When Will The New Race Format Be Out & How Can Teams Name Riders When They Don't Know It?

[RobMcCaffery 2,752]

The Swedish formula doesn't meet the BEL's requirement to keep reserves away from heat leaders.

 

It's not that difficult to programme the reserves' rides, two all-reserve races then four heats featuring reserves and second strings. That gives the four reserves four rides and the second strings two each.

 

Then, assuming they continue with fourteen heats plus a nominated race there are eight heats left in which to give the six heat-leaders four rides each and the four second strings their other two rides each.

 

Assuming the second-strings ride with a heat-leader in their remaining rides that takes up four of the remaining eight heats, leaving four all heat-leader races. Now, this 'grading' of meetings does stand a chance of levelling-out abilities in given heats and gives us four all-star races plus the nominated but I do wonder how this will be accepted by heat-leaders once they see the final formula. They are clearly going to haver to work harder for their points with no rides with reserves and only half their programmed rides with a second string.

 

It's already acknowledged that it will be impossible to compare the averages of the reserves with the top five without a conversion ratio similar to the comparison between leagues, but a similar procedure will have to be taken to adjust for second-strings having half their races against the reserves.

 

I'd suggest team-building in 2015 isn't going to be easy.

 

I do hope this cost-cutting/encourage young talent scheme works, despite history suggesting it's unlikely - my main hope is that by effectively having four grades of racing (all-reserve, second-string-reserve, second-string-heat leader and all heat leader) on a more formalised basis than before we might see closer action with inequalities of riding ability smoothed-out.

 

Now, as another poster has mentioned, once you made all those segregations you've got to even-out riders racing against the same opponent too often and giving an even spread of gates. I suspect that's going to take some time and I do look forward to seeing the result.

 

Just to give a small indication of the problem, let's assume we start the meeting as before:

 

1 2 v 1 2

6 7 v 6 7

3 4 v 3 4

 

All pretty logical so far. What do you do in heat 4? Obviously the two fives should get a ride, but who with? If it's a second-string it's got to be number two to avoid two rides on the trot delays. But the two twos met in heat one - do you want the two rides with heat-leaders to be against their direct opposite number?

 

So, maybe you use another heat-leader. Again, only number 1 is 'available'. That's probably the way out, but I think you can see how tricky this could be.

 

I do wish the complier luck.

[SCB 0]

There going to have to be some 2 rides on the trot or some riders having an unfair amount of certain gates - might give the team manager something to do. If you number 1 is better off the outside gates them put him at 1, if he's not then he may be better at 5 where he gets more inside gates etc etc.

 

My biggest worry is that a good second string is going to score 6 in his 2 races against reserves second strings. another probably 1 in his heats vs the heat leader and second string giving 7. Yet a heatleader will probably struggle to get much more than possibly 4 or 5 as he's riding against second strings twice (for 4 points) and other heat leaders for very little (0 or 1). That means the better riders are going to have lower average due to having had harder races. How long before some heatleader says, "hang on, I'm riding two heat 13's yet in the past I got a heat 12 (or 14). Sod this, I quit or want paying more as my heats are harder". Second strings could find themsleevs making a lot more money in 2014 but out of the job the following season.

 

It's not perfect now as all riders dont meet all other riders and meet some twice (the 7's meet 3 times) but this format is going to be even worse.

Edited December 16, 2013 by SCB

[Crazy robin 2,963]

There going to have to be some 2 rides on the trot or some riders having an unfair amount of certain gates - might give the team manager something to do. If you number 1 is better off the outside gates them put him at 1, if he's not then he may be better at 5 where he gets more inside gates etc etc.

 

My biggest worry is that a good second string is going to score 6 in his 2 races against reserves second strings. another probably 1 in his heats vs the heat leader and second string giving 7. Yet a heatleader will probably struggle to get much more than possibly 4 or 5 as he's riding against second strings twice (for 4 points) and other heat leaders for very little (0 or 1). That means the better riders are going to have lower average due to having had harder races. How long before some heatleader says, "hang on, I'm riding two heat 13's yet in the past I got a heat 12 (or 14). Sod this, I quit or want paying more as my heats are harder". Second strings could find themsleevs making a lot more money in 2014 but out of the job the following season.

 

It's not perfect now as all riders dont meet all other riders and meet some twice (the 7's meet 3 times) but this format is going to be even worse.

The more you read about formats etc the more madness it seems.

 

What the bloody hell are they going to average wise in 2015.

[Trees 2,814]

It's only heats 4 and 10 where the reserves are against a heatleader but then they are against one another? Two races in one etc etc! That happens anyway?

[BeeSting 1]

Only way I can think of solving the averages problem we may have at the end of this season is by introducing grades which can be assessed to be more realistic.

[SCB 0]

Only way I can think of solving the averages problem we may have at the end of this season is by introducing grades which can be assessed to be more realistic.

That won't work, who picks the grades? You'll have all sorts of accusations that there favouritism.

 

and what about play-off time this year? Poole have a reaosnable second string who due to being protected by the easier heats averages nearly 8 but in reality he's only a 5 pointer, in comes KK for the play-offs.

[Skidder1 7,637]

That won't work, who picks the grades? You'll have all sorts of accusations that there favouritism.

 

and what about play-off time this year? Poole have a reaosnable second string who due to being protected by the easier heats averages nearly 8 but in reality he's only a 5 pointer, in comes KK for the play-offs.

I doubt even Poole will have space for Ward, Holder AND KK, come play-off time!!!!

[SCB 0]

I doubt even Poole will have space for Ward, Holder AND KK, come play-off time!!!!

Didn't you read the post? It's easily achievable. A half decent second string will average 7+ it's asking for a promoter with a will to win to take advantage.

[pointsmeanplayoffs 417]

From last Thursday, I recall Buster and Rob saying your No.1 has to be the highest av. rider (obviously?!?).

 

Whilst the complete heat/line-up format was TBC they did say;

 

1 and 5's would ride against each other TWICE before the nominated heat 15, (meaning the 1 and 5's could race each other 3 times overall which I would not object to in all honesty but then we do have 2 GP riders).

 

The draft reserves are to be 'protected' in as much as they have two rides where it's 6 and 7 vs 6 and 7, with their other 2 programmed rides to be only against either a reserve or a second string. The only way to ensure this would be the case is to 'lock-in' the riding positions of the second string to only positions 2 and 4. Yes, this would restrict the amount of changes a team manager could make to a line-up, but if not, they could just name there heat leaders in positions 2 and 4 just to beat the 'draft reserves' which would go against the very idea of bringing in these young riders?!? Anyone who thinks otherwise is really not on the right page and has completely missed the point about bring young riders through.

 

So I the promoters just need to agree on;

 

Highest Av. at No.1

Next 2 heat leaders at 3 or 5

Second String at 2 or 4

Draft reserves at 6 and 7

 

Then they can finalise the heat format, c'mon it's not hard?!?!

[Humphrey Appleby 13,960]

I do wish the complier luck.

In a spare moment, I sat down to see if I could come-up with a workable formula which keeps reserves away from heat leaders. It's almost impossible if you want to avoid having too much repetitions, riders being programmed with two on the trot, and minimising the number of times riders are programmed every other heat (which is important when using R/R).

[2ndbendbeerhut 1,781]

Maybe there will only be 3 programmed rides and more nominated heats?

[g13webb 4,254]

From last Thursday, I recall Buster and Rob saying your No.1 has to be the highest av. rider (obviously?!?).

 

Whilst the complete heat/line-up format was TBC they did say;

 

1 and 5's would ride against each other TWICE before the nominated heat 15, (meaning the 1 and 5's could race each other 3 times overall which I would not object to in all honesty but then we do have 2 GP riders).

 

The draft reserves are to be 'protected' in as much as they have two rides where it's 6 and 7 vs 6 and 7, with their other 2 programmed rides to be only against either a reserve or a second string. The only way to ensure this would be the case is to 'lock-in' the riding positions of the second string to only positions 2 and 4. Yes, this would restrict the amount of changes a team manager could make to a line-up, but if not, they could just name there heat leaders in positions 2 and 4 just to beat the 'draft reserves' which would go against the very idea of bringing in these young riders?!? Anyone who thinks otherwise is really not on the right page and has completely missed the point about bring young riders through.

 

So I the promoters just need to agree on;

 

Highest Av. at No.1

Next 2 heat leaders at 3 or 5

Second String at 2 or 4

Draft reserves at 6 and 7

 

Then they can finalise the heat format, c'mon it's not hard?!?!

 

Moving on from what you say, It will be interesting to see what effect these projected heats will have on the CMA. Obviously, because the 2nd strings will have a much easier rides then the Heat leader, Hence, their scoring potential will be reflected in their scores. Once this happens, it will be then be impossible to make comparisons between them and the heat leaders. No doubt, some clubs will might see this as an opportunity to manipulate changing riders..

 

Once you start bringing in different heat formats the CMA goes out the window..

[Anzum 250]

Best format I could see to avoid repetition and successive heats was the following.

1 3 v 4 5

6 7 v 6 7

4 5 v 1 3

2 6 v 4 7

4 7 v 2 6

1 2 v 3 5

4 7 v 4 7

3 5 v 1 2

6 7 v 6 7

1 5 v 3 4

3 4 v 1 5

2 6 v 2 6

1 5 v 1 5

2 3 v 2 3

NN v NN

 

Problem is some riders have 3 rides in one half of the meeting. Not that easy if you are going to keep the reserves away from the heat leaders entirely. Also as pointed out earlier the heat leaders have more difficult set of heats.

[RobMcCaffery 2,752]

In a spare moment, I sat down to see if I could come-up with a workable formula which keeps reserves away from heat leaders. It's almost impossible if you want to avoid having too much repetitions, riders being programmed with two on the trot, and minimising the number of times riders are programmed every other heat (which is important when using R/R).

Same here. The problem comes with those eight heats that would not include the reserves. You have sixteen slots to fill on both sides but second strings only available to take four per side (with their others being with the reserves) so it's incredibly hard to keep a balance.

 

At the top end it's going to be very hard to avoid repetition of the same heat leaders meeting and some of the lower-averaged examples are soon going to wish they were second strings elsewhere. How long before riders are demanding extra money for racing a full line up heat leaders in almost every ride?

 

I'm not trying to put a spoke in this, just pointing out the real problems, and this is before even looking at sharing out gate positions.

 

On a separate point, comparing this situation with Sweden isn't that appropriate given this selection of Elitserien reserves:

 

Hans Andersen (Vastervik)

Davey Watt (Dackarna)

Kenni Larsen (Smederna)

Anders Mellgren (Vargarna)

Joonas Kylmakorpi (Indianerna)

Simon Gustafsson (Dackarna)

Ludvig Lindgren (Vastervik)

David Ruud (Vetlanda)

 

With all due respect to our British youngsters almost all have a lot further to go within the sport!

Edited December 16, 2013 by rmc

[Skidder1 7,637]

Isn't the Swedish format different in that the top scoring 2 in week 1, drop to reserve the next week and so on!!?