2016 AFM club questions

[TWF]

and if they met the 80% rule

Nothing to do with it.

 

[SonoraMike]

Nothing to do with it.

per the rules it absolutely does.

If rider 1 crashes out on the first lap then not within 80% of top finisher = 0 points. If rider 2 crashes out on last lap then they are within 80% and will get points of some sort (that I still don't understand yet). In this case rider 2 wins championship due to more points in their DNF vs rider 1

 

[ZXR400SP]

Wouldn't that first be determined by the number of riders passed?

Riders beaten, not passed, if you started those races 4th and finished 4th the difference would be the number of riders behind you.

 

[TWF]

Points are for starters, not finishers. You get point for anybody that started race but finishes behind you.
It would matter for 2 guys fighting for championship when they crash, everybody else it does not matter. I guess that adds another bs to points

 

[TWF]

Riders beaten, not passed, if you started those races 4th and finished 4th the difference would be the number of riders behind you.

Think he is talking about those 2. Which is correct with 80% rule. If one crashes on first lap and other on last it makes difference.
Looks like at least 6 different outcomes for 2 guys having same finishes

 

[TWF]

Riders beaten, not passed, if you started those races 4th and finished 4th the difference would be the number of riders behind you.

If both guys are finishing same race starters beaten has no effect. At that point it is just difference in points between their finishes.

 

[TWF]

btw. that 80% rule makes no sense to me for club racing.
On higher level with so many laps and racers allowed to pick up bike and continue it may make sense. Club racing with 6-8 laps and if you crash you can't continue I don't see point.

 

[Holeshot]

soooo...I know this is something you have been pushing for for several years, but hasn't passed a motion or a rules committee, but at a minimum, how does this or where does this align with the Rule Book?

It doesn't. It's not a rule, as you know. It's the theory behind a specific points system.

Next thing you know people will want points for just showing up to the track. "But I paid my entry fee and drove 200 miles! Shouldn't I get something???"

Seriously, giving out points to DNF's just because our tools make it hard to score DNF's isn't a good argument for giving them points- it's an argument to use better tools or train people better.

If you've seen how the sausage is made, you might disagree. We manually remove people who have crashed/ broken down, etc, but not who are laps down. We do not follow the 80% rule. Everyone gets points if they take the checkered. Now imagine; our scorers have to check every single grid (not just race) to make sure riders who crashed/ DNF were correctly removed. They need to make sure riders who are laps down, but took the checkered are included as well. They need to do this while they're scoring the current races and have it done in a timely manner to post the results as quickly as they can. We had 2 scorers last year and Registration assisting. At BW we had 3 scorers due to the return of Mary Mork. There is a ton of stuff going on to do results. Removing riders from the results manually is one more task that compounds errors. I prefer to let the software manage as much as it can with as little human interaction. Our points system demands human interaction because our points system is unique in the racing world.

There's the old saying, about if you want to finish first, you first must finish. I don't see why scoring championship points is any different.

The whole corner case of granting points to people who crash on the last lap, only after passing someone a lap down doesn't IMHO mean we should now allow everyone who completes at least one lap and then crashes to earn points. Much easier to draw a clear and concise line and say DNF = no points.

If you want to finish first, you have to beat second place. It doesn't make much sense to me that we can lap people twice and yet, if they take the checkered flag with less race distance done, they can beat that person who has lapped them. That's a unique reality.

Does anyone remember the origin of the "X + number of starters" pointing system in the first place? AFM is the only place I have seen that and am curious where it came from.

It was the result of not wanting top 10 plates to be awarded to the fastest bikes/ riders/ class solely. It really does the top 10 little justice. We really should move F1/ FIV/ F2 to be the top 6-10 plates so riders can race for them. It's frustrating not being able to beat someone for a top 10 because they're in a different class. In fact, no one even races for their 6-10 plates...it's total luck of the draw. See; Z-man's example.

Aha I like that reasoning, that makes me want the X points + 'number of starters you finished ahead of' to stay in. If you can win in 600 prod, I think you deserve a chance at a top 10 plate.

But I still don't see why we are giving points for DNFs, especially if it's extra work for the officials. If it was no extra work I'd be OK with it, but I'm in the '0 points for crashes' group.

If you can win 600P, you deserve well beyond a chance at a top 10 plate. You deserve the chance to race others for that top 10 plate. That's one of the hardest classes to win on a Moto Road Race grid these days.

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.

I think this rule is to weed out the super slow people? Like if you are in a 6 lap race and you only complete 4 laps before the race is over (lapped twice), then you're too slow to earn points.

We don't enforce the rule when calculating the points. If you cross the checkered, you get points.

Calculate points for this 2 guys.

Racer #1. Wins 3 races, finishes 2nd in 3 races and crashes in round 4
Racer #2. Wins 3 races, finishes 2nd in 3 and crashes in round 5

Who wins championship?

What's the wingspan of an unladen Swallow?

and if they met the 80% rule

Right...because if we enforce this selectively, it changes the points per Zoran's example. If one extra slower guy shows up that hasn't a hope of affecting the race win, the winner gets the advantage. If one more rider crashes out in the scenario above, the winner gets an advantage. If we have an oil spill and 11 riders crash out, the winner loses an advantage. If anything beyond the lead pack battling for the lead happens that affects the points of the leaders, someone's getting right fucked.

Nothing to do with it.

Good puzzle above. Makes me realize just how shitty our points system is. One dude can't keep his bike upright and it affects a championship. Awesome.

 

[Holeshot]

per the rules it absolutely does.

If rider 1 crashes out on the first lap then not within 80% of top finisher = 0 points. If rider 2 crashes out on last lap then they are within 80% and will get points of some sort (that I still don't understand yet). In this case rider 2 wins championship due to more points in their DNF vs rider 1

That's not correct. Both riders would not get points. A rider who was slower than 80% would get points.

 

[SonoraMike]

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.

 

[KazMan]

It was the result of not wanting top 10 plates to be awarded to the fastest bikes/ riders/ class solely. It really does the top 10 little justice. We really should move F1/ FIV/ F2 to be the top 6-10 plates so riders can race for them. It's frustrating not being able to beat someone for a top 10 because they're in a different class. In fact, no one even races for their 6-10 plates...it's total luck of the draw. See; Z-man's example.

let me add - I respectfully disagree...

You are incorrect to a large margin. For when this rule went into effect, the club was about 900+/- members strong with a North and South Chapter. The larger classes were typically made up of the fastest riders because most anyone who was running in the top 10 of the largest classes was either racing 2 strokes in Nationals or Superbikes.

It then swung to the Box Stock Production classes as these were the classes paying contingency and had regular entries into the 60-80 rider grids. Then Suzuki started their cup races and grids were mainly filled in 750 and Open. These were the days when a club racer could have a moniker, factory support rider, or hired gun in the AFM.

You had guys who could be in the top 5 in a National and come back and ride a box stock bike to a podium, because it didn't matter what they rode, they were just fast.

So moving forward to today, yes, some of the fastest riders in the club race in FP and go for the 1-5 plate. The racers taking on the biggest grids and doing well, are racing for the 6-10 plates. 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, this is an overall points award, given to members who have battled and spent their money to support the club as well. You want a 6-10 plate, disable one of the cylinders on your 600 and race 450. Pick a grid that regularly has 25 riders in the grid. Finish 1st at least 5 out of 7 times and you are going to do pretty well. Finish 1st every single time in the largest class and you are probably getting the 6 plate. How is that luck?

I tried to pass a FP 1 through 10 to honor those who chose to race in our fastest class. And in parallel, an Overall 1 though 10 to honor those who have probably spent the most money in practice fees and entries and have excelled in their chosen class.

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

 

[TWF]

So moving forward to today, yes, some of the fastest riders in the club race in FP and go for the 1-5 plate. The racers taking on the biggest grids and doing well, are racing for the 6-10 plates. 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, this is an overall points award, given to members who have battled and spent their money to support the club as well. You want a 6-10 plate, disable one of the cylinders on your 600 and race 450. Pick a grid that regularly has 25 riders in the grid. Finish 1st at least 5 out of 7 times and you are going to do pretty well. Finish 1st every single time in the largest class and you are probably getting the 6 plate. How is that luck?

Just because grid is big does not mean those are spending most money. Why size of the grid has to be required to make top 10?
There are fast and great racers in smaller grid classes as well. Where do you make cut of? 10?, 15?, 25?
You can have big grid with one or maybe 2 racers checking out and rest relatively slow (your 450 example).
You can also have small grid with good competition. Look at 700P last race, 4 guys within 0.3 sec dicing to the end while lapping at record pace for class.
Why would 450 guy deserve top 10 more than 700P guy?
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.

 

[SonoraMike]

The larger classes were typically made up of the fastest riders because most anyone who was running in the top 10 of the largest classes was either racing 2 strokes in Nationals or Superbikes.

agree with Kazman, F2 and FP grid were huge with 2 strokes. Geep Teranova won the #1 plate in .... 96? 97? on a TZ250, first and only time that a 250GP bike won the AFM #1 plate.

Grids in F2 were overflowing and went all the way to the back. Hearing all the TZ and RS bikes launch in 1 wave was something to remember.

We had national level riders come in to race us to test their competitive level, Oliver, Sands, Renfro, Klaus, Wait, Melneciuc and others battled with local guys like Bobby Keith, Al Saliveria, Jeff Leggitt, Mark Foster, Jason Roth, Joe Cubbage, Padilla, Cook, Pare, Mason, Snowden, Ortlip, Carillo, Wong and a host of other really fast guys in AFM F2 races.

AMA grids on the west coast at Laguna and Sears were full of AFM 2 stroke riders who cashed checks. F2 guys raced Willow Springs, a lot. The 600 and 750 guys were mostly Supersport class riders back then, and Superbike was just coming in to favor as tuners were discovering how to gain HP from those motors. Scott Grey, Brok McAllister, Dave Stanton, Steve Rapp, Rob Mesa

 

[KazMan]

Just because grid is big does not mean those are spending most money. Why size of the grid has to be required to make top 10?
There are fast and great racers in smaller grid classes as well. Where do you make cut of? 10?, 15?, 25?
You can have big grid with one or maybe 2 racers checking out and rest relatively slow (your 450 example).
You can also have small grid with good competition. Look at 700P last race, 4 guys within 0.3 sec dicing to the end while lapping at record pace for class.
Why would 450 guy deserve top 10 more than 700P guy?
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'm not saying what I want Z, I am explaining how the current rule was established in I believe 1979 or 1980. You are correct, but if you are a fast on any particular bike, and your class has 30 entries, you can be the fastest guy in the club, but if there is only 3 people in your class, your win +3, is not going to match another riders win +30.

I see good racing in most classes. I see National caliber fast racers in less. That said, for a chance to win any of the classes, you must first enter. And typically a class of bike that is doing 25 bikes in a grid is doing the same in 2 maybe 3 classes made up of the same riders. So race license, practice fees, and entries are the primary revenue for this club. This revenue pays for the track, the support staff, and the insurance. Not exactly rocket science.

 

[KazMan]

agree with Kazman, F2 and FP grid were huge with 2 strokes. Geep Teranova won the #1 plate in .... 96? 97? on a TZ250, first and only time that a 250GP bike won the AFM #1 plate.

I don't believe this is entirely true Mike. I believe there were several in the 70's who ran F2 bikes and carried a #1 plate.

 

[TWF]

I'm not saying what I want Z, I am explaining how the current rule was established in I believe 1979 or 1980. You are correct, but if you are a fast on any particular bike, and your class has 30 entries, you can be the fastest guy in the club, but if there is only 3 people in your class, your win +3, is not going to match another riders win +30.

I see good racing in most classes. I see National caliber fast racers in less. That said, for a chance to win any of the classes, you must first enter. And typically a class of bike that is doing 25 bikes in a grid is doing the same in 2 maybe 3 classes made up of the same riders. So race license, practice fees, and entries are the primary revenue for this club. This revenue pays for the track, the support staff, and the insurance. Not exactly rocket science.

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.

 

[TWF]

So race license, practice fees, and entries are the primary revenue for this club. This revenue pays for the track, the support staff, and the insurance. Not exactly rocket science.

If that is what should be used maybe you guys should take ccs system, all points together from weekend count. That way you get money and they buy top 10

 

[SonoraMike]

I don't believe this is entirely true Mike. I believe there were several in the 70's who ran F2 bikes and carried a #1 plate.

huh, I remember the scuttle at the time was that this was the first time that a 250 GP bike had won the #1. But your dates pre-date me you dinosaur

 

[KazMan]

If that is what should be used maybe you guys should take ccs system, all points together from weekend count. That way you get money and they buy top 10

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

 

[synfinatic]

If you want to finish first, you have to beat second place. It doesn't make much sense to me that we can lap people twice and yet, if they take the checkered flag with less race distance done, they can beat that person who has lapped them. That's a unique reality.

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?