O'fest Auto-x scoring methodology?

Is the O'fest auto-x scoring going to be done the same this year as it was last year? Most auto-x's, 'cca or otherwise, that I have participated in, used the time of your best run to determine your position in class. Last year they used a method of averaging all run times to determine driver's position.

I would argue this method is less fair to any competitors who auto-x infrequently or perhaps once a year at O'fest, and give an unfair advantage to participants who auto-x regularly. Someone who auto-x's more often is going to be more practiced, and is far more likely to be able to do consistent runs, yielding a much higher average score, than others that might get a good run time but end up with throwaway runs due to lack of practice or inexperience. The skilled AND practiced regular auto-x participants are going to have enough of an advantage as it is, imo.

I could understand if there was a concern where competitors doing sluff-runs might give some kind of unfair advantage, but that would only seem plausible in a scenario where competitors get multiple runs to actually get practiced at the course, in-car, which would be beyond the usual 3-4 timed runs, maybe more like 6+ times.

I've always thought that auto-x traditionally was about getting the best time, and managing the few runs and walk-through time that you have in whatever fashion you wish to attempt to achieve that. I can see wanting participants to push themselves to get the best run times possible for each run, but since the competition is based on achieving the lowest course-run time, there is no disincentive to go as quickly as one can manage. Averaging run times for best time makes competing more difficult, as one can't afford not to push as hard as possible every run; more typically, you'd use at least one run at something less than attempting 10-10th's to figure out the course, layout, gears, shifting, braking points, car position, etc.

As a side note, consistency across run-times reminds me of doing a joint auto-x w/ the Mercedes club 20 years ago. At least around here, they didn't race against the clock, they did regularity runs (I always found that terminology amusing), where the point was not to complete the course in the least time, but to _match_ run times - so they would run the course as slowly as possible trying to maintain a constant speed, and the bimmers were squealin' around the cones as usual - most of us thought the 'regularity runs' didn't look like any fun at all!

One other point for the O'fest auto-x - last year the course workers had bright ORANGE (ie, cone-colored) 5-gal. buckets to hold the flags. Just about any other color would be preferable, as that made the course more visually confusing, plus the possibility of mistakenly focusing on a bucket as if it were a course cone (ask me how I know). Besides the dnf, there were several wide-eyed course workers getting ready to scatter as I made a beeline for the bucket with them standing beside it, at least before their frantic waving got me to realize the bright-orange, cone-height thing I was focusing on wasn't a cone!

I think it was the average of your best morning and best afternoon runs. I was 'bumped' by one driver overall (not in my class) as a result of that scoring, so it didn't really matter to me much. But I agree with you. Autocross is decided by the best time overall, and it should be. That actually gives the crappy driver a chance to pip the better ones with a 'fluke' run. It lets the competition go right down to the very last run. It allows the math-challenged to save their weary brains by not calculating averages.

I am glad it's going to be that way this year and I can guaran-damn-tee you it will be that way next year.

Man, I should just post the letter I wrote to the National office after last years event. If the averaging system would have been announced before the event it would have been fine. It wasn't, at least not on Thursday nor in any of the info on the website of the offical O'fest program. It created many issues that led to a lot of problems with the scoring.

(At least your classes got announced at the Friday gathering at Corning museum)

I've never been to an autocross that used averaging of times. I've been autox'ing since 1975 too -- fastest time wins. Weird.

Yes, you should. I, for one, have some trouble understanding how simply averaging two times can create "many issues" or "a lot of problems with the scoring". It's a little unusual, that's all. But it's how the SCCA effectively runs the Solo Nationals, the difference being that you use the fastest two times on two different courses. No issues or problems there with hundreds more autocrossers than we'll ever see at a 'CCA O'Fest.

Here's an excerpt from it:

The AutoX also was not scored as advertised in either the website or the official program. The website and program stated that the one best run of the day would be how the winner was to be determined. The organizers decided to combine the best morning run and the best afternoon run and then take the average time to determine the winners. I do not believe that many the drivers understood that the scoring system was departing from what was posted as several drivers did not return for their afternoon session… which made them finish at the bottom of their class. Perhaps they were fed up with the difficult course? Perhaps it was the only way they could do multiple events on one day due to the condensed schedule? Perhaps they had a mechanical issue that made them unable to continue? I wish I knew the reaso n. The averaging scoring system that was used created different results for some trophy positions for the autoX compared to if it was scored the way as described in the program and the website. Examples: In class 7B, one person finished 3rd on the average where they would have won their class using the best single run. In class 7A another would have been 2nd in class but finished last using the averaged results. There are several other people who were also adversely affected by the combined/averaged scoring… though most of the rest were not in trophy positions.

It's was a problem because only a few local people knew that this scoring system was being used. This is not the case at Solo Nationals like you mentioned. All the info posted about the O'fest event last year said it was to be the best one run to be scored. It was a problem that by DNF'ing all ones runs in the morning or afternoon you ended up with no time for the event... but most people did not know that until the results were posted. Combined with all the new drivers who had problems finding their way thru the course there ended up with a bunch of people with no time for the event. I don't think that is a good way to introduce new drivers to the sport. Everyone knows that the scoring system at Solo Nationals is the one best run from each of the two days... it's spelled out in the supps and it's been done that way for many many years. Yes, the results at Solo Nationals would end up the same using the average system that was used at O'fest last year... but that was not the scoring system that was advertised for it. Imagine if the scoring rules for Solo Nationals were advertised that the results would be the regular best of each day like usual, but then find out after the competition was over that it was being scored as all 6 runs would added together for a total time or only scored everyones 3rd run each day. What do you think the response would be?

I'm not complaining about this because I lost a finshing position because of it. I didn't. I won class 9 in my Civic. (yah, that was me) I really don't care how an event is scored (best single run, best of morning + best of afternoon, drop your slowest, score them all, etc...) as long as it is widely announced and explained before competition runs begin so it can be driven appropriately. Unfortunately, that did not happen last year.

The only thing that anyone from our group of Midwest drivers can think of that was said at the drivers meeting about the scoring was "this event will be like a regular Boston chapter event" Uh, ok, what does that mean? I guess it was my fault for not speaking up and asking.

Clearly not your fault. I see no relation to what happened and the Nationals as was implied in a post up above. Autox has been around for ages, and if a chapter is putting on an event at O'fest, and is scoring said event different than the world expects (and clearly different than all posted information), the responsibility lies with them to clearly explain such at the driver's meeting (i.e. put themselves in the customer's position).

In any event, I don't think it will be a problem this year!

Sounds like a plan to me!

btw, if anyone is interested, I do have a pdf file for all the results from last year configured in different ways.
By day, both days combined, by average, and by fast time.
(No, I'm not THAT anal about this... I had surgery the day after we got back from O'fest and I was stuck at home and got bored)