Teams?

[Rock Star]

Think 4 member teams.2 members of which had to have finished in the bottom half for 2012. Scoring would be the fastest on the team combined with the fastest time of the slowest team member. A team this large with only 2 times counting on any given day would increase the chances every team would have a 'quorum' for every event. Just a thought.

Define bottom half, do you mean of all the people to post enough times to fill a season (8 races this year). That was only 22 people. Or are you including everyone? Because I am seeing a couple of fast people on the lower half because they only showed to 1 or 2 event. Also, if you are including everyone, that would eliminate the possibility of having the same team for more then one year since the 'slower' driver would gain enough points to be in the top half purely by competing in more events.

Just food for thought, I do like the fact that it gets some people who aren't regulars to show up more often.

[03threefiftyz]

I'm nestled nicely at the bottom of the yearly standings .

[Rock Star]

Indeed.

I call dibs if this goes through.

[Nathan Atkins]

Rocky makes a good point, lets not forget the regular show-ers were able to trounce the likes of A.J. in points!

Also,if your team mate phones and says "I cant make it" and you bail on the event, we end up losing both participants for the obligations of either person.

It really only works with committed teammates who can show up to all the events.

[Dan133]

That was just blue sky pondering. Bottom half could mean points or times or what ever we decide it means. It's tough to get a team together for a season. Witness that Frank and I were at enough different events that although he trounced me in Small Bore (In my car Dammit) I managed to edge him out in the overall competition. Just another thought.

[dscherpf]

Requiring team members to set times in each other's cars could potentially keep people from participating. I could see people not pushing as hard or being worried that they will mess something up on a car they aren't familiar with.

I think 2 best runs for each driver in their own car sounds good.

[ericw]

switching cars... I have a fixed mount 15" seat. I can see people not fitting.

[wesmcbride]

I came on here looking for the 2013 schedule (side note: I should be attending all events after April 12 ), saw my name so in here I thought I would chime in.

And honestly, the Noob doesn't even need to know that they are part of the team. They could just think someone is being nice and trying to help them out

I like this idea and think it is a great way to get people to come to a 2nd event and to interact with other people. Doing it this way eliminates the need for both/all the teammates to show up to an event, since you would get a new one every time.

[Areddi]

I think teams of 3 or 4, and take the average index time for the team for the day. Keep a running tally or whatever and have there be some kind of award at the end of the year. Obviously the teams are completely an independent column on the spreadsheet from the rest of what occurs for the day, that way those who don't want to participate don't feel like they need to, and it does not affect the points for everything. Rules for teams can be determined and how their "scores" are calculated.

I think index time is important as it will keep things the fairest. It could be fun for teams to get silly names, matching shirts, stickers, or something to make it fun to compare to other teams.

Again, the key take away is that this is completely independent of everything else that is happening at the event. The team members points and time work just like normal in the master group of people, they just have that separate column where they can have some additional fun.

That is my idea.

[echan]

The original index system use to be a handicap system that averaged your last 3 events. Maybe we can use some of that aspect to help to give an incentive for experience drivers to team with less experienced drivers.

How about this approach.

1. We have teams of 2 people.
2. The team is for one event (that way you don't need to worry about trying to get the same people). People can form a new team at the next event.
3. Rather than using the vehicle index, we use a handicap index based on each driver's last event. The handicap would be based on the average time divided by the driver's best time at the last event they attended. The only stipulation is that the driver must drive the same car that was driven at the last event. So a new CDC driver would not have a handicap for the first event but would be eligible for the second event they attend. So an experience drive might want to mentor a new driver and try to get them to show up for the second event.
4. We give a token prize at the end of each event.

I suppose this system has some down-falls (people can sand bag the system to have a low index, the system would favor new drivers and improvement while the experienced drivers would be penalized with high indexes) One could argue that the experience driver would be tasked with trying to get the novice to improve as much as possible to get the best combined result.

There's definitely more computation involved.

[Areddi]

The original index system use to be a handicap system that averaged your last 3 events. Maybe we can use some of that aspect to help to give an incentive for experience drivers to team with less experienced drivers.

How about this approach.

1. We have teams of 2 people.
2. The team is for one event (that way you don't need to worry about trying to get the same people). People can form a new team at the next event.
3. Rather than using the vehicle index, we use a handicap index based on each driver's last event. The handicap would be based on the average time divided by the driver's best time at the last event they attended. The only stipulation is that the driver must drive the same car that was driven at the last event. So a new CDC driver would not have a handicap for the first event but would be eligible for the second event they attend. So an experience drive might want to mentor a new driver and try to get them to show up for the second event.
4. We give a token prize at the end of each event.

I suppose this system has some down-falls (people can sand bag the system to have a low index, the system would favor new drivers and improvement while the experienced drivers would be penalized with high indexes) One could argue that the experience driver would be tasked with trying to get the novice to improve as much as possible to get the best combined result.

There's definitely more computation involved.

Complicated I think.

[ericw]

It could be fun for teams to get... stickers

Bingo!!! I like Ed's idea about the competition being the event, not a series. Maybe the token prize for winning is a car magnet (big as possible obviously) with the teams name on it and something about being #1... that would pretty dope, but maybe too costly. I would still probably just team up with someone I know though cause I'm like a hermit...

Brainstorm offshoot of Eds ideas:

1. Competition is for the event, not a series (that way you don't need to worry about trying to get the same people)
2. Teams of 2, repeat partners allowed (that way you can get stickers!!!!)
3. Score = best raw time/(average raw time - best raw time) (no index, rewards being both fast and consistent)
4. Token prize (who doesn't like prizes?)

With all these ideas, how do we decide?