No announcement yet.
I knew you’d say that, as you’ve talked about doing that on one or two previous occasions where teams have been late to decide.
Also in favour of George Bingham's suggestionTwo Pudding Kid wrote: ↑December 25th, 2022, 4:40 pmI am happy to go with George Bingham's suggestion.George Bingham put a simpler proposal on the facebook page that the number of active months plus a maximum of ten boats should decide the challenger. I support this over my own scheme as it future-proofs against the scenario of teams producing, say, 100 boats but also retains an element that encourages participation.
Without going into the details of each team's activity, we introduced the rule about 'active months' many years ago. Before then, the Challenger was based simply on the interval since the previous challenge. This meant that moribund teams rose up the list until, finally, they became the Challenger. At this point, it was difficult to even contact a representative of a team that was no longer in action.AnnaRaeGreen wrote: ↑December 31st, 2022, 11:50 amAlso I noticed that there appears to be an issue with the data in the "Active Months" column. Two teams with 23 months, 3 teams with 15 months and 3 teams with 14 months. Not sure what happened but this doesn't seem right (based on my knowledge of the rules)
Anna Rae
Thanks for the explanation Joe - That makes perfect sense and encourages Teams to get an entry every month!joe80 wrote: ↑December 31st, 2022, 2:55 pm
Without going into the details of each team's activity, we introduced the rule about 'active months' many years ago. Before then, the Challenger was based simply on the interval since the previous challenge. This meant that moribund teams rose up the list until, finally, they became the Challenger. At this point, it was difficult to even contact a representative of a team that was no longer in action.
To qualify as an 'Active Month', a team has to launch at least one boat. The reason that some teams have the same total is down to months during which some teams have not been active. By all means, check that this is the case for the examples you give; I don't pretend to be mistake-proof.
Regards,
Joe
Thanks Joejoe80 wrote: ↑January 3rd, 2023, 1:32 pmThere were some outstanding performances over the 500m for the December Challenge. It was a
close contest but Te Waka finished at the head of the leaderboard. Congratulations!
The Diamonds launched sixty boats in adding another five to their own record from last month. This is an amazing, unprecedented level of participation. Great stuff!
As mentioned last month, it does create a problem in deciding the next challenger. Some years ago, we changed the formula when FIRT launched forty-two boats. If we wish to spread the challenge more equitably between all teams, The Diamonds, by their very success, dictate a further change.
The new formula is a very straightforward one suggested by George Bingham. It's simply:
Number of Active Months + Number of Boats Launched, limited to ten
This retains the benefit of encouraging participation while allowing even the smallest teams regular progression to the challenger spot. It's also future-proofed against even greater levels of participation and doesn't alter the current table radically. There's been considerable support for random selection. This doesn't take into account the fact that some teams have been waiting two years while others have had a recent challenge. Nor does it guarantee that a team will ever get a challenge unless some arbitrary rules are added to ensure this.
Future Challengers:
February - FIRT
March - The Diamonds
April - Sub7
Age Against The Machine, as a new team with three or more consecutive months of launching boats, may claim a challenge. It doesn't happen automatically; please contact me either by PM, the C2 forum page or through facebook.
Happy New Year! Good luck with all your training and racing goals.
Regards,
Joe