Now I’ll try the Saab....
Innovation- 2 points There wasn’t much innovation. There were, however, a few good ideas
Execution- 3 point. Cleanliness, execution, attention to detail there was a lot of room for improvement
Presentation- 4 points. Robbie presented well, gave it real truck cred, and even told how he drove it to work. Again, 5 po Bra is the maximum.
Total 9.
Competitor judges has been one of the best changes to the Challenge in years.
Unfortunately, sparkling Clean doesn't usually help the score for a mildly modified or warmed-over street car. I believe SVreX's preferred term is tidy, that's what you're after. However, you HAVE to, MUST, highlight the engineering, what makes your machine stand out from the crowd. I have detailed the ever-loving E36 M3 out of several Challenge cars over the years and it's never made a lick of difference in ANY of those concourse scores. With the exception of Ed Malle's Mustang last year...maybe....since that car kicks ass anyway. Thankfully, detailing turds gets my OCD all juiced up!
I'm not dogging anyone for bringing the car they've got in the driveway, DO it, GET to the Challenge, it's exactly what I do but you won't get much of a concourse score. Trust me, I'm a bottom dweller when it comes to scores, except that one time, at band camp. It's far more important for me just to make the event but I have come to terms with standing back and being objective about my car compared to the Top 20-ish.
Pimpn’s wagon:
Innovation- 10 points. What kind of sick mind does it take to hang a Conestoga wagon on the outside of a Corvette?
Execution- 4 points. Attention to detail was a bit below average. You
Presentation- 4 points. It had a story, used props. This is something they can write about, although it is completely ridiculous.
Total 18.
And lastly, Stampie’s Q:
Innovation- I’d give it 5 points. Certainly some creativity, but not like pimpn’s’ wagon
Execution- 7 points. It was a big step up from what it has previously been in Cleanliness, execution, and attention to detail. But it is not Amelia Island.
Presentation- 4 points. Stampie told his story well, and included visuals that were creative and helpful.
Total 16 points.
So, how did I do?
Parking lot- 9
Saab- 9
Pimpn’s wagon- 18
Stampie’s Q- 16
Am I close?
i honestly think if you walk through the questions in the rules on almost ANY car, the scores make sense.
In reply to SVreX :
Interesting that you'd give the parking lot build the minimum innovation score- does modding an ECU plug with a grinder get nothing? Assembling a pump inside the fuel tank? Forcing injectors to run with completely the wrong signal by using insane fuel pressure and a different wrong set of signals to the ECU? It's not planned, thought out innovation but it is spur of the moment working with what you've got innovation- depends on your definition. Now I really want to see what Steve has to say.
In reply to SVreX :
Pimpm3 18.6
Stampie 18.8
Robbie Saab 15.8
Can't see PLB in my phone picture.
If I use the parking lot build as an example one last time, it’s easy to look at the Concors score and not understand why it is low, after such a monumental effort. The problem is the effort was almost entirely in an area that only allows 5 maximum points total.
It was thoroughly impressive, but the effort was not in keeping with the way the scoring is set up. It doesn’t make sense to put 98% of a build effort into the area that can only score a maximum of 5 points (out of 125).
Unless you’re crazy, and building a car in the parking lot!!
In reply to pimpm3 :
PLB was just under 16 as well I think.
In reply to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :
That’s fair. But those things were not highlighted in the 3 minute presentation.
And keep in mind, those are just my opinions off the top of my head. Fortunately, I wasn’t judging!!
In reply to SVreX :
Understood. If I were to redo the concours I would have kept the theme of just using what you've got going and scribbled all of the "custom" features on a piece of cardboard as a makeshift poster for it. We were lucky Robbie presented it instead of me or I would have still been on day 1 when the timer went off.
In reply to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :
Yup. Judges can’t judge what they don’t know.
So... just a thought... with subjective criteria, you receive subjective scoring. The only way to make it less subjective is to increase the sample set (either of judges, categories, values) or to tie it to an objective scoring system to placement (linear trend, S curve, bell curve).
If the goal is to drive a "fair" implementation of "scoring" for a sample set of data it must be tied to an objective set of data. I.E. not raw data. One solution would be to tie to position. GRM is already there with scoring competitors and collecting raw data. I would recommend another step where the judges (post judging) perform a "Bubble sort" of the competitors comparing positions 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4, etc until a final sort is made. After the final sort, a value or number of points would be awarded based on the final position. the value of each position would be defined by the value algorithm defined.
This method would make the process a direct competition among competitors rather than a exercise in the judges were hangry so you got a poor score. The concours is a large portion of the event; the competitors deserve better.
TL;DR
Proposed New Method
- Judge Cars using current method and capture raw data
-Place cars position using raw data
-Validate position data using a "bubble sort" comparison method
-Generate final position
-Tie points to position rather than raw data
In reply to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ :
And the judges were much kinder than me. The car MUST have earned more in innovation and execution than I gave it, because it could not have earned more presentation points than I gave it.
It sounds like to me (as a non-competitor reading from the sidelines) that a lot of teams could really use feedback from the judges after judging to know what they may have missed that could help for next time. There are a lot of generalities, which are helpful, but it sounds like some teams are leaving somethings on the table that they may not be aware of. If this already happens and I missed it in the discussions, I apologize. The idea of an "example" car that everyone can look at is a great one as well.
The presentation of your efforts is also very, very important, as has been mentioned in the past. So make sure you work on that together as a team and ensure that "the elevator" pitch is practiced. Look at like preparing for the Autocross, walk the course as often as possible, etc. It certainly is more than just cleanliness that matters, its the heart and soul of the project that needs to be conveyed somehow. So while a basic turbo SAAB that's been cleaned to the nth degree may not get a high score at first look, one that has been brought back from the dead by a dedicated team with a number of hidden and hand-built pieces that don't stick out will do better as long as they can express that to the judges.
In reply to NordicSaab :
I like your idea, but what problem are we trying to solve? I don’t have any problem at all with Pimpn’s wagon scoring the same as Stampie’s Q.
BECAUSE, it’s an editorial event. Pimpn’s car is a story. Period. That makes it worthy.
The bubble sort might make a score, but it would de-rate the editorial component.
SVreX said:In reply to NordicSaab :
I like your idea, but what problem are we trying to solve? I don’t have any problem at all with Pimpn’s wagon scoring the same as Stampie’s Q.
BECAUSE, it’s an editorial event. Pimpn’s car is a story. Period. That makes it worthy.
The bubble sort might make a score, but it would de-rate the editorial component.
I think it addresses a handful of problems:
1) Concours is not currently a "competitive" event. Competitors are competing against a judges perception which has a tendency to evolve over the course of judging.
2) There is no universal re-evaluation of the data and outcome. I can think of several instances where a competitor was graded less favorably because they were toward the end or beginning of judging.
3) In this thread alone, there is a lack of granularity in scoring. If 2 competitors are each given a 9 in the concour it is a dis-service to one of the those competitors. No 2 cars are equal, and the difference of one position could be several positions in the final results.
#TheMathmaticalMethodSucks
In reply to NordicSaab :
No 2 cars are equal, but 1 is not necessarily better than the other. I have no problem with a tie after averaging the judges varying scores, any more than I would have a problem with a tie for one round of Olympic figure skating.
SVreX said:Pimpn’s wagon:
Innovation- 10 points. What kind of sick mind does it take to hang a Conestoga wagon on the outside of a Corvette?
Execution- 4 points. Attention to detail was a bit below average. You
Presentation- 4 points. It had a story, used props. This is something they can write about, although it is completely ridiculous.
Total 18.
This is the piece that boggles me. What kind of a sick mind cuts up a saab 9-3 into a pickup truck and then installs a class V trailer hitch so he can tow a challenge car to the challenge with his challenge truck? So the conestooga gets 10 for innovation and the saab gets 2? Both mods were done basically solely to make the car into something it is not.
Obviously that is the subjective part, but still the piece that boggles me.
Edit: also, we actually only varied by 3-4 points, not by 8, so maybe the actual judging handled this a little better. But my point is that SVreX's bias is REALLY hard to plan for when building a car.
In reply to Robbie :
You’re right on that. Obviously my example was low.
But I would also note that you didn’t initiate the creativity involved in cutting the Saab. It was an institutionally suggested approach for the pickup truck class.
A Conestoga wagon was a completely independent creative moment that can only be explained by mental disorder or copious amounts of beer. Innovative.
In reply to Robbie :
Right.
Ignore my bias. Walk through the words in the rules, and apply them.
If you feel that there is great innovation in the MR2 (as Chris has already made a case for), then SELL those innovative ideas to the judges.
They cant judge what they don’t know.
And I would suggest that my bias would not have changed the overall scores. Like Steve, my numbers may have been lower. But they would have been fair and consistent, in keeping with the rules.
In reply to SVreX :
To be fair, you would have to talk at full auctioneer speed in order to do justice to the story AND highlight all of the improvised parts on the MR2. I think we picked the right stuff to cover in the time we had.
In reply to SVreX :
Man, this is a really helpful conversation. Thank you.
My perception is that I was one of the pioneers of the idea that we could make a car a pickup truck for the pickup truck class by cutting the roof, my perception is definitely not that I followed a common trail. Back in august 2017 when I started the thread for the Midwest GRM build I don't think any other challengers had cut their roofs yet. Pointing out when we did it and why we did it and that 2 other teams also did it - maybe after we did in the presentation could have been a very useful way to spend 10 seconds I guess.
I know I'm not the first to make a ute by cutting up a car (and tragically the saab missed the year it should have first arrived), so the conestooga still gets the edge, but still.
In reply to Robbie :
You made a strong pitch selling “Perserverance” in your Concors presentation (and VERY rightfully so!)
But my point is, there is kinda only one place to put “perserverance”- in presentation. It’s not “innovation”. If perserverance only fits under “presentation” (and yes, I understand it can fit in execution, etc), then the maximum allowable points for it would be 5 points.
What I am suggesting is that as part of a build process, and part of a presentation, EVERY competitor should sit down and ask them selves, “What is innovative in this build?”, then write them down, and present them to the judges in 3 minutes or less.
Your score (and others’) would have raised if you had written down 3 cue cards with the words “Innovation”, “Execution”, and “Presentation” on them with short lists on each.
Please don’t hear me wrong. I loved your pitch. It was beautiful. But it didn’t sell those 3 specific things to the judges.
You'll need to log in to post.
