Your opinion please? Based on points Racers run across lanes

Debates and discussions on the various race scheduling methods that can be used and their fairness and accuracy in determining the winners.

Was this race schedule fair?

Yes
0
No votes
No
10
100%
 
Total votes: 10

racerock
Apprentice
Apprentice
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:41 am

Your opinion please? Based on points Racers run across lanes

Post by racerock »

Just returned from Districts, had been there before, and noticed something that seemed flawed in the way they were running the rounds. Software was being used, and I believe it was the same "Derbymaster" that we use at the Pack level, at which we have used "Standard Rotation" (Stearns Method) so that you have everyone racing against everyone, as well as randomizing the lanes. At our Pack level, we have run based on points, due to the inconsistencies mostly due to how fast you pull the gate down, and if you accidentally open the contacts, that race is running. In theory, the race time can be flawed.

Districts were not raced this way... well sort of. Districts were racing points but ... as they started racing, noticed that they were just running the cars across the 6 lane track - "Lane Rotation" with Points. The cars in the race were given sequential numbers say starting with #201. What they did is set up the rounds so that the racers would start racing in lane 6, then move across to lane 5, etc. until they had raced their 6 races. So, that racer number 206 would race against racers #201-#205 and #207-#211. Racer #206 would never race against any of the racers with number higher than #211. I think there were about 20 or so racers. Points were awarded for placement in the races 3 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, 1 for 3rd. In effect, they did a 6 round schedule on a 6 lane track.

A few of us were at the end of the track (Scout leaders, parents, and mathamatician probability/statistics types were talking). We came to the conclusion that this was not really fair, given that you could be a relatively fast car, and have 5 slower cars on either side of you, and never race a percentage of the cars. There were about 20 cars in the finals.

Sure enough, there was a 3 way, 3rd place tie, and there were 2 boys tied for 4th below them (really 6th if you know what I mean). What was interesting was that they then looked at total/average speed to determine the 3rd place tiebreaker. They wanted to run based on average speed, but due to inconsistencies in the timing system in the past, decided on points.

In looking at the printout of the races, sure enough, there was a racer in the 4th (6th) place that had been racing a lot against the 1st place racer that actually had a faster (lower) total speed compared any of the 3rd place racers. In looking at the numbers of the cars (numbered 201 up to 220ish) that 4th place car had never raced against the boys that tied for 3rd.

So I ask the question, what do you think about how the above race was ran?

P.S. see below for discussion on inaccuracy leading to the poll question of "fair".
Last edited by racerock on Tue Feb 08, 2005 8:28 am, edited 3 times in total.
racerock
Apprentice
Apprentice
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:41 am

Re: Your opinion please? Based on points Racers run across l

Post by racerock »

By the way, share any productive opinion you have have.
User avatar
Stan Pope
Pine Head Legend
Pine Head Legend
Posts: 6856
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 7:01 pm
Location: Morton, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Your opinion please? Based on points Racers run across l

Post by Stan Pope »

The plan as you describe it is faulty. It has been knawed upon by many writers. Darin is one of the first whom I saw decry it in writing.

You cited the obvious flaws, especially equality of opposition.

Organized methods to improve the situation (while retaining the "final standings" flavor) include Stearns Method and PPN.

It would be nice if such plans were made more openly so that flaws can be identified and corrected before the event.

In working with my own district's derby, I have been very hesitant to introduce change. I don't want to mess up a good thing. With your district's plan, I have no such concerns.
Stan
"If it's not for the boys, it's for the birds!"
User avatar
Cory
Master Pine Head
Master Pine Head
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 7:18 am
Location: Chantilly, VA
Contact:

Re: Your opinion please? Based on points Racers run across l

Post by Cory »

racerock wrote:By the way, share any productive opinion you have have.
How were the numbers assigned?

If the numbers were assigned randomly, then yes, the race setup was fair.

On the other hand, this race setup is not accurate, regardless of how the numbers were assigned. That is, it does a poor job of identifying the fastest cars.

(see http://members.aol.com/StanDcmr/pwraces.html)

I can't see any reason for ever using Lane Rotation (the method you describe) when the PPN method is available at basically the same "cost".
racerock
Apprentice
Apprentice
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:41 am

Re: Your opinion please? Based on points Racers run across l

Post by racerock »

Cory wrote:How were the numbers assigned?
The boys that had won their Pack and did not have to qualify had the lower numbers. I believe that they then lined up the qual racers by level, place (e.g. Wolves 1,2,3).
User avatar
Stan Pope
Pine Head Legend
Pine Head Legend
Posts: 6856
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 7:01 pm
Location: Morton, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Your opinion please? Based on points Racers run across l

Post by Stan Pope »

Thank you, Cory! I had forgotten to address that issue! I must be getting senile. :)
Stan
"If it's not for the boys, it's for the birds!"
User avatar
Stan Pope
Pine Head Legend
Pine Head Legend
Posts: 6856
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 7:01 pm
Location: Morton, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Your opinion please? Based on points Racers run across l

Post by Stan Pope »

racerock wrote:
Cory wrote:How were the numbers assigned?
The boys that had won their Pack and did not have to qualify had the lower numbers. I believe that they then lined up the qual racers by level, place (e.g. Wolves 1,2,3).
I think you are saying that the race numbers were assigned according to some rule and, where no rule applied, arbitrarily assigned. Thus fairness is at issue as well as accuracy.
Stan
"If it's not for the boys, it's for the birds!"
User avatar
gpraceman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4926
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO
Contact:

Re: Your opinion please? Based on points Racers run across l

Post by gpraceman »

racerock wrote:Districts were not raced this way... well sort of. Districts were racing points but ... as they started racing, noticed that they were just running the cars across the 6 lane track. The cars in the race were given sequential numbers say starting with #201. What they did is set up the rounds so that the racers would start racing in lane 6, then move across to lane 5, etc. until they had raced their 6 races. So, that racer number 206 would race against racers #201-#205 and #207-#211. Racer #206 would never race against any of the racers with number higher than #211. I think there were about 20 or so racers. Points were awarded for placement in the races 3 for 1st, 2 for 2nd, 1 for 3rd. In effect, they did a 6 round schedule on a 6 lane track.
It sounds like a lane rotation method. Lane rotation should NEVER be used with Points scoring. With a very low number of opponents it is not a fair combination. Say the 2nd or 3rd fastest car overall ran most of their heats against the #1 car, then they would not likely win a trophy.

Some like lane rotation methods since they are easy to understand and you can crank out the heats really fast. The disadvantage is the very low number of opponents. If this method is chosen, it should really be with times scoring (assuming that the start gate operation is very consistent and little bumps to the track will not shift the postion of the track).
Randy Lisano
Romans 5:8

Awana Grand Prix and Pinewood Derby racing - Where a child, an adult and a small block of wood combine for a lot of fun and memories.
User avatar
Stan Pope
Pine Head Legend
Pine Head Legend
Posts: 6856
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 7:01 pm
Location: Morton, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Your opinion please? Based on points Racers run across l

Post by Stan Pope »

gpraceman wrote:Lane rotation should NEVER be used with Points scoring. With a very low number of opponents it is not a fair combination.
Randy, I agree with all you said EXCEPT how you used the word "fair". "Fairness" and "accuracy" are measures of different aspects of the method. Fainess deals with how the effects of inaccuracy are distributed among the competitors. If the juxtaposition of the two top racers were achieved totally by chance, then "fairness" is attained. "Accuracy" is still rotten!

We will always have a degree a inaccuracy, regardless of the method selected. They really need to change method, not because it is "unfair" but because it is terribly "inaccurate."

(Hopefully end of Philosophy 101 discussion.)
Stan
"If it's not for the boys, it's for the birds!"
User avatar
gpraceman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 4926
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2003 12:46 am
Location: Highlands Ranch, CO
Contact:

Re: Your opinion please? Based on points Racers run across l

Post by gpraceman »

Stan Pope wrote:Randy, I agree with all you said EXCEPT how you used the word "fair". "Fairness" and "accuracy" are measures of different aspects of the method. Fainess deals with how the effects of inaccuracy are distributed among the competitors. If the juxtaposition of the two top racers were achieved totally by chance, then "fairness" is attained. "Accuracy" is still rotten!

We will always have a degree a inaccuracy, regardless of the method selected. They really need to change method, not because it is "unfair" but because it is terribly "inaccurate."

(Hopefully end of Philosophy 101 discussion.)
Yes, it is woefully inaccurate, but I do feel that it ends up being unfair to the faster racers that happen to go up against the #1 car for most of their heats. The inaccuracy leads to the unfairness.
Randy Lisano
Romans 5:8

Awana Grand Prix and Pinewood Derby racing - Where a child, an adult and a small block of wood combine for a lot of fun and memories.
User avatar
Stan Pope
Pine Head Legend
Pine Head Legend
Posts: 6856
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 7:01 pm
Location: Morton, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Your opinion please? Based on points Racers run across l

Post by Stan Pope »

gpraceman wrote:The inaccuracy leads to the unfairness.
Then we must simply disagree about the definition of fairness.

I think that the distinction is useful. It allows us to analyze accuracy issues without the more emotion-charged fairness questions. So, I will (try to) hold to a well-defined use of the words.
Stan
"If it's not for the boys, it's for the birds!"
racerock
Apprentice
Apprentice
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:41 am

Re: Your opinion please? Based on points Racers run across l

Post by racerock »

gpraceman wrote:Yes, it is woefully inaccurate, but I do feel that it ends up being unfair to the faster racers that happen to go up against the #1 car for most of their heats. The inaccuracy leads to the unfairness.
Thank you for writing this. This is exactly why this poll was posted.

What you are describing is this: The car that is placed next to the #1 car has to run 5 races against him. Lets call him racer Z. Racer Z is now 5 points behind the #1 car in the standings. Then along comes another fast car, car #2, that is later in the lane rotation that races Z once, and loses. Racer Z is now out of the rotation, 5 points behind the #1 car, but beat car #2. Car #2 then goes on to win the remaining 5 races, because he is just a little faster than the rest of the cars in his rotation. He is now 1 point behind #1 car, 4 points ahead of Racer Z. There sits Racer Z that is basically hosed because of where he was placed (random or not) that is actually better in head to head racing (not timed, because this is points after all). Racer #2 goes home with a big District level trophy, but he does not necessarily have the better car in head to head competition.

Car #1 never raced Car #2, and Racer Z won the only race he had against Car #2

IMHO if a scouting, school, or athletic event is held in such a manner that the outcome is inaccurate, stacked, or not actually measuring what the individuals were set out to accomplish, and instead awards 1st 2nd and 3rd place in a flawed manner that is in our control, then it is unfair in my mind regardless of the probability and statistics behind the event.

Unfortunately, I cannot rename/modify the poll to address Stans detailed analysis of separating fair and accurate. Another poll to address the two definitions could be made, I'm happy to do it, but everyone's opinions above are extremely valuable.

As a sidebar to this, the reason for this poll is respect for opinions on this poll and an effort to positively effect change in our district which happens to be one of the largest in the nation. I plan on sending this poll on to the individual that manages/monitors the district races in an effort to improve on the race method. The excuse that it is "easier" to run the races, and the classic "we have always done it this way" mentality is nonsense in my mind. By putting car numbers on the top of the cars, instead of on the bottom, adding a person to stage the cars for the next race, one could argue that you could actually run a proper 6 round Perfect-N Type or Stearns method in less time than lane rotation.
User avatar
Cory
Master Pine Head
Master Pine Head
Posts: 358
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 7:18 am
Location: Chantilly, VA
Contact:

Re: Your opinion please? Based on points Racers run across l

Post by Cory »

racerock wrote:
IMHO if a scouting, school, or athletic event is held in such a manner that the outcome is inaccurate, stacked, or not actually measuring what the individuals were set out to accomplish, and instead awards 1st 2nd and 3rd place in a flawed manner that is in our control, then it is unfair in my mind regardless of the probability and statistics behind the event.
Please take note of Stan's earlier comment that every method is imperfect, at least to some extent. Even CPN charts have subtle flaws that show up more often than one would think. The attainable goal here is improvement, not perfection.
racerock wrote:
As a sidebar to this, the reason for this poll is respect for opinions on this poll and an effort to positively effect change in our district which happens to be one of the largest in the nation. I plan on sending this poll on to the individual that manages/monitors the district races in an effort to improve on the race method. The excuse that it is "easier" to run the races, and the classic "we have always done it this way" mentality is nonsense in my mind. By putting car numbers on the top of the cars, instead of on the bottom, adding a person to stage the cars for the next race, one could argue that you could actually run a proper 6 round Perfect-N Type or Stearns method in less time than lane rotation.
As a former PWD organizer, people often came up to me with suggestions as to how better to run things. If their suggestion was bad, then I'd simply say thank you. If the suggestion was good and made my like simpler, then I'd embrace the idea. And if the suggestion was good, but it made my life harder, or more complicated, or even just different, then I'd find out to what extent the person was willing to help me and we'd go from there. The last thing I wanted was an "idea man" or a "visionary" who wasn't willing to pick up a shovel. You might find that the organizers you are dealing with have a similar attitude.

Not a sermon, just a thought. :wink:
User avatar
Stan Pope
Pine Head Legend
Pine Head Legend
Posts: 6856
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 7:01 pm
Location: Morton, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Your opinion please? Based on points Racers run across l

Post by Stan Pope »

A moment with Webster: Fair "marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism"

Be aware that if you tell the organizers that they ran an unfair race that they may well react as though you are attacking them for being partial to some racers or dishonest, prejudiced and showing favoritism. They may react and "turn you off" before they hear why. They know that they didn't "fix" any races or show partiality to anyone. Your information is discounted before you get it out. You won't achieve your purpose.

Wouldn't you get a better hearing if you tell 'em that "The way we match up cars in heats doesn't do a very good job of rewarding the fastest cars" or "The second fastest car on the track today didn't get any trophy at all?"

You might even take some schedules over to Cory's website and run 'em through his Derby Sim program to quantify the inaccuracy. Then you have meaningful numbers to talk about.
Stan
"If it's not for the boys, it's for the birds!"
User avatar
Darin McGrew
Pine Head Legend
Pine Head Legend
Posts: 1825
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 1:23 pm
Location: Knoxville, TN
Contact:

Re: Your opinion please? Based on points Racers run across l

Post by Darin McGrew »

Cory wrote:I can't see any reason for ever using Lane Rotation (the method you describe) when the PPN method is available at basically the same "cost".
Actually, we've found that our PPN-like method is easier to run than the old lane-rotation method we were using. Lane-rotation has the advantage of "simplicity" only when you run the 2-3-4-5 race immediately after the 1-2-3-4 race. But if you run it that way, then you can't stage the cars for a race until most of the cars from the previous race have been returned to the start. If you don't run it that way, then it's really no different from PPN-like methods, except that its accuracy is poor.

With our PPN-like method, we schedule everyone to race once before anyone gets to race a second time. We don't have to wait for the kids in race n to return their cars to the start before staging race n+1. We get in about twice as many races with our PPN-like method than we did with the old lane-rotation method.
Post Reply