BHPC Forum Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Public: Open to anyone > Racing > Etc
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - New classes discussion before the AGM
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Starting a new topic? Please try and put it in a relevant forum (Riding, Building, etc) but if you're not sure it's better to post in any forum than not to post at all.


Topic ClosedNew classes discussion before the AGM

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213>
Author
Message
antony View Drop Down
Visitor (regular)
Visitor (regular)
Avatar

Joined: 07 March 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 667
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 September 2008 at 2:09pm

Originally posted by gNick gNick wrote:

How is it ridiculous to not include Unfaired in Part-Faired? They aren't Part-Faired.

I can see both arguments. It comes down to whether 'part-faired' is a bike with at least some fairing, or no more than some fairing, or exactly some fairing, within defined boundaries of 'some'!

If part-faired must have at least some fairing, then no, unfaired cannot be part of part faired. But then, fully faired bikes also have at least some fairing...

If it must have no more than some fairing then an unfaired machine could be included because it also has no more than some fairing.

If it must have exactly some fairing, the classes must be distinct.

Overlap would mean a combination of a 'slower' (e.g. unfaired) machine and faster rider could take points off slower riders of 'faster' machines in other classes. This would allow upgrades (or the use of different bikes) during the season without having to 'opt up' at the start of the year when you might not know your plans or how much time you'll have. This may or may not be deemed a good thing, itself dependent on whether a class is deemed to be won by a rider, or a rider on a specific bike or type of bike! Again, I can see why various people would claim either way was 'right'.

Incidentally, the rules page makes no mention of part-faired - just Unfaired, Faired, Ladies, Multi-track, Arm-powered, Junior and Sports...

Wink

Deja mu: The feeling you've heard this bull before
Back to Top
Andrew S View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Avatar

Joined: 14 March 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 1723
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 September 2008 at 9:08pm
Originally posted by Adrian Setter Adrian Setter wrote:

I've been playing about in Excel with various points curves.  It seems intuitively right that the proportional difference between any two positions should be (apart from rounding) the same.
I too think this is worth trying:
  • Moving from 20th to 19th in a race gives the same proportional reward as moving from 3rd to 2nd, so it's fair right the way down the field.

  • The spaces at the top are bigger than at present, which several of the fast guys have expressed a wish for over the years.

  • It's easy to implement with the existing race software.
...and it's what I suggested trying back in 2005!

Back to Top
KevinJ View Drop Down
BHPC Member
BHPC Member
Avatar

Joined: 04 March 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1072
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 September 2008 at 5:16am
I think - and I am sure I will be corrected - that the existing points system was designed and scaled down to cater for the fact of coping with a large field (I think it was used by the Dutch at some world championships)  As such it copes with a field of 250 odd. 
It would be nice to think that this is necessary to cope with our normal race turn outs - alas I think it is a bit excessive.

I keep saying the same thing, but I will repeat again.  You need to determine the general principles that people want the races to credit - then we can look at how we can build a points system to cater for it.

If one of those is "The same proportional award for places gained, throughout the field" - and everyone agrees - then lets do it.

One of the consequences of the current points system is that since the points are all high (we never get places beyond 50, and in small classes may never get places beyond fifth!) it also credits those that do all the races (especially true in small classes). 

So to summarise - if we can agree on principles on which the points system should be based then we have a chance of creating onw.  I suspect though that agreeing these will be difficult.
Kevin Jenkins

Windcheetah
Back to Top
NickM View Drop Down
BHPC Member
BHPC Member


Joined: 18 August 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1907
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 September 2008 at 8:56am
In my opinion... in a race season consisting of X number of races, the number of counting results should be 2/3 times X, rounded up.
 
Points awarded to race winners should reflect the size of the race field, so that a winner in a large field gets more points than a winner in a small field. This would cater neatly for points-in-class too.
 
Also in my opinion... a person who wins [(X/2) + 1] races should win a championship and/or class, and any revised points system should be designed with the aim of bringing about this outcome in a season of races with fields of the expected size.
 
 
 


Edited by NickM - 11 September 2008 at 9:03am
Back to Top
Neil View Drop Down
BHPC Member
BHPC Member


Joined: 07 March 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1090
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 September 2008 at 9:24am
Originally posted by NickM NickM wrote:

 
Points awarded to race winners should reflect the size of the race field, so that a winner in a large field gets more points than a winner in a small field. This would cater neatly for points-in-class too.
 
 
Which penalises winners of a race that is poorly attended through no fault of their own
Back to Top
NickM View Drop Down
BHPC Member
BHPC Member


Joined: 18 August 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1907
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 September 2008 at 9:34am
Originally posted by Neil Neil wrote:

Which penalises winners of a race that is poorly attended through no fault of their own
 
Or you could argue that it rewards the winners of particularly well-attended races adequately, whereas the current system does not...
Back to Top
Paul Lowing View Drop Down
Visitor (regular)
Visitor (regular)
Avatar

Joined: 23 March 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1244
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 September 2008 at 9:43am
Or you could argue that it favours those who are geographically closest to the races with the biggest turnouts..
Back to Top
NickM View Drop Down
BHPC Member
BHPC Member


Joined: 18 August 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1907
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 September 2008 at 10:10am
Yes, you could argue lots of things... but you still wouldn't shake my belief that a person who beats a large field deserves more points than a person who beats a small field.
Back to Top
antony View Drop Down
Visitor (regular)
Visitor (regular)
Avatar

Joined: 07 March 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 667
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 September 2008 at 10:14am

Originally posted by Neil Neil wrote:

Which penalises winners of a race that is poorly attended through no fault of their own

...and also penalises the poorly-attended races themselves, as it means there's an incentive to attend already well-attended races and a disincentive to attend already poorly-attended races. This seems rather, how can I put this, "wrong".

Currently the reverse is true - people are more likely to get more points at poorly-attended races and therefore there's an additional incentive to attend these events, bolstering their fields and making them all the better for that.

Originally posted by NickM NickM wrote:

the number of counting results should be 2/3 times X, rounded up

...

a winner in a large field gets more points than a winner in a small field

...

a person who wins [(X/2) + 1] races should win a championship and/or class

I can see the thinking behind this, but here's an interesting piece of math - or at least, a piece of math - I just did:

Assume there's 12 races in a season, which means 'best 8' results count.

Half the races are 'well attended' and attract 2000 points for the win and 1900 for 2nd.

The other half are less 'well attended' and their field sizes dictate that they attract 1800 points for the win and 1700 for 2nd

Rider 1 attends the 6 less 'well attended' races, winning them. They also win one other event and are second in a further 1. They do not attend the 4 other races.

(6*1800)+2000+1900 = 14,700 over 8 counting results, including 7 race wins - i.e. [(X/2)+1] wins.

Rider 2 attends the 6 'well attended' events, winning 5 of them and coming 2nd in the 6th (that Rider 1 won) and two other less 'well attended' events, in which they finish second behind Rider 1. They do not attend the 4 other races.

(5*2000)+1900+(2*1700) = 15,300 over 8 counting results, including 5 race wins.

Rider 2 has clearly attained more points over their 2X/3 best results from their season.

However, Rider 1 has won [(X/2)+1] races and therefore "should win a championship".

Obviously the scores per places are guesses; my point is, trying to square the above principles without giving rise to this sort of potential dichotomy is going to be really rather difficult whilever championships are scored by points but there's a conflicting demand that a given number of race wins should guarantee victory irrespective of points scored.



Edited by antony - 11 September 2008 at 10:24am
Deja mu: The feeling you've heard this bull before
Back to Top
antony View Drop Down
Visitor (regular)
Visitor (regular)
Avatar

Joined: 07 March 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 667
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 September 2008 at 10:35am

Originally posted by NickM NickM wrote:

Yes, you could argue lots of things... but you still wouldn't shake my belief that a person who beats a large field deserves more points than a person who beats a small field.

Then should not also the quality of the field be considered?

A large field of cyclists, vaguely recently:

A small field of cyclists:

Deja mu: The feeling you've heard this bull before
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 910111213>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.02
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd.