New Track - Points vs Time?? Help!

[Stan Pope]

I visited a pack race in Champaign, IL, this past weekend. The race involved 38 scouts (+ a dummy car) on a 3-lane track (a real nice 32' wooden Piantedosi track!) The heat schedule appeared to be a 2-round PPN chart and competition was by time.

During the first 5 rounds the top-end cars had nice consistent times. A "bandit" (an outlaw, constructed in violation of the rules) was running 1st in time, and two legal cars (maintaining consistent heat times throughout) ran 2nd and 3rd. At the other end, all of the cars crossed the finish line, though some had to be pushed across. In round 6, the 2nd place car was mysteriously way slower (by 0.2 seconds) than its average. Track staff looked the car over carefully to see if there was hidden damage and, I think, the racer's father looked it over, too. The heat was rerun ... all three cars ... with an almost identical slow time for the troubled no-longer-second-place car. The car dropped from 2nd place to 6th place at the end. (1st to 5th, actually, since the bandit wasn't placing.)

About all I know for sure is that the boy didn't damage his own car, because the boys were all spectators. <Booooo!!! Hisssssssss!!!>

Competing on time, the no-longer-2nd-place boy and car were done for the year. Competing on points, the boy would still finish in the top 3 and be invited to compete at council races (after repairing whatever damage had been done.) On the other side, a car that had been running more slowly kept on doing it and was suddenly vaulted into an invitation to the council races.

So, what are the lessons here? Here are some; perhaps you can supply others:

1. Another case of inexplicable damage to cars when folks other than the cars owner/driver handle them. (Staff appeared to be careful, although I saw many instances where one hand held two cars.)

2. A very high penalty for a "bad run."

[glaforge]

Couldn't agree with you more on the three points a couple of posts earlier Stan. Perhaps a gentle nudge towards this forum is in order. It is at best frustrating to hear stories such as these and you have now been armed with the most dangerous weapon...knowledge....Perhaps you should volunteer to help with next year's race so that this valuable knowledge won't go to waste! [

[glaforge]

2. A very high penalty for a "bad run."

This again depends on your definition of fastest car.

If you lean towards points scoring you would be inclined to call it that

If you lean towards total time, you might say that the boy would have gotten a bonus in points scoring and others would have suffered.

What about the other two racers in his bad race? Did they get a better score because this boy had a bad race and how did that impact the people they would have jumped in front of. This is exactly the problem with BOTH methods of scoring. On the one hand, you had a boy fall from first to 5th place...other the other hand, you would have had others placing higher than they should have? Which is correct? Depends on how you want to define fastest car.

Thumbs down on not getting the boys involved in the race though.

[glaforge]

On the other side, a car that had been running more slowly kept on doing it and was suddenly vaulted into an invitation to the council races.

This is a rather dramatic statement since:

1) We would have to know all of the scores from all of the races and tallied them...You stated the car was running second, what do you base that on? Did you have the place scoring from all the race to compare that to?

2) You make it sound as if the new third place car came from out of nowhere. (vaulted into)..It couldn't have been too far behind (no more than .2 seconds) and since you said that the top 5 cars were all consistent, I'll bet it was much closer than that.

[gpraceman]

2. A very high penalty for a "bad run."

This again depends on your definition of fastest car.

If you lean towards points scoring you would be inclined to call it that

If you lean towards total time, you might say that the boy would have gotten a bonus in points scoring and others would have suffered.

What about the other two racers in his bad race? Did they get a better score because this boy had a bad race and how did that impact the people they would have jumped in front of. This is exactly the problem with BOTH methods of scoring. On the one hand, you had a boy fall from first to 5th place...other the other hand, you would have had others placing higher than they should have? Which is correct? Depends on how you want to define fastest car.

What about a hybrid scoring system? One where the final standings are determined by the timed standings plus the points earned for finish order. You would need a way to balance it so neither would be more valuable in determining the final standings. Probably use a multiplier for the times standings and then add in the point totals. Such a hybrid system would minimize the disadvantages of each of the "traditional" scoring systems in determining the "fastest" cars. I would also see how this would reduce the chance of a tie situation when compared to a strictly points scoring system where ties are much more likely.

Hmmm....this may be worth considering. What do you think?

[Stan Pope]

You stated the car was running second, what do you base that on?

Current heat results and upcoming heat pairings were projected on the school gymnasium wall. At the end of each round, the scorekeeper showed the standings, sorted by place and including place and avg time, for a few seconds. Since I was interested in one of the cars in that "top few bunch" it was easy to keep track of their times, even without paper. I noticed, for instance that the car I was interestedin was trailing $2 by avg 0.01 sec and leading the next by about the same amount. I also noticed that his successive runs were getting faster. (The rascal must have put in fresh graphite and not "run it in" just before the race.)

So, it was quite evident what was happening and, even in absence of formal announcements, what the track staff was attempting to do to produce an equitable result.

[glaforge]

I noticed, for instance that the car I was interestedin was trailing $2 by avg 0.01 sec and leading the next by about the same amount.

So you want to say the car was in second by time but would have stayed in second by points based on scoring the last race alone by points? That's a pretty big leap of faith in that we can only assume he was in second by points, he might have been in 1st or 3rd. And by how much? Would that bad finish have dropped him anyway? Without rescoring the entire event by points (perhaps it was done and I missed it) we cannot base the points finish on that last race alone...If we rescore the event by points, was an appropriate scheduling mechanism used to handle points (e.g. not lane rotation). Would he have to run more races under a points scoring system to ensure equity and then simply have more than one bad race? I don't know, I wasn't there and I don't know the scheduling they did.

While I feel for the boy who's car went sour, I really don't feel it would be appropriate to say he would have stayed in second since we don't really know a lot of these things.

[glaforge]

What about a hybrid scoring system? One where the final standings are determined by the timed standings plus the points earned for finish order. You would need a way to balance it so neither would be more valuable in determining the final standings. Probably use a multiplier for the times standings and then add in the point totals. Such a hybrid system would minimize the disadvantages of each of the "traditional" scoring systems in determining the "fastest" cars. I would also see how this would reduce the chance of a tie situation when compared to a strictly points scoring system where ties are much more likely.

Hmmm....this may be worth considering. What do you think?

First thought is that it would have to reflect only the good parts of both and NOT magnify the bad.

Second, would have to be something that could be easily understood by everyone (this could be tough).

Hmmmmm

[Stan Pope]

I noticed, for instance that the car I was interestedin was trailing $2 by avg 0.01 sec and leading the next by about the same amount.

So you want to say the car was in second by time but would have stayed in second by points based on scoring the last race alone by points?

Not at all... It would have dropped to 3rd or 4th overall and 3rd among cars eligible to go to council.

[gpraceman]

First thought is that it would have to reflect only the good parts of both and NOT magnify the bad.

You may not be able to remove the disadvantages of each scoring system, but a balanced hybrid scoring system would lessen the affect of these disadvantages on the end result by 50%.

Second, would have to be something that could be easily understood by everyone (this could be tough).

A simpler hybrid system would be to simply determine the standings based on times and then the standings based on points and add them together. It is easy enough to understand, but ties may be more of a problem than a little more elaborate scoring system.

I think that any hybrid system (or even with traditional times scoring) that the worst time for each racer should be thrown out. This would eliminate the impact of any one bad heat for a racer.

[glaforge]

Not at all... It would have dropped to 3rd or 4th overall and 3rd among cars eligible to go to council.

Ok. But we're still making the assumptin that he would have been in 2nd place after 5 races (and would have dropped to 3rd or 4th). He may not have been. He may just as well been in 3rd place (using purely a points system thoughout the entire race) or in 1st. My point is that I don't feel we can use times through rounds 1-5 and then swicth to points in the 6th round and use that to illustrate a problem. We've mixed scoring systems.

The only way to illustrate the impact (chose this word instead of problem) would be to use a scheduling mechanism that is equitable to place scoring and run the race keeping track of both times and scores. Then see what the final results were in both cases. Only then would it be fair to say the impact would have been....Whether it was a "problem" or not would only coincide with your definition of fastest car.

[Cory]

What about a hybrid scoring system?

Interesting idea.

To invoke a parallel, there are two types of scoring in golf -- match play and stroke play.

In stroke play, you count total strokes for the round, low score wins. I would liken this to timed scoring.

In match play, each hole counts the same. Number of strokes doesn't matter, just whether you won, lost, or tied the hole. I would liken this to points scoring.

For example, suppose your opponent scores 4 on a hole. In match play, you could score a 5 or an 8 and it's of no significance -- it counts as one lost hole. In stroke play, the difference is three shots, which is very significant.

Similarly in Pinewood Derby. If you win a race by 5 milliseconds, that's the same as winning it by 500 milliseconds in points scoring. But this is a significant difference in timed scoring.

Both methods of golf scoring are widely accepted. Stroke play is usually used in pro tournaments because it's better for television. Weekend players usually play some form of match play. Both formats can make for compelling competition -- e.g. Masters, Ryder Cup.

In a golf league I played in years ago, we used a hybrid stroke/match play scoring method. It made strategy very difficult, but overall it was a very fair way of doing things. It put value on every shot and it also kept points at stake longer into the match.

Bottom line: Both scoring methods have their pros and cons. I think it really just comes down to personal opinion about which aspects of a scoring system are most important. A hybrid method, I think, would find a middle ground or compromise between the two methods.

[Stan Pope]

Not at all... It would have dropped to 3rd or 4th overall and 3rd among cars eligible to go to council.

Ok. But we're still making the assumptin that he would have been in 2nd place after 5 races (and would have dropped to 3rd or 4th). He may not have been. He may just as well been in 3rd place (using purely a points system thoughout the entire race) or in 1st. My point is that I don't feel we can use times through rounds 1-5 and then swicth to points in the 6th round and use that to illustrate a problem. We've mixed scoring systems.

Where did that come from? I didn't change methods. Just compared results from different scoring methods when cars don't performing to their norm.

When cars perform to their norm on a good track and good schedule, points and time track rather nicely, so the assumption that he would have been at or very close to #2 with point scoring after 5/6 of the competition is reasonable.

[glaforge]

Very simply, while points and times track nicely under the given circumstances, they DO NOT track absolutely. This one variable alone is why I say that we should be at least weary of stating the boy would have remained in the top 3. And in fact you state in your post

Competing on time, the no-longer-2nd-place boy and car were done for the year. Competing on points, the boy would still finish in the top 3 and be invited to compete at council races (after repairing whatever damage had been done.) On the other side, a car that had been running more slowly kept on doing it and was suddenly vaulted into an invitation to the council races.

and

2. A very high penalty for a "bad run."

Later, you state that the boy may have dropped as low 4th. Thereby eliminating your argument altoghether.

Fact is, scoring purely on points in the given circumstances, we just don't know. Since, we don't know for sure, I cannot agree that it was a penalty albeit unfortunate.

In addition, we don't know the reason the car slowed down. It could have been race officails (boooo hisss) or the workmanship of the car. In the one case-yes it was a penalty, in the other no it wasn't, because it was clearly stated that the race was timed and all times mattered.

[Stan Pope]

Very simply, while points and times track nicely under the given circumstances, they DO NOT track absolutely. This one variable alone is why I say that we should be at least weary of stating the boy would have remained in the top 3. And in fact you state in your post

Competing on time, the no-longer-2nd-place boy and car were done for the year. Competing on points, the boy would still finish in the top 3 and be invited to compete at council races (after repairing whatever damage had been done.) On the other side, a car that had been running more slowly kept on doing it and was suddenly vaulted into an invitation to the council races.

and

2. A very high penalty for a "bad run."

Later, you state that the boy may have dropped as low 4th. Thereby eliminating your argument altoghether.

Fact is, scoring purely on points in the given circumstances, we just don't know. Since, we don't know for sure, I cannot agree that it was a penalty albeit unfortunate.

In addition, we don't know the reason the car slowed down. It could have been race officails (boooo hisss) or the workmanship of the car. In the one case-yes it was a penalty, in the other no it wasn't, because it was clearly stated that the race was timed and all times mattered.

The presence of the bandit must have caused my description to get really hard to follow. Let me try again, excluding the bandit from the description. Cars are numbered based on their standing as of end of round 5.

The car with the problem ran #1 from heats 1 through 5 on times, winning each of those heats. (My favorite in the race was running #2 through the first 5 rounds.)

Cars #1 through #4 heat times were consistently separated by about 0.01 sec in each round. (Lane differences seemed inconsequential.)

In round 6, Car #1 posted a time 0.2 sec longer than his average; other cars sustained their averages. The numbers were sustained by heat rerun and recorded as official. Car #1 dropped to 4th as a result.

After watching this, I mentally recomputed the results had the event been run on heat points to see what the result would have been. Car #1 finished 3+3+3+3+3+1 = 16 points; Car #2 finished 3+3+3+2+3+3 = 17 points; Car #3 finished 3+3+2+3+2+3=16 points; Car #4 finished 3+2+3+3+2+2= 15 points. Rest below them. From that I computed that Car #1 would have dropped to a tie for 2-3rd place due to the bad run.

I'm not complaining. They ran the race consistently with their planned method. It was conducted fairly. In fact, my favorite got bumped up a notch to first place as a result. I am lamenting their choice of a method in which a single bad run has such a significant effect.

The purpose of my observation (not complaint) is that the choice to run based on total time is a choice to place emphasis on consistency. My personal bias is that consistency is a very high standard for youngsters and that the penalty for inconsistency should not be so steep.