each competitor's second fastest time to slot people due to 'ties' in the overall points race.

Your system depends on creating fewer classes so that there is never an underfilled class.

The idea of Solosprint is to be accessible at a Grassroots level. We want a class system where a guy can show up with a Hyundai Accent and be competitive with his driving skills, yet still accomodate the guys who've been in the sport for years and have developed safe (caged), wonderfully handling cars. Fewer classes mean that Mr. Accent might end up in a class where he'll NEVER have a chance to win, and Ms. Racecar would constantly clean up in a class where 98% of the participants are in less prepared cars. You'd end up with a greater percentage of unhappy people.

So with the multiple classes we have, people finish the year, they wait for discussion/release of rule changes, plan their modifications for winter to start the spring with a PIP level of X9.9 to be maxed out in their class, then act on that. To say the least, people resist changes to that system or classing is an understatement because changes generally cost them money to stay competitive.

The system constantly needs tweaking, and I DON'T want to turn someone away from Solosprint because I think that if you continue work with this series, it's the best place to be. But, if you want a lot simpler classing, there is www.cscs.ca . More scenery at those events, too. You can easily do both series as well.

Your Points per class will only exacerbate what we see now in classes with few participants... that it can be easy for a good driver to rack up a 100% if there aren't enough competitors out there... that's where event PAX comes into play. Your 10 points for a class win wouldn't solve that.

And using raw times to break ties would favour the faster (more expensive) cars... you'd still have to end up developing a new kind of pax system for this as well.

You can get a 2 point gap at each event between 1st and 2nd place with the current system... but lord you have to earn it!! If you think about it, that's actually how John was able to wrest that class win from you... A decisive win on one day.

[James Mewett]

Originally Posted by lowrider

If SoloSprint really is about the fatsest lap then why don't we score points throughout each classification as they do in F1: 10 points for a win, 8 points for second, 6 points for third, and so on? We could easily use each competitor's second fastest time to slot people due to 'ties' in the overall points race.

If competitors are truly interested in the fastest lap scenario, then why don't we have a scoring mechanism which 'places' them according to their victories and/or second and third place finishes etc.? At present, the overall scoring mechanism is skewed to negate the importance of event placings as they accumulate throughout the year.

The race mentality is second place is first loser. This is ok when all the cars are on the track at the same time and winning means crossing the line first. In time trialling second place could mean 0.001 seconds slower or 1 second slower. Shouldn't someone who is 0.001 seconds slower be rewarded more than someone is 1 second slower in a series scored in seconds?

This is particularly true when we are comparing classes in the overall standings. If you are the guy who was in second place by 0.001 seconds, do you want your result to count the same in the overall as the buy in another class who was second place by 1 second? If he was a consistent 1 second off the pace, he could in fact beat you in the overall standings based on your proposal while truly he is uncompetitive.

[lowrider]

Originally Posted by Slowpoke

Your system depends on creating fewer classes so that there is never an underfilled class.

The idea of Solosprint is to be accessible at a Grassroots level. We want a class system where a guy can show up with a Hyundai Accent and be competitive with his driving skills, yet still accomodate the guys who've been in the sport for years and have developed safe (caged), wonderfully handling cars. Fewer classes mean that Mr. Accent might end up in a class where he'll NEVER have a chance to win, and Ms. Racecar would constantly clean up in a class where 98% of the participants are in less prepared cars. You'd end up with a greater percentage of unhappy people.

So with the multiple classes we have, people finish the year, they wait for discussion/release of rule changes, plan their modifications for winter to start the spring with a PIP level of X9.9 to be maxed out in their class, then act on that. To say the least, people resist changes to that system or classing is an understatement because changes generally cost them money to stay competitive.

The system constantly needs tweaking, and I DON'T want to turn someone away from Solosprint because I think that if you continue work with this series, it's the best place to be. But, if you want a lot simpler classing, there is www.cscs.ca . More scenery at those events, too. You can easily do both series as well.

Your Points per class will only exacerbate what we see now in classes with few participants... that it can be easy for a good driver to rack up a 100% if there aren't enough competitors out there... that's where event PAX comes into play. Your 10 points for a class win wouldn't solve that.

And using raw times to break ties would favour the faster (more expensive) cars... you'd still have to end up developing a new kind of pax system for this as well.

You can get a 2 point gap at each event between 1st and 2nd place with the current system... but lord you have to earn it!! If you think about it, that's actually how John was able to wrest that class win from you... A decisive win on one day.

You make some excellent points. To be honest, my thoughts on classification were something of an afterthought but they are not without merit. I realize that the organizers must make concessions due to the prolifery of classes in Solo 1 but this is the crux of my discussion:

In motorsport nobody cares if you are 2nd by one tenth of a second or one minute. You are second, that's all there is to it. The same can be said of the difference between third and fourth etc. When you look at any podium in motor racing, it does not say "97.3% of first" underneath the driver who is standing on the second tier. A scoring system must give equal merit to points given for every respective placing in every class.

The current points system might give one driver 98.3 points for second in GT1 while giving another driver 99.4 points for finishing in the same position in GT2. Nowhere in motor racing is this an acceptable method of measuring finishing positions.

With this system a driver could conceivably finish a 'close' second in four or five of his or her best races and upset the overall standings by having only one great event and creating, for example, a two second gap between himself and the second place competitor. That is not an acceptable outcome in any form of motor sport. There has to be a system which allows competitors to fairly and equitably compete amongst each other within their given classes without skewing the results in an effort to achieve an 'overall' score. The current points system gives less merit to a drivers' six best placings throughout the season. In my view, that is an unacceptable scoring mechanism.

I am not saying that I have all the answers here, I know I don't. What I am saying is that this current scoring system creates many anomolies which are contrary to the true spirit of motor sport and this is certainly worthy of examination and revision.