Originally Posted by
TryHard
I'll run through the changes to the finals in turn. Something to think about though is that you need to think of a lot of these proposals in a holistic manner. We have purposefully tried to keep the regulations seperate to make the proposals easier to follow, but also work together to provide better events.
1) 2.4.2 applys to a new grade of event, not a State or Nationals. These would be purely to allow sanctioned events to be run at clubs to get experience, without the pressure of a state or nationals event. We are looking specifically at events like the Newcastle GP, Tamworth's Easter meeting and similar. As such, we don't want to be to restrictive on clubs... it's more for proving out the organisational side of things. Hence leaving the specification open to a clubs discretion for tracks.
Ok. I see what you mean here now. I think this would be clearer if 2.4 read "2.4 AARCMCC EP On-Road Sanctioned Event Application
(Non-Championship)".
HEATS
Originally Posted by
TryHard
2) Counting rounds for the event tie's into the format going to a 5qual, 3 Finals format The main intention of the formula as written is to make it clear that it is the two worst scores that are dropped, as events should only be shortened by wet weather, in which case the new wet weather rules would take precedence. (There is the caveat via 6.1.1 that clubs can run a different format, but that has to approved by the section committee... in which case counting rounds can be altered and then published on the event entry form)
A large intention of the proposals is to simplify the rule book and make it easier to follow. 6.9.12 as currently written does not do this, and would be quite superflous to requirements when viewed with other proposals.
However, I will agree that to suit re-grades, a re-wording is needed. Either specifically to account for regrades after 2 and 4 rounds, or adjust the formula used. Something I'll raise with the rest of the committee.
[My personal preference would be to do away with re-grading altogether, as it frankly isn't needed having had a seeding practise round on the first morning of the event.. but frankly I don't think that would get through!]
I'm going to completely disagree with you. I think the proposal adds far more complexity.
Here is 6.9.12 as it stands:
Originally Posted by AARCMCC EP ONR Rules
6.9.12 PROVISIONAL QUALIFYING ORDER
Drivers will accumulate points over the qualifying rounds. A driver’s best rounds (or round) will determine their provisional qualifying position, all other rounds will be discarded.
Discarded rounds will not be used for tie breaks.
The format for counted rounds to determine a driver’s provisional qualifying position will be based on their best 50% of completed heats, i.e.:
1 round of qualifying, 1 round counts, 0 discarded
2 rounds of qualifying, 1 round counts, 1 discarded
3 rounds of qualifying, 2 rounds count, 1 discarded
4 rounds of qualifying, 2 rounds count, 2 discarded
5 rounds of qualifying, 3 rounds count, 2 discarded
6 rounds of qualifying, 3 rounds count, 3 discarded
The Current Rule is Simpler:
Q. How many rounds count?
A. 50% of completed rounds, rounded up.
That's dead simple to remember. Applies in all situations – qualifying, rain, re-grades, the lot. It is also dead easy to program into a computer! The simplicity of this formula was the primary reason it was proposed, and voted in overwhelmingly by clubs just a few years ago.
As you acknowledge, regrading now requires a new rule if the proposal goes through, to add to the different rule for rain, adding more complexity.
Current Rule Makes More Sense for using Rules for Non-Championships Events:
If the intention is to make more use of the AARCMCC rules for additional sanctioned events that might run cut-down formats, it makes even less sense to adopt the proposal.
The current rule can be applied to non-Championship meetings with reduced heats far more easily than what is being proposed. If you wanted to run a meet to AARCMCC rules with only 2 heats, now you could, if the proposal gets through you'd have to make up something different for how many heats to count.
The inconsistency is bad because it means computer systems are more likely to be set-up incorrectly come a championship, and drivers and officials will be less familiar with what the system is. The more often a system is used, the more familiar people are with it. Currently the qualifying rules work for all sizes of events without alteration, and the same rule word-for-word is used in offroad.
Change it and we'll have a dog's breakfast of different systems again.
Current Rule is Simpler for Computer Systems:
The fact the current rule is easy to program into a computer is far more important than most people seem to realise. Perhaps people have been spoilt over the last 3 years, and have forgotten the dramas of having to change the settings when it rained. I've been to events where there were delays in excess of an hour while qualifying was sorted out. Sometimes the software does strange things when you try and change the settings part way through a meeting. And I'm not referring just to the software most used in Australia.
Produces the Same Result with your preferred Meeting format:
You've indicated that 5 heats will be preferred (quoted below). Under the current system, 3 count out of 5. Under the proposed system 3 count out of 5. So why bother changing it? Why make the rule more complex to achieve the same result?
FINALS
Originally Posted by
TryHard
3) The meeting format proposed would be adjusted to 5 and 3 for all. Any club intending to run an event will be expected to schedule 3 leg finals for all competitors classes, including B and C's. So a lot of the confusion on results you are talking about is simply not warranted, as if there is no wet weather, then simply put, you'll race three legs and count two. Simple.
You could easily change the regulation that mandates the number of lower finals to be run without touching anything else. The regulations as written were actually designed to make changing it in that way easy!
If you did that, then it's just as simple, there's no reason to change the other regulations.
Originally Posted by
TryHard
5 and 3 is a well known and popular format, and easy to schedule into two days. It also provides equal amounts of racing for all drivers (not favoring the A finalists), and greatly simplifies the schedule for event organisers and drivers. No need to have to try to create space for A finalist to charge batteries within the finals schedule, keep racers at the track for longer... and you actual race more!
I agree with all of that. And I prefer having more racing for those who qualify outside the A final.
Some will argue that the scheduling is still served by having Double lower finals, and has the advantage that you finish with a climax with the 3rd leg of the A finals. That's a fair point, but if we can have more actual racing for everyone then I'm in favour.
That has nothing to do with changing the formula for counting finals though. I don't understand what you are hoping to achieve here.
Again, at the moment it is dead simple. A minimum 1 final counts. If more than 1 final is run, drop your worst, count the rest.
What you haven't taken into account though is the utility of the rules for other non-championship events. A single day meeting won't have time to run triple-As for everyone. As the rules for finals are currently written, that's not a problem, whereas with the change proposed, again, you're going to have a different standard for AARCMCC events!
For 3 finals that's exactly the same. However, there are clubs around the country who use the AARCMCC rules for their club meets, and there are other major meetings that use them too. These meets won't be offering triple finals for every A, B and C final. They may not even use them for the As. I know of clubs that use 2 finals to AARCMCC format for their club meets. If you remove the provision for different numbers of finals from the AARCMCC rules then you will get clubs in the habit of running differently to AARCMCC. I don't think that's good for the organisation.
At the moment the AARCMCC Finals format can be used for Round events too. Change it the way proposed and you won't be able to.
Originally Posted by
TryHard
Now, if there is wet weather, then the proposed wet weather regs take precedence (via 7.3.1) which has a more detailed way to account for finals as you've read.
I don't understand why you want one set of rules for rain and one for normal circumstances when you could have one set of rules that did both jobs.
Surely it is simpler for competitors to only have to remember one set of rules.
You should also keep in mind that sometimes there are delays that aren't the result of rain.
Originally Posted by
TryHard
4) What if the TQ man gets taken out by 2nd place who then goes onto win the first final, whilst TQ post his 7th, but then TQ doesn't get a chance to rectify that as it rains...is that fair either? No system is perfect, but I would argue that giving recognition for the performance put in already that weekend is fairer than most.
If there is an accident, then that's racing. The pole sitter does not have a birthright to victory. If the other driver was at fault I would expect them to be penalised.
What's not fair is handing the win to a driver who is behind in the finals race. Finals are separate to qualifying. At the moment qualifying is used as a tie-breaker of last resort. And the only reason we use it at all is because you can't plan trophies for a tie.
Additionally, all of the
software used in Australia I'm familiar with has no option to do what is proposed. That will have to be done by hand, increasing the risk that errors are made.
The subject of how to break ties in various situations was discussed in great detail at the 2010 AGM by the Club Heads. This was the last joint Electric Section AGM. But held at the Onroad Championships in Bendigo, so it was mainly onroad clubs in attendance. Unlike some other AGMs we had more than a quorum.
The offroad clubs wanted to use the discarded final to break ties, the onroad clubs felt that the fastest time was the best way to go.
Everyone was in 100% agreement that qualifying should not be used. That qualifying once it was done was done. That was the point there was strongest feeling on at the meeting.
In the end the agreement that was made was that if in doubt we should go with a format that replicates what IFMAR does. And that's what the current rules do.
You're seeking to change the regulation, that means the onus is on you to convince the clubs that what you are proposing is better. Not simply a change for the sake of it, or similar but different, but actually better.
I haven't heard a good reason why any driver should be gifted the win in a race not run.
I strongly recommend that clubs vote AGAINST Proposal 010 and AGAINST Proposal 013.