Vintage Road Racing Association

The current formula (P3 Heavy to P4F1 bikes for example) is a fixed number of laps (5) to the handicapped bike (P3) converted to mileage.

I will set aside the problem with the arbitrary amount for a second and deal with the calculation first.

The handicap does not take into account the amount of red flag time. For example, a 5 lap head start on a race where the winner runs 50 laps is 10%. A race with a 1 hour red flag means the handicap is 5 laps when the winner runs 25 laps. This represents a 20% handicap. The longer the red flag the more the advantage is the handicapped bike.

Suggestion 1. The handicap is prorated to the length of the actual green flag race. Eg. 1 hour red flag, handicap is 50% of full race handicap.

Second issue is the handicap does not distinguish between different tracks. EG. at Calabogie a 5 lap handicap is 11.5 minutes at 2:20 lap time. (In terms of % this is 9.6% of full race) At Mosport the 5 lap handicap is 8.33 minutes based on a 1:40 lap time. (In terms of % this is 6.9% of full race)

Suggestion 2. The handicap is calculated as a percentage of time converted to mileage. EG 6% handicap x green flag time (Per suggestion 1) x your completed mileage. We use your completed mileage because it makes little sense to run 1 lap and get awarded a percentage of the guy who finished 70 laps.

Finally, the amount of handicap. A set number is arbitrary and does not take into account actual race times at each track.

Suggestion 3. For 2019 we do an analysis of the top lap time for the top 10 riders in each sprint race at each track. Averaging and comparing these lap times to each class will produce a true differential. Other than an anomaly where one class had dry track and an hour later the other class had a wet track, the conditions and all other variables would be consistent.

So using P3/P4F1 as an example, if the P3 top 10 best riders lap at 2:25 and the top 10 best P4F1 riders lap at 2:18 then the calculation would be 7 seconds on 2:25 or 4.8%

This would be the handicap for Calabogie.

Apply the same analysis for Mosport would give the handicap for that track.

Apply the same analysis to all classes and you have a handicap amount that is objective and verifiable.

Other than the red flag time you mentionned, this is pretty much how it was done already. Instead of taking the top 10, we took the average between first place and the last rider on the lead lap. We also took into accout the different track length. Maybe its not perfect, but it was certainly not "arbitrary".

Some good logical thoughts.
Dominic was the one to originally crunch the numbers and I did a few classes 2 years ago just to compare again.

The red flag time is a good point.
And the track speed vs lap length is also good.

Let’s keep looking at this.

Dom , I did not mean to insinuate that the number was magically pulled out of a hat. However, applying a fixed number to all tracks seems simplified and clearly does not account for red flags. I actually ran the numbers from this year for the first Bogie round and P3 Heavy had a huge advantage even without Reds. I can’t remember what class Kirby joked about but I think it was a P1 200 cc that could run 5 laps and park and it would finish first on handicap. In principle a perfect handicap is one that each team running identical strategies and running with perfect riders without mechanicals should arrive at the finish exactly the same mileage regardless of length of race. While this is hypothetical, the metrics can be done to approach the hypothetical.

You should also keep in mind that we created the current system from thin air in response to the pending dropping of the series altogether for lack of entries. It’s seen constant growth since and is now 4 years later a very healthy segment of our racing. For a “built from scratch” program I think we did OK, and I do think a portion of that success is it’s simplicity.

I know you didn’t mean any offense with your comment that it was arbitrary, but I will back up Don to tell you it was anything but. We spent months coming up with a system that would be fair, simple, AND encourage growth in entries. Adjustmants to that system should keep those goals in mind, they’ve been very successful.

Ashton,

The endurance is what drew me into the club. It allows me to share my bike with my friends and has enough moving parts to make the season unpredictable and interesting. (Kirby can attest to that this year)

Simplicity is a good concept. The calculations I am suggesting require some inital work to create the spreadsheets. Once done though, the application is simple.

The current system could discourage the more competitive in our ranks. I quite frankly was barely keeping score. Our focus was to have fun, finish and develop the bike.

A scientific analysis and calculation cannot alienate anyone as it ensures any team can win regardless of bike.

The keys are the following:

1. Finish the race
2. Ride to your potential
3. No penalties
4. Have a good strategy

I am all for open discussion on this subject.

You will notice though, most people are Migrating to the most modern.
Typically you choose the best weapon and people are. Newer machines are easier to ride fast so you can do it for longer.

But what we want is a system that encourages the older bikes.
So I am really not against having a subtle tilt to the older classes.
It just can’t be a big advantage.
The idea is a level(ish) field.

so - where do we stand here?
I don't mind crunching some more numbers.
More interested in pro rating based on actual race time. And coming up with a varied number of laps depending on track- but we want it simple.

I'm in agreement with the direction in suggestions 1 and 2, Dave has put forward. It is pretty close to what Kirby and I had backroom hashed out and not put forth last fall. Suggestion 3 would be good data to see if fine tuning is needed.

We have been fortunate, but sooner or later we will have a rain event as well and that will have the same effect as a red flag or possibly greater. Percentage of winner is the way to go, just need to fine tune the specifics of the formula. Maybe the calculation but not the ratios will need to be different class to class as well. This is where data could be used for fine tuning.

Kirby, I will put together the lap time stats as discussed and then we can analyze.

My 722 ( GPZ550) racing under Bernard's number was clearly the slowest P3L at CTMP endurance this year. The winner was the only other P3L out there. Clearly faster riders ( in my case at least) on a much faster bike. I don't think handicapping had a lot to do with the real results, although it may have brought us closer to the slowest P4 bike. I think that speaking for the 3 of us, we had a great time. If you can refine it,fine. Look forward to seeing the results.

At this point i am not looking to re crunch all the lap data.
But I think using a pro rating for things like red flags is a good idea.
I also think evening out the handicaps so its more even across all tracks is also a good idea.

Although....... the system has been working well and again, a slight tilt to the older machines is still intended to get them out on track and a shot at the win.

OK. I am going to implement the pro rating of handicaps based on green track time.
for example
P4F1 vs P3 Heavy is currently 5 laps. 120 minutes divided by 5 is 24 minutes. So if the
If the race was shortened by race is shortened by 24 minutes the handicap would drop to 4 laps and so on.

Comparing P3 Light to P4F2 the handicap is 2 laps. The race would have to be shortened by an hour to affect the handicap at all.

In light again we have teh underdog P1 200 machine with 30 laps - meaning every 4 minutes the race is shortened they lose a lap of handicap.

What about rain? Rain slows us down, but it slows everyone down and teh newest bikes are likely slowed least with rain tires. For now i will leave rain out of the equation. Too hard to estimate.

These are examples and do not take into affect any handicap adjustments per track. I will be looking at this in some more detail to figure out if we can make this work out to about teh same amount of time at each track. After all, its a 2 hour race, so a handicap could be viewed as number of minutes we give the handicapped bikes head start... ?

As for the handicaps in each class- I will be leaving them alone for now. The system is working and i have received zero complaints other than the pro rating for shortened races and the same number of laps for each track. Bot valid points that we can easily adjust.

I am unfamiliar with the other classes but know the "heavy" class, p4f1/p3 heavy, the p3 bikes getting a 5 lap advantage. Just did some math. Took top 5 fastest from each sprint race and averaged. Except shanny long. Last year the transponders acted up on sat, then sunday it turned into canoe racing. So I used lap record times for shanny long. The results, shanny pro. In 2 hours p4f1 bikes come out at 97.11 laps, a p3 heavy at 94.10. A 3 lap diff. Shanny long, p4f1 = 62.42, p3H = 59.45, very close to 3 laps. It gets closer. Mosport p4f1 = 76.595, p3H = 74.1, now a 2.5 lap diff. Calabogie p4f1 = 50.77, p3H = 49.747, a 1 lap diff. UUmmm, I honestly can't see a p3H bike needing a 5 lap advantage. Can we have it fixed to a specified distance, say, something like 6-10 km??? I am going to do a bit more math.

working on teh math from my end as well.
We may want to do it as a percentage differential. That way it is auto adjusting for race length.
We add it in km at the end.

For example let's just say P4F1 is 10% faster than P3H. (sprint based times- as we should view it as potential speed of a fast guy in his class on a fast bike)

So we would have to add 10% mileage as handicap to the P3H.
Race is shortened - It stays at 10% so its an automatic slide. No need to make it difficult.

So Handicaps are expressed by % compared to the fastest bikes in the class.
I can just plug teh percentage into the spreadsheet and totals work fine.

I will say again- while i don't want the table to be too weighted, i do believe i will always round up for handicaps - giving a slight tilt to the older machines- which is kind of teh goal- getting older bikes on track.