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

[2kids10horses]

At RoundTable, the guy who runs the District PWD told me that he's going to change from using the Double Elimination system to a timed system. He has access to a 4 lane track and he told me that each car would run 3 heats and the times averaged.

I asked if he planned to leave one lane empty, and he said that no, he'd use it. I then told him that you can't do that, each car needs to run in every lane to be fair.

He's trying to shorten the length of time it would take to run the derby. We had 88 cars in last year's, and we expect about 100 this year. I figure that on a 4 lane track, 100 cars, that means about 100 heats. Two heats per minute would be 50 minutes, so that's about an hour of racing.

Sounds reasonable to me.

I got to thinking... It appears the longest thing is to wait for all the boys to get checked in. That can take forever! Seems like it started at 9 am last year, and it was nearly 11 before we starting racing. We tell everyone that 9am is check in time. So the early arrivals have to wait a long time before the racing starts.

But...

If we doing time trials, we can start racing the early arrivals while later arrivals are still being checked in! So, as soon as we get 4 boys checked in at 9 am, they can start racing, and recording their times. Sure, they would have to wait until everyone is checked in and run to see the results, but they wouldn't have to wait to run.

Or, would this be creating more chaos?

Personally, I'd like to see a "Finals" race. Take the 4 fastest cars, and have a finals showdown.

Anyone have any ideas?

2K10H

[Stan Pope]

Before you go any further with the planning, qualify the proposed setup! We have beaten the "manually opened gates" issue to death but it you still need to verify that the gate will open quickly and consistently. Then make sure that the proposed software is "stout enough" to hold the necessary records, and that you can get the records from inspection/checkin to racing in a timely fashion. Floppy disks and "sneaker net" if need be. Or an ad hoc WIFI network. You don't want to be sitting next to the track typing in racer names and numbers! Ask him to "dry run" the proposed plan in detail, preferably with actual computers and run two rounds of simulate racing to demonstrate the data flow.

If he can't demonstate it, there are serioius questions aa to whether he can actually run it!

If that is okay, then here are a couple of alternatives:

1. PPN Schedules, bubble list of finalists.

You may run 4-lane PPN schedules (or comparable lane rotations) involving any convenient number of cars. If the track is sufficiently controlled so that you can be assured of no timing characteristic changes, then you should be able to accurately compare early runs with later runs and make an equitable selection of finalists.

Since there is a possibility of timing characteristic changes, it is appropriate to take a number of finalists equal to 2 to 4 times the number of trophies to be awarded. This should cover any questions about timing consistency.

Somehow, you need to be able to communicate finalists status to the competitors. Early racers only need to stay as long as their times are among the N best. You could simply post the updated cutoff time as each group completes. It would be clearer and less error prone to list the finalists in increasing time sequence.

You need a firm inspection cutoff time and time in the schedule to complete the racing for those late-comers. Then you need a time for the finals to be run, so that finalists can return and see the races.

2. PPN schedules, fixed list of finalists.

There is another approach that you can take that will insulate you from timing characteristic changes and will give folks more certainty. If you are going to give 5 trophies, then identify the 5 fastest cars from each group and advance them to the finals. If you hold racers coming off the inspection line until you have groups of 20 OR until 30 minutes has passecd since the last group started racing, then you should have a reduction of about 25% to 30%. 100 racers ... about 25 to 30 finalists. Some of the groups might be short a few racers. The last group might even be short a lot of racers. Doesn't matter except that the reduction might be closer to 30%. Still works!

Either way, all the finalists start over with a clean slate in the finals. That eliminates any question of track consistency throughout the day.

[2kids10horses]

Thanks for the advice, Stan!

I've never seen the track, I have no idea if there is software... I would guess there's got be some software, but what kind, I'm clueless. I do know there is a timer! Manual start? I dunno. I asked one of the Cubmasters who uses the track which brand it was, and he said it "Was the one the Scouts sells". So, there you are. (I'm assuming -always a bad practice - that it's a BestTrack.)

I'll try to get ahold of the CubMasters who use the track and ask gently worded questions to see if it will work for us.

In the past, there has been another track used here for Districts that had a timer, but had a manual start! We didn't use the times for anything, but, that gives you an idea of where we are...

I have to tread lightly here... My son won Districts last year, and I don't want to be perceived as trying to rig the race in his favor! Yet, I do want a fair race! And, yes, I expect he'll be competitive again this year, as this year's car is faster than last year's.

2k10h

[doct1010]

2K, Too many as yet unanswered questions. A suggestion Randy made that proved very helpful to us, was to have a laptop at the registration table entering data which could then be exported directly to the race computer. It is difficult (at this juncture) not knowing what if any software you will be running to assess just how helpful this could be! It seems your suggestion to run early entrants is workable.

[2kids10horses]

Yeah, I know. Too many unknowns! I placed calls this morning to the two CubMasters who use this track, and nobody was home. So, maybe I can catch 'em this evening.

We have separate awards for Tigers. The rest of the Cubs are grouped together. Since it's a time trial, the Tigers could run against the other Cubs, just segregate them when results are tabulated.

I personally like to see a runoff between finalists. That aside, I just want to have a fair race.

2k10h

[Go Bubba Go]

I got to thinking... It appears the longest thing is to wait for all the boys to get checked in. That can take forever! Seems like it started at 9 am last year, and it was nearly 11 before we starting racing. We tell everyone that 9am is check in time. So the early arrivals have to wait a long time before the racing starts.

But...

If we doing time trials, we can start racing the early arrivals while later arrivals are still being checked in! So, as soon as we get 4 boys checked in at 9 am, they can start racing, and recording their times. Sure, they would have to wait until everyone is checked in and run to see the results, but they wouldn't have to wait to run.

Anyone have any ideas?

2K10H

Whether you run "first come, first raced" or use predefined brackets, I wouldn't wait for everyone to check-in before I started racing.

One thing I like about the way our Council races are run is that the entrants are slotted ahead of time and given specific check-in times corresponding to when they are actually scheduled to race. With nearly 1400 boys involved, check-in (and racing) continues all day long. First come, first raced (and the rest of you just wait your turn) would be extremely painful.

With our arrangement, while the 1st set of racers are running their heats, the 2nd set are finishing check-in and getting ready to run their heats. While the 2nd are then racing, the 3rd are checking in, etc.

The only trouble we have is with "first timers" who try to come in early and check-in ahead of time, thus potentially causing a boy who should be racing now to have to wait behind them for check-in. The way we correct that when it happens is to turn the "early" boys away and tell them to come back within 30 minutes of their actual scheduled race time. As we continue to communicate that the slots are scheduled and not "first come, first raced", the number of boys trying to check-in early has become pretty small.

I do think we could tighten things up a bit time-wise (i.e. too much lag time between heats), but spreading the check-in and race times of the boys across time so that it is not a "mad rush" is very helpful.

[Scoremaker]

2kids10horses what your District chair needs to do is to have the one's that place in the top three in each pack and have them email to the District chairman.So that the check-in can go by fast instead of waiting on the last Cub Scout to check-in,and for the four lane track each Scout needs to race on each lane one time so that everyone get's a fair race run on each lane.Our Pack has a three lane track and we also run the District races for the past five years and no one has a problem about the time trails.Some Pack still do the double elimination brackets etc....But they got to know if the make it to Council they are going to do it the same way anyways so why worry about how they are going to run your District race.We all need to try something new each and everyday.If you run the time trails run everyone at the same time,you can always pull out the Tigers to find out who won and the other Cub Scout's.It's only going to take at lease until noon or so.My son is also moving on to District in three weeks and he was to top dog again this year so hats off for him for making it that fair.At our District races only the top three speed and show are going this year.We might have the same number of Scouts that you have at you District race so no need to worry how long you are going to stay there,because its all about having fun with your son and how happy you are that he made it there.Hope to see at the Council race in April.

[2kids10horses]

Scoremaker,

We are still trying to have an Open District race, rather than having to limit the entrants to the top 3 at Pack. That way, we can tell the boys they will have at least two chances to race their cars! Once at Pack and again at District, and if they don't do well at Pack, they have a chance to improve their car before District.

Anyway, last year, we ran Double Elim, and it took 8 hours! I wasn't in charge of determining the matchups, and I don't think it was done correctly. My job was to stage the cars and start 'em down the track.

Our general method was to race boys within rank, then get the top 3 (or 4... I don't know exactly) from each rank, and then start a whole new DE race to determine the overall champ. My son won it, and he had to race at least a dozen cars head to head, and one car he had to race 3 times. (The second place car.) Each 'race' was actually 2 heats, once in each lane. If there was a split, then there was a third race! So, figuring a dozen cars, two heats per race, my son's car ran 24 times!



But, this year, we want to try time trials and see if that works better. The guy in charge admits he doesn't know speed. His son competes in Show, I don't think he has thought thru all the issues!

So, for the time trial, assuming no 'finals' each car will run 4 times. That will be a big difference from last year for my son!

We're in the Currahee District. What District are you? We've made it to Council the past two years, and my son really wants to qualify to compete there again. It is a time trial at Council, but last year, there were only 16 entrants in the Cub race since it's limited to the top 3 from each Distict, and there were some no-shows.

As soon as I speak with the CubMasters with the track, I'll have a better idea of what to suggest to our Chairman.

Thanks for all the advice!

2k10h

[SuperDave]

Begin - my soapbox. Before thinking further, please consider, "What the purpose of the Pinewood Derby?" If you're racing just to find a winner (and therefore a ton of losers!), flip a coin. If you're looking for a positive experience for the organization, the parents and the kids (especially the kids), you might consider other alternatives if you keep that in mind. End- my soapbox.

I figure that on a 4 lane track, 100 cars, that means about 100 heats. Two heats per minute would be 50 minutes, so that's about an hour of racing.

100 kids, 100 heats is correct if all the cars run all the lanes. Two heats per minute requires that the kids sit on their hands and lots of well organized adults run the race (and nobody has a clue what's going on until the end when a winner is announced). A more likely number is two minutes per heat which can be pulled down around 90 seconds or even 75 seconds with the kids participating if you are well organized. Using the 90 second number, that's about 150 minutes or two and a half hours which is no big deal if the kids are having fun. Using 3 out of 4 lanes on a good track will reduce the estimated time but probably increase the actual time dealing with all the controversy!

Most software will allow you to enter all the names ahead of time, print out a list of racers by name for check in, fix the entries for those who don't show up, fix them again for those who show up late, etc. Organization helps but as we've learned over the years, "Be prepared only applies to Boy Scouts."

So, for the time trial, assuming no 'finals' each car will run 4 times.

Running all cars all lanes averaged timing and then running 'finals' is a recipe for disaster! Those not in the finals will leave, leaving the new winners to celebrate alone. And, the new winners will almost certainly be slightly different from the old winners. With averaged timed racing you not only have the winners overall, but assuming good software also have the winners in each den, rank, etc. (see soapbox above) Lots of winners and few (if any) losers beats the heck out of a winner and tons of losers.

[gpraceman]

Running all cars all lanes averaged timing and then running 'finals' is a recipe for disaster! Those not in the finals will leave, leaving the new winners to celebrate alone.

In my experience, that is not a "recipe for distaster". I have not seen many people leave after the initial round of racing. They generally hang around until the awards ceremony to see who won the design and speed awards. Just because they did not make it to the speed finals, doesn't mean they will not get some design award.

With averaged timed racing you not only have the winners overall, but assuming good software also have the winners in each den, rank, etc. (see soapbox above) Lots of winners and few (if any) losers beats the heck out of a winner and tons of losers.

This can be done with times scoring (cumulative, average, fastest) or even points scoring. Personally, if times scoring is to be used, I prefer cumulative times. With average times scoring, two racers may end up tied once times are added up, averaged and then rounded; whereas with cumulative times they may not have been tied (times within 0.001 or 0.0001 seconds, depending on the timer resolution, of each other).

[SuperDave]

With average times scoring, two racers may end up tied once times are added up, averaged and then rounded; whereas with cumulative times they may not have been tied (times within 0.001 or 0.0001 seconds, depending on the timer resolution, of each other).

As a former test engineer, I disagree completely. If the results are that close, award two trophies. Worrying about the difference between cumulative results and averaged results completely ignores the reality of digital results.

Any digital expression of a continuous function (e.g. time, not cars) is, ignoring ALL other error sources of which there are many, precise to +/- 1/2 count in the final place. 1 second means NOT one second but more than one-half of one second and less than one and one-half seconds. (Or in some cases depending on how the clock is calibrated, more than one second but less than two seconds, thus +1 -0 counts but the same magnitude error.)

If we are talking about 4 runs then those errors, in worst case, add. So the final result in a .001 system is +/- .002 which is way more than a rounding error (in .0001, it's +/- .0002). What this means is that one car at 2.0000 and another at 2.0004 are TIED!

Purists will note that the errors are unlikely, but not impossible, to all go the same direction so the final result is likely to be a little better than the theoretical worst case. But, the whole thing is worse if the race start is a measurement of a running clock rather than a start of a clock from zero, since that doubles the number of measurements and increases the error. I have trouble explaining that to an 8 year old (who is older than 8 but not more than 9).

Give two trophies.

In the data that has been sent to me by users of our system that measures, calculates and stores to significantly better than .0001 but displays only to .0001 (and suggests a tie time of .001), I frequently note a very close result if not a tie at about the 10th place with 40-60 racers. This is a reasonable expectation if one considers the bell curve. (Note that 'measure', 'calculate', 'store' and 'display' are all areas where additional errors can occur.) A tie or near tie for first is so exceptional as to be nearly implausible. However, I suppose it's not so exceptional if the system only measures, calculates and stores to .001 or worse and then displays the results to that or even higher precision ignoring basic digital math.

[gpraceman]

As a former test engineer, I disagree completely. If the results are that close, award two trophies. Worrying about the difference between cumulative results and averaged results completely ignores the reality of digital results.

So, you are suggesting that we need to say the results are +/- some error and if within that error consider it a tie? That seems a bit unreasonable to ask a user to do. Life is full of error, but at some point you need to draw a line in how you are going to do things. If a timer gives times to within 0.001 or 0.0001 seconds, as the case may be, then that is generally what the users are going to go by, not adding in some +/- error factor to base their trophy decisions on.

My point was that with cumulative times scoring you are not adding in an extra rounding error that you would when averaging times. You simply take the times, as reported by the timer and then add them up. There is no division nor rounding involved.

[SuperDave]

we need to say the results are +/- some error

Whether we say it or not, acknowledge it or not, the results are +/- some error. That is a simple fact. We can of course ignore it as we ignore many other error sources that have been discussed previously. As a test and measurement geek I can't ignore them. That's why in our software we provide a user defined tie time that automatically accounts for that error.

My point was that with cumulative times scoring you are not adding in an extra rounding error that you would when averaging times. You simply take the times, as reported by the timer and then add them up. There is no division nor rounding involved.

Division and rounding are two separate things. Division is frequently and incorrectly used to impart improved precision that is not there in much the same way the people don't understand digital precision, but in and of itself division does not create nor impart rounding. 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).

[2kids10horses]

SuperDave:

Our Council race is a timed event. Three trips down a three lane track, and the lowest average time wins. It's pretty scientific, but not "satisfying". Several of us were discussing the fact that you could win all your heats, but not be declared the winner.

Particularily since it seemed we ran against the same cars.

No, I think everyone likes to see a 'finals' where the fastest cars race each other. Well, at least I do.

2k10h

[SuperDave]

Several of us were discussing the fact that you could win all your heats, but not be declared the winner....No, I think everyone likes to see a 'finals' where the fastest cars race each other. Well, at least I do.

Forgive my directness, but spoken like a true adult. In your favor, the last sentence shows great insight.

There are seemingly limitless ways to schedule and score a Pinewood Derby. In my opinion, most have evolved (and been enshrined in the stone tablet of,"We've always done it that way.") to make running the race possible in an era without good finish line systems and without computers. They have been discussed ad nauseum in this forum and will not be further discussed in this post.

The system you describe is similar to what we provide, so please allow me to 'fill in the blanks.' Even in a system that gets every car's time on every lane, there are virtually limitless ways to schedule the cars. How can you do the scheduling to enhance the experience of an 8 year old (obviously not considering the 'down and derby' desires of the adults)? As mentioned previously, any system that finds A winner, unfortunately finds lots of losers.

Pure timing with every car running every lane solves the fast/slow lane problem and the who you ran against problem. So, since who you run against is not an issue, who do you run against? In our system, the race is divided into periods, a period being all the cars running once. In the first period the cars run in car number order simply because we couldn't think of any other way that seemed better. Car number order allows you to (mostly) run Tigers against Tigers as if that made any sense or to run cars randomly by simply assigning car numbers randomly.

In the second and subsequent periods the cars are run in reverse speed order, switching lanes. That is, slow cars run against slow cars, fast cars against fast cars. The result is, as you correctly noted, that you can win a heat or heats and not win overall. The alternative is of course that you (an 8 year old) do nothing but lose! And frankly, a few of you (8 year olds) get your butt kicked repeatedly in front of your friends who are very forgiving and will never remind you of your lack of success.

Next time watch the first heat of the second period. This will be essentially the two or three slowest kids, kids whose butt was really kicked in the first period. Watch the reaction of the winner and tell me it's not "satisfying."

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.)

'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.

The other major benefit of averaged (or, as Randy would instantly correct me - summed) time racing is that it's fairly trivial to create lots more winners (and lots fewer losers). A simple sort will show first to last in each Den and Rank. A little more averaging will show the fastest Rank or Den. Consider a huge perpetual trophy for fastest Den. Now, the Dad in the Den with the knowledge has incentive to share it with the kid who doesn't have a Dad or who has a Dad in Iraq. Now, the kid is interested not only when his car is on the track but when his den-mate's cars are on the track. If you have five Dens, then roughly 20% of the kids go home in 1st Place! And, the natural team that is a Den has been enhanced instead of, as many systems do, having them compete against each other to reach the finals.

Yes, for adults it may not be "satisfying", that is, not until you look at the kids.