looking for software that ....

[brownboy]

I am looking for software that will fit our needs. We have a homebuilt printer port timer and a three lane track. We don't usually use the middle lane, we want software that will allow us to enter scouts names and have it run a double elimination bracket for all dens, and then run a double elimination bracket for overall pack winner from the den winners. We find double elimination is more fun for the scouts and in a smallish pack such as ours a timed only race is both too fast and anti-climactic. Now we use old fashioned paper brackets, and just used the timer to insure the accuracy of the results in individual races.

[gpraceman]

I am looking for software that will fit our needs. We have a homebuilt printer port timer and a three lane track. We don't usually use the middle lane, we want software that will allow us to enter scouts names and have it run a double elimination bracket for all dens, and then run a double elimination bracket for overall pack winner from the den winners. We find double elimination is more fun for the scouts and in a smallish pack such as ours a timed only race is both too fast and anti-climactic. Now we use old fashioned paper brackets, and just used the timer to insure the accuracy of the results in individual races.

It is hard to see how two-and-out is fun for any kid. You do not have to do a timed race (as in scoring by times) when using non-elimination (final standings) methods, you can score by points, based on finsh order. You can run multiple rounds using a final standings method and each round trims the field. You end up with some elimination, but each round the racers get to race in each lane (no more "I got the slow lane" arguments). You can even use all lanes of your track. More lanes = more racing, what kid would not want that?

You will be hard pressed to find double elim software that will support your parallel port sensor system, unless there is some out there that I am not aware of. I recommend that you reconsider the double elim method. You can search this forum about the discussions that have already taken place, you will find that it is not a very fair method which can very well lead to fastest cars not being determined accurately.

[Stan Pope]

I hope that no one has put DE into software, and I hope that no one ever does! There are too many more fun, more accurate methods.

I disagree with Randy about DE "fairness." DE can be run with exquisite fairness. But I agree totally with his concerns for accuracy, especially if you try to award three place trophies when a well-matched track is used or award two place trophies when the track has significant lane inequalities.

There's a bunch of much better methods ... charted final standings by points; charted final standings by time, multiple elimination (e.g. we run quintuple elimination at our district races in approximately the same amount of time that we used to run charted DE.)

Each has its requirements for equipment, with multiple elim being the least demanding on electronics. In fact, it can easily be run with NO electronics!

Other considerations might be the ability to cope with late registrants? How do you add a car to a typical DE chart or a charted final standings by points competition after the cars have started the second round? It is easily handled with uncharted multiple elimination. Much better than sending a late arriving out-of-town Cub Scout home just because his parent couldn't find the district race location on time!

Look around ... there is a better world out there!

[gpraceman]

I hope that no one has put DE into software, and I hope that no one ever does! There are too many more fun, more accurate methods.

Sadly there is, but not one that will interface with a parallel port sensor system.

I disagree with Randy about DE "fairness." DE can be run with exquisite fairness. But I agree totally with his concerns for accuracy, especially if you try to award three place trophies when a well-matched track is used or award two place trophies when the track has significant lane inequalities.

My definition of fairness is that they get to race each lane. If simply running a two lane track, then that requiment of fairness has been met; otherwise running more than 2 lanes, DE will be unfair in my book.

[Stan Pope]

I hope that no one has put DE into software, and I hope that no one ever does! There are too many more fun, more accurate methods.

Sadly there is, but not one that will interface with a parallel port sensor system.

Yech!!!

BTW, Multiple Elim is faster to run without computers than it is to run with computers! More races per hour! More smiles per hour!

[terryep]

We ran our district finals this year with electronic finish lines for the first time. Night and day, "a Godsend", These were stand alone with no wires for cubs to trip over and only gave the winner of the three lanes used in a points system. After the race it was suggested that with the addition of computers it could be even better! I'm not at all convinced about that.

This year our district adopted the method used at last years provincial race. The race was held on two three lane tracks from one chart. Each car raced each other at least once on one or the other track. Race appeared to run more quickly this way. Yesterday the 36 finalists raced 13 rounds on two tracks. My son's car never lost a race to get 1st place, 2nd place required a runoff but after that I can't say how fair it all was. I don't have any other details other than there was lots of tie breaking for the other trophies and medals. One other car from our pack I was watching looked to be winning a lot of races but didn’t place in the top 12, it won at least 7 races.

Terry

[MathGuy]

We have had computer software races in years past. This year we had prepared to run races without software. We had planned to use the software to show the race times. The software/PC/track/LCD display failed in someway, (there are soooo many things that can go wrong) so that was abandon. The PC-less race worked fine great. If you have such a small number, you might not need a PC. (Not needed a PC, does not mean not needing to Plan and Prepare)

I would personally be against any Elimination race at a pack level, because it stinks to make a car and race it only once and twice. 90% of the kids go home feeling very dissatisfied if they have an ounce of competive drive. (There are the happy go lucky kids that truely don't care.) The race should not just be FUN for the top 3 kids in the pack, it should be fun for all!!

[gpraceman]

We had planned to use the software to show the race times. The software/PC/track/LCD display failed in someway, (there are soooo many things that can go wrong) so that was abandon.

With proper prep time to resolve any possible hardware/software conflicts, technology can be of great help in a race. However, many people slap everything together too close to their race when there is not enough time to work through the issues. I have many people contacting me the night before their race (and even on race day) to work out an issue between software/timer/light tree/solenoid/projector/computer.

[Stan Pope]

I would personally be against any Elimination race at a pack level, because it stinks to make a car and race it only once and twice. 90% of the kids go home feeling very dissatisfied if they have an ounce of competive drive.

This is an over generalization. While SE and DE are very unsatisfying to me, 4E and 5E isn't a bad way to go for the pack's King of the Hill competition.

In our district's quintuple elimination race, each car had at least 5 contested heats, and about 88% went home with at least one heat 1st Place against real entries (i.e. not against CM's Dog Car.) Since most of our heats involve three cars, many of those approx. 12% will have 2nd place finishes as well as 3rd place finishes.

One of the neat aspects (to me, at least) is that until it is eliminated, every car still has the mathematical possibility of winning the 1st place trophy.

[brownboy]

I am looking for software that will fit our needs. We have a homebuilt printer port timer and a three lane track. We don't usually use the middle lane, we want software that will allow us to enter scouts names and have it run a double elimination bracket for all dens, and then run a double elimination bracket for overall pack winner from the den winners. We find double elimination is more fun for the scouts and in a smallish pack such as ours a timed only race is both too fast and anti-climactic. Now we use old fashioned paper brackets, and just used the timer to insure the accuracy of the results in individual races.

It is hard to see how two-and-out is fun for any kid. You do not have to do a timed race (as in scoring by times) when using non-elimination (final standings) methods, you can score by points, based on finsh order. You can run multiple rounds using a final standings method and each round trims the field. You end up with some elimination, but each round the racers get to race in each lane (no more "I got the slow lane" arguments). You can even use all lanes of your track. More lanes = more racing, what kid would not want that?

You will be hard pressed to find double elim software that will support your parallel port sensor system, unless there is some out there that I am not aware of. I recommend that you reconsider the double elim method. You can search this forum about the discussions that have already taken place, you will find that it is not a very fair method which can very well lead to fastest cars not being determined accurately.

I fail to see how double elimination is less acurate than any other method. Timed races have many variables esp. the speed by which the starter pulls the gate, and one bad race could elimanate a car that won every other race. Head to head competion wether DE or points system will be affected by lane conditions. The one thing that I challange you to do with your scoring system is have a definative race that you can annouce before hand that 'this is the race for first place'.

as for the other points .. the slowest car, is more than likely going to loose every race it's in 2 or 22. Our pack does run more heats to place more than the top 3 cars, but once a car is past the 2nd elimination it can no longer , nor should it have a chance to race for first.

[Stan Pope]

I fail to see how double elimination is less acurate than any other method.

Running some simulations with Cory's race simulation software will help you see the accuracy comparisons, including the effects of lane differences.

Head to head competion wether DE or points system will be affected by lane conditions.

PN charts are designed to enforce the "averaging out" of lane differences. DE relies on chance to accomplish that.

The one thing that I challange you to do with your scoring system is have a definative race that you can annouce before hand that 'this is the race for first place'.

If the DE chart is "proper", then you can only say, "One of the next two races will determine the overall winner." The reason is that the if the unbeaten survivor loses to the survivor of the consolation bracket, he has not been eliminated ... he has only one loss ... and they must race again to determine the winner. If that last race is omitted from the chart, then is isn't really a "double elimination" race.

the slowest car, is more than likely going to loose every race it's in 2 or 22. Our pack does run more heats to place more than the top 3 cars, but once a car is past the 2nd elimination it can no longer , nor should it have a chance to race for first.

In the presence of lane inequality and bad luck in lane assignment, top cars can be bumped "out of the running." Additional layers of elimination gives chance more opportunities in which to "average out the lane differences.

Running additional races after 1st place has been determined is a bit anticlimactic, I think. The structure of our multiple elim racing leaves 1st and 2nd places as the last places determined. In our case, 5th is determined, then, in rapid succession, 4th, then 3rd, and finally 2nd and 1st. The suspense works.

Quintuple Elimination, run without charts, has some other advantages as well that, for our purposes, offset its slightly lower accuracy than PPN points charts.

All that said, you must select a method that best serves your boys. My boys were not well served by DE. I've spent several years developing methods to serve them better.

[Darin McGrew]

I fail to see how double elimination is less acurate than any other method.

Double elimination can be an efficient way to determine the fastest car. And it can be pretty good at determining the second-fastest car. But it can't determine anything beyond that. And DE loses accuracy quickly when lane bias becomes significant.

And there are other criteria besides theoretical accuracy that are important for running a successful derby. The big problem with using DE for derbies is that a lot of cars race twice and then they're out. Final standings methods keep everyone involved until the end.

Timed races have many variables esp. the speed by which the starter pulls the gate, and one bad race could elimanate a car that won every other race.

I'm not a fan of total-time methods either. They assume consistency that isn't always present in a derby, especially when you've got a bunch of kids running around.

Head to head competion wether DE or points system will be affected by lane conditions.

There are ways to balance the effects of lane bias in final standings methods. It's harder with DE, especially when your track has more than 2 lanes.

The one thing that I challange you to do with your scoring system is have a definative race that you can annouce before hand that 'this is the race for first place'.

If that's important to you, then you can easily use a final standings method to select a small number of finalists, and then race those finalists head-to-head for first place. But unless your track exhibits no lane bias at all, you'll need to re-race a time or two with the cars in different lanes to avoid complaints that "so-and-so got the fast lane".

the slowest car, is more than likely going to loose every race it's in 2 or 22.

True. But many cars in the bottom 25% will not lose every race. And many cars in the next 25% will actually win at least one race.

And a car that doesn't win any races can get the Best Gas Mileage award...

[MathGuy]

Stan Wrote

This is an over generalization. While SE and DE are very unsatisfying to me, 4E and 5E isn't a bad way to go for the pack's King of the Hill competition

Stan, your 4E and 5E seem to be great to me. The sorting method that I have been proposing is different, but essentially does the same thing. Slower cars will start racing against each other, thus giving boys opportunity to race and WIN.

Fixed Schedule races will always likely have a top half racer, the odds of the bottom half of the cars being entered in a race with only bottom half cars is low. But they are great for accuracy.

SE and DE, seems to me extremely poor at a pack level. If you insist on doing this, you can do some simple things to let more boys race. You can create a "challenger" group for the boys to join when they get eliminated, and have them race in the begginning of each round . Or race a few rounds of "Preliminary" races before you start the SE or DE, so that boys race more than twice. The preliminary rounds could be ran under the reason to work the graphite in or such. But like anything, be clear on the format and be organized.

[MathGuy]

With proper prep time to resolve any possible hardware/software conflicts, technology can be of great help in a race. However, many people slap everything together too close to their race when there is not enough time to work through the issues. I have many people contacting me the night before their race (and even on race day) to work out an issue between software/timer/light tree/solenoid/projector/computer.

STRONLGY AGREED. The problem we had with this is the track and equipment was not available to test until the night before. Most packs the rotation of who is running the races are on a two to three year cycle. If it wasn't for the fact that I knew that the PC wasn't required for us, I would not have been able to sleep for the week prior to the race.

[brownboy]

hey do you guys have a program or a pdf file that will do a 4e race? It would be nice to have it for the District and mega scout show "Super-District" races that my pack is in charge of in the next several months.