Challenge Town Hall extended - Concour feedback

In reply to SVreX :

Not at all, I didnt expect to be the star of the show when I prepped for this or even finish midpack overall, which I did with zero autocross or any other type of racing experience.  I brought a reliable enough car to drive it 6 hours, race the Hell out of it and drive it home, didnt run off course or over a course worker, and while there, had a good time, so I call it a win for me.  But I'm not a "participation trophy" kind of guy either, so understanding which rules are adhered to, and which arent, and what matters and what doesn't, is important if I want to place higher next time, or even return

In reply to Justjim75 :

Jim, I get your frustration.  I've been there myself.  The concour is one of the most frustrating, misunderstood, inconsistent aspects of the challenge. While many here are stating that it is well understood, documented, and deterministic, we have these same conversations every year.  Who is to blame? I don't know... not sure anyone does. Take it as a learning experience and come back. FWIW, I think your Miata looks fantastic.   

My own rude awakening happened in 2015 when I brought the Mumpkin. 

The car was already fast. I needed Concours points. I made a HUGE effort- I put over 1000 hours into the appearance and theme. 

I didn’t score very high. And I was pretty upset. 

But then  I went back and read the rules very carefully. The car looked great, but it wasn’t that innovative. Turbo Miata. 

When I got honest with myself, I came up with about the same score as the judges. 

Al Unser Jr came up to me after the event and told me how beautiful the car was, and that he wished he could have given it more score (in some categories) then the max allowed  

It would be better if you don’t consider the Concours as 1 component. It’s 3 components (innovation, execution, and presentation). Or maybe 10 (all of the sub descriptive words of those components in the rules)

If you can read every word in that list in the rules and can honestly say you have accomplished those items, I can pretty much guarantee you will get a high Concours score. 

In reply to NordicSaab :

The lack of consistency in overall scoring is my biggest gripe from year to year. This years was basically a 13 point event because nobody got less than 12 points. I finished last and second to last my first two years.

SVreX said:

Al Unser Jr came up to me after the event and told me how beautiful the car was, and that he wished he could have given it more score (in some categories) then the max allowed  

 

If this is true, It is an indication your scoring method is flawed.  No car should score a perfect score in any category, much less multiple cars scoring perfect in a single category.  If that is the case than the grading criteria needs to be better defined and values shifted down to allow for truly exemplary efforts (like yours) to reap the reward of your efforts.  

Andy Neuman said:

In reply to NordicSaab :

The lack of consistency in overall scoring is my biggest gripe from year to year. This years was basically a 13 point event because nobody got less than 12 points. I finished last and second to last my first two years.

I get it.  I agree with you.  That was the reason for my method suggestion earlier in this thread. The mathematical method and procedure is flawed, but it does seem like GRM, especially Tom, are working to make it better.  

Tom mentioned earlier in this thread that there was a sanity check prior to final publishing.  I didn't know they did this, but I am glad they did.   

In reply to NordicSaab :

First off, it’s not my scoring method. 

All I am trying to do is help people understand how the scoring works. It is what it is. 

I couldn’t disagree with you more regarding “no one should get a perfect score”. My presentation was rated on a scale of 0-5, in whole numbers only. Of course there are gonna be more than 1 “5”. 

There isn’t anything flawed about a scoring method that describes how it scores, and then executes it. Perhaps you disagree with the method,  but that doesn’t make it flawed. 

And with all due respect to competitors, I can say with 100% confidence that a HUGE number of competitors never read the rules. Probably the majority. How is that a flawed scoring method?  Just because people choose to not read it??

In reply to NordicSaab :

I didn’t share my experience with the Mumpkin to cry about how I should have gotten a higher score for my “exemplary effort”. 

I shared it to confess that I screwed up. I spent WAAY too much effort on a part of the event which had a maximum potential score of 5 points. I should have been making the car go faster. 

It was MY choice, and MY mistake. It was a poor decision. I should have read the rules better, and played by them. 

Nobody owed me anything. 

In reply to SVreX :

I really appreciate your passion, but if there is a scoring range limiter that makes non-equal cars receive the same score (in any particular category or overall), the method is wrong (or at least inaccurate).

Regarding reading the rules is one thing (we agree here), but the numerous competitors, over multiple years who have identified an issue with concours should be enough to agree there is a problem.  I believe the problem is the method and procedure, but that is my opinion.    

I think most agree we would like it to be better than it is.  Do you believe that concours, in its current form, has the best possible implementation of scoring?    

In reply to NordicSaab :

I do

Before signing off on everything, the judges (and myself, the judge liaison or whatever I am) looked through a spreadsheet of the scores. Our big question: Did the cars land in the proper order? In other words, was the "best" car at the top of the rest below in an order that, to us, seemed fair. You can argue that some cars should have received less than 12 points, but in the end, the order wouldn't have changed. 

In reply to SVreX :

Then you and I disagree, and that is OK.  

In reply to NordicSaab :

You and I agree there is a problem. But my opinion is the problem is a problem of understanding, not of method and procedure. 

Right in this thread  competitors have admitted they were not familiar with the rules, scoring, and description of the scoring as written in the rules. In other words, they didn’t read the rules carefully. Like me. 

I think understanding the rules is the first hurdle. 

NordicSaab said:

In reply to SVreX :

I really appreciate your passion, but if there is a scoring range limiter that makes non-equal cars receive the same score (in any particular category or overall), the method is wrong (or at least inaccurate)

So, if I chose to put 100% of my build effort into building the fastest drag car I could and I brought an 8 second car, would it be fair for me to complain because the rules introduce a scoring range limiter that makes non-equal cars receive the same score? (Because my drag score only counts for 50% of the dynamic, and my car was clearly superior)

The reality is the rules define a particular type of car that will bring a specific type of editorial content. Andrew Nelson’s 9 second car last year was phenomenal, but it was not a Challenge winner. 

Less than 5% of the score was for the presentation, and I spent 99% of my time working on that part.  That’s not bad rules, it’s bad decisions on my part. I prioritized poorly.

I placed 3rd overall. If I had READ the rules carefully, and spent maybe 30% of my time working on the speed I needed, I would have won the overall, and have a new welder sitting in my garage.  I could have easily beaten Andrew. But I didn’t. That’s my fault, not the rules. 

So if it weren't for the year to year inconsistency, it would seem smart for me to dispense with ALL concours prep and put an extra 50 to 1000 hours into making my car better on track(s) and take the 12.  Now you've got a butt ugly car in the winner's circle for the magazine.  

Concours strategy number 2 would be to maybe screw some really dangerous stuff to it for laughs.  

My "innovation" was to bring a reliable Miata on Hoosiers to a 80% autocross competition. 

And thanks for all the compliments, for starting with, and I quote, a "Smurf sperm blue" car, I think it, looks rad and I drove it to work, stickers, green wheels and all today to show it off

We were in 5th place in the dynamic scoring.  Seriously 5th Place.

We thought taking the 12 would ease the load on the judges and give us a mid pack concourse score.  Ok, we'd play ball and make life easier on the Judges.  What we ended up getting was lower than the LOWEST possible score, and falling from 5th to 12th.  It cost us a trophy.  I was crushed, Tod smiles no mater what.  

When Paul judged they gave out scores lower than 12.  It totally made sense.  We took the 12 in 2017 to support the idea even though our car had scored higher than 12 the prior year.  

Who is ever going to take the 12 if it's the lowest score possible.  We will never take the 12 again.    

In reply to spin_out :

Which car was yours?

In reply to Justjim75 :

So, how would you score it?

David S. Wallens said:

Before signing off on everything, the judges (and myself, the judge liaison or whatever I am) looked through a spreadsheet of the scores. Our big question: Did the cars land in the proper order? In other words, was the "best" car at the top of the rest below in an order that, to us, seemed fair. You can argue that some cars should have received less than 12 points, but in the end, the order wouldn't have changed. 

Did you consider the cars that 'took the 12' when you did this exercise? Or only the cars actively judged?

In reply to NordicSaab :

On the day of the event there is not enough tme to break the judging down into more than the existing categories and score ranges without extending the day/judging time OR more participants taking a 12 point Do Not Judge pass on the concours segment. Everyone is proud of the effort they have put in and they want to show us (the judges) thier pride and excitment for thier entry.

I can appreciate that. I was in the same situation last year and forced my teammates to help with the presentation to address the various segments of our build. Seeing it from the judges side, like Paul noted, will help me prepare better for future builds.

In reply to SVreX :

If the current procedure does not mimic common sense, it's a problem. Numerous competitors have taken issue with concours specifically. Competitors should not have to learn the "hard way". If they have not read the rules they will not fare as well, agreed.

If we want to I can start pulling out MBA and Six Sigma examples and indicators of problematic methods. 

In reply to Justjim75 :

Black Miata, silver hood with the tire fist.   

We took a 2nd place in the Concouse a few years back.  We know how to concourse.  We saw how exhausted the judges were in 2016 and knew they were over heated, over worked, and needed a break.  

In reply to NordicSaab :

Six Sigma is quite irrelevant to this event. 

Robbie said:

David S. Wallens said:

Before signing off on everything, the judges (and myself, the judge liaison or whatever I am) looked through a spreadsheet of the scores. Our big question: Did the cars land in the proper order? In other words, was the "best" car at the top of the rest below in an order that, to us, seemed fair. You can argue that some cars should have received less than 12 points, but in the end, the order wouldn't have changed. 

Did you consider the cars that 'took the 12' when you did this exercise? Or only the cars actively judged?

We saw the problem during this exercise, but the rules unfortunately prevented us from correcting it mathematically, and it would have taken hours to fairly re-judge every car for every category to distribute the scores in a way that made the 12-point cars mid-pack as was intended. 

In reply to NordicSaab :

If you were going to enter a competition in something you had never tried before, would you at least look thru the rules?
I think Paul is trying to suggest making a plan for success, which includes deciding what is the most efficient path for your team.

Outright speed and handling are the biggest point gains for the entire competition and everyone wants more power and grip. Consider the concours when you decide how to get that power and grip, prepare the vehicle so it looks like you thought it out and do your best with the 3 minutes to enlighten the judges with the what/why/how of getting to the point you are at.

This entire coucours discussion is a formula, but a formula with ever changing variables because there is no set way to get all of the performance from every single entry. If it were then it would be a formula that resulted in a spec class, with final detailing taking the win.