[ÆX]

NEW EDIT:

Provide inexpensive racing / licenses

Cash payout to pros and semi-pros

Downhill tracks designed with racing as a priority
Announcing with a mid course reporter and split times

A hot seat for current race leader

1:00 intervals for all riders during Final race

Ranking system using scoring factor:

The first place time in seconds is divided by 100 to find the scoring multiplier for that race.
Take the scoring multiplier by your time back to find your finish differential.
Finish differential minus 100 will be rider's score
The first place rider receives 100% score.
Each class will generate a unique scoring multiplier.
An average of these scores will be used for classification purposes.
After a rider receives his first two scores, they will be averaged.
The riders need to have an average score more than 75% to stay in his class.
If the top rider in your class has a average score more than 5% ahead of second place he will be upgraded.
A official could change the 75% due to weather conditions.

All racers will have seating for start times on there scores

The rider with the best Score average after the whole series wins his class.
Riders may drop two race.
Scores are non class-transferable.

First race there is a Qualifier for seating to build your average score.
It is run on :30 second intervals.
It counts as one of your two scores you will receive to determine your ability for the class you race.


example:

durango semipro's
1st place, sanjay has a time of 402.73 = 242.73 seconds.
divide 100 into that = .41 that is the mutiplier.

now say you are Heikki, who had a bad run by the pics i saw.
his time back in seconds was 57.17 X .41 = 23.5% - 100% = 76.5%
he was just off the cut at 75%. a little harsh but what i am trying to do is
have closer racing with less catching riders.
obioslly you can't help if a rider crashes infont of you. but this will clean up the classes.

NEW EDIT:

the 5% upgrade rule: here are some examples.

a 2:00 race the winner is 6 secs ahead of second.
a 4:00 race 12 secs. absurd sandbagging? or lucky run?

 

[Mumbles]

this is really awesome! you have a lot of good ideas -- i wish i had something useful to contribute but right now i don't. i havent raced, and i'm just getting my competitive spirit back, and i was thinking about racing this season and one of the main reasons i didn't was the cost and it just didnt seem like a "fun" atmosphere to race in... so if i think of useful things to say i'll contribute!

 

[Transcend]

That ranking system is pretty much what the quebec/canadian federation uses. It is genius.

BUT, you do not get downgraded after 1 event. That is a bit lame..Means if i am int he hunt for a title, i get a flat or destroy a wheel, then i am out of the hunt because now i miss the next pro race. So 2 races are screwed not just one.

Lame. Make it something like..3 races below 80%. That makes a little bit more sense if you ask me.

Also, I believe that wanting to hand out licenses, is a bit over ambitious at this time due to a few factors. 1 - the uci has to approve it for it to be worth anything and they will not as USA cycling is the owner of the true national series. 2 - insurance will bankrupt you in about 3 weeks.

 

[ÆX]

That ranking system is pretty much what the quebec/canadian federation uses. It is genius.

BUT, you do not get downgraded after 1 event. That is a bit lame..Means if i am int he hunt for a title, i get a flat or destroy a wheel, then i am out of the hunt because now i miss the next pro race. So 2 races are screwed not just one.

Lame. Make it something like..3 races below 80%. That makes a little bit more sense if you ask me.

Also, I believe that wanting to hand out licenses, is a bit over ambitious at this time due to a few factors. 1 - the uci has to approve it for it to be worth anything and they will not as USA cycling is the owner of the true national series. 2 - insurance will bankrupt you in about 3 weeks.

80% was more what i was thinking too. it is harsh but needed.
i guess you might need to get 3 chances but that wouldbe half the series and you would be out of the running by then anyway. if you can;t pull a clean run DNF the race. crash 4 times, flat just drop that race and try the next one and not get cut.

this is racing for fun, close, and cheep, not for the top 10 pros that are vying for usa national team. who wants on that anyway! i want evryone who doesn't.

we will use the ski areas insurance.

 

[Alloy]

Can the hot seat have metallic flame cut outs and scanty clad women?

 

[Transcend]

80% was more what i was thinking too. it is harsh but needed.
i guess you might need to get 3 chances but that wouldbe half the series and you would be out of the running by then anyway. if you can;t pull a clean run DNF the race. crash 4 times, flat just drop that race and try the next one and not get cut.

this is racing for fun, close, and cheep, not for the top 10 pros that are vying for usa national team. who wants on that anyway! i want evryone who doesn't.

we will use the ski areas insurance.

Alex, Well see now the whole "regional" idea if coming back. I personally thought this was a plan to help create a new pan-national series, or at least point out the very obvious flaws in the current one.

Turning into a meaningless series, means it is just another race series, which sort of defeats the whole idea int he first place.

I do NOT support the idea of encouraging DNFs. I have DNF only one race, ever. I do not plan on ever doing it again. Even if i finish 15 mins back, i will finish the race. Makign someone downgrade because they were unlucky is not fair. Making them downgrade because they routinely cannot make the cut in their current category is.

Also, ski resort insurance would only be good for a race. A license must come with insurance coverage for both the rider, as well as the association. (medical, liability, possibly fire depending on location etc)

It s not as easy as many of you would like to think it is, this is especially true for something that you want to blossom into a national series alternative.

 

[ÆX]

Alex, Well see now the whole "regional" idea if coming back. I personally thought this was a plan to help create a new pan-national series, or at least point out the very obvious flaws in the current one.

Turning into a meaningless series, means it is just another race series, which sort of defeats the whole idea int he first place.

I do NOT support the idea of encouraging DNFs. I have DNF only one race, ever. I do not plan on ever doing it again. Even if i finish 15 mins back, i will finish the race. Makign someone downgrade because they were unlucky is not fair. Making them downgrade because they routinely cannot make the cut in their current category is.

Also, ski resort insurance would only be good for a race. A license must come with insurance coverage for both the rider, as well as the association. (medical, liability, possibly fire depending on location etc)

meaningless series, no. the best national series, yes.

i don't want to see people DNF. but a DNF is not the worst thing ever.
if you are flat you are in other peoples way. granted a pro would move off the track but i have seen otherwise. these are just a start. not final. it would
take too long to get the feild clean with 3 mabey 2X would work.

does your drivers licence cover you from crashing your car?
call it a mebership. whatever, i agree insurance would kill the idea W/O
some huge sponsor to take that load.

 

[Transcend]

meaningless series, no. the best national series, yes.

i don't want to see people DNF. but a DNF is not the worst thing ever.
if you are flat you are in other peoples way. granted a pro would move off the track but i have seen otherwise. these are just a start. not final. it would
take too long to get the feild clean with 3 mabey 2X would work.

does your drivers licence cover you from crashing your car?
call it a mebership. whatever, i agree insurance would kill the idea W/O
some huge sponsor to take that load.

An DNF sucks, finishing DFL makes you go home bummed. DNFing makes you go home feeling like you wasted your cash, and that you had to do it due to some stupid rules. I for one wouldnot return after that sort of situation.

With 1 min intervals you would NOT be in anyones way. Going below a 1 min interval is simply ridiculous, and i believe is one of the main problems in the current national series. Worry more about the practice lineups and fees rather then reducing the time it takes to run the finals by 20 mins. This also makes it easier on officials, first aid etc. It can also reduce course hold problems if someone goes down as it gives them a bit more time to get someone off course if necessary. This ALSO reduces the amount of re-runs that need to be given in the case of a course hold to riders who are red flagged.

I would NOT pay for a racing license if it didnt offer insurance. If you want to charge for a license/membership, it must have some benefits. If you don't want to offer these benefits, allow people to race without a license.

 

[ÆX]

An DNF sucks, finishing DFL makes you go home bummed. DNFing makes you go home feeling like you wasted your cash, and that you had to do it due to some stupid rules. I for one wouldnot return after that sort of situation.

With 1 min intervals you would NOT be in anyones way. Going below a 1 min interval is simply ridiculous, and i believe is one of the main problems in the current national series. Worry more about the practice lineups and fees rather then reducing the time it takes to run the finals by 20 mins. This also makes it easier on officials, first aid etc. It can also reduce course hold problems if someone goes down as it gives them a bit more time to get someone off course if necessary. This ALSO reduces the amount of re-runs that need to be given in the case of a course hold to riders who are red flagged.

I would NOT pay for a racing license if it didnt offer insurance. If you want to charge for a license/membership, it must have some benefits. If you don't want to offer these benefits, allow people to race without a license.

it is not madatory you dnf. it is the riders choice. if he thinks he can pin with a flat or recover from 5 crashes to still get the 75% go for it. but there is a time to throw in the towel. take the lose and race anotherday. we have all had those days. heck my first WC i crashed like a fool and ripped my seat off.
i contiued on and would have made our 75%. you have to have a hella bad run to be off 75% or not be in the right class.

1:00 definatlly. better for all.

no licence is out of the question. those fees would go towards dhbra job of timing, anouncing, results and staff.

 

[dw]

I think that these are some good ideas. I'd like ot add a little

Maybe instead of being 75% of the top rider's time, it should be 75% of the average podium time. Take the average of top 5 instead of #1. You never know when someone will have a breakout day, inadvertently cut a course, or weather conditons will play a role. Hell, that happened at the Calgary WC this yea, with half the riders being caught in a downpour.

Weather may be somehting that has to be looked into more also. I know I would be pissed if I pinned it as hard as I could in my race run, but there was a downpour 10 minutes before I went off, and the track was a muddy mess for me and a tacky superhighway for others. The course changed a LOT in 25 minutes at WV this year. From when I went off (one of the first runs) to the last few runs, the course went from peanut butter to play dough. Thats a big difference. I saw it with my own eyes.

Maybe also, there should be some automatic seeding runs. People who win a class race should have a start in their class at any race for 2 seasons. People who top 3 a race should get an automatic start in any class race for a season. People who podium at a race should get an automatic gimme or something. Thsi gives even moe incentive for winning.

Dave

 

[COmtbiker12]

Why not just make it so that instead of dropping a class at each individual race because of bad luck, make it so that with the point system that at each race you have to have had atleast a certain amount of points to compete in that class(and make it set so that if its someone's first race but its the 3rd race of the season someone can still compete, like, have a point level for the amount of races run for each class), and make the number so that you can still screw up on one race but be able to hold the number.

 

[ÆX]

Why not just make it so that instead of dropping a class at each individual race because of bad luck, make it so that with the point system that at each race you have to have had atleast a certain amount of points to compete in that class(and make it set so that if its someone's first race but its the 3rd race of the season someone can still compete, like, have a point level for the amount of races run for each class), and make the number so that you can still screw up on one race but be able to hold the number.

i need a example for this one?

 

[ÆX]

I think that these are some good ideas. I'd like ot add a little

Maybe instead of being 75% of the top rider's time, it should be 75% of the average podium time. Take the average of top 5 instead of #1. You never know when someone will have a breakout day, inadvertently cut a course, or weather conditons will play a role. Hell, that happened at the Calgary WC this yea, with half the riders being caught in a downpour.

Weather may be somehting that has to be looked into more also. I know I would be pissed if I pinned it as hard as I could in my race run, but there was a downpour 10 minutes before I went off, and the track was a muddy mess for me and a tacky superhighway for others. The course changed a LOT in 25 minutes at WV this year. From when I went off (one of the first runs) to the last few runs, the course went from peanut butter to play dough. Thats a big difference. I saw it with my own eyes.

Maybe also, there should be some automatic seeding runs. People who win a class race should have a start in their class at any race for 2 seasons. People who top 3 a race should get an automatic start in any class race for a season. People who podium at a race should get an automatic gimme or something. Thsi gives even moe incentive for winning.

Dave

weather could be a factor, the % cut might need to be changed from race to race.
say you show up at a 2:00 speed fest. might go to 80% a 9:00 mid race thunder storm the assosiation would grant 50% and let that race swing.

i have yet to figure out a good mandatory upgrade method.
i think poduim incentive might promote sandbaging. on the other side
there are some who love racing expert and have no intention of moving up.

any ideas anyone.

 

[Motionboy2]

I am not arguing this one but it seems a bit complex for the rider and the promotor. Why wouldn't you do a point system with a penalty. Make it so it works the way Norba does it, with points. Moving up through the catagories as you would normally. But the kicker is the Pro's that linger because there is no incentive to move down can be eliminated based on their overall points in the year and how they relate to the top pros. Maybe a cutoff of a certain number of points off top 10?

This would make it so you have to work to get there, and prove yourself. But it is no cake walk when you get there, and you will have to work to stay there. But there won't be people upgradeding and downgrading at every race. As an organizer you would have to imagine that would be a nightmare!

Also if you make it so anyone can sign up in any catagory, there would be no safegaurd for sandbagging. On the other side of that you would have the people that think their pro's riding the pro course that can't handle it because there is money on the line there, but not in the lower catagories

 

[ÆX]

I am not arguing this one but it seems a bit complex for the rider and the promotor. Why wouldn't you do a point system with a penalty. Make it so it works the way Norba does it, with points. Moving up through the catagories as you would normally. But the kicker is the Pro's that linger because there is no incentive to move down can be eliminated based on their overall points in the year and how they relate to the top pros. Maybe a cutoff of a certain number of points off top 10?

This would make it so you have to work to get there, and prove yourself. But it is no cake walk when you get there, and you will have to work to stay there. But there won't be people upgradeding and downgrading at every race. As an organizer you would have to imagine that would be a nightmare!

Also if you make it so anyone can sign up in any catagory, there would be no safegaurd for sandbagging. On the other side of that you would have the people that think their pro's riding the pro course that can't handle it because there is money on the line there, but not in the lower catagories

it clod be doen that way but say, ...... you are a fast pro who finishes top 20 but onlt does 2 out of 6 . then at the end of the year you are in te cut area in points.

the % way his % is still high at the end of the year. B/C it is an average of the races done. he stays in pro b/c he is fast. the % method is a "FAST METER" some one could be slow and still get points to finish high in te overall series.

not arguing just explaining the benefits

 

[Motionboy2]

No doubt, I have seen several people move up ONLY because they made it to more races than the others. I guess it is not without its flaws, but I think that making it possible to move up and down on a race to race basis could make things a bit complex. Plus you know there will be those people that will be teeter-tottering on the line between semi-pro and pro who will try to jump up whenever they can.

I can see it becoming a paperwork nightmare.

Also consider expert racers that want to be semipro because there are the old tax benifits. They may end up over their heads, even if it is only for one race!

 

[Transcend]

The % system is easy, as most scoring software will do it for you. It also is MUCH more fair for those who cant afford to travel across the country 85 times a year.

 

[dump]

fraser, you bring up some good points about medical insurance.

It would be VERY interesting to see what percentage of NORBA racers have medical insurance... & of those without, how significant the NORBA-provided insurance is when deciding whether to race or not. Clearly the norba-race-insurance does not cover the racers at all times (i.e. trainging & so forth) so the relative risk is on par with every other day of riding/training.

Extra coverage is always nice, but if that is the singular difference between having a kickass organization or not is the issue of having insurance while you race... I'd lean on the side of NOT having organization-provided insurance.

- dump

 

[dump]

an integrated online scoring/ranking/registration system would be a really nice tool.

 

[Transcend]

an integrated online scoring/ranking/registration system would be a really nice tool.

Now you are just pushing your luck!

It isnt all about medical insurance tho, it is more about liability. If i get hurt, and decide it was the organizers fault (in some shady cheaspass way) then I sue.

DH has a LOT of potential for this, especially in the us. Therefore, liability insurance is probably a greater expense then medical. Norba insurance DOES cover you for ANY racing related injury, including training.

 

[ÆX]

Now you are just pushing your luck!


Norba insurance DOES cover you for ANY racing related injury, including training.

from what i know norba insurance for rider injury during an event is secondarry. the riders pays, i forget, the first 2k then norba covers you.

 

[dhtahoe]

Yeah let's not need to hire a rocket scientist to add up the points. K.I.S.S= keep it simple... stupid.

 

[Transcend]

i disagree, the points system rewards only those who can travel, not those who can ride fast.

 

[ÆX]

Yeah let's not need to hire a rocket scientist to add up the points. K.I.S.S= keep it simple... stupid.

have a look at the "SCORE" system now , might be a little clearer.

it is not only a ranking but will kill sandbagging and riders that are outclassed.
making closer racing for each and every class!

i could make a Excel to do it all for us.

 

[Echo]

i disagree, the points system rewards only those who can travel, not those who can ride fast.

I was with ya for a while man, but this arguement is silly. Every freaking racing series on the planet is designed to reward people who race the series. That's why they call it a series. Shoot, I could be racing Indycars if I only had to come up with enough money to do one race.

 

[ÆX]

just a start for mammoth

 

[Transcend]

I was with ya for a while man, but this arguement is silly. Every freaking racing series on the planet is designed to reward people who race the series. That's why they call it a series. Shoot, I could be racing Indycars if I only had to come up with enough money to do one race.

No, all series have a minimum race number. Say 3/5 to get an overall. Those with money can buy themselves an overall podium by hitting all 5, while someone who may be MUCh faster, cannot simply because he cannot afford to go to all the events.

Penalizing people because they cannot travel across the country all summer is stupid. Many federations do it this way now, and it has proven to be a better overall system for this reason, especially for amateur racers.

 

[dump]

enough w/ all this talk... someone should sit down & simulate a season (say top 10 riders) under different scenerios...

 

[Transcend]

enough w/ all this talk... someone should sit down & simulate a season (say top 10 riders) under different scenerios...

eh? what are you going on about. Simulate what? It works, many federations use it now to decide on series winners without necessarily awarding it to the people who could make every single race.

 

[ÆX]

enough w/ all this talk... someone should sit down & simulate a season (say top 10 riders) under different scenerios...

i did the top 3 pro women and found out it works.