AFM, statistics, and lies.
After bumping me from Group 3 (where I was one of the fastest riders in the group) down to Group 1, AFM declared that it was based on me not meeting the times. So being an analytical person and pretty good with a spreadsheet, I started analyzing what the AFM told me about practice group assignments.
The very first conclusion was that Chris Keane’s code for practice group assignments wasn’t actually code written in a programming language — it was instead Deus Ex Machina. In short, it was whatever the AFM official who was trying to defend their decsions wanted it to be. It was based on race times only, or practice times only. It was based on your fastest recorded lap, or your average over several years, or something too complex to explain to me. (yes in exactly those words)
Note that I didn’t argue with any of these people, even when AFM President Chris Van Andel said that the calculations were a proprietary algorithm that he’s sure was the intellectual property of Chris Keane. Algorithm? Best I can figure is that Chris Van Andel never got beyond elementary school mathematics, because there simply isn’t anything in ANY race timing and scoring system which is beyond 4th grade arithmetic. And I’m sorry, but the courts have long since ruled that arithmetic cannot be patented or copyrighted.
But this was all laid to rest when Chris Van Andel wrote a message to the entire membership claiming that all practice group assignments are done according to the logic laid out in the letter. Because that letter was a falsehood, a lie, and worse yet, a lie that you can easily go see for yourself.
NOTE: I do NOT feel that doing practice group assignments based on race timing is the best way to do practice groups. I am not arguing that they are doing this better or worse than they should — I am documenting that they are lying about how they do assignments.
Lie #1: The letter says “create practice groups of the same size”. I suggest you go down and count the number of riders reported on the Group 5 practice sheet and the number of riders counted on Group 1. You’ll see a steady increase in riders from each group down, such that Group 5 less than half the riders in Group 1. This isn’t “practice groups of the same size”, it’s a caste system. Especially when you consider that group 5 riders are no more than a few seconds apart in terms of time (and thus less likely to run over each other) and Group 1 riders are spread widely across an entire minute.
Oh, and you can also go sit in the bleachers and count the riders yourself and confirm the numbers. I did this once just be sure that Group 5 riders weren’t using their transponders a lot less than Group 1 riders. Eyeball count confirmed less than half the riders in Group 1.
Lie #2: “The program is pretty straight-forward, and mathematically based.” So math is the only logic involved in group assignment, they said. Hm, let’s take this apart real quick:
- There are 250cc riders in Group 2, which needed a 1:56 lap time at Infineon to qualify. Wow, those must be some really fast 250cc riders. And how did they get those times which would have won a 250cc race by over 10 seconds, and somehow get forgotten about on the race results page? Ah, it must be that they have two bikes right?
- There are 250cc riders in Group 3. Yeah, I see a 250cc rider doing a 1:51 lap time to get in that group. Uh huh. Sorry, not meaning to pick on 250cc riders — it’s just the easiest way to point out no, this isn’t mathematically possible.
- So then, go find people around you in the races. People who just barely beat you each time, or who you beat consistently every time. Go back 3 years and get their fastest time. Then go look at the practice group sticker on their bike. Here is what I found:
- Everyone in front of me in race results was in Practice Group 4.
- There were people I beat every race who were in Practice Group 4.
- There were people I beat every race who were in Practice Group 3.
In fact, I had to go back 4 rows on the grid and more than 20 seconds behind me at the finish line to find a rider who was in Practice Group 2. Oh, and yeah, I lapped the riders who were in Practice Group 1. You know, where my times qualify me for.
Next up: AFM officers high-five each other when riders to quit the AFM
September 5th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
Several people have asked about my collection of statistics and the spreadsheet. That information was collected to figure out what the practice groups really were, since the answers I was given were never the same. The information I collected proved nothing other than that no mathematical formula could possibly derive these practice group assignments.
I didn’t bother quoting it, since a large amount of the information was eyeball verification of practice group stickers on motorcycles in the pitts that weekend. Instead, I focused on issues you can review for yourself.
If the AFM would publish information about practice group times and assignments, I’d be happy to correlate the information and show that their stated logic is clearly false. Which of course they are too smart to do. In fact, they’ve kicked me out of the club for questioning their judgement already, there’s no way they are going to give me more evidence against them.