How many lanes is too many?

[gpraceman]

A couple of organizations have approached me about having my software support 12 lane tracks, and they were also running into difficulty finding a timer to use with the track. Even without software and timer issues, with concerns over fairness, generally you'd want each racer to race in each lane, but is 12 lanes just too many? Is having a 12 lane track an ego thing or is it possible to manage a fair race without it having to last all day? It'd be interesting to hear what other race coordinators think.

[Stan Pope]

I think that you nailed it, Randy. 12 Lanes makes the lane equity issue almost untenable.

The desire for "more lanes" probably stems from lack of knowledge about alternative schemes for racing. It is a simplistic approach to the problem; "Settle the issue with one big head-to-head-to-head-to-head... heat!" The idea is appealing, but it is filled with problems. (Den sizes are usually 8 or less. This caused 8-lane tracks to be a popular goal ... for a while.

In fairness, perhaps you could ask them how they conduct the races now. Find out how they deal with the equities issue. Might be illuminating. But, then, if they had a good solution, I suspect that they would not be asking you to provide a solution for them.

[Stan Pope]

Another aspect of using large tracks is the time to stage the cars versus the total time to run a heat (staging + running + recording).

While I, personally, like to watch the youth carefully aligning their cars in their lane, most people aren't very intrigued by this aspect. They want to see cars racing. More heats!

Track sizes of 3 or 4 lanes increases the percentage of time that cars are running and are a good compromise between max number of total car heats (heats times lanes occupied) and maximizing the time spent with cars running down the track.

[Mike Parrish]

Another aspect of using large tracks is the time to stage the cars versus the total time to run a heat (staging + running + recording).

I agree with Stan. Our church uses a 4-lane track. Our state race uses a 6- lane track. I was surprised how much more time the 2 extra lanes added to the race day with approximately the same number of competitors.

I prefer 4 lanes.

[gpraceman]

In fairness, perhaps you could ask them how they conduct the races now. Find out how they deal with the equities issue. Might be illuminating. But, then, if they had a good solution, I suspect that they would not be asking you to provide a solution for them.

I don't recall what scheduling method they were using, my guess would be lane rotation or some form of elimination. I'm sure it wasn't Perfect-N type charts, unless you and Cory have been hard at work, in your secret lab, scaling up your PPN generator from 6 lanes. Imagine trying to come up with generators for that many lanes and different combinations of racers!

[Stan Pope]

I don't recall what scheduling method they were using, my guess would be lane rotation or some form of elimination. I'm sure it wasn't Perfect-N type charts, unless you and Cory have been hard at work, in your secret lab, scaling up your PPN generator from 6 lanes. Imagine trying to come up with generators for that many lanes and different combinations of racers!

I had some PN charts for the 7+ lanes, but I don't really consider them practical. More mathematical curiosities. The 6 lane limit in Young&Pope reflects our "reasonableness bias" plus a little.

Finding generators would not be as hard on the 2GHz P4 as it was on the 0.075GHz P1, but why make the effort, if we think that it is not a smart way to run the races?

[gpraceman]

but why make the effort, if we think that it is not a smart way to run the races?

I'm with you. To me, it seems an ego thing. For what you gain in the number of racers that race at one time, I think you end up with a lot of other problems to deal with (staging cars, race charts, track storage, finding a timer, etc.)

[Stan Pope]

but why make the effort, if we think that it is not a smart way to run the races?

I'm with you. To me, it seems an ego thing. For what you gain in the number of racers that race at one time, I think you end up with a lot of other problems to deal with (staging cars, race charts, track storage, finding a timer, etc.)

I will abide their choice to deal with storage and finding equipment and the like. I will not abide their inevitable choices for poor fairness, poor accuracy, and/or dull racing. I chose not to participate.

So there! Pbbbffffffft! (Or however that "Bronx Cheer" is spelled)

[Da Graphite Kid]

I'll say that I have to agree with all that has been said so far but would like to add that if you use a track that has as many lanes as you award trophies (medals. ribbons, etc.) for, all those in attendance have a clearer understanding of just who was 1st, 2nd and so on. If you award the three fastest positions, than run a three lane track - even if that means using only three of the lanes from a much larger track. This would cause the least 'discussion' after the race from participants and parents alike. I know that I understand only a few of the race scheduling methods that Stan and some of you others speak of and I expect that the parents and Scouts understand them even less. Of course if you can come up with an electronic system that will handle all the lanes that your track has, then running more lanes than you have trophies for may be fine.

Da Graphite Kid

[Darin McGrew]

Even without software and timer issues, with concerns over fairness, generally you'd want each racer to race in each lane, but is 12 lanes just too many?

We give each car 8 races (2 in each of 4 lanes), and that seems about right.

With a 12-lane track, we could theoretically give each car 50% more races, while running only half as many total races. But...

As Stan mentioned, it now takes 3 times as long to stage the cars for each race. Right now we run a race every 30 seconds, and the staging crew can just keep up. A 12-lane track would push that to a race every 90 seconds. You'd lose the attention of your audience more easily running a race every 90 seconds rather than every 30 seconds.

Plus, we sometimes have age divisions with fewer than 12 cars in them. Each race would feature the same cars, only running in different lanes. And we rarely have age divisions with 24 or more cars in them, so every race would include cars that were still on the track from the previous race, slowing down the staging even more.

And people really wouldn't care who came in 7th-12th. People care about 1st place a lot. They care less about 2nd place, and less still about 3rd place. A 4-lane track produces one "also ran"; a 12-lane track produces nine.

And of course, it would be harder to store and set up a 12-lane track.

IMHO, they'd be better off with three 4-lane tracks. Or maybe two 6-lane tracks.

[Cory]

I had some PN charts for the 7+ lanes, but I don't really consider them practical. More mathematical curiosities. The 6 lane limit in Young&Pope reflects our "reasonableness bias" plus a little.

Finding generators would not be as hard on the 2GHz P4 as it was on the 0.075GHz P1, but why make the effort, if we think that it is not a smart way to run the races?

Stan, it's been a while but I thought it was more than just bias.

Assume 50 cars, 10 lanes. That means P(50,10) generators to check. A 2GHz Pentium does about 4000 MIPS, and I'll just guess-timate 100 machine instructions to check each generator. That works out to over 900 million seconds, or approximately 30 years, just to (perhaps!) find a generator for this particular case.

I recall we might have had some sieves so we didn't have to check them all, but I don't think they helped quite enough to solve this problem.

[MathGuy]

I am running a race for the first time this year for our pack. We have a 6 lane track, but I am not that excited about using all the lanes. We have rank sizes of 6,11,12,16, and 22. And given those numbers, I really only will want to run 4 lanes.

Less lanes have an advantage that people might not realize. Increasing the number of boys winning a race. A derby day is greatly more enjoyable if a boy win's a single race, then if they race several times and don't win any. The less lanes, mean the less boys competing each race, thus a boy has a higher chance of winning at least one race.

Lets assume you have a group of 12 boys, and each boy races in each lane once for this example. That works out to 12 races, regardless if it is a 6,5,4,3, or 2 lane track. I will look at the PPN charts from the Cory Young charts, and use a simplistic assumption that car 1 beats car 2, car 2 beats car 3, etc. And count the number of unique winners using each track configuration. Answers:

2 lanes, each boy racing 2 times, 7 out of 12 boys wins at least one race.
3 lanes, each boy racing 3 times, 7 out of 12 boys wins at least one race.
4 lanes, each boy racing 4 times, 6 out of 12 boys wins at least one race.
5 lanes, each boy racing 5 times, 5 out of 12 boys wins at least one race.
6 lanes, each boy racing 6 times, 3 out of 12 boys wins at least one race.

These numbers are not always going to work out to the same number for actual races, but I think they demonstrate the concept. (Also, We would likely have more than 12 races for a rank, but ) The general conclusion is:

In the same number of races, more lanes means more races per boys, but the number of boys who win at least one race decreases.

We want more people to have the thrill of winning a race, not just a few. At a pack level race, this is probably important. And more racing isn't = to more fun for the kids who aren't bring home a top 3 finish. I am sure some parents might not believe this, but that is the case. I am sure all of us might initially think if our boys race twice as much, the odds of them winning will be twice as high.