2015 SEDIV Results

[jledford]

PM Sent. I'll try to get all that worked up tonight and have RAW and PAX for each day plus for the entire weekend.

[jledford]

PAX results per day and final should be attached.

[jledford]

RAW per day and final should be attached.

Any questions on RAW or PAX let me know.

[MX5_Racer]

Jerry - Thanks for doing this. Is the ALSCCA Event #3 and #4 still going to be based on best single run as normal autocross?

[SamC]

Jerry - Thanks for doing this. Is the ALSCCA Event #3 and #4 still going to be based on best single run as normal autocross?

Yes, fastest run each day.

[e30Racer]

FWIW, and please take this as constructive input, this really is not rallycross scoring. Other than adding up runs, I cannot figure out what was done. For instance, I had 4 DNF's on Saturday (yes 4), and for those runs I got 91.641 times. If a DNF=same class slowest time + 10 seconds, then my time should have been 10 seconds higher than Nick's (only other competitor in SSM) slowest time, which was 67.843. Difference between 91.641 and 77.843 = 13.798 seconds x 3 DNF's = 41.394 additional seconds. Now, this would not have in any way affected the outcome in SSM, so there was no point making a big deal out of it. However, in other cases it may make a difference.

True rallycross scoring is 10 seconds for a missed gate, which is typically what is called in as a DNF in autocross. It is possible to have multiple missed gates. In rallycross a true DNF means you either went so far off course that you weren't even in the ballpark, or you actually did not finish (mechanical issue, caused a red flag due to a gas leak [ahem], etc.) Then the time is the slowest competitor in class plus 10 seconds.

I don't know if the Axware software allows for these calculations, so it may be more difficult to do than what it sounds. For TVR RallyX we use a custom spreadsheet that has all of this logic built in, but obviously the times have to be input manually.

At any rate, if anyone is interested in help with true rallycross scoring for future events I am more than happy to help.

For some clarification, if you had a DNF, then that time would be changed to the slowest time in the class (that was not a DNF) plus 10 seconds. Andrew, for your times on Saturday, the slowest time in your class was an 81.641, which was your second run of the day. We then added 10 seconds and that's why you received 91.641 for two of your times. I noticed that the first run that is on the sheets says 91.641, but it should be 81.641. The number was circled and had 91.641 written underneath it, which is what I wrote down in the spreadsheet. After figuring it out, it was circled and written as 91.641 because it was the slowest time in the class and was used for the two dnf's that were runs 5 and 6. So ultimately, your final time should be 10 seconds faster, but it doesn't make a difference in placement. But in case it makes you feel better, you aren't as slow as the results show haha.

[tmurf03]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I did not run 61 second pass.

[MX5_Racer]

Mark - Thanks for the explanation...the problem with the 81.641 is that I was red-flagged on that run as well, for the fuel problem, so it should have been a DNF. Since it wasn't recorded as a DNF, it became the incorrect baseline for all other DNF's in the class. As you stated, it makes no difference to the outcome in class, and I'm really not worried about it. I was really just trying to raise awareness that something didn't calculate according to "rallycross scoring" and offer assistance for future events since I do timing/scoring for TVR RallyX.

I sure don't want to be critical. I know it takes a lot of effort and truly appreciate all of those who put on the event. It was a great weekend and Nick and I were glad to be a part of it...we had a blast!!

[c-evoVIII]

Sara got me by 1.822 second....cones...I hate cones.... C

[rodhx]

I really have no idea if this is the case since the scoring methodology for the SeDiv portion was not in our control (nor should it be), but perhaps in Scotty's variation of "rallyx" scoring the raw time for DNF runs still count toward the possible slowest run?? I can see that being the case to avoid attempts to game the system. In Andrew's case it still shouldn't have been included imo since he was red-flagged.

I do know from the Moultrie Match Tour that in that format a fast DNF run can lower your dial-in time for the shootouts.

[Vfastcaddy]

The event was great and really a lot of fun. Here's some more fun:

DNF game: Let's say you have a bad first day, or at least are not leading the first day and probably can't make up the difference. Day 2 you stay clean, while watching the competitors in front of you. If one of them gets 2 DNFs before your last run, you use your drop and do a leisurely, say, 120s clean run. I'm sure you warn the starter beforehand that you "might have car trouble this run so give me some gap." Then you move up a spot when the person leading you gets 120s +10 for their DNF.

DNF game variation: If you should ever DNF a run, even your first one, if the DNF time will be counted, as suggested by Rod, take 3 minutes or so to get back to the finish. This assures that any competitor that gets 2 DNFs becomes a non-factor. If everyone does this, the event finishes about midnight.

I could go on...

[tmurf03]

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I did not run 61 second pass.

Can we change the 61 to a more reasonable 71 so Daniel Isbell gets credit for Event 4 win?
Thanks

[rodhx]

The event was great and really a lot of fun. Here's some more fun:

DNF game: Let's say you have a bad first day, or at least are not leading the first day and probably can't make up the difference. Day 2 you stay clean, while watching the competitors in front of you. If one of them gets 2 DNFs before your last run, you use your drop and do a leisurely, say, 120s clean run. I'm sure you warn the starter beforehand that you "might have car trouble this run so give me some gap." Then you move up a spot when the person leading you gets 120s +10 for their DNF.

DNF game variation: If you should ever DNF a run, even your first one, if the DNF time will be counted, as suggested by Rod, take 3 minutes or so to get back to the finish. This assures that any competitor that gets 2 DNFs becomes a non-factor. If everyone does this, the event finishes about midnight.

I could go on...

There are ways to game any system. Thankfully very few people ever even have such nefarious thoughts cross their mind, let alone go out and attempt something like this. Most of us are more concerned with improving on each run.

By the way, anyone who has issues with the SeDiv scoring methodology should contact Scotty Dobler and make a suggestion as to how to improve it. It is not an ALSCCA (or ETRSCCA, the only other Region to hold a divisional event so far this year) issue.

[Vfastcaddy]

There are ways to game any system. Thankfully very few people ever even have such nefarious thoughts cross their mind, let alone go out and attempt something like this. Most of us are more concerned with improving on each run.

I guess I'm one of your "very few."

It is not possible to do much gaming of the standard format where fastest single run wins. Even the shoot-out format at match tours which uses dial-in times still highly rewards getting faster with each run, though the possibility of sand-bagging is there for the very fastest folks.

Scotty was informed at length of the problems with his original format. At the last minute he finally made some changes when it was clear that very few were interested in the type of event he proposed, but there are still some "theoretical" problems, even if you like the idea of a semi-rallycross scoring, which I do not. It's only in some unlikely situations that gaming scenarios, such as I mentioned above, are practical. They are unlikely to be successful, so I don't really see them as a problem. It was just fun to think about them.

Here's why I don't like semi-rallycross scoring: it rewards driving at 95% on every run. Risking enough to hit a cone or get a DNF is not smart.

As a result, semi-rallycross scoring is 1) a very different sport (which I'm not interested in), and 2) will not allow the drivers to get better, at least not very quickly. It is only by risking going faster than you think you can go that you learn new things about driving autocross. Having several opportunities to set your fastest time allows this experimentation. Semi-rallycross scoring does not. Simple as that. If all events were semi-rallycross scoring, then the only way to get faster would be to ignore the scoring and go all-out on every run for 9 events out of 10. Of course, you will lose miserably. Then, on the 10th event, one you decide to win, you drive at your now-elevated 95%. No thanks.

[rodhx]

I guess I'm one of your "very few."

Yep!