Talking Points
Comments and proposals by Graham Thomas. It will become obvious when you read this that these are my opinions and not necessarily those of the series organiser.
With Paul Bucknell compiling the race report I thought I would spend the time normally taken writing the report to comment on a couple of items that were raised during the day.
Setting up of the heats
Anyone who has ever set up the heats for a race meeting will appreciate that
depending on the entry level things can get a bit complicated. Obviously the aim
should be to have, as few heats as is possible and empty lanes should be
avoided. For the BSL this is made worse by the fact that everyone only has 3
heats. Four heats each can always be set up to have 4 drivers in each race but 3
heats each only works with four in a race if the entry can be divided by 4.
For the BSL the home members that are running the meeting should compile the race sheets. Paul Bucknell has a very good database system which sets up the heats but to use this he needed to be told what was required regarding keeping the classes separate and the driver seeding/grading. I believe that as series organiser Steve should provide this information. My comments to Paul regarding the race sheet should have been directed to Steve and I did apologise to Paul later.
.At Oaklands and Dudley we were lucky that the number of drivers in each class divided into groups of four. At Pontefract, as had also happened at Newcastle, the number in each class did not fit exactly.
There were 5 in super production so these were
set up as a group of 3 and a group of 2.
The 25 in Falcon were 4 groups of 4 and three groups of 3. The group of 2 for
super prod was later made into a group of 3 when Ian Prout was persuaded to
race. He was racing a Falcon but Paul didn’t realise this until after the heats
had been completed.
The method of having drivers in groups has been used for the last few years but this year with two separate championships this can result in a lot of empty lanes. Having just one more person than what would fit into groups of 4, as at Pontefract, is the worst case that can happen.
There is an obvious need to keep the classes separate but having two groups to accommodate 5 drivers does seem a bit wasteful. My solution would have been to have four heats with 4 drivers and just one race with 3 drivers. This gives two heats less than having the two groups. The format for this would be
Super Heat 1 Drivers 1 2 3 4 This would be
the first race of the day
SuperHeat 2 Drivers 2 3 4 5 This would be the first race in the second round
of heats
SuperHeat 3 Drivers 1 3 4 5 This would be the first race in the third round
of heats
Super Heat 4 Drivers 1 2 5 This would be the last heat.
For 6 drivers
Could be done with 3 heats of 4 drivers and 2 of 3 drivers but this only saves 1
heat compared with having 2 groups of 3 drivers. Hence two groups of 3 are
probably better as it is easier to set up and keeps some seeding.
For 7 drivers
A group of 4 and a group of 3 as normal would be best.
Not only would the above 5 driver format reduce the schedule by 2 heats but there would also be a full compliment of marshal’s available so time would not be wasted waiting for volunteers, which are required after a heat with only two or three drivers.
The above format for 5 drivers in a group could also be applied in Falcon so at Pontefract the 25 Falcon drivers could have been in 5 groups of 4 drivers and 1 group of 5 drivers, which would have given 19 heats instead of the 21 heats that we had.
Hence when the number of racers divided by 4
gives a remainder of 1 then we should have a group of 5 drivers.
Chris can set up a spreadsheet so that the list of drivers would be worked out
automatically into heats using the above grouping.
Obviously nothing can be done to reduce the number of finals so in the case of 5 drivers in super production we would still have 2 finals. The situation of having 3 in the A final and 2 in the B was mentioned by Chas as he thought it a bit unfair on the fourth placed person from the heats to not have a chance of victory. But he did agree that you can’t have just one person in the B final. Perhaps the answer would be to have the top qualifier directly into the A final and have the other 4 in the B with the first three moving up into the A. Ok so some people get an extra final and it does mean that the 2nd place qualifier could finish 5th but as least everyone gets a chance to win and it does keep all lanes in use. However with three moving up we would need volunteer marshals for the A final but this could be avoided if the super production B final was run half way through the Falcon finals.
I think that the above method of arranging the heats should be used for all future rounds on 4 lane tracks. However as always this needs to be agreed and the person running the round needs to be made aware of what is required when setting up the heats. In fact regardless of this proposal being accepted the person running the round needs to told how to arrange the heats and how the seeding is to be done. This information should be given to the home club by the series organiser. All too often the person setting up the heats is a home member that is not too sure of what is required. Both Chris and myself have helped to set up the heats in the past but we are then often criticised because someone is unhappy with their grouping or lanes etc. Adopting a agreed format and having this pre setup in a spreadsheet which we could provide would help save time. Please let us know your views on this by emailing Chris or calling us on 01384 232878.
Driver grading information also needs to be provided. The Pontefract results have been put on Chris Frosts site stating that Ian Prout was the novice winner. Chris asked Steve on Sunday who of the home members were novice drivers and Steve ruled that Ian Prout was not eligible for novice. Obviosly this information was not passed to Paul Bucknell.
Whatever formulae are used to set up the heats it would help Chris if all clubs used the same spreadsheet. We could set up a sheet to accommodate whatever is required which makes it easier for the organising club and also if our sheets are used then Chris finds it much easier to update the scores for the web site.
The race sheets for the team race should also be pre set up. So far all four rounds have had a team entry divisible by 4. Someone needs to decide in advance how to set up for awkward entry levels. In particular there is a problem for 11 teams. You may think it would be easy but if you just rotate around the numbers team 1 is against 2,3 and 4 in heat 1 and then 9,10 and 11 in heat 3, which is completely against the idea of seeding the teams. I have found that the best way to seed for 11 teams is to have a group of 5 and a group of 6 but. Once again this needs to be agreed. Another option would to be to have 2 groups of 4 and one of 3 but you then end up with an extra heat and also have the problem of getting enough marshals after the heat of three. Having a pre determined race sheet that accommodates whatever entry we get and also having the team seedlings pre agreed will save time and makes life for the race day organiser much easier. Again we already have sheets available for whatever the entry they just need approval from Steve.
The next point was raised because of the number of home members present. Obviously home track advantage is a big factor and as always the home drivers filled most of the top places. The problem is that the number of home drivers affects the scores of the regular racers. At the finals only people who have done enough rounds can count their scores. This principle could be applied to the rounds so that anyone only driving in their home round would not count their scores in the championship and the regular racers would move up a place. This would require round results to be recalculated after the last round because until then it would not be known who was only doing the one round. At Pontefract the Falcon scores of the middle to lower regular series racers were reduced greatly by the number of home drivers. I believe that the scores for the regular racers should reflect how they perform against each other and not reflect how many home drivers decide to complete. I am not against home drivers, in fact I think that the BSL is all about encouraging people to race in a series and a home round is, for most people, their first taste of racing against people from other clubs. I just believe that it would be better for the series if the number of home drivers did not influence the series results. Yesterday the middle to lower series regulars were beaten by 4 or 5 none regulars. “So what “you may say, “they all had their scores reduced”. The problem is that for someone who normally finishes in about 7th place they may have had a good day and been 5th out of the regulars but only got 9th or 10th place points because of the home members. The scores collected by these lower order regulars will probably be dropped at the end of the series so the person who had a good result would have nothing to show for it. A couple of years ago I went through the process of recalculating the series results taking out home non-regular drivers. To be honest the overall positions were not very much different. The top 6 were all still in the same order but there were a few changes lower down the order. So this is one change that probably would not make a great difference but it is true that most people seem to be against having their scores reduced by non-regular racers.
Item 3 - The number of rounds to count towards the championship.
In the past we have had best 5 plus finals or best 7 out of 9 rounds, One year we had 10 rounds with best 5 plus finals to count.
In 2005 with only 8 rounds we had best 4 plus
finals or best 6 to count.
This year we again have only 8 rounds but Steve has decided that 5 plus the
finals or best 7 should count. I can’t recall any vote on this so what do you
think. The more rounds that count benefits those who do all the rounds but the
down side is that anyone missing 2 rounds cant get a full set of scores without
counting the finals result. This may well suit the ever-present regulars but
those who miss a couple of the earlier rounds may decide to not bother going to
later rounds because they cant get a full set of scores and the last thing we
want is to reduce attendances. Of course having more rounds count may increase
attendances, as people need to go to the extra round to get a complete set of
scores. I just think that 7 out of 8 is a bit high. I may be biased, as by
missing the Scotland tour we will only be doing a maximum of 6 rounds, which
means we will have to count the finals score. It also means that by counting 5
rounds and the finals it may not be worth us making the 3-hour plus journey to
Pirelli. However if only 6 rounds counted we could have a full set of scores by
going to Pirelli and therefore a car failure at the finals (in particular in the
team race) would not be so disastrous. There is apparently a chance that Bolton
may have a round on Saturday August the 9th (the day before the Fylde
round) .If the meeting at Bolton does happen then we will have 9 rounds so I
would not then have a problem with counting best 7 or 5 and the finals.
Please give us your opinions on the 3 points above via email.