Endurance points system discussion

VRRA Racing Forum Endurance Racing
1

OK, i have been having some pretty interesting and lively discussions on the current endurance series scoring system.
Currently it is strictly mileage:

Total Laps X track length = mileage

That all seems fine on the surface at first glance. But round one was very competitive and we have 3 teams in middleweight at the front with the same mileage.

92 laps x 2.47Km= 227.24km

Essentially a 3 way tie. Very Exciting!

Except, this doesn’t give any reward/advantage for finishing position, as we do in every other sprint race here in the VRRA.

WERA ran what could be called the jewel of North American Endurance racing. They used a combined scoring system where you got Mileage divided by 10 plus finishing position points.
If we used something like this but combined the mileage calculation with the current VRRA points system used in sprints then we have this:

Mileage/10+VRRA points.
Middleweight would look like this:
1st 22.724 +20= 43 points for first (rounding)
2nd 22.724 + 17= 40 points
3rd 22.724 + 15+ 38 points

Still a close race but now giving some advantage to finishing ahead of the competitor behind you- like any other race we do.

The problem i see with the current system is that when things are very close like this, the team that actually wins races could still lose the championship. If team 1 were to win 3 of 4 races and come in 3rd in the 4th race by a lap or two- they could still lose.
I don’t necessarily want to emphasize winning, but to recognize that doing well at endurance requires a lot of hard work by the entire team - fast lap times and quick/fewer pit stops.

The combined scoring can lead to a few other things.
It allows you to both close and extend the the gap further. If the first place team also has a lap advantage the gap grows larger.
If the leading team has 1 bad race even by just a few laps - the mileage points allow the other teams to close that gap by piling on some mileage. Keeping the battle tight.

If the leading team continues to win while also doing more laps- their lead is extended even further.
Reward for getting everything right. Which is not easy in a 2 hour race.

I just want some good discussion on the above. This years scoring is set, we will continue with the mileage alone version.
I am looking towards next season and making sure the scoring makes sense for everyone.

So let the discussion begin!

Thanks for your time,
Kirby

2

The above does not mention the handicap system, but handicap is calculated and added to total laps, which of course affects your mileage.
The same goes for any penalties- these are assessed as laps - also affecting your mileage.

Just to clarify

3

Hi Kirby,

Where are they handicap allowances posted?
Can’t find them???

I do like your idea of some kind of points for finishing places.
I don’t like “I don’t necessarily want to emphasize winning”! Not the thought going through my melon on track!!! :mrgreen:

Cheers,
Colin

4

At the end of the endurance rules section of the rule book

5

If winning does not give a benefit it should not be called a championship or a race but a social event…

6

We could also do raw mileage plus finishing points.
This would make the margins much tighter.

So laps x track length + finish position points

1st. 92 x 2.47 + 20 = 247 points
2nd 92 x 2.47 + 17 = 244 points
3rd 92 x 2.47 + 15 = 242 points

Still an advantage but one easily closed with an extra lap.
Keeping it very tight when it actually is. Making it more difficult for a team to gain a huge advantage unless they have done significantly more mileage.

7

Ultimately you want a points system in endurance that does a good job of rewarding both consistency and pure speed.

Being endurance, a team needs to keep the bike on the track a much as possible, racking up as many miles as you can. This means staying out of trouble on track and staying out of the pits.

A team that fields a consistent result should have the possibility to catch a faster team that falters in any of these areas.

So the points system should use a combination of points like we have listed above.

The WERA mileage version gives less advantage to mileage, a lap would often not equal a single point.

The raw mileage would tip the favour to those that can put at least a lap between them and the position behind.

Lots of views- not too much input. I have tried to lay out the pros and cons of each system as best i can, but i need a few others to sift through this and see if i have missed anything. Then we need people to let me know which system they think is most fair and why.
After that we will likely have to submit a rule change proposal based on what we have come up with.
Thanks

8

Anything wrong with mileage divided by ten plus VRRA points?

9

Well that’s what we are supposed to be figuring out.
And in the end I am happy with whatever we decide as a group.

It really Depends on what you want. I’ve had a few personal messages that figure the mileage alone will sort itself out as the season continues.

The divide by ten means that the mileage affect is actually minimized.

It takes 10km to equal 1 point. At Shannonville that means 4 laps. Unless we start doing points into 2 decimal points, it doesn’t really allow a team that loads on extra laps to stretch their advantage.

I will track all the ways discussed for this season and see what affect- if any- it has on the championship.

10

Quiet forum…
Would total km + VRRA points be a good way of doing it?

11

Endurance racing is supposed to be about who travels farthest in the allotted time.Until we can put gps or odometers on the bikes to record actual distance or take into account partial laps behind the winner,completed laps,converted to mileage,is the best way,imho. Over 4 races,if there are any ties,use finishing positions to break the ties.
The difference between 1st and 2nd in this last race was 10 sec,1st and 3rd was 1:12 :open_mouth:, If points are factored in,that’s 1st to 2nd-3 points,1st to 3rd-5 points.Which on the Pro circuit (2.47 km) means the equivalent of 1 lap and 2 laps,just for being 10 secs and 70 sec behind 1st place in a 2 hr race. :angry:
Stay with mileage only.After 4 races it will sort itself out.If not ,break ties with finishing positions.

12

I agree with Gary. Only use finishing position in the event of a tie at the end of the season.

13

All good input. That is all I am looking for right now, opinions and thoughts on the various possible options.
Remember for this season, the scoring is set.

But think about a few things:

You won round 1 but are now technically tied for first with both second and third place. You are essentillay back to square 1 with no advantage. You have a level playing field as though round 1 didn’t really happen.
This is counter to almost every type of race scoring out there.

You won round 1 ,2 and 3 but due to a small issue on a pit stop, you lose 2 laps in round 4. You finish second but still lose the championship with 3 firsts and a second. This should not be possible. How would you feel if it was you?

If you want mileage to be the biggest factor with only small advantages for position, then raw mileage plus VRRA points is a really good option. At calabogie a lap is 5km. 5 points verses only 3 point advantage for a win over second.

If you want finishing position to be the heavier factor, than WERA style scoring allows for some gain with mileage but finishing position is more important.

Let’s keep the opinions rolling, this is your club, let’s shape it how we see is the best fit.

14

I would argue that technically the endurance series is one race that takes place at four racetracks. Whoever completes the most laps, wins. In the event that any teams finish with the same amount of laps, the team that crosses the line first at the final track would be the winner of their class. Using a hockey game as an analogy, for the first and second periods team A has the lead, but in the third period team A is tired and makes some mistakes and then team B scores and holds the lead at the final buzzer. Team A doesn’t get the win because they held the lead for most of the game, team B does because the were leading at the end.

We all know the series is four races. We have to do the best at each race in order to win. If we have a bad race, we could lose.

If I remember correctly, last year, our team missed tying for second by one Calabogie lap. After Mosport, we knew how many laps we had to be ahead of the 2nd place team in order to move into the 2nd place spot. It was pretty simple to calculate where we were in the race and what we needed to do to move up. We just didn’t get it done. I think adding points just complicates the scoring.

I think finishing position should only be used if a tie were to happen at the final round. For example, If three teams have the same number of laps, the team that takes the checkered flag did it the fastest and should therefore be the winner.

15

Interesting perspective Mark. Well put together and layed out in a way that’s easy to grasp.

Viewed like that it makes some sense.

Let’s try and get a few other views. Eddy and I are old racers so we have a different idea of scoring.

Thank you!

16

Om but if you are leading 1-0 after the first period, it doesn’t reset at 0-0 at the start of the second. This is what is happening here…

17

Okay, so change the score to 1-1 at the end of the first period, 2-2 at the end of the second period, 3-3 at the end of the 3rd period. (In effect, the score is reset to 0-0 at the end of each period) It then goes to overtime. Each team is trying to be the first to get the winning goal.
A team isn’t rewarded extra points for being the first to score a goal in each period, and I don’t think an endurance team should be rewarded with extra points for being the first to get the checkered flag. Being the first should only apply in the event of a tie at the final event.

18

But this isn’t hockey. Its racing.

The four races equaling 1 race makes a bit more sense to me. But winning a round should still provide some advantage. even if it is a small one.

Regular VRRA points gives first a 3 point advantage over second then 2 points for second to third and then it drops down from there.

If you use the 4 races equals 1 race then we should be making sure we start and finish with the same riders and same equipment (no switching of bikes/riders through the season).
We should therefore be registering all riders and the bike frame numbers at the start of the season. A registered rider does not have to ride all/any rounds but he must be registered at the beginning of the season. So no riders who were not registered at race 1 can ride.

I look at it as a championship.
4 Races
Each stands on their own (we award trophies each round!).
The team that wins a round should have an edge going into the next round. Just like any championship.

If we go back to hockey- you get season points for winning a game- not for losing.

Many ideas - the mileage could very well sort itself out.

What about cumulative race time being the tie breaker? That would still tend to favour the leading team- but only in the event of a tie for mileage.

So for instance in round 1 the race time was 2:01:03.251
Second was ten seconds back at 2:01:14.024
Third was over a minute back at 2:02:15.679

so in the event of a mileage tie- we add/subtract the time differentials among the tied teams. That way it should work out that the team that went the furthest in the least amount of time wins…?

Thoughts?

19

All this analogy to hockey…
The way I see it, we did not score the first goal or came out leading after the first period, we won the first game of the playoffs.

20

Perspective is important here.

I lean towards your analogy Eddy. I think Marks idea is interesting, but some more of the riders should weigh in.