Another Idea for Race format

general rules, special-tight-giant rules

Moderators: Jonathan Harms, Robert Thiele

Post Reply
Richy Carrasco
AXE Army
AXE Army
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Garden Grove, Cali
Contact:

Another Idea for Race format

Post by Richy Carrasco » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:21 am

A way to possibly make our time more efficient is a cut format.

Here is a possible scenario --

GS event is run the first day. The next day(s) would be hybrid or TS depending on the organizer's plan. The top spot seatings would be pre-determined from points or rankings. The organizer can set how many spots will be open for qualifying. The first day before the GS is run, a hybrid course is set early on the bottom of the hill for those who will be qualifying. All qual racers get two runs to fill the brackets for the following racing events. Once the qualifying is done, the GS is run -- single lane with all racers getting results. The next day all bracketed racers race out dual and finish with results. The course is left up and all racers who did not make the cut get their chance to run the course -- once in each lane. The final standings for them would be based on each racer's fastest time. No eliminations for that group of consolation racers. This could be one way to put on "the show" to the public with the fastest racers going one after another at a set time but still allow everyone who attends to get some race time and experience. Maybe even a small cash pot could be earmarked for this consi winner each event.

There are alot of variables to consider I know. This is just an idea.

Wesley Tucker
1961-2013 (RIP)
1961-2013 (RIP)
Posts: 3279
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am

Post by Wesley Tucker » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:24 pm

Richy,

Didn't want you to think you were being ignored. I avoided any lengthy discussions during the election.

I'ma gonna hafta spell on this a bit to see the advantage in running a race with this format.
Image

Joe Iacovelli
Posts: 1089
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Bristol, CT

Post by Joe Iacovelli » Mon Dec 07, 2009 4:32 pm

I am very interested in any new format that speeds the flow of racing, makes it friendlier to the spectator, or more fun for participants.

Like WT I'm not sure I get how this works, can you put a face on it and describe it on a hill like Antrim, or is it only suited to a really long hill like pump station?

Richy Carrasco
AXE Army
AXE Army
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Garden Grove, Cali
Contact:

Qual

Post by Richy Carrasco » Sun Dec 20, 2009 8:17 pm

You can do this Pre race Qualifying on any hill , its just about setting up a hybrid so you can make runs in two lanes for fair Qualifying it could also be the same course that will be run on another day. My thought on this is that after Qual is finished single lane GS is next so it should not take too long to run, so both will be completed in one day without staying there all day!

Neil Orta
Posts: 245
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 4:31 am

Post by Neil Orta » Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:30 am

Thinking on pre-race qualifying as compared to how it is currently done generally GS is held at a different hill so are you saying that essentially-qualifying is qualifying. It would be run on a different course on a different day for purposes of seeding?

I have always entered racing as "bring the best you can to the event" or in other words large amounts of practice to master a course is not needed nor neccessary, just a couple of runs to familiarize yourself with the course (mostly a safety thing) and run the best you can, those with the most talent/skill most often prevail.

I see the suggestion as a very good way to save time and push the boring part (qualifying)to an ealry slot in the event and leaving the real racing to the time that is most likely to have spectator attendance.

Maria Carrasco
SK8KINGS
SK8KINGS
Posts: 439
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2003 1:00 am
Location: Sunny So Cal
Contact:

Re: Another Idea for Race format

Post by Maria Carrasco » Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:17 pm

Richy Carrasco wrote:A way to possibly make our time more efficient is a cut format.

...The top spot seatings would be pre-determined from points or rankings. The organizer can set how many spots will be open for qualifying....
Keeping the above in mind is the first main point of Richy's suggestion.

So the first "cut" is done by rankings, etc.
The second "cut" is done by a limited # of spaces that you can qualify for at the event.
This is what happens on the GS hill (or wherever is appropriate) at the start. These spots carry through for the entire event. You make it into the "show" if you make it through the first two "cuts". These racers will be the ones to race out through traditional style elimiations to final podium.


If you don't pre qualify or qualify yourself into the show at the event -- then you go into a consi bracket/class. That class races each event after the "show" -- top spot racing. After the show ...
The course is left up and all racers who did not make the cut get their chance to run the course -- once in each lane. The final standings for them would be based on each racer's fastest time. No eliminations for that group of consolation racers.

This could be one way to put on "the show" to the public with the fastest racers going one after another at a set time but still allow everyone who attends to get some race time and experience. Maybe even a small cash pot could be earmarked for this consi winner each event.
Hope that helps clarify Richy's original idea above. He doesn't get much chance to check in here with work schedule so thought I'd try to help clarify his ideas. The basic goal is to keep the top racing concise and within a certain prime time window but still give everyone who shows a fair chance to make it in and if not, still get race time. Also give racers more incentive to come prepared.

Daniel Gesmer
Seismic Skate Sys.
Seismic Skate Sys.
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Seismic Skate Systems, Inc.
Contact:

Post by Daniel Gesmer » Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:21 pm

Joe Iacovelli wrote:I am very interested in any new format that speeds the flow of racing, makes it friendlier to the spectator, or more fun for participants.
Agreed.
Dan Gesmer
Head of Seismic Skate Systems
Email : dan@seismicskate.com
Tel : +1 720-937-8948

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1205
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

reducing races which do not determine the outcome.

Post by John Gilmour » Mon May 10, 2010 7:55 am

My feelings are... if you want head to head racing.... and you are not in the "A group" well I just don't see the sense of deep brackets in the "B,C,D,E" brackets.

It just makes for unneeded runs.

Particularly... well... if you ascribe to the general theory which history would point to.... that being that times at the top are closer together in time differentials... and that further down in the qualifiers...well lets just say... that the time gaps between competitors tend to be greater.

For that reason.. IMHO it has been senseless... yes Senseless.. to do what we have been doing in running a 1/4 final bracket for each "B,C,D,E, F, G" etc brackets.

Personally.... I also don't think we need deep brackets at the top.

The only justification for a a deeper bracket for the top competitors .... is this... Lets say out of a field of 50 racers... the top racer has a qualifying time of 20.00 seconds.... and the 20th fastest qualifying time is... well.... 20.20 seconds... and for the sake of argument the racers are evenly distributed spacing of 1/100th of a second between each racer..

Last time we saw this was at a La Costa race where the top 32 competitors after the cut were separated by .2 over an extremely long course.

In this case... a deep bracket is justifiable.

But in most races.. where the spacing between racers is greater in qualifying.. it can be assumed that running a deeper bracket is merely a complete waste of time.

Looking at the time spreads of several past races... the talent spread is such that running brackets of 8 ie quarter final brackets.. would not at all change the outcome of the racing.

In fact... running a quarter final bracket as opposed to a semifinal bracket would statistically create a greater chance for upsets...and deliver a worse ...ie less accurate result.. particularly as the lower you move in racing.... the less consistent lesser skilled competitors runs may be.

For these reasons...

If -after qualifiers... we find all the racers over a long course are clustered tightly in time.... a deeper bracket for the top racers might be justifiable.. mostly because of wind variations, temperature variations in the surface etc... because those changes might have more impact in close racing.

But if after qualifiers we find sizable gaps in times between racers... PLEASE do not waste.. the promoters time, the racers time, and most importantly the spectators attention span by running deeper brackets that likely will not have any influence on the outcome.

I think head to head racing.. is very time intensive...also more fatiguing for the competitors.

Fatigue leads to accidents. Lets be clear here. We are not Carl Lewis- finely tuned track athletes. For the most part.. the racers we have have regular jobs... some race just recreationally,and few if any would be considered in top athletic condition as compared to other professional athletes.

So perhaps... we could limit the head to head racing to one race per Event. Ie.. You could have single lane GS, and Dual TS. Or vice versa. So for local races people get home in time for dinner even if they drive 2 hours. For multi day regional events... bring it on...lots of racing- but lets try to run multiple single lane jam sessions to keep things moving at least for some of the races.

I think we should drop "Hybrid" completely. it is a needless race category. All it does is pit skilled technical racers against less technical racers who are in shape. it allows for a variety of gear to run against each other... but realistically experience has shown that the longest wheelbase has an advantage in most races. This is not personally motivated...I typically get better results in Hybrid than TS.

For this reason.....IMHO Hybrid---should it continue to exist... should be a length limited class with minimum wheelbases. Ie a true longboard race class.

So get rid of hybrid... that would shorten the day... or make it a longboard class only ...which IMHO would reduce the amount of entrants.

And run semi final brackets of 4 only. And don't bother with the consi rounds either.. save those for where it matters to really determine an accurate 3rd and 4th place.

My two cents.

Please take some time to analyze the times for regional races and then comment.
Last edited by John Gilmour on Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:40 pm, edited 3 times in total.
One good turn deserves another
john gilmour

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1205
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Gib... anyone?? Corky?

Post by John Gilmour » Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:28 pm

Looking for some tech minded numbers guys who can test the theory of my last post. Or anyone out there with a cubical job with lots of time on their hands- or a a very rainy part of the country?
One good turn deserves another
john gilmour

Hans Koraeus
Corky - World Ranking Master Mind
Corky - World Ranking Master Mind
Posts: 1914
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2002 2:00 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Contact:

Re: Another Idea for Race format

Post by Hans Koraeus » Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:45 pm

Interesting ideas John. I had not seen this post before.

You are right that often 32 brackets first level runs are a complete waist of time. Better to make one 1-16 bracket and then maybe continue with 8 brackets down the results from place 17- as long as you got time for. Maybe even go for two 8-brackets for top 16 as well.

Also true that for GS, Hybrid and other loose courses the need of pro/am split is less needed because all can make the courses (more or less). Only maybe a need to cut them in Qual A and Qual B groups of tons of racers.
It's mainly the TS courses where the need for PRO and AM class start to make sense (using different course setups).

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1205
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Another Idea for Race format

Post by John Gilmour » Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:10 pm

Thanks !

Well I find that waiting around for 3 hours to figure out race results that don't often vary much from the qualifying order is a complete waste of time. some races ...I find to be "numbing" in that all the psyche is killed by senseless deep brackets and waiting.

Sure, the results may vary... but someone might screw up his qualifier or hold back- or someone might just go for it and ride wild if he thought he was on the cusp. But in general I don''t think the times vary much. You would be better to analyze this to 1 sigma or whatever statisticians use to produce significant results.

Yes there might be some races which is are psychologically influenced in a head to head format... I can think of some racers who get beat by other racer almost every time despite qualifiers being the opposite at times, but really...what we are after is the fastest time- not the best head game. (and I stand to lose from this as I do work those head games.... lol)

I would much rather attend a race where I race 3 well set courses of varying skill level in an afternoon than one medium level course that takes all day (or worse 2/3 of a day so we don't have time for another "full" race) where the only thing extra I get for waiting is a sunburn. (This is how I feel about that).

The bracketing is so confusing- not only for unfamiliarized spectators but for racers as well.

After revisiting this thread and thinking about it while my head is clear in the morning.....I think the way it should work is this....

Run the qualifiers....

Look at the times. (each lane separately ...and then comparatively * if you have dual lane qualifiers- both should be treated as separate races in a sense.....)

Find the point in qualifiers where the time differentials between racers shows a gap increasing between each racer.


The reason for look at the times for each race separately is to see if one course has a time advantage over another- or is harder in difficulty- skewing the results- (they should be identical but this is rarely the case). A blow out on either course should be equal in penalty- not certain death for one course vs easily recoverable for another. For instance if there is only a 1.5 sec. penalty but a 3 second course differential..I should just PURPOSELY blow out on the slow course on purpose and then race the second with less differential....

Ok ...so you did your analysis. So as a random point... lets say the racers all are tightly clustered in the top 4 (within .2 sec of the leader) then after those racers there is a second between each racer or even .2 between EACH RACER... well run a 4 man bracket and go onto the next EXCITING BRAND NEW race.

If the racers are clustered to .2 sec from the leader up to the top 8 racers...run a 8 man bracket.

If clustered up to the top 6 racers.... run an 8 man bracket.

HOWEVER.....

If the racers are clustered up to say 20 racers (for a .2 sec differential that is a 4 second spread between 1st and 20th!) don't run a stupid 32 man bracket just because you might have a few close races and a ton of blowouts...

The larger the bracket...the greater the percentage of blowouts of more than .4 seconds. to the point of it being a senseless slaughter....and all around waste of time.

In an old La Costa race I think 2001...... and every racer down to 32 racers being within .2 sec so that was a justifiable 32 man bracket if there ever was a justifiable 32 man bracket but that was a very rare occurrence. In that race the top qualifier was beaten by the lowest seed, also very rare, but when you have racers so packed together... with a long course with wind and ....well some rain... you have variables that might be best negated by a deep head to head bracket...but then you are selecting racers for endurance as opposed to top speed through a course as a 32 man bracket as it is 12 runs + practice runs to get to the final. I think 4 runs + practice is enough to determine a fast racer....you don't need 12 runs on the same course to determine if a racer is fast or consistent.....it is complete overkill.

Most races with a bit of analysis would determine a bracket of 8. a few would require 16 or mostly likely one brackets of 8 and one of 4 each if the times started spreading after the first 8.

So if the top 4 guys are close...you run a bracket of 4.

If the top 4 guys are close and the next 8 are reasonably close ....a bracket of 4 and a bracket of 8.

If the top 8 guys are all within .2 sec of the fastest racer and the next 4 are .4 sec apart OF EACH OTHER cascading.... just run a bracket of 8 and so on.

A quick bit of time analysis will tell you what the bracket format should be.

In No case other than that rare La Costa race..should there ever need to be a 32 man bracket. I think most races could be determined with a 4 man bracket and a few with 8...and very rarely would we need 2 sets of brackets or a 16 man bracket.

THE LONGER A RACE TAKES>>THE MORE ENVIRONMENTAL TIME DIFFERENCES enter into the equation. Determining results quickly and efficiently (using timing analysis) without wasting racers time and energy will yield the most accurate results as well as the fewest injuries and race delays.





--------------------------
*In a case where the times are radically different for one course (say more than .3 sec difference or even 1 second... or ugggghhh more.....) One of the courses should be scrapped entirely and the format changed to single track after qualifiers. You don't even have to wait for the every single racer to be done to do analysis... you could just run say 8-12 fast guys first (faster racers are hopefully more consistent...and we know who the consistent racers are anyhow) and before the pack is even done with qualifying you would know the story of the differential between the courses.

If the courses are not close ..well then... you are likely racing "the course" not "the opponent".

It should only take a minute or so to visually do this analysis if you print out an on going screen shot of each course spread sheet (for MAC users it is command + shift + 4 ).
One good turn deserves another
john gilmour

Richy Carrasco
AXE Army
AXE Army
Posts: 174
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2002 1:00 am
Location: Garden Grove, Cali
Contact:

Re: Another Idea for Race format

Post by Richy Carrasco » Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:21 pm

Sure , If you think the open div dosent make sense on a larger bracket ,cut it down to 16 or 8. The open is usually the next wave of skaters getting ready for the pro div and get huge experience from bracket racing. Any course can be challengeing wether it be TS , Hybrid or GS . It all depends on who is setting it! Hybrid is usally easy and most courses lately have been to short! Jacks Worlds courses were some of the best , where the course was long enough that you had time to overtake your competition! Short courses usually are won on the first set of gates...

John Gilmour
Team Roe Racing
Team Roe Racing
Posts: 1205
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 2:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Another Idea for Race format

Post by John Gilmour » Thu Aug 16, 2012 12:38 am

I just think we should try to get an event over and done with quickly. The AM Pro division is good because it gives people time to eat and get ready for the next race instead one massive group of waiting for a blowout run.

I think some quick analysis of the times makes for more exciting racing. Blow out runs aren't worth anyone's time.
One good turn deserves another
john gilmour

Post Reply