How many races is too many?

[kyle_nickels]

Thats is what CSCC is trying to do with this years, make it hard to say no so they get lots more fast cars. Yes, a large field looks fun. And they did have fun. BUT, Conference is about Conference.

 

[Lance Richert]

There are NASCAR Cup champions that didn't win a single race in their championship year. Are they not worthy champions? Some will put an asterik on their name.

The clubs need participation but winners want to win. It appears that our points system awards participation and not winning. This is similar to AYSO Soccer or Youth Softball. Where's the happy medium?

ICSCC does provide a happy medium: Run in an undersubscribed class and you can get a championship pretty easy. Want to win a very competitive championship? Then pick a class that averages 20 entries per race and go to work. Sounds like you need to rethink your class.

 

[epsdan]

I see that and I'm all for awarding participation but I don't like it.

Lance, allow me a "what if scenario":

Imagine you and I are both millionaires and money is no issue the only thing that is a restriction in our lives is TIME. We both run PRO3. Say you had 5 Wins and I only had 1 but you had some "business" that kept you from attending 2 races and because of this I took 1st place in the championship even though you had 4 more wins. How would you view the significance or importance of the Championship?

Colin,

I think there is another aspect of the championship points system that you are missing, that directly addresses this issue.

At the end of the 14 race season (I think it's 15 races this year, but I digress), only the top 10 races are counted (503A). In a competitive class like Pro3 (or ST), the points champion is GOING to be determined on the ten best races from each driver. The minimum number of races will be irrelevant (because you will not have sufficient points to win with only the minimum number of races), and the guy who makes the "most" races doesn't necessarily have a better shot at the championship (except if he has a couple of races of DNF's or low placements, that he can "make up" with later, better performing races). Jeff Van Lierop was the perfect example of this in Pro3 - he "only" ran ten races, and didn't use any drops, and still won the class. Caelin, Dan G,and I, while we ran more than the "best ten", did so (1) because we enjoy it, and (2) to "make up" for either self-induced or "other induced" problems at the track.

Directly addressing your scenario above, it wouldn't matter to "Lance" above, as long as he was able to utilize other races in the fourteen race schedule.

The Conference four race drop rule is pretty forgiving, BTW. A lot of series (Grand Am, for example) have no drops - you miss a race, forget the championship. Now that's a race of the pocketbook.

Dan
#102

 

[westipton]

I truly believe that the average Conference racer has in his head the idea of winning both races and championships. That after all is why we race, or the majority of us anyway. Again to go back a decade or two, the old points system didn't support the outlying venues, which is why we adopted what we have now. It allows lots of points for success, very few for failures and a couple of races to throw out as well, so it's a pretty good system overall. It was adopted by F1 this year as well, so it must be good! Theirs is a bit different, but starts with 25 points for a win. They go down to 18 for 2nd and 15 for a 3rd I believe, which we may want to consider at some point.
As Dan says you can garner a lot of points in just a few week-ends for 2011 based on the tentative schedule, but again will that affect attendance at the other events?
If someone wants a championship with little competition we have lots of lightly attended classes which will serve that end, but I think our system works very well for those who want the competition, and has for a long time. Those with $$ have the upper hand, but persistence and participation usually pays off too. Towing is an integral part of racing Colin, so that argument confuses me.
SCCA has lots of forum input, but unlike them we can chime in, find solutions and pass rules where they can't. We have a few exciting issues to discuss next year and we're getting a good jump on it already based on the posts here the last few weeks.

 

[colin_koehler]

Lance, Dan and Wes; Thanks for the feedback.

I don't need to rethink my class. I spent many hours looking at different classes, costs and competition before I started racing. I understand the 10 race rule and I love it. I really like our rules, our forum and our club... that's why I spend my money here. I just don't agree with the point distribution.

I like the rules for the points system. The 4 race drop (or will it be 5 this year?), the attending 50% of the races (rounding down).... All of it. I just don't like the gaps. It simply doesn't appear to me that winning is appropriately awarded. Didn't F1 award a champion a couple years back who had less wins than the 2nd place guy? Wasn't that Hamilton? What happened to the Point structure after that? As a racer and a fan of racing I think Winning should be appropriately awarded.

To address Lance:

There are NASCAR Cup champions that didn't win a single race in their championship year. Are they not worthy champions? Some will put an asterik on their name.

ABSOLUTELY I would not consider them worthy champions. Worthy racers, sure because they would have always had to finish in the top 10 to accrue competitive points but Champions?... No. Winning matters. All that driver won was a "reliability trophy" which in turn would belong more to the team then the driver. How many NASCAR fans understand the NASCAR points system anyway?

I just think that finishing in front of everyone that showed up to the track that day in your class should be of more value. I like the idea of adopting the F1 structure. The 7points between 1st and 2nd is a drastic improvement.

All of this is very good for me and allows me to re-evaluate my approach to the season.

 

[kyle_nickels]

OK, look at it this way Colin. There are season points winners, and then there are Champions. They may get an award that looks the same, but you will know the difference. I am right there with you on this one.

 

[epsdan]

Colin,

This is more of a question (or perhaps, and observation), but doesn't the double points for a new track (ORP this year) do (granted, for a single race) what you are proposing (increasing the delta between places)? I'd be curious to know what people thought of that, and it's effect on the season points standings. Most of the comments I heard about it was kinda grousing ... at least with regards to skewing the points system. Of course, maybe that was because it was just for one race, and thus hard to make up later in the schedule.

I'm relatively ambivalent about the points structure as it exists now, vs. making more of a differentiation between 1 and 2, 2 and 3, etc. In Pro3 (my class), you could have had 1/2 a point, or 10 points between 1 and 2, and it wouldn't have changed who won the class.

Just as an FYI - while I'd like to win a championship jacket as much as the next guy, it's not really what drives my racing. There are a lot cheaper ways to keep the chill off than a Conference jacket. ;-)

Dan
#102

 

[Steve Adams]

I see the points distribution discussion as related to the conversation a couple years ago (I think) about awarding position points for cars that didn't finish a race, instead of the DNF points. The thinking was that this would encourage someone to keep racing for a season after a DNF, because they wouldn't have lost so many points, encourage attendance at Conference events, "encourage" wounded cars to pull off rather than keep going for the points, etc. The flip side to the argument was that car prep and maintenance are important aspects of racing and a poor job on them shouldn't be rewarded, as you could have a super-fast but unreliable car win a championship in a relatively sparse class without ever even finishing a race!

I'm with Colin on this, in that I think a win should have a bit more impact than 2nd+. (I also do NOT see towing as part of what should be rewarded by winning a championship.)

 

[Stephen Hui]

Winning a championship should be hard because winning is hard, towing is not. Towing is a waste of money that's a by-product of what we do and what we do is racing.

Quoted for truth.

I don't think the Grand Am analogy holds because in Grand Am, the majority of teams attend all of the races (as thus willingness to tow is not a competitive differentiator), whereas the opposite is the case in Conference and amateur racing in general.

 

[colin_koehler]

@ Dan:

I can see how it could have skewed things.

For example: if you had 2 racers that both ran 10 races each and 1 of them didn't chose the double points weekend it essentially is like the other racer having 11 races count towards his championship. I could see this causing the murmurs you heard but as far as the delta between 1st and 2nd I'm not sure why that would have upset anyone. I would love a 6 or 7 point delta between 1st and 2nd. If this were the norm I could see some racers motivated to race more weekends to keep other people from snatching 1st place due to it.

Conatore fought like a madman in that race and his 50 points with a 6 point delta were well earned.

From a motivator standpoint... Don't missing opening weekend at a new track!

 

[mikecolangelo]

Colin, I like your new avatar. Has Rick D. seen it yet?!

 

[epsdan]

Colin,

Not wanting to hijack, but I wonder how many double-points weekends we will have this year? Spokane, ORP (reverse)??

Dan
#102

 

[colin_koehler]

@Colangelo: Yes, yes he has

@Dan: If I decide that a points-season is in the budget then I will definitely focus on these. What would a triple race, double point weekend in Spokane look like? If a racer took pole and won all three races it'd be 168 points in 1 weekend! Holy moly! NOW THAT'S WINNING!

Are Double point weekends for new track layouts or new tracks entirely? Has ORP been certified to run reverse?

 

[john_rissberger]

I do not think ORP has been certified for counter clock wise yet for 4 wheel racing but they are working on that. There are not one but two track days coming up Nov 21 clockwise Nov 27 counter clockwise contact starprojectsevents@gmail.com. or "WILLIAM MURRAY" <mastermechanic05@comcast.net>; for more information...

Now back to how many races are tooooo many.
and how about those points not to mention minumum number of how many races for the championship?

I sure am glad bump draft will be permitted this year....

John Rissberger
# 10 Camaro A/S Oregon
ICSCC and SCCA

 

[epsdan]

I think only the first race would be double points, but that could be a heck of a points weekend.

Dan
#102

 

[Roldan]

I would like to add the following to this unofficial survey:

1. Multiple race weekends are something I find to be very favorable. A triple race weekend in Spokane would be very cool. I like racing not towing or excessive non-racing track time such as practice or redundant qualifying sessions. I also like for there to many cars competing in-class, hopefully double race weekends will help concentrate entries.

2. The biggest de-motivator for pursuing a season championship has been the number of weekends required to collect enough points. It will be far more practical to attend 10 races when more events are doubles. Given that a maximum of 10 races count for championship points I don't think it matters how many races there are from a drivers perspective. From a workers perspective I would imagine 15+ races is a bit out of hand.

3. The current points structure seems adequate to me. Winning 6 races and not finishing the other 4 you enter is analogous to winning the first 8 hours of a 12 hour enduro and then dropping out. Winning is rewarded as it is, if you enter 10 races and win 10 races you've most likely won the championship (if you're that good you're probably also getting all the qualifying points). I also don't want there to be increased incentive to make riskier moves due to a greater delta between 1st and 2nd place points. If I were to do anything with the points system it would be to increase the number of points awarded based on the number entrants in the class. To me winning a race with 15 cars in class is a much more notable achievement than winning a race with 5 cars in class.

4. I am disappointed that the fall enduro will be 8 hours and not 12. Preparing for and running the 12 hour enduro has been an extremely rewarding even though I've never been able to get things quite the way I want them and competition in our class that is still a bit out of reach. I am thankful that CSCC has given us the opportunity to compete in such an event and I understand why they cannot continue to do that.

 

[db1]

Colin,

Not wanting to hijack, but I wonder how many double-points weekends we will have this year? Spokane, ORP (reverse)??

Dan
#102

In the past double points races have been awarded to clubs opening a new racing facility to encourage participation at the first event. When existing tracks have been reconfigured, double points races have not been awarded (ie. Expansion of Mission, changes to PIR). Given the precident I don't think that the new configuration in Spokane or running the other direction at ORP would qualify for double points.

 

[colin_koehler]

I would like to add the following to this unofficial survey:

3. The current points structure seems adequate to me. Winning 6 races and not finishing the other 4 you enter is analogous to winning the first 8 hours of a 12 hour enduro and then dropping out.

I don't think that's a fair analogy. The enduro as an analogy would only work if in that said enduro a car was not require to finish the race but instead "total laps run" was recorded and counted.

I also don't want there to be increased incentive to make riskier moves due to a greater delta between 1st and 2nd place points.

The current point system inspires the opposite. With only a 2 or 3 point delta it means that I have NO "point" motivation to challenge the car in front of me. But I will always race you aggressively Roldan, don't you worry!

I am curious about this as a safety issue but I can't image a larger delta would cause any of us to lose our minds and behave any worse than we already do or don't on track.

If I were to do anything with the points system it would be to increase the number of points awarded based on the number entrants in the class. To me winning a race with 15 cars in class is a much more notable achievement than winning a race with 5 cars in class.

That's philosophically no different then someone thinking the award for getting 1st place should be greater regardless of number of cars. You don't think winning 1st place should be awarded with a greater delta but you think people who win in a class with more cars should get more points?

I am thankful that CSCC has given us the opportunity to compete in such an event and I understand why they cannot continue to do that.

17 entries... I imagine that's why.

 

[kyle_nickels]

The longer the Cascade Enduro has gone the fewer the entries. 8 hours looks to be a reasonable compromise. I would hope a car could last that long, but then again, if it is your regular car and you've played all season it may be too used up. These are the hard decisions that CSCC has to make. Too short some people won't come. Too long and (apparently) more people won't come. We need more people to participate. Your opinions are heard.

 

[Roldan]

I don't think that's a fair analogy. The enduro as an analogy would only work if in that said enduro a car was not require to finish the race but instead "total laps run" was recorded and counted.

I think that is more or less how the 12 hour enduro was scored. Once a car completed 200 laps it was considered a finisher.

The current point system inspires the opposite. With only a 2 or 3 point delta it means that I have NO "point" motivation to challenge the car in front of me. But I will always race you aggressively Roldan, don't you worry!

Hopefully I'll have a car that will make that possible. 85hp ITA Civics don't work too well, an Integra would be way better. Winning itself is motivation to challenge the car ahead, I think that will always be the case regardless of how many points are possible.

I am curious about this as a safety issue but I can't image a larger delta would cause any of us to lose our minds and behave any worse than we already do or don't on track.

There are typically multiple causes to a given incident, the larger delta would likely become a contributing factor especially when first implemented.

That's philosophically no different then someone thinking the award for getting 1st place should be greater regardless of number of cars. You don't think winning 1st place should be awarded with a greater delta but you think people who win in a class with more cars should get more points?

I was thinking more along the lines of within the same class where there are very few entries at some events. I think both of these issues go away if you compete in a well subscribed class. Maybe we should just make our class better subscribed.

As for the enduro, hopefully there will be lot of entrants in the 8 hour format. We will probably start thinking about how to do the 25 hour with an 8 hour test day or something.