Running a large pack derby

[leadsled]

1st time poster, long term lurker....

Let me provide some details of our derby. Our pack has a total of 13 dens, with a total of 124 boys (and nearly all will race). We run head-to-head racing, with electronic finsh line displaying finish order only ( 1st & 2nd - no record of ET).

We have 2 2-lane tracks (one track runs the winners bracket, the other the loser's bracket) and each den will run double elimination, best 2 of 3 runs in each heat. Winner of the loser's bracket advances back to the winner's bracket for den finals. We award 1st, 2nd, and 3rd for each den, but only the 1st place finisher from each den will race in the pack finals.

The pack finals will be run in the same manner, with only the winner from each den competing (total of 13). Our rules for this year's derby have already been sent out (with kits), but my questions is, can there be a better method, while preserving den level racing?

We also have a turtle bracket, and this gets quite entertaining as many boys strive for the slowest car. Each den has a slowest car. Any car that won a best 2 of 3 heat is ineligible. So our pack turtle champ will have lost every match along the way.

[Darin McGrew]

What criteria are important to you for determining whether a method is "better"?

Here are some things that I would consider.

I'd start by questioning double elimination, especially if you're going to award anything but first and second place. Any n-elimination system can award only the top n places with any accuracy. If you want to stick with an elimination system, then you need to match the number of eliminations to the number of awards.

What is the reason behind the "best 2 of 3" system? You run three times as many heats, and if the difference between cars is less than the difference between lanes, then it still comes down to which car gets the fast lane (in the third run). You get just as much accuracy and fairness with a single run, with random lane assignment. This allows you to finish earlier, or to race each car against more opponents.

How deep are you awarding the pack-level prizes? If you're awarding more than first place, does it concern you that the second-fastest car in the pack might be in the same den as the fastest car, and never make it to the pack-level finals?

[leadsled]

Darin,

Thanks for your reply. By better, I guess I'm looking for alternatives to keep the race day fair and simple.

We utilize dub-elim format as it is fairly simple for the boys (& paretns) to understand. Our boys check in their cars (no parents at the check-in) and stage their own cars on the track. They also follow their advancement through the brackets as their completed. Dub-elim is a bit flawed, but straight-forward for our boys. Now that I think about it, we have an additional set of heats to help determine 2nd, 3rd, and 4th places (at the den and pack levels).

Our best 2 of 3 is our way of allowing for lane inequity, but it's not perfect. If a heat goes to a 3rd run, a coin toss determines lane selection. The other flaw is that one of our tracks runs distinctly different from the other, and can yield some inconsistencies. One track is for our loser's bracket, and the other four our winners bracket. I am contemplating using our faster track exclusively for both winner and loser brackets for our pack championship. Alas, this will slow us down considerably, but we do have the room for the whole day.

As for your last point, I have wrestled with this scenario. last year, one of our 2nd yr webelo dens was extremely competitive with virtually each heat requiring 3 runs. the winner of this den finished 2nd in the pack championships, but the 2nd place car from that den would likely have taken 3rd at the pack level. But where do you draw the line for qualifying for the pack championship? 1st & 2nd from each den? or 1-3 from each den?

Definitely a handful of issues for us. Thanks for your input.

[Stan Pope]

Do I understand correctly that each "heat" of the DE is really a best two out of three runs matching the same two cars on alternating lanes?

The usual way of doing this, i.e. the boy that wins 2 runs advances and the other drops to the next lower bracket, adds almost nothing to the accuracy at the cost of considerable time. If the cars are more closely matched than the lanes, it is still the (hopefully random) assignment of lane advantage that decides the result. The time cost is more than just the extra runs, because the same racers can't be staging their cars until they retrieve them and walk them back to the starting line. With single run per, the next heat can be staging as soon as the current heat is released from the starting gate!

My preference is to allow each youngster a wider range of opponents and run a quad elim, one run per on random lane assignment, instead of DE.

[Darin McGrew]

We've never had a problem with kids/parents not understanding our race method (a PPN variation). I simply explain that we schedule every car to race twice in each lane, against as many different opponents as possible, and that we compare each car's overall results in all 8 races.

If your awards go down to fourth place, then you could use quadruple elimination. Stan wrote a document describing the no-chart multiple-elimination method: http://members.aol.com/StanDCmr/nelim.html

It will take more heats than double elimination, but if you replace the "best 2 of 3 runs" heats with "single run" heats, then you should be able to run quadruple elimination with about the same number of runs, and take about the same amount of time.

Our best 2 of 3 is our way of allowing for lane inequity, but it's not perfect. If a heat goes to a 3rd run, a coin toss determines lane selection.

The coin toss allows for lane inequity. The first two runs merely determine whether you need a coin toss. Why not just cut to the chase and have a single run with a coin toss for lane selection?

[Stan Pope]

You don't say anything about qualifying entrants to a district or council derby, so this may not apply. If you do qualify, as my grandson's council does, three racers per pack, then the stakes in the pack race are raised and dropping the den's 2nd and 3rd place finishers does create an inequity and underrepresents your pack in the district/council derby.

[Stan Pope]

Darin,

We are thinking so much alike it's scarey! Guess you've been a good influence on me!

[Darin McGrew]

Guess you've been a good influence on me!

Back at 'ya...

[Pack 187]

leadsled

Not that this is the preferred way of doing things, but it is an alternative to running best 2 out of 3. We do a similar lane swap but run 2 races per heat. If one boy each has a win, they both advance.

On a similar note: We just had a meeting to discuss how we would run our race this year. I laid out all of the options but couldn't get away from the "that's the way we've alway done it" attitude. All was not lost, we are going to change from double elim to triple elim this year to improve some on the place standings (4th and 5th won't be as accurate though). With only 27 boys in the pack, we can obviously afford the extra time.

[RMoose]

With 2E, there will be at least one racer whose car loses both races. Using the best 2 out of 3 method, he will make 4, maybe 6 runs down the track against two opponents.

Using a 3E, single run method he will make 3 runs against 3 opponents.

Now, which do you think would be the most satisfying situation for that boy? More runs against fewer opponents, or fewer runs against more opponents?

We are considering using the 3E, single run method this year to race apx. 50 kids within the 2 hr. time slot I have to fit our race into - so this is the question I have been pondering.

[Darin McGrew]

IMHO, the single-run 3E (or 4E) is much better than best-2-of-3-runs 2E.

With 3E, fewer cars lose every heat. With 4E, even fewer cars lose every heat.

And for those who do lose every heat, it's better to lose 3 runs to 3 different opponents (or 4 runs to 4 different opponents) than to lose 4 runs to 2 different opponents.

[Stan Pope]

With 2E, there will be at least one racer whose car loses both races. Using the best 2 out of 3 method, he will make 4, maybe 6 runs down the track against two opponents.

Using a 3E, single run method he will make 3 runs against 3 opponents.

Now, which do you think would be the most satisfying situation for that boy? More runs against fewer opponents, or fewer runs against more opponents?

We are considering using the 3E, single run method this year to race apx. 50 kids within the 2 hr. time slot I have to fit our race into - so this is the question I have been pondering.

Well, ponder this along with your other thoughts:
With 50 cars ...
Basic DE takes 109 heats with best chart + 1 to 2 final heats.
Your DE variation takes 218 to 327 heats with best chart. + 1 to 2 finals
3E on 2 lanes takes 162 heats + 2 to 4 final heats
4E on 2 lanes takes 224 heats + 3 to 6 final heats
5E on 2 lanes takes 281 heats + 4 to 8 final heats.
3,r, and 5E races take place about as fast as the cars can be staged and the boys get to the finish line.
Your DE variation inserts aditional wait for running the race, retrieving the car, returning it to the starting line for 1/2 to 2/3 of the heats!

You can easily run an 4E in the time you will spend; probably a 5E!

[RMoose]

Thanks Darin and Stan for your feedback, you have basically confirmed my own thinking on the preference of 4E (or 3E) vs. 2E.

I know from the rules that have been sent out that our association and state races will use a 2E format and likely the above mentioned best 2 out of 3 runs per race, hence my interest in that method. I can't do anything about that, but I do want the best experience possible for the race I can control, which will be our local race.

My biggest concern has been the time limitation of finishing all racing in 2 hours. I have gone through a few simulated races using a 3E, no chart format and as Stan says, it seems to move along fairly quickly.

Next challenge will be to get my assistants up to speed on this method. I forsee the need for a few practice sessions!

[leadsled]

Great discussion here! I know there are a lot of possibilities, and I may try to get some changes in place.

Stan - Our district in Dayton, OH allows the top 4 finishers from each pack, but one must be a tiger. Fortunately, the last several years, we've had a tiger finish in the top 4. We have 3 tiger dens this year (each w/ 10-12 boys), so we should likely see a top performer out of that group.

If we stick to our traditional championship format, we'll have 13 boys competing for those spots. If we open it up to 2nd or 3rd in each den, we'll be expanding the championship bracket by a multiple of 13 for each, to as many as 39. Expanding the championship bracket is likely my only chance to make a change this year - our rules are already distributed. This change won't adversely affect anyone, and won't require a dramatic departure from previous years' events.

A point to clarify - at the den level, our boys will run a minimum of 6 runs against 3 different opponenents, due to our turtle race. minimum run scenario is as follows:

1st heat - lose 2 runs and go to losers bracket

2nd heat (1st round in loser's bracket) - lose 2 runs and go to turtle bracket, or win and advance. (if you win, you no longer qualify for turtle)

3rd heat (2nd rnd in loser's bracket OR 1st rnd in turtle) - in loser's bracket, if you win, you advance; if you lose, you're done (min 6 runs against 3 opponenents). In the turtle bracket, if you win, you're done. if you lose, you advance.

Our pack Turtle champ bracket is the slowest car from each den. This we run as best 2 of 3, single elimination. you win a heat, and you're out. this sometimes as competitive (and fun) as the speed competition.

I hope I explained that clearly. Perhaps our primary race format with den level competition is flawed? But the boys really enjoy racing against their fellow den-mates. And our pack is so large, none of the boys knows all of the other boys.

As mentioned earlier (and in several other topics) DE is notoriously poor for placing 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. We do conduct additional runoffs between those to determine their placements. So likely we are not running a true DE at the end.

The good news...we have access to our gym for the entire day, so we can run as long as we want. Although some of us still want more racin'!

[brownboy]

the guys here have convinced me that DE is not the way to go. The hard part for me, after I was won over was selling it to the packs bigwigs to change the way "it's always been done" I'd consider running the individual packs 3 or 4 elimination and then taking the top 3 in each pack for a massive 3*13=39 boy 4 or 5 E finals ... it sounds like a lot of racing... and it is.. but with Stans method the races happen SOOOOO much faster than working a DE chart because unlike DE you can stage many races in advance, so down time between races is at a bare minimum. more racing= more fun.

Stan helped me work on a method last year using poker chips to stage the race.. each one represented a individual racer.. and tupperware containers.. that represented the number of losses the racer had incurred... everyone starts off in the 0 loss bin. the bin is shaken and chips with racers names or car number is pulled in pairs (or more) for multiple lane tracks. the entire bin is staged in advance so the racers are ready several races before their turn, this allows more races to be run in the same amount of time than traditional DE.
The winner or winners as sometimes happens (don't ask go with it, trust me on this makes parents and kids happy) are placed back into the bin they originated from at the begining of the round.. the non winning car(s) are dropped a bin (in the case of the first round the non winning cars would go from bin (0) (zero loss group) to the bin marked "1" ( one loss group)
the number of bins used is determined by the elimination. so 5e would have five bins where one of them is marked zero, one, two, three, and four after the poker chip loses a race while in the last alive bin (in the case of 5e the 4bin) it is placed in another container marked "done"

after all racers have run, the next round starts, starting with the bin with the lowest alive group... in round 2 in this case you would start by racing the 1 loss bin... and so on etc..untill again all racers had run.

it sounds like alot of racing, but it goes fast.. and the poker chips give the crowd (read parents) a visual aid to understand where their child stands in the competition..

there are more things to understand to use this method effectively... namely genrating a paper trail to correct the injustice when the wrong chip gets placed in the wrong bin (thanks for the foresight Stan) and the method by which you choose to run your finals (the finals start when every bin 0,1,2,3,etc... has only one chip (racer) remaining)

Here's the Bottom line that won me over last year..

ALL YOUR KIDS WORKED HARD AND DESERVE TO HAVE THEIR CAR RUN MORE THAN TWICE.

PS... also this method would allow you to have run offs from the guys that made it to the elimination bucket the fastest (read winless) from every pack for your "turtle award"

in reality this method is ten times easier than trying to read this post

Stan was kind enough to help me brainstorm for some time about this implemintation last year he and others here are great resources..

it's not too late to change hearts and minds in your pack... I can't get over how my packs leaders were so hesitant to change , only now after what can only be described as a brilliant success running this system at the district and super-district level, they will talk to other pack leaders with pride as they explain how it's done.

for $5 bucks worth of poker chips and genaric tupperware containers and a sharpie you can change forever the way your pack does it's derby.