Endurance Performance Index

VRRA Racing Forum Endurance Racing
1

vrra.ca/wp-content/uploads/2 … -FORUM.pdf

The photo link shows the index at each track. This is based on lap records at each track.
I ran all the results from last year through the new system and it did not impact the top 3 final results in any class of the championship.
Find your class, multiply your index by the laps actually completed. That is you final score towards the championship.

This is what we are going to try in 2024.

It requires a lot less manual calculation as it will automatically compensate for shortened races or slower paces (due to rain).

2

Dave.

This makes no sense. Are you saying that a P3L bike is doing effectively the same time as a P4-F3 bike, the only difference is 0.01%. Can you post the data that is behind this?

3

I second that, this makes anyone planning to race a p3 light bike immediately rethink it.

4

So a p3 middle is only 1 sec per lap slower than a p5 middle at mosport with the same rider?

Sorry this makes zero sense.

You might as well just eliminate handicaps and run what you brung.

The original plan was a slight tilt in favour to older machinery to get people out on track.

Your current plan means P5 or you will not be competitive.

If you used endurance data to do this then you realize You are handicapping teams and not machines?

It’s a few days early for April 1st but I’m hoping this is some kind of joke.

5

Not to mention, if someone was on the same lap each round, you could end up with a 2, 3 or 4 way tie.

6

Here come the stats again…

7

The original proposal was to remove handicaps for P3, P4 and P5. I am against removing handicaps. The same team and tactics should always be faster on a later period bike. The exec meeting when we discussed the endurance proposal, among other items, was over 2 hours long. After much discussion a 1% bonus was agreed for P3 classes. The 1% was my error as I read the current handicap for SMP for P3L (1.077) and rounded the .077 to 1.01 when in fact it is 1.10.

Not included in the attachment to this post is the elimination of the bonus mileage for finishing order, to be replaced with the following;

[i]Tie breaking mileage adjustments will be applied to finishers who complete the same number of laps based on order of finish as follows:

Tie Breaking Mileage Adjustments (all bikes completed same number of laps)

Highest Position No mileage adjustment
2nd bike 0.5 lap deduction
3rd bike 0.6 lap deduction
4th bike 0.7 lap deduction
5th bike 0.8 lap deduction
6th bike 0.9 lap deduction
7th onward 0.99 lap deduction [/i]

8

What about p5 vs p4 Mike?
I would say an equal rider would most definitely be faster on a p5 bike of the same class than a p4 bike.
It also makes absolutely no sense that a p2 mwp bike would get a smaller handicap than a p3 light bike at 10%.

I don’t understand why were messing with something that has years of data and worked quite well.

9

What group of members put forth the idea for a complete revamp ?
And why?
Was the old system that bad it just needed to be scrapped and started over?
And if P5 doesn’t have an advantage over P4 - why did we introduce them?

I’m sorry but this is a giant pile of crap and it smells very bad.

There is now zero motivation for older bikes to run endurance. Which was the entire reason we came up with it.

10

My $0.02 is this, and bare in mind that I actually couldn’t ride a rocking horse and I’m a sample size of one, but anyway.

So if you exclude anomalies like Darrell Cooney (who would probably win on a Honda Cub) A more modern bike will give the average VRRA rider a distinct advantage, hence my initial comment

From my own experience at Shannonville I can easily do 8 seconds a lap better on the Pro track on a FAST school bike than I can on my P3 or P4 bike. And we are talking about a 400 Ninja here. So, if you extrapolate that out that’s around 4 or 5 more laps in 2 hours. And I think that’s a fair comparison as I’m comparing it with my GPZ550.

My other concern is that if I have to race, as an example, my P3 heavy bike against a 750 SRAD or even a R6 or RC51 from the modern invitational class, It’s like comparing apples to oranges. It has no brakes (comparatively speaking), damping rod forks, skinny wheels, axial master cylinders, etc., the list goes on. Can I put all the cool modern stuff on a P3 bike to try and make it a bit closer? Probably not without infringing on a bunch of rules. But my contention is if I’m being scored back to back against a P5 or invitational bike, why cant I run those parts? Don’t worry, I’m not advocating for this but it seems fair.

At this stage I don’t think I’m interested in riding a P3 in endurance, although I was thinking about a 500/4 P2 Honda, but I am actively looking for an R6 that I have to prep in a couple of months (I do have an ad on the forum). My real concern with that approach is that it further waters down the vintage DNA running in Endurance.

It would have been nice to have had this information at the AGM. Would it be an option to leave things as they are this year, work out the handicap change(s) required and present it at the AGM in November?

If you have concerns with the calculation, there is a PHP script in the web site that ingests the data from MyLaps and does the calculation based on the current formulas. These formulas are in spreadsheet form as well and have been well tested. Clearly this just couldn’t be pushed to the web site as Mylaps has no clue about penalties or things like that and would need to be reviewed.

Anyway, my $0.02 (FWIW)

11

Sorry Michael. Just to confirm as this confused the hell out of me when I was talking to Doug Andrich about it earlier.

Is the intent that a P3 Light rider that does 100 laps will be awarded 1% more laps so will end up with 101, while a P2M rider that does 100 laps will be awarded 9.3% so end up with 109.3 laps? So in other words P3L is rounded down to 1.01, and not rounded up to 1.10? The 1.10 doesn’t make a lot of sense.

12

I’ve had it. Enough of the topdown leadership and lack of communication to the membership from our current president. What else are we not being told?

Was there a majority of endurance racers (let alone VRRA members in general) asking for a revamp of the endurance handicapping system? Answer: no.

I am against this change.

13

I second that Steve.

The rule book specifically states the following with regards to endurance:

“Class structures and handicaps are reviewed annually, prior to the racing season, by the
Endurance Coordinator and the Executive based on team input and results.”

Let us emphasize “BASED ON TEAM INPUT”

I would like to know what specific endurance teams were consulted? How many, and whom.
I was not consulted, it seems many others were not either based on the reaction on facebook.

This is all very concerning and VERY VERY frustrating.

14

So I thought I did it the right way. I read the rules and watched the races and decided an '82 Pantah 600 was the next bike for me in Endurance. I bought the bike and started building it. It’s 99% done and is on target for the Shannonville opener. Now it seems the rules are being changed, with no vote and vague reasons for this change. Is this the way forward for this club? Changing things at the whim of a few members? I am out 2 classes with this new locked in schedule because of conflicts and now the bike I built becomes a has been before it turns a wheel. I could enter the bike and go ride around, but that’s called a track day, not racing. The scoring has worked for years with no problems and I think Kirby did an awesome job calculating the handicaps.
This year we have new classes with no rules, locked in schedule that costs us bump classes and\or races if you have multiple bikes, invited bikes that have no classes in our club and now a change in endurance rules that was not asked for by anyone I know who races endurance (well maybe one guy). None of which was voted on. A new dirt bike with all the money I’ll save this year is looking pretty good.

15

So I thought I did it the right way. I read the rules and watched the races and decided an '82 Pantah 600 was the next bike for me in Endurance. I bought the bike and started building it. It’s 99% done and is on target for the Shannonville opener. Now it seems the rules are being changed, with no vote and vague reasons for this change. Is this the way forward for this club? Changing things at the whim of a few members? I am out 2 classes with this new locked in schedule because of conflicts and now the bike I built becomes a has been before it turns a wheel. I could enter the bike and go ride around, but that’s called a track day, not racing. The scoring has worked for years with no problems and I think Kirby did an awesome job calculating the handicaps.
This year we have new classes with no rules, locked in schedule that costs us bump classes and\or races if you have multiple bikes, invited bikes that have no classes in our club and now a change in endurance rules that was not asked for by anyone I know who races endurance (well maybe one guy). None of which was voted on. A new dirt bike with all the money I’ll save this year is looking pretty good.

16

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I took over the transportation of the souvenirs and pit in/pit out easy ups and other assorted gear. It was a no brainer since I had the room and was going to be at the track for all activities. With this change, I’m having difficulty coming up with a reason to be at the track on a Friday. What this means is potentially someone else may have to take over the previously mentioned transport of all this gear, or it arrives late in the day Friday or Saturday morning.

pd

17

I feel I’m repeating myself. I’ll stop now.

18

As an endurance only racer, I do not agree with the new handicaps and I especially do not agree with the

attempt to railroad them through without discussion or input from racers. Although they are not “rules” the

endurance performance index should be locked in for a specified period and changed only through the same

process as any other rule change.

19

I am going to repost my comment from the earlier thread I started a few months back asking about the changes.

I think this is very relevant and it’s important to have a goal in mind when making changes to this type of scoring system.
I have no understanding of the “goal” or “reasoning” behind the changes that have been made. But I can see no clear logic for them other than to ensure P5 teams have an advantage. Which is 180 degrees from the original plan of “a slight tilt in Favour to older machinery”.

Here is my previous post:

The original handicaps were calculated across the entire range of classes in the club.

So, while it hasn’t happened much at all- the idea was that any bike in the club could do the endurance race if they so choose.
They will have a shot at winning the class because we tried to level comparative riders on different machines.

Our historical information would show we had primarily P3, P4 and P5 entries. And this was somewhat predictable as they are the newest and most comfortable machines to run for an extended period. Easiest to maintain and get parts for.

We did have a very successful team on a P1-350 a few seasons ago. I believe they had a great season and ended up on the podium often.

The handicaps are there to level out machinery, not rider skill.

Scenario 1.
A well prepared P3 Heavy team with Eddie Lawson and Kevin Schwantz on board should beat a well prepared P5 Heavy team with club fast guys on it. Because the rider skill is what is separating the teams.

Scenario 2
A Well prepared P5 Heavy Team with front running team members on it should beat a well prepared P4 Heavy machine with mid level club riders on it.

Teh handicaps were calculated off of lap records in each class as a way of setting a “maximum potential performance” in any given class.

In any class the records tend to be set by “fast guys”.

Rider skill set is still the largest contributing factor and ultimately winning teams should be the fastest rider combinations in any class.

This can mean that a standout rider - someone considerably faster than most, can dominate no different than in a sprint. And if the team chooses to ride older equipment they can leap even further ahead due to the handicap.
But if that team also ran on newer equipment - they would also tend to be out front by a considerable distance - enough to overcome any handicaps by reasonably fast teams on older equipment.

No handicap system will ever be perfect, there are just too many variables.

But a handicap system can be shown to be working reasonably well if the fastest teams (greatest rider skill) tend to win. Regardless of what machine they are on.

The raw timing data from the race will always give everyone the ability to measure themselves against other teams “head to head”.

I just hope any changes to the previous system don’t lose sight of the original goals:

  1. To allow any machine in the club to have the opportunity to race endurance. Growing the field.
  2. Allow the fastest teams to be the ones that finish first. Regardless of what machine they choose to enter on.

And remember, speed comes from also being well prepared in the pits and keeping the bike out of the pits, and on the track as much as possible…

Because …“slow laps are better than no laps”
and losing even a minute in the pits requires a lot of hard fast riding to recover from.

It’s a team sport and as such all components of the team have to perform to make the most of it and maximize your mileage.

Based on the past, the system has worked reasonably well.
There is a lot more P5 data available now and as such the handicaps could be recalculated based off of better data.

P5 was estimated when the current system was put into place.

Good luck this season- I don’t think we need a full rewrite - but some tweaks could be beneficial.

20

I agree that the current handicap system isn’t broken and should be left as-is.
It doesn’t make any sense that a P4-F2 bike is as good a racebike as a P5-F2
and should be scored equally.

Andre Kipin #818
Team On the Verge