2016 AFM club questions

[TWF]

Not true.

MotoGP 2011, Round 12 at Indy where Nicky Hayden finished 14th, scored 2 points and was 2 laps down, but Hector Barbera crashed out on the final lap and scored no points as a DNF.

http://www.motogp.com/en/Results+Statistics/2011/INP/MotoGP/RAC/Classification

Isn't the Internet awesome?

Don't think he was talking about Motogp.

 

[TWF]

That's why it was limited to your best finish of the day as there were guys trying to ride 8-10 races. Heck, that's what Freddie Spencer would do when he was a kid

So you don't want money? I thought you said it is revenue for club
Should go back to all out of FP
Or maybe #1 from FP and rest from overall (but fix points first).

 

[synfinatic]

Don't think he was talking about Motogp.

MotoGP runs under FIM points rules which are pretty much the standard, yes?

Seriously, I probably could of found the same proof in AMA/whatever, but MotoGP.com makes it easy to find this kinda thing.

Either way the point is that the AFM for once isn't being crazy unique by this situation.

 

[TWF]

MotoGP runs under FIM points rules which are pretty much the standard, yes?

Seriously, I probably could of found the same proof in AMA/whatever, but MotoGP.com makes it easy to find this kinda thing.

Either way the point is that the AFM for once isn't being crazy unique by this situation.

I think it was about 80% thing. Which apparently is not enforced.
DNF should be dnf.

 

[synfinatic]

Nope, look at the thread again. Berto quoted me in his reply which I then quoted there. I haven't been talking about the 80% thing because IMHO it's a red herring.

 

[KazMan]

So you don't want money? I thought you said it is revenue for club
Should go back to all out of FP
Or maybe #1 from FP and rest from overall (but fix points first).

Like everyone else, we want everyone to race a lot and have fun, right?

 

[TWF]

Berto is politician, I read between lines

 

[TWF]

Like everyone else, we want everyone to race a lot and have fun, right?

Funny but that was last straw that made me quit racing afm.
I race to win and win I did. But was told I did not and that I should just have fun.
It ain't no fun when you win but don't

 

[synfinatic]

Damn, that's low Z. Real low.

 

[McLovin]

Thanks for the long response Berto!

In regards to this:

It's NOT extra work to give points for DNF's. It's the other way around; it's less work to do nothing and let the system place riders where they finish, natively. Our current system is more work.

Then isn't the real question "How can we make scoring easy?" I'd prefer if we had a system that's easy to use and doesn't require constant adjustment. How did the MyLaps stuff work out at Round 1? I saw the results were posted, was it better or worse than using trackintel? Is there an API that we can look into for MyLaps? I bet we have a lot of programmers (I work with industrial applications) that would be willing to help with set up if it's available.

There has be a 'GROUP BY class ORDER BY laps, total_time' option. We can't be the only ones that cut off lapped traffic.

 

[Holeshot]

let me add - I respectfully disagree...

To say they are not racing and it's luck is kind of a back hand to the face of these riders as they have chosen to race others in the biggest grids and winning. That it's made up of 650 twins, or 300cc bikes, 600cc bikes and probably this year, 450 triples, is part of the racing cycle of what's hot.

Keep in mind the big picture, it's membership and entries that keep the club running.

Letting racers race each other for the top 10 plates is very important, IMO. That means something. Instead, we let the 1-5 people race each other and 6-10 is derived from a points system that is arguably, imperfect. I propose taking the top in points from the other formula classes: F1/ F2/ F3/ FIV. Let racers race each other and know what the outcome for finals points is ahead of time. Right now, it's luck of the draw. Both of my top 10 plates came at the end of the year and were not planned. I'd have two other top 10 plates if not for being taken out twice in the first race of the day. Go figure. Bad luck. However, I'm not a hypocrite, hence the reason I never ran my top 10 number plate and kept the trusty 115. I don't believe in the system, so I'll win a top 10 plate and not run the number.

Here's the other thing: I read Zoran to be saying the same thing I believe: when you have 75 people in one race and 10 in another, there's no difference. You race wherever you find someone else (or a few more) that's around your speed. That means, we're pretty much racing about 5 people or so max, in a race. Don't make the mistake of thinking that more people means more competition commensurate with the points discrepancy in a 75 person grid VS a 10 person grid. Kurt Spencer said it perfectly "eventually you get to a point where you don't move up and viola! you found your race".

This starters beaten is bunch of boloney

imo. there should be cut of somewhere because you don't want 1 guy running alone in class get top 10 but in same time you don't want one guy on back of the grid decide who gets top 10.

I agree on both accounts, but let's figure out how we can get members to ALL race for their top 10 plates. That means something. Mathematics to get there doesn't.

if it's a rule it should be enforced... else why have rules? Selective enforcement won't go well for you I wouldn't think. (see: everybody bitching about every little thing, this being fuel for the fire)

but didn't you post something about crashing out and still getting points??? I couldn't find the post to quote, but I swear I've seen it.

I'm pretty sure we didn't enforce the 80% thing last year, but I'm checking now. I'm positive we don't give points to riders who crash out. If you cross the finish line, you get points, provided it's not beyond the maximum.

That is fine. All I am saying is that value of top 10 racer is not in he/she been fast but rather how many people are behind. Fast guys should be valued for their speed.
There is better way to balance it than what is used now.

MotoGP runs under FIM points rules which are pretty much the standard, yes?

Seriously, I probably could of found the same proof in AMA/whatever, but MotoGP.com makes it easy to find this kinda thing.

Either way the point is that the AFM for once isn't being crazy unique by this situation.

WSBK says that 75% of the leaders lap must be met by finishers and finishers must cross S/F within 5 minutes of the leader/ winner. There's two significant differences: WSBK only pays points down to 15th place (the points are static) AND you can pick the bike up in continue in the race after a crash. In fact, for all the professional series, this is true.

 

[KazMan]

Letting racers race each other for the top 10 plates is very important, IMO. That means something. Instead, we let the 1-5 people race each other and 6-10 is derived from a points system that is arguably, imperfect. I propose taking the top in points from the other formula classes: F1/ F2/ F3/ FIV. Let racers race each other and know what the outcome for finals points is ahead of time. Right now, it's luck of the draw. Both of my top 10 plates came at the end of the year and were not planned. I'd have two other top 10 plates if not for being taken out twice in the first race of the day. Go figure. Bad luck. However, I'm not a hypocrite, hence the reason I never ran my top 10 number plate and kept the trusty 115. I don't believe in the system, so I'll win a top 10 plate and not run the number.

Here's the other thing: I read Zoran to be saying the same thing I believe: when you have 75 people in one race and 10 in another, there's no difference. You race wherever you find someone else (or a few more) that's around your speed. That means, we're pretty much racing about 5 people or so max, in a race. Don't make the mistake of thinking that more people means more competition commensurate with the points discrepancy in a 75 person grid VS a 10 person grid. Kurt Spencer said it perfectly "eventually you get to a point where you don't move up and viola! you found your race".

I'm not making any mistakes, but for some, it's the challenge to see how far up the big grid they can get and find "their race" or in contrast staying down to win. Racing is whatever that member wants to make it. Will it get them on the Moto America grid, maybe, placing in the top 5, maybe not.

Also keep it in perspective that I really am only explaining how the rules are presently set up for points per the rule book, and keeping it relevant to the past on why the rules are the way they are now.

I'm not representing something that's not in the rulebook, or trying to implement something and then trying to make it reality without a rulebook to back it as I have seen posted earlier in part of this thread. Doesn't mean I agree or disagree with the idea, but I do disagree with the manner of which it is being done and presented to a membership because I am 1/11th of a committee I was elected to to represent the membership. Thus why I am posting.

 

[Holeshot]

Ok.

 

[synfinatic]

WSBK says that 75% of the leaders lap must be met by finishers and finishers must cross S/F within 5 minutes of the leader/ winner. There's two significant differences: WSBK only pays points down to 15th place (the points are static) AND you can pick the bike up in continue in the race after a crash. In fact, for all the professional series, this is true.

No idea what you're trying to argue Berto... point is that per FIM rules, if you crash out/DNF you don't score points. You can be lapped, but still score points (depending on your finishing place). This is what the AFM does. We're not special.

Also, *most* pro series allow you to pick up your bike after a crash and continue. BSB outlawed that a few years ago after someone dumped fuel the entire length of the track at Thruxton. Again, no idea what that has to do with anything since I seriously doubt we're going to allow that in the AFM for the same reason.

Anyways, this shouldn't be a contest who can quote the rule book from various racing orgs better. Instead the BoD needs to figure out what point system makes the most sense for the AFM and then figure out how to implement it. When you tell me (and software developers like myself) "our software can't do X so we have to do Y", all I hear is "we need better software".

 

[TWF]

point is that per FIM rules, if you crash out/DNF you don't score points.

No. If you finish in points scoring position you get points regardless you crash or not or how many times.
Many times racers crash and finish in points, especially in rain races.

 

[synfinatic]

Z, we're talking about two different things. I'm saying if you crash and are unable to continue (crash out) or otherwise DNF. If you crash and get back up, you're still in the race and can score points. But AFM doesn't allow that, so it doesn't matter.

 

[TWF]

You don't even have to continue riding, you can pick bike and push it across finish line
Racer just needs to finish 75% of race distance and has 5 minutes to cross line.
So yes, guy crashing can beat lapper.
It is no point even talking about because this is club racing, not motogp.
In club racing you can not finish after crash, you not allowed.However if you enforce 80% rule as only thing required to be scored than it is possible.

 

[TWF]

Z, we're talking about two different things. I'm saying if you crash and are unable to continue (crash out) or otherwise DNF. If you crash and get back up, you're still in the race and can score points. But AFM doesn't allow that, so it doesn't matter.

What Berto is saying (I think ) that by the rules if you crash and finish 80% of race distance you should get points if in points position, rather than guy who was lapped twice. After all you did complete more distance than lapper.
Not enforcing that rule gives lapper points, simply because of starters beaten. He gets point for you crashing
If you enforce it he would get no points because he did not complete 80%.

 

[synfinatic]

Lapped twice? How often does that happen in a 6-10 lap race where riders are prevented from re-mounting after a crash? Damn, you gotta be having a bad day.

Seriously, it's such a corner case which isn't really that important in the grand scheme of things I don't see the need to make an exception to the you crash you get no points rule.

Remember, the club is supposed to track people who crash, because they're supposed to be re-tech'd and all that. So it's not like you can just assign points to everyone who completed 80% and call it a day.

At the end of the day I really don't care as long as we're doing it for the right reason and not some made up fantasy that this is how it works in the Pro's or our software is too hard to use.

 

[TWF]

Actually only needs to be lapped once. If you lap guy and crash on last lap you still ahead of him.
Why you can't give points to anybody finishing 80%? That is what rule book say.
btw. You can push bike over the finish line in AFM. It is legal. You don't have to crash, you can have mechanical or run out of the fuel.
You should care, you rather have good clear rules or boloney?
I don't care, they don't apply to me, other than paddock behavior