Cumulative time format

[doct1010]

Good friend invited me to their Derby. They use a cumulative time format. Each car has four runs down track, finish order irrelevant, rank irrelevant. Only top three in pack advance to final. They scheduled two hours for entire event including registration and inspection. Pack had 45 cars race in under an hour on a four lane best track. I blinked and it was over.

Friend son won all four heats, had a slow first run came in 4th overall by .008! I told him to put fenders on the car IMO less than entertaining. Three fastest cars (times) did advance. Expeditious for certain. What say you PW brethren?

[Stan Pope]

Could you tell if there were any errors in any of the heat times?

Did any heat matchups validate the rankings of the approximately top 6 cars?

[FatSebastian]

Friend son won all four heats, had a slow first...

Just curious - did scouts get to stage their own cars?

[doct1010]

Could you tell if there were any errors in any of the heat times?

Did any heat matchups validate the rankings of the approximately top 6 cars?

No way to know for certain if errors occured, they relied on software and timer for calcs. Hardware and software appeared to work smoothly. They reran one heat when a cub accidently tripped timer. Same result second time down.

We did not race 1-3 all of which were quick cars. Seems we were in the later half of draw, first race heat 16 I believe. (I could be mistaken) 1 and 2 did face off in a very close race, as did 3. I believe the rankings were accurate. Times recorded correctly. My issue was with the format. Having experienced it for first time it left me wanting and wondering. In essence you could have run same car four times different lanes and tallied times. Individual heats had much less meaning than I am accustomed. There were several unhappy faces as we left. Advancing only three to final from entire pack seems ludicrous! However, as I over heard on exit, the THREE fastest cars won. Hard to argue with a timer.

FS, all cars staged by pit crew. I noticed starter tried to center cars and pull wheels to axle head.

[Darin McGrew]

As long as there are no timing irregularities, this format produces accurate results very efficiently. But it is very sensitive to timing irregularities, and even if it weren't, accuracy and efficiency aren't the only criteria to consider when choosing a race method.

As you observed, it's basically a time trial, and the readily observable results (finish order) don't really matter. If you explain clearly that finish order doesn't matter, then much of the excitement of each race is lost. If you do not explain clearly that finish order doesn't matter, then you can have hurt feelings when someone wins all their races, but doesn't place in the final results.

[Stan Pope]

Doc,

It sounds like you have questions which were not answered by the racing.

Be assured that probably everything was accurate ... probably everything was fair....

Probably...

[FatSebastian]

Expeditious for certain. What say you PW brethren?

Doc, thanks for sharing this experience. As noted here, after serving once as Trackmaster on a race where the finish order was judged by Boy Scouts from a local Troop, I bought and assembled a timer for that unit. What I didn't mention was the method of scorekeeping that the unit decided to use with their new timer: cars would race once down each lane, grouped by den, and the fastest recorded times would determine final placements (this was not my recommendation, but oh well). Times were written down by Boy Scouts; there was no computer recording. The timer was so much faster and objective than what was being done previously, that no one complained about the format, and people liked how fast the event took place for a change, but there was not much nail-biting excitement.

That year (our last one there) my son's Tiger car received the single fastest recorded time, and won as a result. To be honest the car was not very well made, so I wondered for a while if there had been a recording error. He went on to District and won there as well based on placement rather than timing, so I felt a little better about the initial Pack result, but still you never know.

IMO most observers tend to trust the timer as being objective and accurate (whether that is justified or not). Having raced both ways, I could agree that outcomes based on finish placement over multiple heats, rather than times down each lane, are more enjoyable. One seeming advantage of using times is that, if the times are not always on display, it is unclear who won until it is announced - that keeps some folks interested longer than they might otherwise be.

[doct1010]

Doc,

It sounds like you have questions which were not answered by the racing.

Be assured that probably everything was accurate ... probably everything was fair....

Probably...

Stan,
Agree. My primary concern and unanswered question is with format. Had we raced heads up maybe I feel differently. Having experienced it for first time I am convinced, while expeditious, this format raises more questions then it answers. One must implicitly trust the hardware and softwares' accuracy and the integrity of sponsoring organization. I saw no reason to question either.

From a spectators perspective I found it sorely lacking in excitement and entertainment value.

[gpraceman]

One thing that I have discovered in the years of offering my race software is that there are a variety of ways that people want to run their races. IMO, it really boils down to what is going to work best for that organization (racers and organizers). That often times is influenced by how many racers they have to run and what that organization deems is a "fair" way to run the race (scheduling method, times vs. points, single round format, multi round format, etc.).

We can go and second guess how they ran their race, but if they are satisfied, then that is what works best for them. If not, they should look at changing things up to better suit the race to their organization. Basically, one format will not work for all.

[stang68]

We are looking at changing to the times method of racing,but after hearing all the scoring errors i think we will stay with the points system.We have not had any problems with it in the past and feel real good with the results of the race.We will see what the Packs think in the next meeting.

[doct1010]

IMO, it really boils down to what is going to work best for that organization (racers and organizers). That often times is influenced by how many racers they have to run and what that organization deems is a "fair" way to run the race (scheduling method, times vs. points, single round format, multi round format, etc.).

We can go and second guess how they ran their race, but if they are satisfied, then that is what works best for them. If not, they should look at changing things up to better suit the race to their organization. Basically, one format will not work for all.

Randy,
All points well taken. Question is who is satisfied? Organizers? Cubs and parents? General spectators? I saw quite a few tears and parents explaining, "yes you won your race but...." .You are correct, one size does NOT fit all. It works for them, I personally would not endorse the mehtod.

[gpraceman]

All points well taken. Question is who is satisfied? Organizers? Cubs and parents? General spectators? I saw quite a few tears and parents explaining, "yes you won your race but...." .You are correct, one size does NOT fit all. It works for them, I personally would not endorse the mehtod.

Note, I wrote "racers and organizers", not just organizers. Of course, the "racers" includes the parents, since it is supposed to be a team project. You are never going to please everyone, of course, but if there is enough of a feeling of dissatisfaction with how the race was run, then they should look at changing things up.

There are a couple of things that I do have to wonder about. Only advancing 3 racers to the finals? There is little mystery in that if they are to award 1st, 2nd and 3rd place trophies. Personally, I would recommend that they advance more than 3 racers to their trophy round (at least twice as many as there are trophies). I do also have to wonder why no rank awards (at least that was my impression)? Budget issue? Even if budget is tight for trophies, you can at least print out certificates for 1st, 2nd and 3rd place.

As for times vs. points, each has their pros and cons, so I try not to make a specific recommendation on that without knowing what type of start gate they are using and if they are using a laser start sensor. It still boils down to what the organization is going to define "fastest" as being.

[doct1010]

There are a couple of things that I do have to wonder about. Only advancing 3 racers to the finals? There is little mystery in that if they are to award 1st, 2nd and 3rd place trophies. Personally, I would recommend that they advance more than 3 racers to their trophy round (at least twice as many as they have trophies). I do also have to wonder why no rank awards (at least that was my impression)? Budget issue? Even if budget is tight for trophies, you can at least print out certificates for 1st, 2nd and 3rd place.

My feelings as well. Little mystery 123 finished 123 in final, three runs once per lane. I agree if top 6 or 8 advanced (four lane track), maybe things change maybe not, but at very least the top cars go heads up. No clue as to why no rank awards. This is an afluent community with ample resource so I believe we can rule out budget, in fact they had a catered buffet gratis.

[gpraceman]

We are looking at changing to the times method of racing,but after hearing all the scoring errors i think we will stay with the points system.We have not had any problems with it in the past and feel real good with the results of the race.We will see what the Packs think in the next meeting.

If that has worked well for your pack, then unless there is some compelling reason to change it, then don't.

With that said, using points does have its drawbacks as well. A much higher chance of ties is the biggest. Another is that I have heard of parents coming up to race organizers and complaining that if scoring was done by time their kid would have won. It still boils down to what is being defined as the "fastest".

Regardless of points or times being used, generally, as long as that is communicated clearly before racing starts, there is less of an argument in the end. Even with that, you will never please everyone.

[stang68]

gpraceman,
We may explore this further ,it seems that most complaints come from the attending audience not understanding the format of points racing.We may need to spend some time during the next few meetings training chairmans on procedures then get this info to everyone well i advance of races.
In the meantime we have to get our Judge timer updated and everything we need for start gate,we still have several committees meetings and build nights to tweak this before next year.We have several facitilites that we can set the track up and leave it up for testing the timing system.