We're going to try a new system for Districts this year

[gpraceman]

Division and rounding are two separate things.
...
Rounding is implicit in digital measurement as explained in the previous post although I didn't call it rounding, it's there in every measurement whether you sum or average. Your suggestion actually takes a sum of previously rounded numbers (rounded by the timer to its display precision). And, whether you sum or average those numbers the placing result is identical.

The manual task with a simple sum is easier. The display of a number in a consistent range (averaging) on a computer is neater than the display of a number whose number of digits changes with increasing heats (sum).

I did not indicate that division added any type of error. It does seem surprising to me that with your concerns on measurement error that you would not then be concerned about adding an additional error to the mix due to mathematical rounding of the times recorded from the timer. To each his own I guess. I personally prefer not to add that additional rounding error.

'Finals' is another 'down and derby idea'. With speed matched, averaged time racing, the fastest cars have already raced against each other and in a lane balanced way. Repeating the 'finals' risks having a different first place car when the first place car has already been determined in a fair way. Finals only make sense if the first place car could have been determined by a fast lane, etc.

As we have seen in many Derby Talk discussions, what constitutes a "fair" race to people is a very subjective opinion as is what constitutes the "fastest" car. There are many ways to run a race. Speed matched, averaged timed racing, is only one and has its own drawbacks (additional error due to rounding and parents that expect their kid to get a trophy because they did well in all of their heats yet were not truly one of the fastest cars).

[SuperDave]

Randy,
From your previous post:

My point was that with cumulative times scoring you are not adding in an extra rounding error that you would when averaging times.

I think averaging requires division.

From your latest post

I did not indicate that division added any type of error.

and,

Speed matched, averaged timed racing, is only one and has its own drawbacks (additional error due to rounding...

Would you please give me an example of several heat results from two or more racers where your concept of rounding produced different placing results from your concept of sums.

[gpraceman]

I think averaging requires division.

Yes, but how did I indicate that division in of itself caused a problem? It is the rounding that can be the problem.

Would you please give me an example of several heat results from two or more racers where your concept of rounding produced different placing results from your concept of sums.

As an example:

Cumulative times across 4 heats
Johnny - 12.000 secs (1st Place)
Billy - 12.001 secs (2nd Place)

Averaged and rounded to 3 decimal places
Johnny - 3.000 secs (Tie for 1st Place)
Billy - 3.000 secs (Tie for 1st Place)

Whether you time to 3 decimal places or 4, the same issue exists.

My point is why create a tie by averaging (and resultant mathematical rounding) when there wasn't one before the averaging. If people want to use average times, that is fine. I have no problem with that. I just prefer cumulative times because of the possibility in the example above.

If you wish to further debate this, we should do it offline. I don't know that it is accomplishing anything.

[SuperDave]

Thank you. Ignoring the rounding inherent in the digital display we now have the difference between 1st and 2nd being 1 millisecond. A 1 millisecond difference in the sum of four races. A difference overall of about 1/8 of an inch, a difference per heat of about 1/32 of an inch. Reasonable persons may disagree as we no doubt will continue to do, especially when you really can't ignore the individual and cumulative display uncertainties. I suggest two first place trophies.

And, I agree that further discussion should be off line.

[Cory]

True, there's a kind of a con game going on. The races 'look' closer since the cars are speed matched. But can I tell you about my grandson? With my help (in my defense a last minute rush job) he finished exactly in the middle of the pack. He came home THRILLED. He had finished first in two of his heats and second in the other two. It never occurred to him that he was running against speed matched cars. (And, I never told him.)

You're right, there is a con game going on here.

If your grandson came in only 1st or 2nd, doesn't it follow that his performance was likely mirrored by the lesser performances of one or more other boys? Did those boys also go home THRILLED?

You make it sound like everyone is doing average or better than average, which is not possible. Yes, you can flatten the success graph, but you can't take a zero sum game and make it positive sum game. I think this is true regardless of whether you are talking about objective success or perceived THRILL. What you give to one boy you are taking away from another.

I'll keep saying it -- I think that scheduling methods and scoring systems are very much a matter of opinion.

[gpraceman]

I'll keep saying it -- I think that scheduling methods and scoring systems are very much a matter of opinion.

That is very true. That is why I feel it important for people to research the advantages and disadvantages of their scoring and scheduling systems (current or proposed). Then make and educated decision based on what is the best fit for your organization. No one solution will work for all and all systems have their disadvantages.

[SuperDave]

You make it sound like everyone is doing average or better than average, which is not possible.

While it is not possible for everyone to do average or better than average, it is certainly possible for them to FEEL that way. In a system scheduling the cars in speed order and measuring elapsed times, the slower cars will lose overall but will gain some good feeling from winning a heat or at least not being blown away every time. Do you really want the alternative of seeing a youngster who put his heart and soul into a car get blown away four times in front of his peers? Is it important that the first place car always win by a mile? Isn't it pretty darn boring when he does?

I think that scheduling methods and scoring systems are very much a matter of opinion.

While they are a matter of opinion that is not the same thing as saying all are equal or that features and benefits cannot be evaluated against a preferred goal. As I stated in previous posts, our goal is not to find a winner (and lots of losers). Instead our goal is to provide a positive experience for the organization, the parent and the child (with the emphasis on the child.) Every 'matter of opinion' we come to is carefully measured against that goal. We carefully guard against 'adult' perceptions even though some major corporations use our products in adult team building exercises. We carefully emphasize what my psychiatric oriented wife calls "age appropriate" perceptions or to put it more clearly, we try to think like an 8 year old, because his 'opinion' is what really 'matters'.

[gpraceman]

We carefully guard against 'adult' perceptions...

...we try to think like an 8 year old, because his 'opinion' is what really 'matters'.

That is one way of looking at it. However, I feel that the race is not only for the kids, it is also for the adults (the adult partners who helped them build the cars). It is intended to be a joint project of an adult working with a child towards a common goal. The adults have a vested interest in the race, not only that it is their kid being involved. Their ideas of fairness should not be discounted or be made out to be bad. It is more balanced to take both the kids and the adults into consideration when determining a scoring and scheduling system.

[Cory]

While it is not possible for everyone to do average or better than average, it is certainly possible for them to FEEL that way.

If your scheduling system allows a car to finish 1st or 2nd in every race, then is it not also true that a car could finish last or next-to-last in every race? I'm not a pediatric psychiatrist but please explain to me how a typical 8-year old would feel like he did better than average, or even average, with that performance.

Do you really want the alternative of seeing a youngster who put his heart and soul into a car get blown away four times in front of his peers? Is it important that the first place car always win by a mile? Isn't it pretty darn boring when he does?

My limited experience (only 9 years running Derbies) is that kids who put their heart and soul in their cars do not get blown away four times. It's also my experience that 1st place cars do not always win "by a mile".

While they are a matter of opinion that is not the same thing as saying all are equal or that features and benefits cannot be evaluated against a preferred goal.

Your system does a great job of supporting your goals. But preferred goals are also a matter of opinion, and not everyone shares your goals. Nor your opinions of 8-year olds, I might add.

[SuperDave]

please explain to me how a typical 8-year old would feel like he did better than average, or even average, with that performance.

His loses would be by smaller margins than his loses would have been without speed matching. Not ideal for sure, but certainly better than the alternative. That also implies that many wins would be by smaller margins than they would be without speed matching. The result is races that "look" closer, generally a problem for purists, not much of a problem, indeed in my opinion, a benefit for both the racers and the spectators.

[gpraceman]

The result is races that "look" closer, generally a problem for purists, not much of a problem, indeed in my opinion, a benefit for both the racers and the spectators.

I'm not sure what your definition of "purist" is. I see an advantage of your race system as well as some disadvantages (as I do with other race systems). It is what I would call a "feel good" system. Which is apt, seeing as you seem to really focus on the emotional aspect. We do want the kids and their parents to feel good about the race, but we have to be careful about having a "con game" going on that may give some racers and/or parents expectations of an award when one is not merited.

Again, people should be aware of both advantages and disadvantages before making the decision as what is deemed to be the best fit for their organization.

[SuperDave]

... but we have to be careful about having a "con game" going on that may give some racers and/or parents expectations of an award when one is not merited."

That's certainly true although on further reflection I think my use of the phrase "con game" is a little strong. We did have one user with 60 racers report that a boy had won all four of his heats then broke down in tears when he found out he wasn't first but was 40th! That problem is easily handled with an upfront announcement that average time is what wins and that while you may win, someone else may win with a faster time. Then follow up by posting the interim results at the end of each period (much like football) and perhaps announcing the top five or ten.

In Stan Pope's immortal words,

"If it's not for the boys, it's for the birds!"

[2kids10horses]

SuperDave,

You obviously feel strongly that your scoring method is "the best". There are flaws in any system.

Let's say we use your system. And during the middle of the first phase, car number 24 dumps a load of graphite on the track on lane 4. It takes several heats for it to get dissapated. During that time, Lane 4 ran "slow".

Now let's say that one of the 4 fastest cars just happened to run in Lane 4 while it was "slow". It's still fast, but let's say that the slow run dropped it from being 2nd to 3rd. (or whatever.)

Having a "finals" with a group equal to twice the number of trophies would, I believe, solve such a problem.

I have only attended three derbies with time trials: 2 Council races (where I think they DO speed match the 2nd and 3rd rounds) and a live WIRL race, where they post the running average times and placings. WIRL runs each car in each lane twice.

I liked the WIRL system better because you know where you stand! If the cars are speed matched, that's a valid system, but it would I think it would be better to let everyone in attendance know what the system is!

At Council, we received a computer printout of the final results, so everyone knew where we stood at the end of the day. That was nice.

2k10h

[gpraceman]

I think my use of the phrase "con game" is a little strong.

I thought the term was rather apt. It does make people feel they are doing better than they truly may be doing, so it is a con.

Then follow up by posting the interim results at the end of each period (much like football) and perhaps announcing the top five or ten.

Personally, I don't like to do that. My experience is that it is better to wait until the end to announce results. It tends to keep people more involved in the action instead of losing interest if they are not in the top of the standings. There is no deception involved there. Just not revealing intermediate results. Besides, anything can happen in later heats in terms of car performance (for better or worse).

[Cory]

His loses would be by smaller margins than his loses would have been without speed matching.

This is a very good point. My experience is that a single victory, no matter how close or who it's against, tends to outweigh three or four losses in the mind of an 8-year old. Likewise, close losses are viewed more like "near victories" by youngsters, whereas there's not many positives in a huge loss.

Still, this is not without a price. All those victories and near misses for "slow" cars mean that somewhere up in the top brackets there is that boy with a pretty fast car that is finishing 3rd and 4th most of the time. He is also a should-not-be-ignored part of the equation, IMO.

Again, I don't think either scheduling system is right or wrong. It's all about the finding the right balance for a given group of leaders and kids.