New classes discussion before the AGM
Printed From: BHPC Forum
Category: Public: Open to anyone
Forum Name: Etc
Forum Description: Any other racing-related topics
URL: https://forum.bhpc.org.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=2271
Printed Date: 27 March 2026 at 4:46am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.07 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: New classes discussion before the AGM
Posted By: Yowie
Subject: New classes discussion before the AGM
Date Posted: 25 August 2008 at 2:26pm
Thinking logically, Q) Do we want (a) "sexed" classes, or (b) everything unisex. Discuss M/F physiology and "fairness". Are we aiming for equality, or should we stick with a pragmatic mess we have now? Sorry to call it a mess, but it is confusing to some and doesn't look equal. What's to worry about unfeasibly small (sic) classes? If we want sexed classes, splitting everything down the middle is more logical than current system. |
Adrian Setter wrote:Replies:
Posted By: Catrike UK
Date Posted: 25 August 2008 at 2:37pm
|
There is nothing to stop male and female racing together but I think there should be distinct male and female classes for results, that way will be more likely to attract people to the race series.
------------- Ian, www.wheelnv.co.uk |
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 25 August 2008 at 2:43pm
|
The current proliferation of classes certainly needs addressing. HPV racing is supposed to be about the capabilities of the machines used, as well as athletic ability. That suggests that all machines (with the possible exception of arm-powered ones) should compete on an equal footing. In order to start with a clean slate I suggest that, for one season at least, we have only person classes (i.e. Men, Women and Juniors), but (crucially) that we also have a Handicap class, which will allow everybody a chance of winning something. A http://www.bhpc.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1446 - scheme already exists for running a Handicap class with a minimum of effort - in fact, I'll volunteer to run it myself if need be. |
Posted By: Paul Lowing
Date Posted: 25 August 2008 at 3:43pm
|
I think we have too many classes, but just having an open class for the three categories is too few. For bikes there could be perhaps 2 or 3 classes. 1) Streamliner (including bagged front and rear fairings) 2) Everything else OR 1) Streamliner (including bagged front and rear fairings) 2) Bikes with any combination of unbagged front and/or rear fairing 3) Unfaired Classes sorted as to male, female and junior. If there is only 1 competitor then that person wins the class. Similar classes could be used for multitrack with fully faired velomobiles going into the streamliner class. Arm-powered seems to take care of itself |
Posted By: LeeW
Date Posted: 25 August 2008 at 4:11pm
|
Due to the small number of faired multitrack riders (basically just myself and a few pedalcars) the velomobile class could possibly be scrapped.
I personally feel the street class is also underused and also complicated. I feel it should be scrapped too. Maybe replace it with a SuperStreet class like the US guys or leave it out. I won't mention the sports class. ------------- Current fleet: Milan SL MK2 #027, Fujin SL II, Beany! |
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 25 August 2008 at 4:22pm
I make that at least 10 classes, Paul...  ...hence my modest proposal simply to do away with machine-based classes, for one season at least. I bet no other scheme will be so refreshingly simple, nor provide everybody with a pot to aim for. |
Posted By: gNick
Date Posted: 25 August 2008 at 5:44pm
|
I will have something to say about the classes at the agm - will post it here before, once I've worked it out.
------------- gNick "I'm afraid it's definite, Mrs Banker - your son has bicycles" |
Posted By: graydog
Date Posted: 25 August 2008 at 7:12pm
|
Young BinBag has just started cycling, took him about an hour before he was steady. Already he wants to race, but he is six.
What can BHPC offer someone of his age? In keeping with DF racing we should be limiting inch gears should age groups can ride with.
regards
Graydog
|
Posted By: Catrike UK
Date Posted: 25 August 2008 at 7:36pm
|
BinBag?
------------- Ian, www.wheelnv.co.uk |
Posted By: BarneyH
Date Posted: 25 August 2008 at 8:05pm
Just to put my side of things the existence of the sports class helped me see a way into the sport last year as a "newbie" and kept my interest for the year, admitedly I am now looking to move on but I think we need a class of less able / more beginner freindly / less scary to learn to ride machines that can encourage new people to come and have a go using a cheap second hand production machine.
Barney
|
Posted By: Paul Lowing
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 8:54am
|
I agree with Barney that the Sports class is a good introduction as it is encouraging to get reasonable results within that class. |
Posted By: Paul Lowing
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 9:00am
Possibly not, but a streamliner will be the winner. Not everyone can source, build or transport one of these assuming that they want one in the first place.
I suspect that the non-streamliner contingent will be overwhelmingly against your proposal.
|
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 9:10am
|
A streamliner (not mine) will win the Open Championship, granted; given that fully faired bicycles represent the current state of the art in recumbent racing, that is surely only right and proper.
But there is no reason why a veteran lady riding an unfaired trike should not win the Handicap Championship - it depends on who tries hardest.
|
Posted By: Paul Lowing
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 9:58am
|
True again, but this will not be the main event... Also one has to devise a fair and consistent handicap system and with respect your system based on performance relative to one rider has a number of obvious pitfalls. Are you also suggesting a veteran class?!
 |
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 10:09am
|
It is based on performance relative to a standard, rather than to an individual; its working title was somewhat tongue in cheek. Anyway, I await the announcement of a comprehensively better system with bated breath.
And who is to say whether the majority of the racing membership will show more interest in the Open championship, or in one they have a chance of winning?
|
Posted By: graydog
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 11:16am
|
IMHO the class system seems quite good with some oddities. However, I’m not sure it is the class system that stops riders turning up in the hope they may win. It has been seen, that the riders who have competed more regularly win the season. Perhaps I am not a hardened BHPCer, but for me a 40 min points race, for 2 to 6 hours driving to get to an event, does not compute on many levels. Perhaps instead of tweaking the class structure could we see more points races (I understand this would take more organising), such as: 100m 200m fly starts:- Each track has a length which can be used for the flying 100 or 200, the limit will be on the wind-up. 1km:- Typical standing start. Season team points:- Teams are nominated drawing from the class structures, team is 4(5) members with one floater. Team with the most points at the end of the year wins. Points are scored based on points gained on the riders’ based classes. Given that not all riders turn-up to all events picking the top winners does not always work. 10TT:- riders are encouraged to join a local DF club, and ride the club TT nights. A rider submits their best time per month. Rider at the end of the year with the lowest accumulative time of X rides wins.
regards
Graydog
|
Posted By: tosgh
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 12:23pm
|
I had hoped to attend at least 4 races this year but it looks like it will only be 2 plus the Worlds. Anyway my point is that personally I have always seen my KC as a mobile testbed for attempts at improving the bikes performance, in terms of comfort and speed with the racing acting as a gauge of those improvements. I do not compare myself with anyone else that happens to be on the track at the same time because they may be older, younger, fitter, more/ less experienced or motivated than me. I am simply interested in my times, average speed and what I could do next time to the bike to improve performance. This is how I have always viewed the purpose of the club, its ultimate aim; to improve the breed (machine).
------------- weight is everything |
Posted By: fards
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 2:00pm
|
I'm with Graydog on that one, I think it might be a good idea to have a longer and shorter points races, at each event this coming year. 1km seems to work well, easy to do and takes up fairly little time. Jons/Kits sprints system works very well also. I'd also like the 2hr at castle combe to be a 3hr or maybe even longer to make it more of a special event, but expect that idea to be shouted down.. |
Posted By: Adrian Setter
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 2:16pm
For the last couple of seasons, there's been an obstacle to doing this, in that the race software didn't support splitting the points for an event between two races. (In the days of manual points-mangling - and the hours and hours of time it took Dave Larrington to do it - we did occasionally have two races for POINTS on one day, with half points for each race.)
I spoke to KevinJ last week about the possibility of enhancing the software to enable it to do this, over the closed season, and it sounds as if it may be feasible (Kevin - please correct me if I've misremembered; it probably was after a few BEERS!).
------------- Challenge Hurricane - MicWic Delta (Front half) - Burrows Ratracer |
Posted By: jes@gcre
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 2:33pm
|
To help this discussion along, could someone post a list of the current classes please? ------------- Racing is life... Anything which happens before or afterwards is just standing around waiting to race.... |
Posted By: Hadden
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 2:40pm
|
How about a cup for the person who improves most over the season to encourage people to develop their bikes? ------------- Simon Sanderson. |
Posted By: jes@gcre
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 3:23pm
|
Or trikes
Or 4 wheelers
Or more than 4 if so inclined ------------- Racing is life... Anything which happens before or afterwards is just standing around waiting to race.... |
Posted By: graydog
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 3:30pm
|
One need not split race points, but add the different race categories, ok so this may look like making the class structure bigger. In this way riders who only want to entry one race, for what ever reason, would not end up miles down the points system. Like wise the likes of Paul Sprit C could if wish concentrate on his sprit tactics if he so wished. I to, would like the sound of 3hr or longer races. I'd be happy to make cups/Trophies for the new categories.
|
Posted By: jes@gcre
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 3:45pm
|
If you did have 3 hour races you might get pedal car people joining in the fun.
Catch is, they would probably want to share the cars (and therefore the cost) during the races.
This has gone down very badly in the past. ------------- Racing is life... Anything which happens before or afterwards is just standing around waiting to race.... |
Posted By: antony
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 4:52pm
|
Define and measure improvement, without returning to the same track and arranging the same weather conditions...
And, ensure no-one stonewalls their first race. Or just leaves their bike's nose cone and tail fairings at home for it. Or does it when they're ill. Or when they first have a recumbent and therefore simply aren't that good on it due to 'jelly legs', poor control, etc. And, somehow, split out the 'rider' and 'machine' components of any improvement... ------------- Deja mu: The feeling you've heard this bull before |
Posted By: madman
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 5:36pm
|
Can I have a slow fat git class please ------------- ratracer sl laid back and asleep http://www.flickr.com/photos/44642610@N00/ http://s244.photobucket.com/albums/gg8/bottlemasher/ |
Posted By: jes@gcre
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 5:40pm
|
Only if I can have a "178cm and 75kg and I would like lose a few kg but I like Pringles too much" class. Both male and female of course.
Seriously though, what about juniors?
Does every class have a seperate junior award? ------------- Racing is life... Anything which happens before or afterwards is just standing around waiting to race.... |
Posted By: LeeW
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 7:13pm
|
How about we have the following classes
Faired Part-faired Unfaired Ladies Faired Ladies Part-faired Ladies Unfaired Faired Multitrack Part-faired Multitrack Unfaired Multitrack Ladies Faired Multitrack Ladies Part-faired Multitrack Ladies Unfaired Multitrack Street Sports Ladies Street Ladies Sports Junior Faired Junior Part-faired Junior Unfaired Junior Ladies Faired Junior Ladies Part-faired Junior Ladies Unfaired Junior Faired Multitrack Junior Part-faired Multitrack Junior Unfaired Multitrack Junior Ladies Faired Multitrack Junior Ladies Part-faired Multitrack Junior Ladies Unfaired Multitrack Junior Street Junior Sports Junior Ladies Street Junior Ladies Sports Faired Arm Powered Part-faired Arm Powered Unfaired Arm Powered Ladies Faired Arm Powered Ladies Part-faired Arm Powered Ladies Unfaired Arm Powered Junior Faired Arm Powered Junior Part-faired Arm Powered Junior Unfaired Arm Powered Junior Ladies Faired Arm Powered Junior Ladies Part-faired Arm Powered Junior Ladies Unfaired Arm Powered ------------- Current fleet: Milan SL MK2 #027, Fujin SL II, Beany! |
Posted By: tosgh
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 7:39pm
I'll leave it to Mr. Goodman to mention that we have forgotten to include a trans gender class...oops I just did ------------- weight is everything |
Posted By: graydog
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 7:58pm
|
Lee you missed out Cub class, junior 12- 16Cub under 12
and we really should not disadvantage DFs, so a whole class structure just for that!!!!
Then there is the unicycle class
|
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 26 August 2008 at 8:24pm
|
Posted By: legs_larry
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 9:32am
There you go, bringing class into it again.
Actually, most of the points-counting was fairly straightforward from about 1996 onwards, when we acquired copies of the spreadsheets the Dutch were for the Europeans in Leicester (althogh recalculation on my state of the ark PC could take a while). The problems were mainly caused by people changing classes, using four different numbers in the course of a season and the "Save As" option in Excel which produced such brain-bendingly awful HTML that I resorted to a FORTRAN program to generate the tables  ------------- ==================== a bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds |
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 9:37am
|
And while we are discussing classes...
...isn't it time that we changed the BHPC race points system to one which at least attempts to reward performance over attendance?
|
Posted By: antony
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 10:07am
|
How about replacing the whole system with one that is arguably at least as "fair" as any preceeding system? It caters for all abilities, all genders (real or desired), all ages, all machine types, all quantities of fairings, any number of punctures, all driving abilities, all budgets, all geographic locations (of people vs tracks), all weathers, all circuit layouts, everything. It will cost a mere £45 per month* plus a one-off fee of $0.99. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugoq8M2XxVE - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugoq8M2XxVE One turn per person... *But you can phone people to tell them how you did, too.
------------- Deja mu: The feeling you've heard this bull before |
Posted By: Paul Lowing
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 10:48am
Do we really want a system that effectively might discourage strong riders to attend?
|
Posted By: Adrian Setter
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 11:22am
Obviously not, and I guess what we all would want is a scheme that rewards performance as well as attendance. If NickM is suggesting that the number of points should drop off with ranking rather more steeply than they do (currently two 26th placings beats one win, for example) I'd agree. I've had my own thoughts on quite how steeply, though, given his own heroic efforts at playing with the scale at the Worlds, I'm sure NickM has a great deal more insight into it than I do.
------------- Challenge Hurricane - MicWic Delta (Front half) - Burrows Ratracer |
Posted By: graydog
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 11:57am
|
perhaps we need a championship CUP and a most races won CUP or something the like. |
Posted By: Paul Lowing
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 12:05pm
|
We already have various unique trophies that are presented to class winners to gather dust on their sideboards for a year.
Cups are rather passe don't you think?
 |
Posted By: Neil F
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 12:29pm
|
The current system is complex, of that I think we are all agreed. Hence any "improvement" should be no more complex, or if more complex should be markedly "better", whatever that means.
Taking the simplicity route I'd propose the following: 1. Everyone scores points in the Open class ONLY - we do away with different points in different classes 2. Your end-of-year class would be based on the "fastest" class in which you have raced during the year. You would be able to opt out of a race before the start (so one race in a fully faired bike would not lead to you being counted as Fully Faired all year BUT you would get no points for that race) 3. The winner of a class would be the person who amassed the most (open) points in the year. You could win the prize for "faster" classes if you amass enough points. So, theoretically, the winner of the Street class could win the Open class as well. The classes would be (from fastest to slowest) Open Street Part Faired (Tail OR nose) Unfaired Sports for multitrack: Open (with bikes) Unfaired/part faired Handcycles, Ladies and Juniors would each have their own class This I think ties in with how people compare themselves. You race with the people around you whatever class they are in. For classes with few competitors it makes the points distributions more sensible (if there are only 2 of you racing then it makes a difference if there are 10 people between you whereas now it doesn't matter how many people there are the points are the same). Comments welcome. |
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 12:29pm
Thank you for that kind (possibly unjustified!) remark, Adrian
 My thoughts on the matter are unchanged from where they (eventually, after much discussion and experimentation) arrived at in page 5 of http://www.bhpc.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1502 - this thread from last year (...just before it ran out of steam). I can send the spreadsheet mentioned therein to anybody who is curious about it on request.
|
Posted By: Adrian Setter
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 1:05pm
|
Wow, Neil! After all the complex debates, a proposal that is both simple and makes total sense. I second the proposal, though with one question and one comment. The question is, when you say "Handcycles, Ladies and Juniors would each have their own class", do you mean that the fastest Handcyclist would get 2000 points in an exclusive class, the fastest Junior 2000 points etc? If you do, I agree, otherwise we could get a similar situation as at the worlds or, just as bad, one in which the key skill for riders in the slower classes would be to turn up at the least popular events... The comment is that these separate classes should - if and only if there are enough riders to justify it - be similarly subdivided as the main Open class. I think the only actual difference that would make with our current population of racers is that we'd have Ladies Open and Ladies Part Faired (the latter including unfaired and sports machines, of course). ------------- Challenge Hurricane - MicWic Delta (Front half) - Burrows Ratracer |
Posted By: fards
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 1:32pm
|
I'd agree Neils suggestion makes sense, enough sense to at least try it out for a season. The only change I'd suggest would be to drop street class off the list which simplifies things a bit more. There's no reason why we can't have ladies subdivisions if numbers exist for each, would using Neils system mean we could keep it flexible so that at the end of the season we could break down ladies into the different class if numbers exist for each ? ie at the mo' there are enough ladies multitrack to justify a class for that.. |
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 1:50pm
I like this
It strikes me as a good compromise between what we have now and my more radical "people classes only" suggestion.
With the provisos that:
a) the points system is made more "progressive", and
b) a handicap competition is introduced so that everybody has a chance of winning something
...I would happily support it.
|
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 1:51pm
Ah, but this could be addressed (and the results mangler saved a significant amount of work) simply by making the points system more progressive!
|
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 1:55pm
Good point!
|
Posted By: KevinJ
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 4:34pm
I was discussing this at the worlds and agree that the calculation based on open class positions does mean that there is an incentive to overtake people not in your class. I suspect the problem in this is that many of our races have unequal numbers of races. So for example someone coming last in a velodropme with a small field could get enough points to beat someone coming midway in a few races in a large field.
Couldnt we award points in the class by sharing the pints in the class between the open points and the class points - therefore someonce coming first in say multitrack and 28th in open - would earn (2000+967)/2 points - That gives some incentive to overtake and does not make it so sensitive that the number of racers in a race dwarfs the result. ------------- Kevin Jenkins Windcheetah |
Posted By: KevinJ
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 4:37pm
Agree that was a problem with the software and all my fault - I am currently looking at altering that so that it will be capable in future of holding multiple races and combining points in various formats. I am also trying to help resolve some of the current update probles of people chanign classes, etc anc corrections on the results - so that all this may be maintained easier. ------------- Kevin Jenkins Windcheetah |
Posted By: Neil F
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 6:34pm
|
For the "handicap" prize how about simply "best improved" from Open points last year. Rider would have to be in the same class obviously and attended for a full season last year.
Now I can't see Ian of Slash winning that 
|
Posted By: Neil F
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 6:41pm
|
for example someone coming last in a velodropme with a small field could get enough points to beat someone coming midway in a few races in a large field.
Surely "extra" points at a less popular race is an incentive to come to less popular races. Is this not a Good Thing? Also, the same problem exists with combining Open and Class points as if there are few people then there are likely to be few in your class as well. However, this is discussing how many points you receive, what I was looking at is how classes are structured and scored. I think my proposal would work with any points scheme, even one based on numbers of riders. |
Posted By: gNick
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 9:11pm
|
Going back a bit, to the points based on field size. I would be very against this as it could end up discouraging people from going to some of our circuits more distant from main centres of population. We are, as it is, much more the English and Welsh Human Power Club since the nearest event to me is 85miles south and I live about 60 miles from the Scottish Border and about 100 miles from Edinburgh, never mind Aberdeen! We seem to have this ongoing points scheme discussion and all that seems to happen is that they get more complicated. What is the problem with a scheme that favours attendance at races? All scoring systems do this to a certain extent and this is pretty well countered by our drop the worst 3 scheme. Come to that why penalise those who take the trouble to attend races when others do not? ------------- gNick "I'm afraid it's definite, Mrs Banker - your son has bicycles" |
Posted By: GeoffBird
Date Posted: 27 August 2008 at 11:16pm
|
I’d just like to add (not so) briefly, my 1/2d worth, though I think we’re all mostly covering ground that’s been well trampled before. I agree the racing class system we’ve had for the last two seasons is too complex. Competitors don’t understand (or care?) what class they’re in and the race organisers don’t have the time to check bikes. Consequently the results are littered with inaccuracies with regard to the classification of racing machines. This was fairly inevitable given the proliferation of new classes and the relaxed attitude to rules in the club (I think this is a GOOD thing BTW!). Still, now we’ve tried it, we know for sure. I suggested the Street Class because it seemed to me very odd that our club, given its aims, had rules which actively discouraged competitors from experimenting with aerodynamics, particularly with partial fairings, which have arguably the greatest utility for practical HPVs. But it seems that the people who are experimenting in this area have little interest in racing and to codify a definition of partial fairings has always been problematic. I wouldn’t resist its abolition. What is great to see is the renewed interest in streamliners – I was afraid 2 years ago they were going to be swept away by a tide of off-the-shelf, unfaired and tailfaired low racers. Kudos to Lee, Eddie and Andy F in particular for keeping the pioneering spirit alive! Please can I reiterate that a racing class shouldn’t be valued purely by the number of bikes eligible for it! It was inevitable that the unfaired class would have a lot of unwitting entrants. However I think we should keep it for one reason.....well 3 reasons: The only three true entrants in this class. Why? Because 2 of them, Dave T and Keith make extraordinary efforts to attend our races and they can genuinely claim that a tail-fairing would be an encumbrance! And because the third, Andrew S, would normally have plenty of room in his capacious estate car for a fairing were it not for it usually being filled to the gunnels with BHPC paraphernalia, much of which he has donated or loaned to the club himself. I agree with gNick that we should reward attendance in the points scoring – why should anyone who misses more than 3 races in a season of 10 or 11 stand much chance of winning anything? But for next season, whatever is decided, we should remember the maxim from US politics: K.I.S.S. ------------- Right Time - Right Place - Wrong Speed |
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 9:16am
But there are lots of valid reasons why people do not attend all events in a season's racing! For instance, Judith and I could not justify the long trip to Shrewsbury for a single race this year (we struggle with our consciences over the carbon contribution of our racing trips; and for many people, races involve the additional expense of an overnight stay).
It seems to me that a person who attends and wins a majority of the races (so 6 out of 11, say) can reasonably expect to win overall, and that the points system ought to reflect this.
|
Posted By: Paul Lowing
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 9:37am
|
I think biasing the points system too heavily in terms of winning could lead to some riders dropping races. Also if the lead is being closely contested and one of the riders has mechanical problems dropping them a long way down then this may be unrecoverable. I fail to see the logic that winning approx 55% of the races and then not attending should be preferable to someone who finishes consistently lower down and attends all the races.
|
Posted By: legs_larry
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 9:55am
|
I will do all in my power to ensure that there are no changes to the current points/class system unless any new proposal allows each rider to play their Mystery Virus card once per season. This gives them double the usual points, unless they happen to win their class, in which case no points at all are scored for that event
------------- ==================== a bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds |
Posted By: antony
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 10:06am
|
Then it comes down to a decision (as it does in any other sport) as to where your priorities lie. Do you want to have an occasional race with friends in a relaxed (!) atmosphere when you have nothing more pressing on that weekend? Then go to the races that fit in around other things you do, when you have the time and it's convenient for you to do so. OR Do you want to be the champion? Then you'll make attending races your number one priority and you'll fit in your other activities around race weekends, which will be your 'more pressing' weekend activity around which you'll fit the rest of your life. There's nothing wrong with either approach of course; it's personal choice. Chris Hoy didn't win three Olympic golds off the back of a few track sessions at Manchester when it was a bit damp out so he couldn't mow the lawn; equally I don't expect a GB call-up for 2012... Class-wise, Neil's suggestion seems like a good idea - clean and simple.Points-wise, if you get the spread right (mainly, the gaps between places and what these are as a proportion of the points available) then the ability to drop races takes care of itself. Reverting to pedal car race scoring for a moment, 25 points for a win and 20 for second (for most races) means that over a 7- or 8- race season you can miss - or have a mechanical or physical disaster at - a race but winning a championship is still in your hands. Suppose you're the fastest in the sport. Your nearest rival will win if you're not there but will be 2nd if you are, assuming no-one has a disaster. In a season of 12 races, that spread would mean ten wins and two no-scores would score the same as your rival who went to all the races and had no problems. Tweak to your heart's content to reflect the number of races you want someone to have to score in to be able to determine their own championship fate... 2000 for a win with about 1900 for second, about 1800 for third, etc, (effectively, 20, 19, 18...) means you have to win 20 races if you miss one, to recover the deficit, hence the need to invent a number of scores that have to be dropped. PS. Don't worry too much about coming up with a perfectly "fair" system. I don't believe such a thing exists! ------------- Deja mu: The feeling you've heard this bull before |
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 10:22am
But this is a mis-portrayal of what happens. People do not turn up often enough to gain the required number of points and then say "job done, season over". They look at the whole season in advance and decide which events they can justify doing. Their reasons (expense, reluctance to travel long distances for short races, clashes with other demands on their time) are their own business! Better to have people doing the events they can fit in or justify than attending none at all, I would say.
|
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 10:25am
|
Anthony, I think expecting that people will organise their lives around BHPC racing is likely to lead to a decline in the already perilously low numbers competing in our little sport.
The Olympics it ain't. That's why we do it.
|
Posted By: Paul Lowing
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 10:48am
|
NickM
What you are proposing would also be achieved by allowing the number of races to be dropped to be increased (to 5 in your example above). This would also address your concerns about travel etc.
Altering the points system as you suggest is arguably effectively implementing the above change in dropped races...
Not arguing for or against, just an observation.
|
Posted By: Adrian Setter
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 10:57am
|
With regards to the suggestion of increasing the number of races that can be dropped.
If you're really serious about winning a championship but aren't completely dominant in your class, you'll in all likelihood have to ride more than the minimum number of races anyway, not to score points for yourself, but to stop your rivals from picking up the extra points available because you're not there. I know: I've done it. ------------- Challenge Hurricane - MicWic Delta (Front half) - Burrows Ratracer |
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 1:43pm
So... a revised points system with a steeper slope to its curve might well encourage participation among those who are in with a chance of winning a championship
|
Posted By: antony
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 1:45pm
|
I wasn't suggesting people should be forced to!
Merely that there's a choice of approaches, with the two extremes I mentioned and of course all points in between. As I said, there's nowt wrong with either approach and it's not impossible to devise some numbers that reward both performance and attendance/reliability whilst defining the balance of these attributes required to be deemed worthy of taking home a Dust-Gatherer (TM)** at the end of the year. The keener you are to have a D-G, the more races you'll attend and the harder you'll pedal when you get there. If race meetings are more of a social thing, possibly you wont be too bothered about points at all - maybe beating the person you lost to last time is enough? **Or "Trophy", as they're sometimes known! ------------- Deja mu: The feeling you've heard this bull before |
Posted By: Paul Lowing
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 1:57pm
But those will be the minority and they probably require less in the way of encouragement...
|
Posted By: Adrian Setter
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 1:58pm
|
I've been playing about in Excel with various points curves. It seems intuitively right that the proportional difference between any two positions should be (apart from rounding) the same. An unexpected (to me) observation is that, at least in some zones, the current system has gaps that are proportionally greater some way down the field than they are at the top.
If we adopt NeilF's proposal of allocating points just in Open class, we need to make sure the scheme is sensible for biggish fields (50 - 60), in which case it looks to me as if a slope of 5% is about the steepest that is sensible, e.g.
------------- Challenge Hurricane - MicWic Delta (Front half) - Burrows Ratracer |
Posted By: Paul Lowing
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 2:15pm
|
An alternative would be to award zero points below a certain placing, this would allow more flexibility and then the scoring is independent of field size. |
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 2:28pm
You too?
Hmmm - that is not my feeling, based on lengthy discussion... (see http://www.bhpc.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1502 - that previous thread ). I believe the best and fairest scheme for fields of up to 70 riders* to be:
2000, 1333, 1088, 989, 912, 850, 797, 751, 710, 674... ...112, 106, 99, 93, 86, 80, 74, 68, 62, 56, 51, 45, 40, 34, 29, 24, 18, 13, 8, and 3 for 70th place
*personally, I would adjust the winner's points-scored to reflect the size of field (more points for beating more people), but this doesn't seem to be a very popular idea
That's because it isn't derived from a function relating placing to points, so it's not a predictable curve, or even a tweaked one. I've heard somewhere that it's the system used for scoring NASCAR events
 |
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 2:38pm
|
There is no perfect points system, as people rush to declare whenever a new one is proposed, but since plenty of people are less than satisfied with the current one why not adopt the approach of that great thinker Garrett Hardin, who I happened to be reading yesterday:
"It is one of the peculiarities of the warfare between reform and the status quo that it is thoughtlessly governed by a double standard. Whenever a reform measure is proposed it is often defeated when its opponents triumphantly discover a flaw in it. As Kingsley Davis has pointed out, worshippers of the status quo sometimes imply that no reform is possible without unanimous agreement, an implication contrary to historical fact. As nearly as I can make out, automatic rejection of proposed reforms is based on one of two unconscious assumptions: (i) that the status quo is perfect; or (ii) that the choice we face is between reform and no action; if the proposed reform is imperfect, we presumably should take no action at all, while we wait for a perfect proposal. But we can never do nothing. That which we have done for thousands of years is also action. It also produces evils. Once we are aware that the status quo is action, we can then compare its discoverable advantages and disadvantages with the predicted advantages and disadvantages of the proposed reform, discounting as best we can for our lack of experience. On the basis of such a comparison, we can make a rational decision which will not involve the unworkable assumption that only perfect systems are tolerable". (The Tragedy of the Commons, 1968)
|
Posted By: Paul Lowing
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 2:58pm
|
A steeper slope potentially accentuates any random events such as mechanical problems, change of field size, change of field composition, or occasional visits from fast riders etc. Thus giving random events a greater impact on overall placing.
Having a smaller slope means that the effect random events are smaller. This I believe is fairier in the situation where all riders do not attend all events.
|
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 3:03pm
| Isolated random events have little effect on season-long results as long as some scores can be discarded. |
Posted By: Yowie
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 3:05pm
|
I support http://www.bhpc.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2271&PID=22928#22928 - Neil's proposal . If it is agreed to be adopted, maybe all that needs investigating and tweaking is that the points fall-off (2000, 1921, whatever) is suitable. We might need to check how the points differential works with the slower and less populated categories with the results of a previous season. I agree [with whoever] that the points fall-off is related (somehow) to the "worst 3" subtraction rule, so this should be up for change in the same proposal. I appreciate that changing the system involves WORK, and reconfiguration of the Babbage Machine. |
Posted By: Paul Lowing
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 4:27pm
I don't think this quote is applicable because surely no-one thinks a perfect system is possible due to the fluctuation of riders and numbers of riders between races.
You are proposing a system that probably places too much weight on higher placings, I would think that a more balanced system is required.
It would be instructive to have the complete results of the last 3 seasons and to apply any proposed model to see what changes (if any) would be introduced by the various scoring systems that have been proposed now and in the past.
Without doing such an analysis we are all (including myself) expressing opinions unfounded by any factual content.
If someone has these on file it would be relatively simple to apply the changes and see the results.
|
Posted By: Adrian Setter
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 5:12pm
I think so, too. If combined with NeilF's (seemingly popular, and I think with good reason) suggestion of just allocating Open points, the extra weighting on 1st and 2nd placings will only affect 3 or 4 of the total racing population, all of them faired. That is, until the day when Twed being at a pedal car race, Chattington coming on the wrong day and Slash having a puncture all coincide, leaving a lucky unfaired rider to clean up massive numbers of extra points, to the ruin of a faster unfaired rider who'd chosen that week to be away on holiday.
From that point of view it sounds like it rewards attendance rather than speed
 ."Using up" so much of the points range for the highest placings also means that points differences for the slower classes are less. ------------- Challenge Hurricane - MicWic Delta (Front half) - Burrows Ratracer |
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 5:22pm
Yet we still use a decidedly imperfect points system, retained over, what - 7? 8? years through sheer inertia... |
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 5:31pm
Ah, but it wasn't designed to suit that new idea. It was designed specifically to suit the existing system for the allocation of points, in a 12 race season in which 4 results could be discounted and in which the winner of [(12/2) + 1] races would win a championship. If those conditions change, so does the ideal points system; but I'm not going to repeat the not-insignificant exercise until the spec is positively established, because to do so would probably be a waste of effort. And perceptions of "balance", I would suggest, are largely a matter of where on the seesaw you sit! |
Posted By: Neil F
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 6:41pm
|
The main problem with this discussion is that there is no "perfect" system. We all have different preferences in the balance between complexity/no of riders competing/race speed/races missed/points spread/etc. so we will all have different "ideal" systems.
I think that this debate is productive but we will not reach a position on a new system that we will all agree on. IMHO we want a system this: is as simple as possible encourages people to come to races (especially less popular ones) allows people to miss "some" races and still win/do well I would propose that the Competition Secretary decides on how races are to be scored based on the discussion here and at the AGM and then publish the plan prior to the first race. |
Posted By: GeoffBird
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 8:53pm
|
Nick M wrote: "But there are lots of valid reasons why people do not attend all events in a season's racing!"
I know, I sometimes have them myself. This is why we are allowed to drop the points score from approximately a third of the races in a season.
I'm a bit concerned with the relish over the discussion of alternative points systems!
The conclusion seemed to be, last time we discussed this subject, that if you applied these alternative systems to previous seasons, they make virtually no difference to the placings. This is probably because, as Adrian points out, if you have a system that royally rewards a winner then that winner is compelled to attend most of the events to stop one of his rivals taking those points in his absence. Whereas if you have small differences in points between 1st, 2nd and 3rd there is also an incentive to attend most of the events to amass the small differences. We should call this the Setter Paradox! Maybe there is a philosophical treatise in this Nick?  It seems that the main reason many people do not attend BHPC races is because they feel intimidated by the idea of racing. Those who are brave enough to give it a go, despite their fears, find that it is not at all intimidating, it's just fun! So in order to encourage more people to race and stay racing, I think we should avoid complex rules (don't mention the Street Class!) and responsibilities as much as possible. Friendly, fun racing and cycle technology are our USPs - lets build on that! ------------- Right Time - Right Place - Wrong Speed |
Posted By: KevinJ
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 9:28pm
|
If you are going to think about new points systems, then there is no point in trying to think up new and 'better' points systems until we can agree what our requirements for a points system are. Everyones views are different. NickM points out that ours is imperfect - well I suspect they are all imperfect since we will not be able to agree what our core requirements are. So the starting point is deciding what we want it to do, and prioritizing those requirements BEFORE deciding how. ------------- Kevin Jenkins Windcheetah |
Posted By: gNick
Date Posted: 28 August 2008 at 10:35pm
|
Point raised off forum about Open based points scheme: If you win your class just ahead of your just about equal competitor, say Part faired, at an event where all of the faster-than-you streamliners (say 5 for the want of a number) are present then you will get fewer points than your just about equal competitor when he beats you when there are only 3 faster-than-you streamliners. Your race is for the sake of argument just as hard but one scores less than the other. I think that using the open scheme only really works when you have a large field which is more or less the same for all races and even then, as we found at the Worlds can still lead to confusion, particularly with the slower classes. I do remember that we had a group of people, including several of those contributing here, spent a long time discussing the points scheme and they couldn't come up with anything more acceptable to the whole than out current, flawed but not too badly, system. When we regularly have fields of 100+ then it might be relevant but currently it seems like a spectacular waste of time and effort for the small turnout we have. ------------- gNick "I'm afraid it's definite, Mrs Banker - your son has bicycles" |
Posted By: Neil F
Date Posted: 29 August 2008 at 8:42am
|
True. You will also get less points if there are 5 multitrack between your "about equal" competitor in race 1 against him finishing directly behind you in Race 2. Is this "fair"? IMHO it is IF you are comparing how people race against everyone else BUT we want prizes to be awarded on a class position.
My main point was that IT IS SIMPLER thus "better" not that it is in any way "perfect". IMHO the Competition Secretary should define the race and points rules and simply publish them. Lets face it, serious racers will race and optimize to the rules (whatever they are) but for most club members it won't make much of a difference anyway. |
Posted By: legs_larry
Date Posted: 29 August 2008 at 9:44am
NASCAR's basic system awards 185 points for a win, 170 for second, then has five point gaps for third down to sixth, four points down to eleventh and three for the remainder of the field. Plus five points for leading over the stripe at any point in the race and five for leading the most laps. There's all that bobbins about the Chase for the Cup in the top division as well, but that's not important right now. What may be important is that NASCAR themselves state "This point system rewards consistency more than it rewards winning". It used to be the case that it was theoretically possible to win all bar one Cup race, finish second in the other and still not win the Championship. Which is silly. ------------- ==================== a bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds |
Posted By: antony
Date Posted: 29 August 2008 at 10:41am
|
Not that this is an annual discussion or anything, but... http://www.bhpc.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1502&PID=15333#15333 - http://www.bhpc.org.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1502&PID=15333#15333
Sorry Geoff, us pedal car bods claim a share of those points as well! Well, we say "Fast, Friendly and Fun" despite being, er, not as fast as half the BHPC field... Besides, can you have multiple Unique Selling Points?
------------- Deja mu: The feeling you've heard this bull before |
Posted By: gNick
Date Posted: 29 August 2008 at 8:16pm
|
The uniqueness is in the combination!
------------- gNick "I'm afraid it's definite, Mrs Banker - your son has bicycles" |
Posted By: gNick
Date Posted: 29 August 2008 at 8:37pm
Speaking from experience, being the Competition Secretary (for a few weeks more) and from 20 years involvement with the racing, anything done with points and classes is a thankless task. Everybody has a better scheme and precious few are prepared to see the flaws in their scheme and the positive aspects of any other. ------------- gNick "I'm afraid it's definite, Mrs Banker - your son has bicycles" |
Posted By: NickM
Date Posted: 30 August 2008 at 6:31pm
|
I notice that our close North American equivalent, http://www.recumbents.com/WISIL/hpra.htm - HPRA , always has multiple races at its events; perhaps because some of their racers travel much further than any of us to compete, and their meetings are generally two-day affairs. A typical programme might include any of the following: - 1-lap standing start sprint - 200m flying start sprint - 30-minute time trial - 20 mile criterium - a special race for trikes on a twisty, challenging short course marked out with cones - one-on-one drag races - a hill-climb and coast-down. Perhaps, if the race-running software can cope, we should experiment with this "omnium" format? It would give people enough action to justify their journey and expense more readily... |
Posted By: gNick
Date Posted: 30 August 2008 at 7:59pm
|
I would certainly appreciate more racing - Hillingdon is a full tank of fuel (60l) and that expense for one 40 min race is a tad extravagant!
------------- gNick "I'm afraid it's definite, Mrs Banker - your son has bicycles" |
Posted By: LeeW
Date Posted: 30 August 2008 at 8:27pm
|
Something I would really like is a "major" annual race weekend with 4-8 races like a British version of Cyclevision. Just need a location and someone willing to organise it.
Having social rides on the day before/after a single day race is a good idea to justify a journey. ------------- Current fleet: Milan SL MK2 #027, Fujin SL II, Beany! |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 30 August 2008 at 9:47pm
|
I've just got back from a week in Sunny Wales so I'm just catching up with all this...
I agree with gNick...
The current points system may well not be perfect but it's probably no less perfect than any alternative...
------------- |
Posted By: Richard Ballant
Date Posted: 01 September 2008 at 7:02pm
|
My, what a blizzard of ideas and words! May I remind that as far as the AGM is concerned, time constraints mean we are largely limited to considering specific proposals, rather than discussing the pros and cons of various schemes. Moreover, not all BHPC members participate in the Forum. If you have a proposal, please write it up and send it to Alan Goodman. We will then at least have the option of including it in a mail shot to all BHPC members.
------------- Richard Ballantine Chairman |
Posted By: gNick
Date Posted: 01 September 2008 at 9:03pm
I know of a nice location in Suffolk.... ------------- gNick "I'm afraid it's definite, Mrs Banker - your son has bicycles" |
Posted By: BarneyH
Date Posted: 01 September 2008 at 10:13pm
I whole heartedly agree with Neil's Open Points proposal and Adrian's new points curve and would support trying it for one season.
Barney
|
Posted By: KevinJ
Date Posted: 02 September 2008 at 7:06am
|
The problems with have 'Open class' only scores is that this makes it poor for use in slower groups (e.g. multitrack or arm) where the points that you get will be proportional to the size of the field. The problem with our club and pints generally is that our field size is not consistent. It is this that causes the main discrepancies - If we are going to have one score only driving the system - it will have to be proportional to the size of the overall field to be useful.
------------- Kevin Jenkins Windcheetah |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 02 September 2008 at 7:31am
|
I agree with Kevin...
With open class points a Multitrack rider at Newport last time we were there could have come last (or even just completed one lap then given up...) and still gained more points than somebody racing hard and winning their class at say Hillingdon or Castle Coombe (or possibly both combined!) Hardly seems a fair way of doing things to me... ------------- |
Posted By: sparky_power
Date Posted: 02 September 2008 at 11:44pm
|
Just out of interest! What is the stance for people who are not wheel chair bound but who performance is irrevocably altered by a chronic illness or disability? It is sad with in sport there has to be harsh criteria set by sports authorities, Functional (S1-S10, SB1-SB9, SM1-SM10), Visual (S11-S13, SB11-SB13, SM11-SM13), Intellectual (S14, SB14, SM14), Deaf (S15, SB15, SM15), Dyspraxia (S17 DSE Classification). If you are not obviously with in these classification does not mean that there are no physical restrictions, but what happens then? Recumbent trike are brilliant for those with supportive (seat/head rests) requirements and balance disorders as there could be other functional problems. Not all disabilities are obvious even if not hidden, once an arm powered racer termed some one as disabled in the head which was not very good but perhaps this is just one of those slips of the tongue? How ever classification should not cause such discontent as long as they are worked out well enough? Sorry if this is not so well thought out but have a bad pain and a "foggy" head currently!  |
Posted By: gNick
Date Posted: 03 September 2008 at 9:21pm
|
Given that according to the general motoring populace, cyclists are daft but people riding recumbents should be sectioned, most of us could be seen as being in that sort of category. Joking aside we don't actually make any distinction in our race classes as to people's disability of any kind. Yes the armpowered class is usually ridden by by those who haven't the use of their legs but that doesn't stop someone able-bodied competing. We don't, as an organisation, go for normality in a big way in what we ride and in the same way we don't turn away from people who are different. On the track, it is a race, with everyone going as fast as they can (usually) but unlike standard bike racing we have a huge speed range so there is nearly always someone to race against. If you only feel comfortable riding a trike, then ride a trike - you can go very fast on a trike... ------------- gNick "I'm afraid it's definite, Mrs Banker - your son has bicycles" |
Posted By: LeeW
Date Posted: 03 September 2008 at 10:24pm
Ymte, nuff said ------------- Current fleet: Milan SL MK2 #027, Fujin SL II, Beany! |
Posted By: LeeW
Date Posted: 03 September 2008 at 10:26pm
|
I don't like the idea of open class points only. I can't see what is wrong with the current system of awarding points to each class. If it ain't broke then don't fix it. ------------- Current fleet: Milan SL MK2 #027, Fujin SL II, Beany! |
Posted By: AlanGoodman
Date Posted: 04 September 2008 at 8:38am
Nicely summed up lee...  ------------- |
Posted By: sparky_power
Date Posted: 04 September 2008 at 11:03am
|
Was not really an issue of points but inclusiveness which B.H.P.C is no doubt but placing my self with in a race is so hard, but do it for fun, I guess I am still very inexperienced. |
Posted By: Neil F
Date Posted: 09 September 2008 at 6:14pm
|
If there are no other changes can we please have points from a "lower" class also apply to a "higher" one as it did years ago. After racing on my Ice-S I note that I've got NO POINTS in the part-faired class that I've been racing in with the unfaired (my choice) NoCom. I was planning to fit a tail box and to earn any points before this happened I has to artificially race in the "wrong" class.
Please can we change this, it does seam a bit ridiculous! |
Posted By: gNick
Date Posted: 09 September 2008 at 8:36pm
|
The classes are distinct and as far as I can remember we never carried points up a class. What did happen is that we had one machine class of Unfaired and then Open. The Part-Faired class came in because of the decided advantage of a tailbox over a naked bike and Faired returned because it seemed fair to have all the machine classes equal rather than Faired being lumped with everyone else. What we do allow is for someone to opt up, so you can ride an Unfaired bike in Partly faired if you are intending to upgrade the bike during the season or if for various reasons you can't bring or ride the intended machine in a race. Did you possibly sign on as Unfaired Multitrack? If you do want to be scored in another class it is a good idea to tell the organisers this so they can score you appropriately. How is it ridiculous to not include Unfaired in Part-Faired? They aren't Part-Faired. ------------- gNick "I'm afraid it's definite, Mrs Banker - your son has bicycles" |
Posted By: Andrew S
Date Posted: 10 September 2008 at 12:26pm
|
I'm with gNick on this (sorry Neil!). The machine classes should be independent, not sub-classes of each other (with the exception of 'Open', which is why it exists). Racing involves many elements and skills, not just the ability to go fast. The ability to simply stay upright for the duration of the race is sometimes more important, as those who experienced Fowlmead found. Machine reliability and turning up to a lot of events are also inportant if you are interested in table positions. If your bike breaks then you shouldn't be able to fake the results as if it didn't. Voluntarily opting for a higher class, as the NoComs have done this season, is a special case and is for the whole season. Anticipating an upgrade or wanting to compete in a higher class are possible/admissible reasons, but there aren't many others I can think of. |