Vintage Road Racing Association

Here is the link which has the data analysis used to review the Endurance Performance Index.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1835211 ... 2560194681

Here is the link which calculates the standings assuming no handicap for the actual bikes that competed in the 2023 series.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1835211 ... 2642089681

Let me say, that the lap records (including those in Endurance) that are not official are the data points at the bottom.

In the analysis, they are the starting point and the Endurance results and sprint results are the 2023 reality of the current makeup of the club.

The handicap system proposed for 2024 did not change any bikes earlier than P3. As there are no bikes earlier than P3, I felt those data points were not necessary to review.

If you field a significantly smaller and older bike, you may still finish last every race but win the championship on handicap.

Let me be clear that all bikes of any period are invited to race in Endurance. However, given the more often expressed safety concerns about closing speeds, we caution riders on this strategy.

The previous Endurance Coordinator has stated the goals as follows:
1. To allow any machine in the club to have the opportunity to race endurance. Growing the field.
2. Allow the fastest teams to be the ones that finish first. Regardless of what machine they choose to enter on.

These goals have not changed. I would disagree with the definition of the fastest teams to finish first. In my interpretation 1st is the person who takes the checker flag first not the team that finishes 2 laps down but is elevated by riding a less competitive bike.

If your goal is to win the race, choose the bike and riders that give you the best chance to take the checkered flag.

If your goal is to win the championship without winning races, choose the best bike/handicap/team combination.

If your goal is to ride and compete, we need to have more bikes on track.

The previous Endurance Coordinator has stated that the handicap system has allowed endurance to level the playing field and grow the participation.

Here are the participation stats:
2018 36 teams of which 11 were full time all 4 events.
2019 36 teams of which 9 were full time all 4 events.
2022 29 teams of which 7 were full time all 4 events.
2023 24 teams of which 6 were full time all 4 events.

And perhaps as an indication of our demise, the last round had 7 lightweight bikes, 3 middleweight bikes and 3 heavyweight bikes.

This is not racing. This is participation where 9 of 13 get a medal. This is also not racing head to head, this is racing a clock.

My personal opinion is that there should be no handicap. I am personally prepared to race bikes faster than mine and if the faster team wins on a faster bike, I will be motivated to push harder and improve my skills.

I invite all future participants to review the data. If you have questions understanding the data, please ask. As a note, the previous data had not been updated by the Endurance Coordinator since 2020 and he acknowledges that P5 performance index was an estimate.

Please recognize that there are no perfect data points. Lap records are subject to huge variability and there are not enough data points to “bell curve”. Even taking manufacturer data of weight and horsepower for every bike while interesting is far beyond the scope or intent.

We are supposed to be here to have fun, compete, and giggle every time we put our helmets on.

If your focus is on medals and championships, the medals are $8 this year.

If you want to contribute to the process, please comment with the following:

Bike model you intend to race in endurance this year
Number of events you intend to participate
Data points or examples that support your argument for handicap.

Thanks,

Paraphrasing...
Shit talked Kirby
Stated he believes there should be "no handicaps at all"
And "if you want to win you should buy a P6 bike"
Again, that's me paraphrasing, but that's what I got from it.

Mathew Gill
BMW 650 Endurance P3L
All 4 rounds
20 year member

Again- what was the goal for the change?

The goal of the handicap system was to grow participation.
The idea that people would be more likely to participate on whatever machine they already owned and still feel like they had a shot.
Not go out and buy a new machine to stay competitive.
This was the entire point of it.
And say what you want- no one likes to go out on obviously outgunned machinery. It’s the same reason you don’t see FZ600s and FJ600s in P4F2. I wish it weren’t true- but history says it is.
It’s all part of the equation.

The decline of endurance entries probably follows roughly the decline in overall entries in the entire club.
So the handicaps aren’t the reason for declining participation.

Or at least not very likely.

The reason for declining participation should be examined across the entire club- not just on endurance.

How will this change improve participation? You have not explained that
Because it is 180 degree turn from the original plan.

I will be the first to admit I was not a fan of the idea of handicaps.
But you have to shift your thinking- because this club is not like any other organization.

When they were first introduced - P4 was the top machine and handicaps were calculated using real results.
The first try took out the top 5 in all classes and then averaged the next 10 finishers.
It was a huge undertaking in math alone. We did this across all tracks and all classes.

The second version aimed to simplify the amount of work required to calculate the handicaps and I went to just using current lap records.
It made no differences in top 3-4 teams in any class- there was some slight shuffling in the mid field.
But it greatly reduced the work to do the calculation. L
With little impact on results.

Period 5 came along and we had no data.
So we estimated as best we could - with the idea that we could gain some real world data from P5 bikes once a few seasons were behind us.
Handicaps are meant to be updated from time to time.
As lap records change.

The fact that endurance race times are not counted for lap records has likely slightly skewed the data- although I don’t think Eddy Brunet’s lap records would be considered slow. They have been eclipsed since only by Darrell on my bike in Endurance.

Period 5 was supposed to “save the club” there were “many people just waiting”.
We had maybe a dozen or so true P5 bikes show up. Gone or take a few.
I’m not knocking that on and of itself. But it didn’t change things significantly.

People talk the talk, but only a percentage will walk the walk. This is true and why even our attempts at surveys in the past had to be taken with a grain of salt. And about a 30% reduction to get somewhat near a real number.

Change is inevitable. But the one difference is I actively tried to get teams involved in the conversation prior to making changes. Transparency is important and should be part of any proposed changes.
Conversation should be initiated.
And the goal of the changes stated- before presenting any “data”.

Otherwise you may suffer from confimation bias.

Any member can read back through the endurance section and see how each decision was thought out and discussed.
It doesn’t mean I didn’t make the decision myself. But I tried to listen to input and understand what the teams wanted to see and why.

This is a democratic club. No one should step into a position with the idea they can make changes without having some good reasons and explanations for WHY.

Honestly it just sort of feels like you got tired of being beat by a team with a much faster rider on a well prepared older bike. It’s hard for me to see it any other way at this point.

Because your changes offer nothing to improve attendance.
Only increase the odds of teams on better equipment of doing better. Which is an obvious result of these changes.

You also completely squashed any thought of P3 teams having a shot. Say what you want - but people prefer to win….. it seems like you fully understand that part of it - or you wouldn’t be making changes that tilt the table back in your favour.

1% is laughable at best.

I’ve pretty much said all I can on the subject.

The goal should always be making things better for the long term survival of the club.
This doesn’t do that in any way.

Thank you Kirby

This is nonsensical.

And posting links to Facebook unfortunately will not help those who do not have facebook to view your data.

Please upload to dropbox or similar so those who don't have access can actually be included in the discussion.

#916

kirbster wrote:Again- what was the goal for the change?

The goal of the handicap system was to grow participation.
The idea that people would be more likely to participate on whatever machine they already owned and still feel like they had a shot.
Not go out and buy a new machine to stay competitive.
This was the entire point of it.
And say what you want- no one likes to go out on obviously outgunned machinery. It’s the same reason you don’t see FZ600s and FJ600s in P4F2. I wish it weren’t true- but history says it is.
It’s all part of the equation.

The decline of endurance entries probably follows roughly the decline in overall entries in the entire club.
So the handicaps aren’t the reason for declining participation.

Or at least not very likely.

The reason for declining participation should be examined across the entire club- not just on endurance.

How will this change improve participation? You have not explained that
Because it is 180 degree turn from the original plan.

I will be the first to admit I was not a fan of the idea of handicaps.
But you have to shift your thinking- because this club is not like any other organization.

When they were first introduced - P4 was the top machine and handicaps were calculated using real results.
The first try took out the top 5 in all classes and then averaged the next 10 finishers.
It was a huge undertaking in math alone. We did this across all tracks and all classes.

The second version aimed to simplify the amount of work required to calculate the handicaps and I went to just using current lap records.
It made no differences in top 3-4 teams in any class- there was some slight shuffling in the mid field.
But it greatly reduced the work to do the calculation. L
With little impact on results.

Period 5 came along and we had no data.
So we estimated as best we could - with the idea that we could gain some real world data from P5 bikes once a few seasons were behind us.
Handicaps are meant to be updated from time to time.
As lap records change.

The fact that endurance race times are not counted for lap records has likely slightly skewed the data- although I don’t think Eddy Brunet’s lap records would be considered slow. They have been eclipsed since only by Darrell on my bike in Endurance.

Period 5 was supposed to “save the club” there were “many people just waiting”.
We had maybe a dozen or so true P5 bikes show up. Gone or take a few.
I’m not knocking that on and of itself. But it didn’t change things significantly.

People talk the talk, but only a percentage will walk the walk. This is true and why even our attempts at surveys in the past had to be taken with a grain of salt. And about a 30% reduction to get somewhat near a real number.

Change is inevitable. But the one difference is I actively tried to get teams involved in the conversation prior to making changes. Transparency is important and should be part of any proposed changes.
Conversation should be initiated.
And the goal of the changes stated- before presenting any “data”.

Otherwise you may suffer from confimation bias.

Any member can read back through the endurance section and see how each decision was thought out and discussed.
It doesn’t mean I didn’t make the decision myself. But I tried to listen to input and understand what the teams wanted to see and why.

This is a democratic club. No one should step into a position with the idea they can make changes without having some good reasons and explanations for WHY.

Honestly it just sort of feels like you got tired of being beat by a team with a much faster rider on a well prepared older bike. It’s hard for me to see it any other way at this point.

Because your changes offer nothing to improve attendance.
Only increase the odds of teams on better equipment of doing better. Which is an obvious result of these changes.

You also completely squashed any thought of P3 teams having a shot. Say what you want - but people prefer to win….. it seems like you fully understand that part of it - or you wouldn’t be making changes that tilt the table back in your favour.

1% is laughable at best.

I’ve pretty much said all I can on the subject.

The goal should always be making things better for the long term survival of the club.
This doesn’t do that in any way.

And thank you Kirby for once again being the voice of logic and reason.

By the way, I too reviewed the data.
From the 2023 endurance data using the new proposed handicaps, there were indeed no changes in the top three end of season results.
However some classes ended up with slow riders on faster bikes being right on the edge of beating faster riders on slower bikes..
This is not how equipment based handicaps are supposed-to work.
4th and down there were changes in several areas.

Reviewing 2022 end results, many results were much closer, similar to the 2023 results above and the only team in the top three that improved was WCR Racing, moving from 3rd to 2nd..

I firmly believe this is not the path forward alienating those who are very fast riders, but want to ride an older less performing bike for whatever reason and still have a possibility of a podium. Whether it's for an 8$ trophy or a piece of paper.

My personal opinion is that there should be no handicap. I am personally prepared to race bikes faster than mine and if the faster team wins on a faster bike

With all due respect Dave, that might be true within a given period but not across periods in mixed competition.

( I don’t have a dog in this fight so that in my impartial opinion regarding a vintage club)

My suggestion to stay on side as an association being a legal entity, is to maintain the current rules for this season, and table a proposal for next season.

As Endurance Coordinator I have reviewed the data just as the previous coordinator last did in 2020.

I used his words and format to post.

I have expressed my personal opinion.

I have also invited the participating riders to contribute their data to support their opinion on the performance index.

So far there has been nothing but attacks.

If there is a logical handicap that is fair to both periods, I am prepared to adopt that percentage.

It is simple. Justify your opinion with data that we can discuss.

I do not have a dropbox so the data is posted in files on Facebook in the same place all the results are also posted. If someone else wants to post a different link, go ahead.

Lap records posted as of today (laptimes expressed in seconds to make math easier)
And the differences to the newest bike in class expressed as a percentage.

class Shannonville Pro
P5F1 70.076
P4F1 71.734 2.4%
P3H 72.274 3.1%

P5F2 71.221
P4F2 73.478 3.2%
P3M 76.869 7.9%

P4F3 72.699
P3L 77.730 6.9%

Calabogie
P5F1 131.732
P4F1 137.079 4.1%
P3H 138.959 5.5 %

P5F2 131.96
P4F2 135.277 2.5%
P3M 141.933 7.6%

P4F3 136.274
P3L 141.775 4%

Mosport
P5F1 90.683
P4F1 91.077 0.4%
P3H 93.587 3.2%

P5F2 90.932
P4F2 93.581 2.9%
P3M 97.176 6.9%

P4F3 94.079
P3L 95.784 1.8%


Shannonville Unofficial Lap records Set by Darrell Cooney Sept 2021

P5F2 70.1 (set in P5F1 race)
P4F2 72.815 Set (in Endurance race)
Difference: 3.81 %

This is about as close to an accurate measure as you will find.
Same weekend
Same rider
Both Bikes - Top performers in their respective classes.

Two hour Endurance race is 7200 seconds flag to flag.
P5F2 Bike max potential (without pit stops) 102.7 laps
P4F2 Bike max potential (without pit stops) 98.8 laps

Thats a hair under 4 laps.... Assuming both do similar pit stops you could deduct a lap for each but the difference remains the same.
Stops are a variable and not captured as they come down to the team- but all teams have teh same challenge- getting it done quickly.

Math is math.

Kirby,

You acknowledge that single data points should not be used to justify a position and yet once again this is your argument to justify your position.

You ignore the fact that 3 of the P4F3 records for example are set by a current Pro CSBK rider who was riding a Miller prepared Hawkzilla which is well known to all of us. The P3L records are set by good club racers.

The 2023 finals at Shannonville Pro had the fasted P3L lap at 1:17.37 and the fastest P4F3 lap at 1:15.91.

This is a difference of 1.46 seconds or 2.2 %. This is 1 data point but it is certainly more relevant than the lap record comparison above.

Please explain how your performance index of 7.7% is fair to both periods.

This is just one example and I am inviting again all the participating riders to provide data points they feel should be considered.

I am open to discussion.

Davelaporte221 wrote:As Endurance Coordinator I have reviewed the data just as the previous coordinator last did in 2020.

I used his words and format to post.

I have expressed my personal opinion.

I have also invited the participating riders to contribute their data to support their opinion on the performance index.

So far there has been nothing but attacks.

If there is a logical handicap that is fair to both periods, I am prepared to adopt that percentage.

It is simple. Justify your opinion with data that we can discuss.

I do not have a dropbox so the data is posted in files on Facebook in the same place all the results are also posted. If someone else wants to post a different link, go ahead.

Dave, you’re the author of your own misfortune. You posted “Endurance Performance Index” here one week ago. It was an announcement. You did not ask for feedback.

The difference between your and Kirby’s announcement of 2020 is that he encouraged feedback and participated in the conversation before making a final decision.

I’ve had a look back at the Endurance forum posts, and in June 2017 Kirby initiated a discussion of points that continued for five pages.

In 2018, you started another which went to two pages, and Kirby actively participated in it.

Combined, the dialogue in those two posts spanned about 31 months and the majority (who posted) seemed satisfied with things.

That’s probably the reason that Kirby’s 2020 Handicap announcement did not generate any comment, positive or negative.

Yours received many.

Davelaporte221 wrote:Kirby,

You acknowledge that single data points should not be used to justify a position and yet once again this is your argument to justify your position.

You ignore the fact that 3 of the P4F3 records for example are set by a current Pro CSBK rider who was riding a Miller prepared Hawkzilla which is well known to all of us. The P3L records are set by good club racers.

The 2023 finals at Shannonville Pro had the fasted P3L lap at 1:17.37 and the fastest P4F3 lap at 1:15.91.

This is a difference of 1.46 seconds or 2.2 %. This is 1 data point but it is certainly more relevant than the lap record comparison above.

Please explain how your performance index of 7.7% is fair to both periods.

This is just one example and I am inviting again all the participating riders to provide data points they feel should be considered.

I am open to discussion.

I am merely using the data as it exists. Based on how the old system was designed and used but with current p5 data.
I am not arbitrarily deciding a data point should or should not be counted.
A member is a member and they can choose to ride whatever they want. Be they pro or amateur or brand new wobbly rider just starting out.
Why do you get to decide what should or shouldn’t count?
Where is it in the rule book that says “lap records set by current CSBK level Pros do not count”
It’s cherry picking.

The idea- again- was seeing what a potential maximum performance envelope each class had.

I also provided a second data point for Shannonville that’s as close to a true comparison as we will ever get.

But……. There are performance differences between periods.
To pretend they don’t exist is nonsensical at best.

And how does your new system improve participation?
If that is not the goal- what is the goal?

You haven’t stated the goal for changing it. Other than “I don’t feel that there should be handicaps”.

Davelaporte221 wrote:Kirby,

You acknowledge that single data points should not be used to justify a position and yet once again this is your argument to justify your position.

You ignore the fact that 3 of the P4F3 records for example are set by a current Pro CSBK rider who was riding a Miller prepared Hawkzilla which is well known to all of us. The P3L records are set by good club racers.

The 2023 finals at Shannonville Pro had the fasted P3L lap at 1:17.37 and the fastest P4F3 lap at 1:15.91.

This is a difference of 1.46 seconds or 2.2 %. This is 1 data point but it is certainly more relevant than the lap record comparison above.

Please explain how your performance index of 7.7% is fair to both periods.

This is just one example and I am inviting again all the participating riders to provide data points they feel should be considered.

I am open to discussion.

Like Kirby and others have stated, choosing whatever data you "Feel" is relevant is not data analysis, it's cooking the books and blurring things.

To say "I took the 2023 results and because the p3 light riders were faster than p4 riders no handicap is required" is simply ridiculous. This is one season, one with low attendance.

All this shows is that you had some fast guys on P3 bikes , and some slower guys on p4 bikes.

We are not handicapping to give the slow rider a change of a podium, we are handicapping to make it so a fast rider who likes to win will still be interested in riding an older machine and isn't forced to ride a more modern bike that he/she may or may not be comfortable on.

Again, what is the goal here? Please elaborate.

Handicaps shouldn't be viewed negatively, most major series have them.
It's a way to make more bikes competitive.

MotoGP gives slower bikes concessions, more testing, in-season engine development.
Yamaha and Honda are currently receiving these handicaps/concessions.

WSBK restricts RPM on different models and is handicapping based on average rider weight.
They review and adjust these handicaps during the season.

CSBK restricts HP on some bikes and allows higher HP on others and well as different weight limits.

The whole objective of handicaps is to allow more bikes to be competitive.

Andre Kipin #818
Team On the Verge

I have been been watching this debate (if you want to call it that) for a few days now. Seems there is some friction being built up and that friction may not be healthy moving the club forward. There is always room for improvement so I am not taking either side but I may suggest that we carry over 2023 endurance rules and point system so that the current executive can focus on the start of 2024 season. That being said there should be room for respectable endurance debate in preparation for the 2025 season. Why not set up an endurance working group between now and the AGM so that findings and recommendations can be discussed and entered on the record at the AGM. Data can continue to be collected and reviewed through the season within the working group. The working group could consist of a leader from each class / group so that individual member input can be channeled through them to the working group. If there are no volunteers to support said group or if it is a bad idea then we get what we get and we can just keep the banter going on Facebook and the forum.