Vintage Road Racing Association

ok- so we are actually saying the same thing- Cumulative time wins.
furthest in the allotted time. As in 8 hours - 4 races x 2 hours each

Just remember that just because something is improbable, does not make it impossible.

So while the odds of 3 teams going all season tied is slim, it is still possible, and what you want are rules that are clear in how you deal with all the scenarios as equally as possible, even the improbable ones.

No need to add points because the timing takes care of it.
I agree that, however unlikely, there could be a tie heading into the final race.

8m: In the event that a Championship ends in a tie, the Championship will be decided by, 1)most
wins, failing this; 2)most events completed.

Abond wrote:8m: In the event that a Championship ends in a tie, the Championship will be decided by, 1)most
wins, failing this; 2)most events completed.

Again- however improbable you think that might be- it is possible - its only 4 rounds.

Team A wins 2 second in two
Team B wins 2 secons in two.


Now what?

A pair of firsts and a pair of seconds could never come up with equal mileages when we race at three different tracks.

Matter of fact, unless you're dwindling participation down to less than say 5 teams it's hard to imagine a scenario where 8m doesn't solve the issue of a mileage tie, and in that scenario there'd simply be no Series. There's a ton of plausible reasons to look at altering the Champuonship matrix. Resolving ties shouldn't be one of them, that tool already exists, and even better, is solely based on the results of the team's efforts.

i think i may have gotten a bit off track in the tie area.

so i will drop that part of it for now.

The discussion is on the current points system for endurance- can we do it better or is it fine just how it is?

I've been following this discussion trying to get my head around if adding position points to the mix makes sense. I get the reason why, racing is all about finishing position but mileage in most cases will sort itself out. I think keeping it simple makes the most sense, 8M does address the issue and should work if there is a tie. If it ain't broke, don't fix it is my take on it.

Interesting read to say the least.
Here is my spin - total mileage first, if a tie exists use a points system for finishing positions across all 4 rounds between the teams that are tied ( 1st place 25 points, second place 23 points, then each position after that reduces by 1 . A win means a little more thus the spread from 1st to second), then if still a tie total laps completed for all rounds, if still a tie then finishing position on final round.

The flag drops at the end of the race, we won with 2 minutes and 10 seconds in front of the team in second place. We are credited with 232.3 km and so is the team in second place.
Things that make you go "hummm".
When the race was over, the team that won had just completed 45 laps but the team in second place did not have 45 laps completed but (44 and a few hundred feet) nevertheless is credited with 45 laps.
Please explain!
So we had a 1:12 lead in round one over this team and a 2:10 in round two for a total of 3 min 22 sec.
If we we'd end up a lap behind at Mosport, we'd be about 1:40 behind for that race but still 1 min 42 ahead in the championship (cumulative). We would also be one Mosport lap (3.96km) behind in total kilometers for second place...when in fact would have done more km than them.

It can be fixed...keep the time in consideration.
Simple.
It's the only way it would reflects true kms raced.

its an oversight with the way the rules are currently written. I agree with you Eddy- It also has to do with the way the race ends- It should be checkered at exactly 2 hours. And only your last completed lap counts.
But we end it like a sprint. So everyone completes the checkered lap.

this season points out some flaws. WE (the club) should work to fix them.

kirbster wrote:its an oversight with the way the rules are currently written. I agree with you Eddy- It also has to do with the way the race ends- It should be checkered at exactly 2 hours. And only your last completed lap counts.
But we end it like a sprint. So everyone completes the checkered lap.

this season points out some flaws. WE (the club) should work to fix them.

But even ending at exactly 2 hrs can be unfair or imprecise or inaccurate,whatever you want to call it if,for example,exactly 2 hrs lands between 2 riders who are 10 feet apart.The 2nd rider counts one lap less,for 10 feet?

gary holden wrote:

kirbster wrote:its an oversight with the way the rules are currently written. I agree with you Eddy- It also has to do with the way the race ends- It should be checkered at exactly 2 hours. And only your last completed lap counts.
But we end it like a sprint. So everyone completes the checkered lap.

this season points out some flaws. WE (the club) should work to fix them.

But even ending at exactly 2 hrs can be unfair or imprecise or inaccurate,whatever you want to call it if,for example,exactly 2 hrs lands between 2 riders who are 10 feet apart.The 2nd rider counts one lap less,for 10 feet?

That's the way it is in every endurance racing series in the world

gary holden wrote:

kirbster wrote:its an oversight with the way the rules are currently written. I agree with you Eddy- It also has to do with the way the race ends- It should be checkered at exactly 2 hours. And only your last completed lap counts.
But we end it like a sprint. So everyone completes the checkered lap.

this season points out some flaws. WE (the club) should work to fix them.

But even ending at exactly 2 hrs can be unfair or imprecise or inaccurate,whatever you want to call it if,for example,exactly 2 hrs lands between 2 riders who are 10 feet apart.The 2nd rider counts one lap less,for 10 feet?

Thats racing Gary!