Intrepid just please watch the replay from Hamilton/Schumacher pass. Had Schumacher turned in he would've hit Hamilton, not the other way around.
''The only way to overtake is in a straight line and have it completely fully before the breaking zone''
Yes and no. You need to be side by side when you start turning in. Not when you start braking. You know why you risk getting penalty for hitting others? Because it's forbidden by the rules. All you who defend Hamilton are actually accusing the rules instead of Maldonado. Maldonado did what was right according to the rules and Hamilton didn't. Instead of slowing down and avoiding the collision he tried to push himself between Maldonado and the corner and CAUSED THE COLLISION. We could discuss about whether the rules are good or not but the way it stands Hamilton is to blame.
You are just making up your own rules and accusing Maldonado just because you happen to root for Hamilton. It's just disappointing. If you race in F1 you should obey the rules. Hamilton didn't was penalized and here you are whining how it was someone else's fault than Hamilton's even though there's no possible way it was anyone else's fault than Hamilton's. It's either no penalty due to the fact that it was not intentional (probably) and was a normal racing accident or it's penalty for Hamilton (due to reasons I stated before).
''The only way to overtake is in a straight line and have it completely fully before the breaking zone''
Yes and no. You need to be side by side when you start turning in. Not when you start braking. You know why you risk getting penalty for hitting others? Because it's forbidden by the rules. All you who defend Hamilton are actually accusing the rules instead of Maldonado. Maldonado did what was right according to the rules and Hamilton didn't. Instead of slowing down and avoiding the collision he tried to push himself between Maldonado and the corner and CAUSED THE COLLISION. We could discuss about whether the rules are good or not but the way it stands Hamilton is to blame.
You are just making up your own rules and accusing Maldonado just because you happen to root for Hamilton. It's just disappointing. If you race in F1 you should obey the rules. Hamilton didn't was penalized and here you are whining how it was someone else's fault than Hamilton's even though there's no possible way it was anyone else's fault than Hamilton's. It's either no penalty due to the fact that it was not intentional (probably) and was a normal racing accident or it's penalty for Hamilton (due to reasons I stated before).
Interpid you really have messed things up. It's not blocking if you're ahead and take a turn. What you're saying means that one should anticipate every stupid attempt from other's to come late into the corner and give room to everyone if they're close. It doesn't work like that. To pass you have to earn the pass. If races were rules ad you see them everyone would come into the corners like kamikazes because the one in front ''should've anticipated that I came too fast too late and ran into him.'' Wake up.
If 2 racers are side by side one can't turn in and block the other because he'd hit the other driver. If you're clearly in front you can turn in normally no matter where the other driver is because you have the advantage to choose you're driving lines.
Just watch the replays and check for yourself that in Hamilton's successful pass from Schumacher Hamilton is side by side with Schumacher. Therefore Schumacher has to give room. There's no such thing as anticipating other's attempts and giving room there. Just pure racing at it's best from both.
In Hamilton Maldonado Maldonado is in front, turns in normally and Hamilton comes behind, too fast and into Maldonado's side. If Schumacher had turned their tires would've hit. In this case Hamilton's wing hits Maldonado's side. Quite different don't you think?
I get it that some people don't want to punish for such accidents because in racing there's always some collisions and I don't think Hamilton wanted to hit Massa or Maldonado. He possibly just had a momentary lapse of concentration in his accidents or maybe he just wanted to overtake so hard he made a false judgement of the situation. The problem is that Hamilton does mistakes that end other's races or cause dangerous situations too much. It's even worse that he doesn't realize that and blames others.
And you clearly don't remeber Schumacher vs Villneuve in 96 since there Schumacher tried to crash Villneuve deliberately and lost all his championship points for that.
If 2 racers are side by side one can't turn in and block the other because he'd hit the other driver. If you're clearly in front you can turn in normally no matter where the other driver is because you have the advantage to choose you're driving lines.
Just watch the replays and check for yourself that in Hamilton's successful pass from Schumacher Hamilton is side by side with Schumacher. Therefore Schumacher has to give room. There's no such thing as anticipating other's attempts and giving room there. Just pure racing at it's best from both.
In Hamilton Maldonado Maldonado is in front, turns in normally and Hamilton comes behind, too fast and into Maldonado's side. If Schumacher had turned their tires would've hit. In this case Hamilton's wing hits Maldonado's side. Quite different don't you think?
I get it that some people don't want to punish for such accidents because in racing there's always some collisions and I don't think Hamilton wanted to hit Massa or Maldonado. He possibly just had a momentary lapse of concentration in his accidents or maybe he just wanted to overtake so hard he made a false judgement of the situation. The problem is that Hamilton does mistakes that end other's races or cause dangerous situations too much. It's even worse that he doesn't realize that and blames others.
And you clearly don't remeber Schumacher vs Villneuve in 96 since there Schumacher tried to crash Villneuve deliberately and lost all his championship points for that.
I suggest that you look at the replays of the collisions. In Massa/Hamilton Hamilton sees where Webber is, there's no doubt. Massa can't do anything else than stay inside to avoid collision with Webber. Hamilton sees he can't win but still tries to take a shortcut and ends up pushing Massa to Webber. (causing Massa destroy his front wing) How on earth can you say that's Massa's fault? Hamilton's front tires are about at the level of Massa's rear tires when the ''overtaking attempt'' begins. Hamilton to blame. Period.
In case Maldonado just compare Maldonado's lines with the driver in front of him. That's right they turn in exactly at the same point. Besides even if Maldonado had given room Hamilton's line would have still caused the collision. He came too fast and the corner was way too sharp to turn in with that speed. He would've pushed Maldonado against the wall. Watch replays of this and Hamilton's pass of Schumacher and you'll see that they are different situations. In the successful pass Hamilton's neck to neck with Schumacher and in crash he's not. It's that simple. Had Hamilton been say 0.5-1m more in front than he was it would've been Maldonado's fault. Now...definately not.
Both attempts were overly optimistic and stupid. Hamilton tries to fit into a space where he doesn't fit and end of the race for Massa and Maldonado.
In case Maldonado just compare Maldonado's lines with the driver in front of him. That's right they turn in exactly at the same point. Besides even if Maldonado had given room Hamilton's line would have still caused the collision. He came too fast and the corner was way too sharp to turn in with that speed. He would've pushed Maldonado against the wall. Watch replays of this and Hamilton's pass of Schumacher and you'll see that they are different situations. In the successful pass Hamilton's neck to neck with Schumacher and in crash he's not. It's that simple. Had Hamilton been say 0.5-1m more in front than he was it would've been Maldonado's fault. Now...definately not.
Both attempts were overly optimistic and stupid. Hamilton tries to fit into a space where he doesn't fit and end of the race for Massa and Maldonado.
How do you define a pass attempt? Do you mean that if I just show up in your mirrors and come late and fast enough you have to give me room? Hamilton was behind and didn't have any hope overtaking Maldonado or Massa unless they gave him room and just pulled over.
Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you supposed to defend your position? JPeace states that just because Hamilton was faster Maldonado should've let him go past. I don't get it. Hamilton was not in front. Maldonado drove the normal racing line and Hamilton instead of braking earlier or lifting up the throttle just kept going into a situation where it was certain they would hit. Hamilton was BEHIND Maldonado and did a foolish and ridiculous overtake attempt.
The driver in front is allowed to maintain normal racing line and doesn't have to pull side just because the racer behind wants him to do so. Hamilton has pushed other racers into grass many times by using this rule. Why shouldn't other drivers have the same rules as Hamilton? Hamilton drove recklessly today and deserved his penalties. It's no surprise he's been sent to the stewards so many times. He feels that everyone else should watch out for him and just give way. And apparently so do his fans too. In accident with Massa Hamilton was behind and pushed himself into a position where he had no other option than to hit Massa. His mistake and clearly his alone.
Hamilton is fast driver, probably the fastest one with Vettel right now, but he lacks intelligence and humility. If you read and watch what he says to the media you can see he's just an arrogant whining little prick. Always accusing other racers or his team. He never takes responsibility and thus never learns from his mistakes. He needs to learn humility and to control his temper in races. If he manages to do that only sky's the limit to what he might achieve.
The driver in front is allowed to maintain normal racing line and doesn't have to pull side just because the racer behind wants him to do so. Hamilton has pushed other racers into grass many times by using this rule. Why shouldn't other drivers have the same rules as Hamilton? Hamilton drove recklessly today and deserved his penalties. It's no surprise he's been sent to the stewards so many times. He feels that everyone else should watch out for him and just give way. And apparently so do his fans too. In accident with Massa Hamilton was behind and pushed himself into a position where he had no other option than to hit Massa. His mistake and clearly his alone.
Hamilton is fast driver, probably the fastest one with Vettel right now, but he lacks intelligence and humility. If you read and watch what he says to the media you can see he's just an arrogant whining little prick. Always accusing other racers or his team. He never takes responsibility and thus never learns from his mistakes. He needs to learn humility and to control his temper in races. If he manages to do that only sky's the limit to what he might achieve.
The times bbc shows for Perez and Hamilton are their times in Q2.
quote from bbc.com:
8 venezuela P Maldonado 1:16.528
9 mexico S Perez 1:15.482
10 great britain L Hamilton 1:14.275
Maldonado had time in q3 which makes him 8th. Perez's and Hamilton's time are from Q2 so it's probably just a mistake Hamilton is 10th. Everywhere else Hamilton is ahead of Perez because his Q2 is faster than Perez's.
you can check that they're Q2 times in here: http://www.formula1onlive.com/ ... ifying-results-monte.html
That's also done before Hamilton's punishement so Hamilton is 7th in the list.
quote from bbc.com:
8 venezuela P Maldonado 1:16.528
9 mexico S Perez 1:15.482
10 great britain L Hamilton 1:14.275
Maldonado had time in q3 which makes him 8th. Perez's and Hamilton's time are from Q2 so it's probably just a mistake Hamilton is 10th. Everywhere else Hamilton is ahead of Perez because his Q2 is faster than Perez's.
you can check that they're Q2 times in here: http://www.formula1onlive.com/ ... ifying-results-monte.html
That's also done before Hamilton's punishement so Hamilton is 7th in the list.
I don't know where it says Perez got a time since every sports site I go to clearly says that Perez does not have a lap time in Q3. In here for example is the grid before Hamilton's penalty:
http://www.itv.com/formula1/ra ... -prix-session-times-0843/
http://www.itv.com/formula1/ra ... -prix-session-times-0843/
Care to explain why Hamilton should be 10th? Hamilton was faster than Perez in Q2 which makes Hamilton 9th and Perez 10th in the grid. Therefore 10th place will be empty not 9th.
I agree on most that you say, but still differ about the +/- because in a long run you get good games and bad games so much they balance each others out and in the end it's just about how well you played. You can't say that player is good just because of his +/- value but if his value stays at the top long you can see that he's playing for the team and does not make many mistakes that lead to opponent scoring goals.
As a goalie (in floorball though, not hockey haven't played hockey very much lately) I value the players who almost never do mistakes as much as the goal scorers because you know that without them you'd have much more work to do because of so many bad passes or bad calls on which opponent to guard or where to move to block passes or shots.
I also have some trouble understanding the definition of your superstar because awards are mostly given by canadians and you need the whole team to be good in order to get them. Say that Crosby had ended up in Edmonton or Florida. He couldn't have lifted them up to battle for Stanley Cup no matter how well he played. Thus he would not be a superstar by your standards.
I look it a bit differently. I feel that superstar status means that if a team loses it's superstar they lose much more games than they did when that one player was on the ice making the difference. If your team can survive without you you're not a superstar. If they can't survive long without you you're a superstar. That makes Mikko Koivu a clear superstar in my standards because he's the sole leader of his team and had he not been injured in the season I dare say that Minnesota would've made it to playoffs. Kiprusoff has had a rough season this year alright but he's still the player who either wins or loses the game. With average goalie Calgary would not only lose more games than now but could not even dream of real success. With Kiprusoff there's always a chance to win. Rask...well let's say he's not quite ready for the superstar mantle but he'll get there in a few years. He has played well this season when he's been given the chance and once he gains more experience he'll grow to be much better than Thomas ever was. He's still young for a goalie just give him some time.
As a goalie (in floorball though, not hockey haven't played hockey very much lately) I value the players who almost never do mistakes as much as the goal scorers because you know that without them you'd have much more work to do because of so many bad passes or bad calls on which opponent to guard or where to move to block passes or shots.
I also have some trouble understanding the definition of your superstar because awards are mostly given by canadians and you need the whole team to be good in order to get them. Say that Crosby had ended up in Edmonton or Florida. He couldn't have lifted them up to battle for Stanley Cup no matter how well he played. Thus he would not be a superstar by your standards.
I look it a bit differently. I feel that superstar status means that if a team loses it's superstar they lose much more games than they did when that one player was on the ice making the difference. If your team can survive without you you're not a superstar. If they can't survive long without you you're a superstar. That makes Mikko Koivu a clear superstar in my standards because he's the sole leader of his team and had he not been injured in the season I dare say that Minnesota would've made it to playoffs. Kiprusoff has had a rough season this year alright but he's still the player who either wins or loses the game. With average goalie Calgary would not only lose more games than now but could not even dream of real success. With Kiprusoff there's always a chance to win. Rask...well let's say he's not quite ready for the superstar mantle but he'll get there in a few years. He has played well this season when he's been given the chance and once he gains more experience he'll grow to be much better than Thomas ever was. He's still young for a goalie just give him some time.
@Ati if you can read finnish you'll see that in here: http://www.yourmove.fi/service.cntum?pageId=148190 it says that floorball is actually second (my mistake) in the number of players. ''Kokonaisharrastajamäärän arvioidaan olevan yli 350 000, mikä tekee siitä Suomen toiseksi harrastetuimman lajin jalkapallon jälkeen.'' But it is second to football. It does not mention hockey but it is quite clear.
The rink size arguments also work only for defencemen because for an attacker it just offers an advantage. You have more room to pull your tricks. Ovetchkin and kovaltsuk definately didn't have a disadvantage when they had more room to go pass the defencemen. In larger rink it's about skill and in smaller you need more strength. That's the difference. If you looked at Skinner he was on fire few times. He had absolutely no trouble and I can't see how the larger rink was a disadvantage to anyone else than defenders.
I still don't get you point about the +/- because the points in +/- vary from player to player quite a bit. If you were watching the statistics of say 10-20 games it might not show anything but in longer run it shows whether you are good on both sides of the ice or not. If you're on the ice when opponent scores statistically 1/5 times it is your fault. If you as a defender can keep you enemy from scoring and others can't your +/- does look quite a bit better unless you're totally hopeless with your offensive skills.
I wouldn't blame Rask for Boston's failure though. He didn't play that bad in all of the last 4 games. And as for superstar goalies Kiprusoff for exaple is definately a superstar. He plays the most games of all goalies in the league and is the sole reason Calgary has a chance to win games. Thomas was a huge flop last season so I wouldn't name him a superstar unless he can prove that he can keep up the good work.
Mikko Koivu is a huge superstar in Minnesota and their captain for a reason. Malkin on the other hand hasn't proved himself to be a superstar in my opinion. He's in the shadow of Crosby too much.
Just wait a few years and we'll have a new suprerstar called Granlund.
The rink size arguments also work only for defencemen because for an attacker it just offers an advantage. You have more room to pull your tricks. Ovetchkin and kovaltsuk definately didn't have a disadvantage when they had more room to go pass the defencemen. In larger rink it's about skill and in smaller you need more strength. That's the difference. If you looked at Skinner he was on fire few times. He had absolutely no trouble and I can't see how the larger rink was a disadvantage to anyone else than defenders.
I still don't get you point about the +/- because the points in +/- vary from player to player quite a bit. If you were watching the statistics of say 10-20 games it might not show anything but in longer run it shows whether you are good on both sides of the ice or not. If you're on the ice when opponent scores statistically 1/5 times it is your fault. If you as a defender can keep you enemy from scoring and others can't your +/- does look quite a bit better unless you're totally hopeless with your offensive skills.
I wouldn't blame Rask for Boston's failure though. He didn't play that bad in all of the last 4 games. And as for superstar goalies Kiprusoff for exaple is definately a superstar. He plays the most games of all goalies in the league and is the sole reason Calgary has a chance to win games. Thomas was a huge flop last season so I wouldn't name him a superstar unless he can prove that he can keep up the good work.
Mikko Koivu is a huge superstar in Minnesota and their captain for a reason. Malkin on the other hand hasn't proved himself to be a superstar in my opinion. He's in the shadow of Crosby too much.
Just wait a few years and we'll have a new suprerstar called Granlund.
1. Why do you say +/- stats are irrelevant? it's the +/- stats that tell whether the player has been succesful. Who cares how much you score if your opponent scores as much as you when you're on the rink. I rather win 1-0 than play even 6-6. or lose because my russian forward didn't want to come and defend (again excluding Datsyuk from this. He's a real hockey player and I value him high).
2. Bergenheim was top 10 draft so he's only been unknown if you don't follow hockey. Rask is only backing Thomas because Thomas has returned to being in top 3 best goaltenders of the league. Rask did perform well in last season playoffs (don't think you remembered that did you?) How many Russians are there left who mean anything to their team? none. If you want superstars I give you Mikko Koivu, Teemu Selänne, Saku Koivu (look at his stats in playoffs and tell me he's a shadow), Ville Leino, Miikka Kiprusoff, Pekka Rinne (Vezina candidate this year) and Kari Lehtonen. Don't forget Tuomo Ruutu, Valtteri Filppula or Olli Jokinen. Not the best but definately worth mentioning.
3. How do you mean the best isn't the one who wins? Care to explain that? If you're best you win. We won, that's it.
4. Talking about the rink size would be a good subject if you rooted for USA or Canada but I recall Russia having most of their players from Russia. (you do play with the same sized rink)
5. If you really knew what you were talking about you'd knew that Floorball is the number one sport in Finland right now. Ice hockey and football are quite even in the second place but floorball is clearly the biggest if you look at the numbers hockey's not even close.
Edit: And for the record Lydman was not in the team because of an injury.
Last edited by Juzaa, .
For some reason you did forget Ovetchkin and Kovaltshuk from the best player-list. If I remember right Bykov tried to get Datsyuk for the final games but couldn't get him. (might have something to do with Russia not getting there)
About our NHL players we had 30 players in NHL this season. I also do remember Teemu Selänne scoring 1 goal per game in playoffs (he has also scored more goals than any russian:razz
and Sean Bergenheim leading currently the best goal scorer list in playoffs. Saku Koivu has is second in number of games as the captain of the NHL team, Montreal Canadiens. Toni Lydman was second in the +/- stats of the regular season. Right now we do have 5 players left in teams currently playing playoffs and how many do you Russians have?You demand explanations about why we have so many good players but so little extremely good? Hockey isn't even the most popular sport in Finland and we do have 5 million citizens. If say 20 percent of the kids played hockey (which isn't so by the way) we produced all our professionals from 1 million players. You have 100 million people so if 1 percent of you played hockey we were even. You know that in Russia there are more hockey players than in Finland so my excuse is that we have better coaches than you and because of the number of your citizens you have more ''natural talents''.
What comes to your 25 golds you honestly think that the ones you gained by cheating (bending the rules of no professionals allowed) count? As you may also have noticed Russia was playing hockey way before Finland so it's only natural you have more medals.
Most russian players (excluding Datsyuk) are known for not playing for their team but for themselves. Finns are team players. That's why we won this year and why you failed twice against us even though you had more skill in your roster (well Granlund was way better than any player you had but apart from him).
And why shouldn't we celebrate our victory? Our team was the best!
At least you Ati sound a ''bit'' disappointed since you're here all the time trying to tell it doesn't matter that we won. We're currently the world champions. (Yes, the WORLD) And isn't hunger for victory quite important no matter how good roster you have?
About your statement that other teams didn't have a good roster why don't you look at Russia's roster or perhaps Canada's roster. Most of those names do sound familiar don't you think? Also considering the fact that we had 4 NHL players and all the rest were from Europe or Russia (Joensuu didn't play so he doesn't count) I claim that we actually suffered from the fact that all NHL players didn't make it to world championships.
You also bring that 2-11 record up, but why don't you tell me which country has been in the finals of world championships the most for the last 2 decades and how many times have they been in the finals. We've been 11 times out of the last 20 in finals. How many times has your country been in the finals?
And if you think about it doesn't that sort of suggest that we always have a decent team unlike most other teams. (Perhaps because we're just so good?:nod
The one time all the top players were playing against each others was in the World Cup. Wait, I think we lost to Canada in finals. We with 5 million citizens were second when all the best players were around. You still think we're that bad? Didn't think so.
About your statement that other teams didn't have a good roster why don't you look at Russia's roster or perhaps Canada's roster. Most of those names do sound familiar don't you think?
Also considering the fact that we had 4 NHL players and all the rest were from Europe or Russia (Joensuu didn't play so he doesn't count) I claim that we actually suffered from the fact that all NHL players didn't make it to world championships. You also bring that 2-11 record up, but why don't you tell me which country has been in the finals of world championships the most for the last 2 decades and how many times have they been in the finals. We've been 11 times out of the last 20 in finals. How many times has your country been in the finals?
And if you think about it doesn't that sort of suggest that we always have a decent team unlike most other teams. (Perhaps because we're just so good?:nod
The one time all the top players were playing against each others was in the World Cup. Wait, I think we lost to Canada in finals. We with 5 million citizens were second when all the best players were around. You still think we're that bad? Didn't think so.
WE'RE IN THE FINALS! Granlund 1+1. I'm quite ready to name Granlund the best offensive player of the whole tournament. That first goal was epic. He's in the NHL next year.
We're going to have a legendary finals with Sweden and Finland. We've always been rivals in sports and the most memorable sport events for us usually happen to include beating Sweden. No matter who wins gold the game will most certainly be the best game in this tournament.
We're going to have a legendary finals with Sweden and Finland. We've always been rivals in sports and the most memorable sport events for us usually happen to include beating Sweden. No matter who wins gold the game will most certainly be the best game in this tournament.
I'm hoping Finland makes it to the finals. Russia ain't easy to defeat but we've already won them once in this tournament.
Mikael Granlund is the best playmaker from Finland EVER, and if someone can get us to the finals it's he. Only if we had a natural goal scorer like Teemu Selänne...
Mikael Granlund is the best playmaker from Finland EVER, and if someone can get us to the finals it's he. Only if we had a natural goal scorer like Teemu Selänne...
It's not the setup that makes you fast, it's the driver who's fast or not. I've played with a keyboard driver who could drive about any setup under 1.13. What you need to do is learn how to drive with manual gears and you'll be about half a second faster within 2 weeks.
I suggest that you test our your setups and see what works for you. Drive them all and try to feel the car, watch your sector times when you think you've driven the sector well and so on. Once you see what kind of setups are fast for you can you start molding the best setup more to the way you feel it should go.
The one thing that you should also note is that not all keyboard drivers drive exactly the same way. As don't all mouse drivers or all wheel drivers. That's why you can't usually just take others' setups and drive extremely fast with them. You need to modify them a bit to suit you.
I know this might seem just useless but it will be worth much more to you than any setup just given to you. You'll learn about your driving style and modifying setups (when studying the setups and trying to find out what is the difference that makes other faster than the other). You'll learn how to drive the way it's meant to in this game and you'll be faster because of that. (driving with manual gearbox)
Still if you need just a fast setup, I suggest setupgrid. (setups for wheel or mouse don't differ much so just pick the fastest ones and try out which suits you the best)
I suggest that you test our your setups and see what works for you. Drive them all and try to feel the car, watch your sector times when you think you've driven the sector well and so on. Once you see what kind of setups are fast for you can you start molding the best setup more to the way you feel it should go.
The one thing that you should also note is that not all keyboard drivers drive exactly the same way. As don't all mouse drivers or all wheel drivers. That's why you can't usually just take others' setups and drive extremely fast with them. You need to modify them a bit to suit you.
I know this might seem just useless but it will be worth much more to you than any setup just given to you. You'll learn about your driving style and modifying setups (when studying the setups and trying to find out what is the difference that makes other faster than the other). You'll learn how to drive the way it's meant to in this game and you'll be faster because of that. (driving with manual gearbox)
Still if you need just a fast setup, I suggest setupgrid. (setups for wheel or mouse don't differ much so just pick the fastest ones and try out which suits you the best)
This is wrong, it actually is just that simple
Way to go mate. Just trash his set and don't even offer any advice or help. Hope you ego got a big boost from that.
Real reason why most people drive slowly is that they accelerate much too late because of their driving lines. Try driving more aggressively (having a car that oversteers a bit does help in that) but remember that if you're sliding in the corner you're also not gaining any speed. I suggest you try to keep your tires from sliding and by trial and error learn where you can hit the gas without ending up in the grass once you're lines are looking similar than faster drivers'.
Now, if you want to change how your car handles in the corners the easiest way is to chance wing values. The more wing you have in front means the more you have downforce in front thus making your car more aggressive. The more wing you have in rear means exactly the opposite. You do need wing in rear too to keep your tires from sliding in corners or worse, your car spinning once you hit the accelerator in corner.
Hope that helped.
Selänne will lead Ducks to Stanley Cup victory.
The main thing in trying to learn how to drive fast is finding just how fast you can drive into a corner and how early can you accelerate. If you lose focus and do not try to find the best lines and instead just drive safely and slowly you aren't getting faster. In order to learn the driving lines right you have to drive in the limit. When learning the speed it's not really about how much you drive, it's about how hard you try to find the lines. Driving 2 hours slow is worse than driving 1/2 hours driving in the limit
When learning a new track or trying to remember an old one I usually first check lfsworld and the basic lines, gears etc. Then start driving a few laps easy just to remember each corner. Once you can remember each corner you start pushing. Go harder and harder into the corner. If at first you go just a bit wide most of the time it means you're on the right track. If you're not driving out or crashing once in every 5 laps you're way off in your driving style.
And remember the main thing in learning how to drive fast is comparing your time in lfsworld with the best. In lfsworld you see where you lose time.
When learning a new track or trying to remember an old one I usually first check lfsworld and the basic lines, gears etc. Then start driving a few laps easy just to remember each corner. Once you can remember each corner you start pushing. Go harder and harder into the corner. If at first you go just a bit wide most of the time it means you're on the right track. If you're not driving out or crashing once in every 5 laps you're way off in your driving style.
And remember the main thing in learning how to drive fast is comparing your time in lfsworld with the best. In lfsworld you see where you lose time.
When lapped you usually have to go away your racing line. For example in the first corner you should slow down not in the racing line but as left of the road as possible so the other one can overtake you from inside. Take a look how overtaken people drive in f1 races. If there's coming a hard part where can't be overtaken and the overtaker is right behind, slower one usually goes away from his line and lets the faster one overtake from inside the corner and thus make the overtaking as fast and swift as possible. The track is so wide that you don't have to go to grass while letting faster people overtake you. In the first corner for example I've seen 3 cars side by side while going to the first corner and they all made it through without a crash. There is enough room, you just have to remember that you should give room in corners by either slowing and driving the corner wide so the faster one can overtake you from the inside, or you brake too early without being on the racing line and let the faster one drvie through the corner through the line. Don't wait for the next big straight, rather let them pass when they are behind you. It'll slow you down a bit but it's better than ruining someone's race or crashing with a faster racer who thinks he owns the road. Just keep watching the difference between you and the faster one. As a basic rule I'd say that when overtaker is about 1 second behind it's time start looking for your mirrors and figure where you'll let him pass. Once he's about 0.5 seconds behind give room unless you're sure that he can't reach you in next corner. When driving in straight all you need to do is slow a bit and let the faster one overtake you.
Hope that helped
Hope that helped
FIRST everything I say is based on my assumptions and given data as the situation as we don't have a replay so please correct me if I'm wrong in any matter.
You were overtaken in the chicane in first sector? If so I believe you could've just let the guy pass before the chicane in the first corner. Normally you can't lose much time even to the pros in the chicane since everybody drives it with full gas. It's basically same as driving straight. The way I see it you either released throttle which caused the faster racer to try to overtake you which ended badly or the gap between you two was so little that you should've known better than not giving room.
I'm not blaming only you for the crash since the faster racer obviously did the move that caused the crash but let's think it on his view: He might've had a tight race and worn tires in which case he needed every second and tried to overtake because of that. Or he might have thought that you weren't going to be slowing in the chicane and once he realized that you slowed there was no time to brake and he tried to overtake you and called you a noob because you slowed in the corner, not very good thing to do but many racers only call others noobs instead of telling them what they did wrong. Any way my advice is that you look the map, not only the blue flag. If you keep checking your mirrors when you see someone faster coming closer to you you can easily avoid these crashes.
The basic guideline is that if you are the one being overtaken you should always give room so that the faster one wouldn't lose much time. If you cause the driver to brake because of you in the chicane he loses about 2 seconds that lap. If you had let this overtaker overtake you in the first corner he wouldn't have lost time at all or at least he couldn't have complained.
Dio - Sacred Heart
May he rest in peace.
May he rest in peace.
Have you even stopped wondering why most of the recons are so useless in this game? It's because the developers didn't try to make the game realistic but rather a game even little kids could play without dying every time. So they made all weapons very accurate when firing small bursts and decided that the weapon is inaccurate only when firing longer bursts. That way snipers could be killed way more easily even from distance.
Here's an example. All weapons are way too accurate when you're firing them in bursts: I've been killed by an enemy who fired few bursts from the other side of the map and got few headshots. In real life that amount of accuracy from over 200m is impossible. Sniping isn't useful because you can snipe the snipers without needing a sniper rifle.
Also this health system totally sucks. You go to cover and wait for 5 seconds and you've gotten all your life back. That's why most of the snipers (the bad ones) don't get any points at all since they can't get headshots and kill the enemies with one shot.
Furthermore when each sniper rifle you unlock should be better than the previous one it is almost the opposite. The first rifle in the game is more accurate than others which means it's better for getting the headshots needed to kill enemies.
In BF2 for example snipers were very important for the team since you needed a medic to get your health back and you needed to play smartly in order to get near the enemy's base. Here you can basically run any way you want since it's very unlikely that a sniper hits you in head while you're running. It's possible, but you need to run straight line in order to give the sniper a little possibility to get a headshot. The game strategy for most is just run, wait for 5 secs to get health back, run again and finally after enormous amount of hits you get to enemy's base and kill the snipers.
Finally the thing that makes all snipers even more useless. The freaking show where you can watch where your killer is. Can anyone explain to me why on earth would someone want to implement such feature? All it does is that you see where your killer is and the next time you go and stab him if he hasn't changed position. Why should anyone know where the enemy that shot them was? If I have a good location where to shoot from and kill a guy who never saw me why does he get to know where I'm hiding? If he didn't see me he shouldn't be able to get such info for free. That just helps the noobs and destroys sniping possibility.
In short, this game wasn't meant for sniping, it was meant for noobs who could easily learn the game and that they wouldn't have to learn the hard way.
Here's an example. All weapons are way too accurate when you're firing them in bursts: I've been killed by an enemy who fired few bursts from the other side of the map and got few headshots. In real life that amount of accuracy from over 200m is impossible. Sniping isn't useful because you can snipe the snipers without needing a sniper rifle.
Also this health system totally sucks. You go to cover and wait for 5 seconds and you've gotten all your life back. That's why most of the snipers (the bad ones) don't get any points at all since they can't get headshots and kill the enemies with one shot.
Furthermore when each sniper rifle you unlock should be better than the previous one it is almost the opposite. The first rifle in the game is more accurate than others which means it's better for getting the headshots needed to kill enemies.
In BF2 for example snipers were very important for the team since you needed a medic to get your health back and you needed to play smartly in order to get near the enemy's base. Here you can basically run any way you want since it's very unlikely that a sniper hits you in head while you're running. It's possible, but you need to run straight line in order to give the sniper a little possibility to get a headshot. The game strategy for most is just run, wait for 5 secs to get health back, run again and finally after enormous amount of hits you get to enemy's base and kill the snipers.
Finally the thing that makes all snipers even more useless. The freaking show where you can watch where your killer is. Can anyone explain to me why on earth would someone want to implement such feature? All it does is that you see where your killer is and the next time you go and stab him if he hasn't changed position. Why should anyone know where the enemy that shot them was? If I have a good location where to shoot from and kill a guy who never saw me why does he get to know where I'm hiding? If he didn't see me he shouldn't be able to get such info for free. That just helps the noobs and destroys sniping possibility.
In short, this game wasn't meant for sniping, it was meant for noobs who could easily learn the game and that they wouldn't have to learn the hard way.
You don't need ''hard to drive'' setup to drive under 1.13. I've driven 1.12.74 with my setup which is very easy to drive and under 1.13 with many other setups. The most important thing is to have good driving lines and try to turn your wheel as little as possible.
If you drive with wheel I suggest you learn to drive with ''hard'' setup and try to learn to control the amount you push throttle in turns and achieve better times with that.
If you don't have a wheel and drive with any system that has throttle on/off (personally I prefer joystick) you need to have ''easy'' setup since you need to brake more and go through the corners with full throttle. (which you can't do with setup that oversteers a lot)
Anyway, my point is that the setups don't affect that much, perhaps you can get a tenth off your time with the optimum setup for your driving style, but your driving style depends on your equipment and besides you can drive under 1.13 quite easily with almost all setups that are good. Pick a setup that feels right or at least pick a fast setup and alter it to your driving style (wings, etc...)
Last edited by Juzaa, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG