We're not staying here, its too messy and nothing can be said in private if every man and his dog can wander in and see whats being discussed.
We will make a move over to the alternative location once the final teams have been picked and announced, otherwise we have 20-30 countries worth of drivers going over there and then being told they wont be invited into this round for whatever reason.
The official forum for the series has forum for all LFSWS matters, including a sub-forum for each country. Each countries subforum is only accessable to people in that countries usergroup, and with this we can control who can see what meaning there shouldnt be any spying unless someone is granted permission into 2 countries usergroups (unlikely!).
In each subforum the manager vote will be done, ensuring the vote is by teammates of the same nationality not anyone who wanders in, and each group will be able to put up attachments for setups or whatnot which again people outside the usergroup wont have permission to access. Its all nicely themed for each country too
PM's will be sent to everyone thats signed up for the series and their country is competing, letting them know of the move. We already have a few (15-20) people i've already assigned to their countries as they're already registered there, inc 9 for GB/UK.
Infact, once we move over, along with the manager vote we'll hold a vote for whether were listed as GB or UK, i prefer GB because of the Olympic teams and in A1GP were down as GB also, but if people feel UK is more appropriate then we can go with that as there does seem to be evidence suggesting it should be UK, despite the fact in significant sporting events, we use GB.
We will make a move over to the alternative location once the final teams have been picked and announced, otherwise we have 20-30 countries worth of drivers going over there and then being told they wont be invited into this round for whatever reason.
The official forum for the series has forum for all LFSWS matters, including a sub-forum for each country. Each countries subforum is only accessable to people in that countries usergroup, and with this we can control who can see what meaning there shouldnt be any spying unless someone is granted permission into 2 countries usergroups (unlikely!).
In each subforum the manager vote will be done, ensuring the vote is by teammates of the same nationality not anyone who wanders in, and each group will be able to put up attachments for setups or whatnot which again people outside the usergroup wont have permission to access. Its all nicely themed for each country too
PM's will be sent to everyone thats signed up for the series and their country is competing, letting them know of the move. We already have a few (15-20) people i've already assigned to their countries as they're already registered there, inc 9 for GB/UK.
Infact, once we move over, along with the manager vote we'll hold a vote for whether were listed as GB or UK, i prefer GB because of the Olympic teams and in A1GP were down as GB also, but if people feel UK is more appropriate then we can go with that as there does seem to be evidence suggesting it should be UK, despite the fact in significant sporting events, we use GB.
We're only allowing you scots in for the Bawsack, im gonna chain him to the computah and force the n00b to drive!
Technically, neither Wales nor Scotland would have got a place in the series if it wasnt as a combined GB/UK entry, so in that respect alone drivers from those nations have a considerably greater chance of seeing some track time 
overall though, i think the strongest line-up should be used, wherever your from. There has to be more than 6 drivers used, purely on the basis that a driver can only do 3 rounds, meaning 5x 3 races = 15 seats, 1x 1 race, bare minimum. Personally im a great believer of involving as many people as possible, its what we've done in Mercury for BOTT races, we could field or best 2-3 drivers the whole series as some teams did, but its a team event and the participation from as many people as possible should be a priority without too much cost to the teams series challenge, but then we didnt put too much emphasis on winning it this time out and id imagine for this our emphasis would be on putting out as strong a line-up as possible rather than treating it as a bit of fun, and with a little forward planning to ensure each person is used carefully and when its best for the team i think there should be the chance for a decent number of people to get a race, not just the bare minimum the rules allow.
Im sure such matters will be brought up a little later on, and in private once the competing teams are finalised (i'd say they're 95% known atm, all but confirmed) and we move over to the series forum rather than this one (more control over it incl completely private subforums for each team).
overall though, i think the strongest line-up should be used, wherever your from. There has to be more than 6 drivers used, purely on the basis that a driver can only do 3 rounds, meaning 5x 3 races = 15 seats, 1x 1 race, bare minimum. Personally im a great believer of involving as many people as possible, its what we've done in Mercury for BOTT races, we could field or best 2-3 drivers the whole series as some teams did, but its a team event and the participation from as many people as possible should be a priority without too much cost to the teams series challenge, but then we didnt put too much emphasis on winning it this time out and id imagine for this our emphasis would be on putting out as strong a line-up as possible rather than treating it as a bit of fun, and with a little forward planning to ensure each person is used carefully and when its best for the team i think there should be the chance for a decent number of people to get a race, not just the bare minimum the rules allow.
Im sure such matters will be brought up a little later on, and in private once the competing teams are finalised (i'd say they're 95% known atm, all but confirmed) and we move over to the series forum rather than this one (more control over it incl completely private subforums for each team).
Dan:
Yeah, i know its a little backwards, but from what i understand, Eng/Sco/Wal/N.Ire are nations, not countries.
The arguement of having seperate national football teams is just that, they're individual nations, not countries. Likewise you could argue there isnt a Eng/Sco/Wal/N.Ire Olympic team, its GB, and if we wanted to enter a GB football team were within our rights to do so, but my understanding is that we'd be forced to enter FIFA events with only a GB team, but thats something ive never fully understood, so take that with a pinch of salt.
A 'country' has to have its own independance, under its own law and a few other technical requirements to define it as a country. England & Co are under a UK government, Scotland and Wales have their own (or at least i recall Wales wanting their own) but they still have to tow the line on some issues.
I gather a 'nation' is basically anything that falls short of being a country.
I'll do some digging on what defines both, i suspect a simple dictionary check wont clearly distinguish the 2, but google should hold the answers.
Here's a good article with what i'd assume are the official 8 requirements, and explanations as to how England does or doesnt qualify for each:
England: http://geography.about.com/od/ ... eography/a/englandnot.htm
Scotland: http://geography.about.com/od/ ... ography/a/scotlandnot.htm
Same kinda reasoning for each, however they point out that the 'independance' Scotland has in its governing is granted by UK government, i guess it has the power to pull the rug from under them too.
The final line of both sums things up though:
edit #2
its possible the arguement could be that its UK which is the country, not GB, im confused as heck eitherway! But as we enter the Olympics as GB and not UK i think there may be some reasoning there which explains things, though im not sure what it is.
Answers on a postcard.
edit #3
http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzuk.htm
Suggests UK is the country, GB is no more than a collection of regions.... who knows, who cares Im not in the least bit patriotic so i couldnt give a hoot 
Yeah, i know its a little backwards, but from what i understand, Eng/Sco/Wal/N.Ire are nations, not countries.
The arguement of having seperate national football teams is just that, they're individual nations, not countries. Likewise you could argue there isnt a Eng/Sco/Wal/N.Ire Olympic team, its GB, and if we wanted to enter a GB football team were within our rights to do so, but my understanding is that we'd be forced to enter FIFA events with only a GB team, but thats something ive never fully understood, so take that with a pinch of salt.
A 'country' has to have its own independance, under its own law and a few other technical requirements to define it as a country. England & Co are under a UK government, Scotland and Wales have their own (or at least i recall Wales wanting their own) but they still have to tow the line on some issues.
I gather a 'nation' is basically anything that falls short of being a country.
I'll do some digging on what defines both, i suspect a simple dictionary check wont clearly distinguish the 2, but google should hold the answers.
Here's a good article with what i'd assume are the official 8 requirements, and explanations as to how England does or doesnt qualify for each:
England: http://geography.about.com/od/ ... eography/a/englandnot.htm
Scotland: http://geography.about.com/od/ ... ography/a/scotlandnot.htm
Same kinda reasoning for each, however they point out that the 'independance' Scotland has in its governing is granted by UK government, i guess it has the power to pull the rug from under them too.
The final line of both sums things up though:
edit #2
its possible the arguement could be that its UK which is the country, not GB, im confused as heck eitherway! But as we enter the Olympics as GB and not UK i think there may be some reasoning there which explains things, though im not sure what it is.
Answers on a postcard.
edit #3
http://geography.about.com/library/faq/blqzuk.htm
Suggests UK is the country, GB is no more than a collection of regions.... who knows, who cares
Im not in the least bit patriotic so i couldnt give a hoot
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
Well, the idea that 32 people from around the world cannot safely race on a track is a bit bizarre, as Dukey says, we've just seen MoE run their 3rd 24hr race, this time with 31 cars. There were disconnections during the race, but less than 2 an hour, which is hard to pin on the fault of netcode or other instabilities involved with international events. For lag... again, just going back to the previous round of MoE, there was a very good scrap between our German driver and another teams American driver, and they went about 3/5th round the 2m50 Aston GP track, about half of that was done side by side through some tricky corners where it isnt all that easy to go side by side, neither touching or at any risk to each other.
http://w14.easy-share.com/1698288821.html
Should check it out, 5 corners, from T1, neither giving an inch and side by side on all but 1 corner. If that can be done midway through a 24hr race with drivers on opposite sides of the world, i dont see why it should be a problem for a 1hr race.
If there is lag, its never because of location, its because of a bad internet connection.
Sounds like you just need a decent European server, theres no way you'd get problems on a solid 10mbit line, if its a shared line then you may have problems, but that would be down to the company your hosted with and what they're offering. Im assuming its a dedi server in a datacenter rather than in someones home, though it'd fit the description being given.
Driver limitations will be introduced, and should be confirmed along with some other details hopefully before the weekend. We'd hope that people arent lame enough to start handing over the reigns to their account just to cheat their way to victory, if people really need to do that to prove how great their country is, they probably should look into a new pasttime. Im sure everyone will respect this rule, and im betting if i all of a sudden managed to put in hauling laptimes similar to what Bawbag can do, you'd probably spot something isnt quite right, we all know i'd kick bawbags ass so something must be wrong So if suddenly im giving the top drivers a decent scrap, its going to stick out like a sore thumb, they'd know it, we'd know it, and it wouldnt fool anyone.
Were not stupid, we all know pretty much what most drivers are capable of doing.
Limiting the countries would be done for 1 reason, lack of sufficient drivers signed up expressing an interest. I personally wouldnt have any problem limiting the series to 16 teams, getting things underway and seeing how things go in order to make sure everything works how we think, there arent problems which will result in negativity towards the integrety of the series, and then once were confident the format works opening the doors to as many teams as possible.
It comes down to what people think is better, waiting until the format of the series is tested, works how we'd like it to work, and has proved itself to be an entertaining series to take part in and in turn the success its had incourages people to sign up and race for their country. Or do we just say sod it, stick 30 teams in a server despite the fact that half of them could fit their whole team into a Mini Cooper and wont last the full season. Ignore the fact that it doesnt exactly look good for the series which allows numericly weak teams take part only for them to leave, and doesnt really fill people with confidence about taking part themselves.
Its all down to how people perceive the series, and the best way to encourage people to take part is by proving the series is a good idea, it works and they'd enjoy taking part. If people are saying load of people left half-way through, people assume its because its a bad series, when the truth could be simply that 'interested' and 'committed' are completely different things, and when the chips are down they chose to walk away.
If there were 30, 40, 100 teams with say 20-30 drivers all saying they wanted to take part, then maybe they'd force our hand, but i still firmly believe the lack of interest from some countries helps us *this time* more than it hinders us.
I dont have the final say on this matter, but i have no problem being honest and saying IMO its in the series' best interest to run the first season with a controlled group, get it right, prove it works, and have that success generate improved awareness and interest in the aims of this series. This was my opinion going back to Dec 31st, possibly earlier, but well before any conclusion could be drawn on how many people were interested.
Its not your average event, and shouldnt be treated as such, were trying to find the country with fastest team of drivers, and it'll take a while before the ideal format to justify that title will be found. I think expecting it to be perfect at the first time of asking is would be a little niave, and i'd hope people would see the bigger picture rather than assuming just because they couldnt be involved in things from the beginning that its a crappy series and not worth participating in once everything is ironed out and working smoothly.
http://w14.easy-share.com/1698288821.html
Should check it out, 5 corners, from T1, neither giving an inch and side by side on all but 1 corner. If that can be done midway through a 24hr race with drivers on opposite sides of the world, i dont see why it should be a problem for a 1hr race.
If there is lag, its never because of location, its because of a bad internet connection.
Sounds like you just need a decent European server, theres no way you'd get problems on a solid 10mbit line, if its a shared line then you may have problems, but that would be down to the company your hosted with and what they're offering. Im assuming its a dedi server in a datacenter rather than in someones home, though it'd fit the description being given.
Driver limitations will be introduced, and should be confirmed along with some other details hopefully before the weekend. We'd hope that people arent lame enough to start handing over the reigns to their account just to cheat their way to victory, if people really need to do that to prove how great their country is, they probably should look into a new pasttime. Im sure everyone will respect this rule, and im betting if i all of a sudden managed to put in hauling laptimes similar to what Bawbag can do, you'd probably spot something isnt quite right, we all know i'd kick bawbags ass so something must be wrong
So if suddenly im giving the top drivers a decent scrap, its going to stick out like a sore thumb, they'd know it, we'd know it, and it wouldnt fool anyone.Were not stupid, we all know pretty much what most drivers are capable of doing.
Limiting the countries would be done for 1 reason, lack of sufficient drivers signed up expressing an interest. I personally wouldnt have any problem limiting the series to 16 teams, getting things underway and seeing how things go in order to make sure everything works how we think, there arent problems which will result in negativity towards the integrety of the series, and then once were confident the format works opening the doors to as many teams as possible.
It comes down to what people think is better, waiting until the format of the series is tested, works how we'd like it to work, and has proved itself to be an entertaining series to take part in and in turn the success its had incourages people to sign up and race for their country. Or do we just say sod it, stick 30 teams in a server despite the fact that half of them could fit their whole team into a Mini Cooper and wont last the full season. Ignore the fact that it doesnt exactly look good for the series which allows numericly weak teams take part only for them to leave, and doesnt really fill people with confidence about taking part themselves.
Its all down to how people perceive the series, and the best way to encourage people to take part is by proving the series is a good idea, it works and they'd enjoy taking part. If people are saying load of people left half-way through, people assume its because its a bad series, when the truth could be simply that 'interested' and 'committed' are completely different things, and when the chips are down they chose to walk away.
If there were 30, 40, 100 teams with say 20-30 drivers all saying they wanted to take part, then maybe they'd force our hand, but i still firmly believe the lack of interest from some countries helps us *this time* more than it hinders us.
I dont have the final say on this matter, but i have no problem being honest and saying IMO its in the series' best interest to run the first season with a controlled group, get it right, prove it works, and have that success generate improved awareness and interest in the aims of this series. This was my opinion going back to Dec 31st, possibly earlier, but well before any conclusion could be drawn on how many people were interested.
Its not your average event, and shouldnt be treated as such, were trying to find the country with fastest team of drivers, and it'll take a while before the ideal format to justify that title will be found. I think expecting it to be perfect at the first time of asking is would be a little niave, and i'd hope people would see the bigger picture rather than assuming just because they couldnt be involved in things from the beginning that its a crappy series and not worth participating in once everything is ironed out and working smoothly.
FAO England/Scotland/Wales teams
Figured it might as well be brought up now seeing as its been pretty much confirmed for the last week maybe, these 3 countries (+ any N.Ireland folks) are being combined to create a 'Great Britain' team.
The main reason for this is 2 fold:
1) England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland... they're not actually countries, so the decision was taken to instead use Great Britain. Its what our passports say, whether were English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish.
2) It should ensure a stronger line-up, and the 4 nations get to take part, i think Scotland almost certainly would have suffered.
The main reason for this is 2 fold:
1) England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland... they're not actually countries, so the decision was taken to instead use Great Britain. Its what our passports say, whether were English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish.
2) It should ensure a stronger line-up, and the 4 nations get to take part, i think Scotland almost certainly would have suffered.
FAO England/Scotland/Wales teams
Figured it might as well be brought up now seeing as its been pretty much confirmed for the last week maybe, these 3 countries (+ any N.Ireland folks) are being combined to create a 'Great Britain' team.
The main reason for this is 2 fold:
1) England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland... they're not actually countries, so the decision was taken to instead use Great Britain. Its what our passports say, whether were English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish.
2) It should ensure a stronger line-up, and the 4 nations get to take part, i think Scotland almost certainly would have suffered.
The main reason for this is 2 fold:
1) England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland... they're not actually countries, so the decision was taken to instead use Great Britain. Its what our passports say, whether were English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish.
2) It should ensure a stronger line-up, and the 4 nations get to take part, i think Scotland almost certainly would have suffered.
FAO England/Scotland/Wales teams
Figured it might as well be brought up now seeing as its been pretty much confirmed for the last week maybe, these 3 countries (+ any N.Ireland folks) are being combined to create a 'Great Britain' team.
The main reason for this is 2 fold:
1) England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland... they're not actually countries, so the decision was taken to instead use Great Britain. Its what our passports say, whether were English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish.
2) It should ensure a stronger line-up, and the 4 nations get to take part, i think Scotland almost certainly would have suffered.
The main reason for this is 2 fold:
1) England, Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland... they're not actually countries, so the decision was taken to instead use Great Britain. Its what our passports say, whether were English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish.
2) It should ensure a stronger line-up, and the 4 nations get to take part, i think Scotland almost certainly would have suffered.
Tweak, yeah, they're not the only ones though, i brought this up in our little secret hide-out the other day, In just Europe alone its missing countries such as France, Italy, Spain, Portugal & Hungary.
Personally, im not all that interested in the first season finding the definative answer to the 'whos the fastest country' question, i think its far too big a challenge to nail it first time of asking, and if those 5 countries havent got a single sign-up then it doesnt bother me too much, once the series is established and has some success to build upon, then it'd be a problem if the big countries didnt participate, but in *my* opinion, the first season should just treated be a test run and try to ensure the basis of how its run is solid and practical, otherwise when you have double/triple the countries taking part it looks a complete shambles if problems arrise.
Its almost like what we have in MoE right now, something completely out of the organisers hands is undermining the series and turning an established series into a joke (with some help!). That was with something out of their hands, but if something which could have been avoided crops up, it just makes things look badly organised and has a damaging impact which can easily spread and have a lasting effect.
As for the other matters, im not the one with the final decision on these things, and i cant really help much on those as a few things were done before any internal group discussions had started, but im not sure why were using dates we know we wont go with are being displayed 6+ weeks after being informed they werent suitable. For all we know adding a week could bring up similar troubles (they do), so we need to establish the dates asap until we find something suitable and then we have something set in stone, too many things are unconfirmed/undecided at the moment.
Kirill:
Managers will be sorted out in about 10-14 days time, there will be a week until the competing teams will be decided, and we've organised a seperate forum which we have full control over, in there each country will have their own private areas to discuss things, and there will also be a poll done so that the drivers can pick their chosen manager. The forum already exists and individual forums and usergroups have been created with the privellages set for each (extremely messy!) they're also individually themed for each country involved.
So,
How: private (anon) polls on a seperate and entirely private forum.
When: They'll be open between 6-13 days time (ie 7 day poll starting in 6 days)
Personally, im not all that interested in the first season finding the definative answer to the 'whos the fastest country' question, i think its far too big a challenge to nail it first time of asking, and if those 5 countries havent got a single sign-up then it doesnt bother me too much, once the series is established and has some success to build upon, then it'd be a problem if the big countries didnt participate, but in *my* opinion, the first season should just treated be a test run and try to ensure the basis of how its run is solid and practical, otherwise when you have double/triple the countries taking part it looks a complete shambles if problems arrise.
Its almost like what we have in MoE right now, something completely out of the organisers hands is undermining the series and turning an established series into a joke (with some help!). That was with something out of their hands, but if something which could have been avoided crops up, it just makes things look badly organised and has a damaging impact which can easily spread and have a lasting effect.
As for the other matters, im not the one with the final decision on these things, and i cant really help much on those as a few things were done before any internal group discussions had started, but im not sure why were using dates we know we wont go with are being displayed 6+ weeks after being informed they werent suitable. For all we know adding a week could bring up similar troubles (they do), so we need to establish the dates asap until we find something suitable and then we have something set in stone, too many things are unconfirmed/undecided at the moment.
Kirill:
Managers will be sorted out in about 10-14 days time, there will be a week until the competing teams will be decided, and we've organised a seperate forum which we have full control over, in there each country will have their own private areas to discuss things, and there will also be a poll done so that the drivers can pick their chosen manager. The forum already exists and individual forums and usergroups have been created with the privellages set for each (extremely messy!) they're also individually themed for each country involved.
So,
How: private (anon) polls on a seperate and entirely private forum.
When: They'll be open between 6-13 days time (ie 7 day poll starting in 6 days)
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
It wouldnt be the same 2 drivers, we'd introduce a rule restricting the number of times a driver can take part, ensuring a truer test of a countries drivers as well as allowing many more people to take part than just 2-3.
However, 3-4 people (per country) on a track at a time, half the countries barely have enough to do that if they all turned up for every single round!! The method of racing needs to work for all the countries, about 1/4 of the requests for their country to compete were just 1 person thinking 'wouldnt this be a great idea [click]' and wont realisticly represent their country with their support. We want to get as many people as possible involved rather than it being a tiny group of people, but at the moment theres very few countries who've got the numbers to support this possibility.
Same thing again, but those 25 countries, 9 of them dont currently have more than 8 drivers, 3-4 of them have less than 5 drivers. The problem isnt coming up with interesting ways of doing things, its finding ways that allows countries to compete without it being just a tiny minority of drivers representing a whole country.
Incidently, method A has a grid of 15 drivers per race?? There would be room for 6 per team, let alone 3.
But each of those means the countries who've had decent signups and shown a decent commitment to taking part, at best a quarter of them might see a race. Some countries have 20+ drivers, some cant manage 8, coming up a method that keeps things interesting for both isnt easy.
Theres also the issue of time it would take to run an event with 3-5 seperate races per round, and then some form of finals.
Im not saying the group style is a bad method, i wouldnt be against it, but Arrow ruled this out from the beginning, he wants everyone up against each other at the same time... or in the BOTT style method, the possibility to be in the same race (depending if you qual in server A or B before the race).
Personally i think this thread is asking for opinions on 3 options, when only 2 of those are physically possible unless we have a sudden influx of signups. Theres only ~17 countries with 10 people signed up, of completely unknown ability (meaning i havent checked who's signed up, im just talking numbers) and unknown commitment. With BOTT they were groups of individuals committed to their team, people they already know and should have decent communication and commitment to. LFSWS is bringing people with no real commitment together, and i dont think we can count on every single signup being a guaranteed driver, with 20+ people even if half decide they're too busy to drive, theres plenty to still race, but with 5 people... its just crazy to build a series around the premise of them, i'd guarantee half of them wont make it through the 5 1/2 month season.
BOTT started with 48 established teams and half a dozen in the waiting list, it finished 8 rounds (over 4 months) in with about 30 teams. Those are groups of people who have commitments to one another, not random people born in the same country at some point in time, possibly never even heard of them. For that reason alone, i think its stupid having a ton of teams entered knowing full well half of them wont be there after a few rounds in, it reflects badly on the series and its crap for those taking part if each round the grid gets smaller and smaller.
It may very well be unfair for the countries with smaller signups, but hopefully with a successful first season the 2nd will open up the possibility for more countries to compete because there is enough interest from them to do so with a decent sized squad of drivers, not just a couple of random individuals. IMO, its about looking at whats in the best interest for the series and the people competing in it, not purely pleasing as many people as possible so they can do the odd round then get bored and leave.
I think it'd be far better for the series to have a trial/practice run, with teams it can rely upon to turn up each round and field a strong line-up, and at the end of it all fix any issues that come up and then launch a much inflated version with better representation from all the countries involved. The nations cup struggled because it tried to find the definitive answer at its first attempt, and IMO thats too big a challenge from an unestablished series. Half the teams/drivers didnt turn up and in the end it almost became a sham, it made a well setup series look poor because IMO it tried to stretch itself too far too soon. Plenty can be taken from that.
There will almost certainly be a limit to how many times a driver can participate in the series too, and i think ~3 was the general opinion, the idea isnt for a couple of people to do every single race, its a test of the competing countries drivers, not a tiny minority of them.
How it could be considered that with only 4 fully licensed drivers, it can consider itself a fair representation of a nation ive no idea, and thats the reason behind trying to ensure more drivers take part, it isnt a who has the fastest driver competition, and at the same time it also means more people are involved rather than the same drivers turning up week in, week out, and the other folks of that country never getting a chance to drive.
It has to be in the best interest of the series, and the drivers taking part, and allowing only 4 drivers to represent any country, whether there are 100 people signed up or 4, its not a good model for what we think provides the most entertaining and challenging test on a team. We want to see as many people driving for their country as possible, and if we dont implement a restriction of the number of times people take part, it means the majority of people signed up wont get close to getting a seat in the actual race, and personally i'd like to see 6-8 drivers being used, it'd soon get boring practicing for a race you know damn well you'll never get to race in while X, Y & Z are there and have done every other race so far, and the only way to do this is my bringing in these restrictions.
It ensures that a reasonable number of people geniunely want to participate and having 1-2 people unable to race, be too busy with other commitments or getting bored dont make the team unable to compete in a round, it provides more opportunities for people to take part and feel they're a part of things, and as mentioned a second ago, hopefully it means all teams signed up finish the series without any drop-outs & empty slots, we have no guarantee that all the people who've signed up geniunely are interested, have a suitable racing ability, and are committed to taking part. So countries with very little interest are considered a higher risk, if they're not invited this time round, there will be future seasons and hopefully word will get around and interest from those nations will increase.
Personally, i'd love to see more non-European entries, but the sheer numbers make it hard to give a team with double the signups the boot purely because it'd be nice to have a mixture of teams from around the world and non-European signups are particularly low at this moment in time, hopefully this will change.
How it could be considered that with only 4 fully licensed drivers, it can consider itself a fair representation of a nation ive no idea, and thats the reason behind trying to ensure more drivers take part, it isnt a who has the fastest driver competition, and at the same time it also means more people are involved rather than the same drivers turning up week in, week out, and the other folks of that country never getting a chance to drive.
It has to be in the best interest of the series, and the drivers taking part, and allowing only 4 drivers to represent any country, whether there are 100 people signed up or 4, its not a good model for what we think provides the most entertaining and challenging test on a team. We want to see as many people driving for their country as possible, and if we dont implement a restriction of the number of times people take part, it means the majority of people signed up wont get close to getting a seat in the actual race, and personally i'd like to see 6-8 drivers being used, it'd soon get boring practicing for a race you know damn well you'll never get to race in while X, Y & Z are there and have done every other race so far, and the only way to do this is my bringing in these restrictions.
It ensures that a reasonable number of people geniunely want to participate and having 1-2 people unable to race, be too busy with other commitments or getting bored dont make the team unable to compete in a round, it provides more opportunities for people to take part and feel they're a part of things, and as mentioned a second ago, hopefully it means all teams signed up finish the series without any drop-outs & empty slots, we have no guarantee that all the people who've signed up geniunely are interested, have a suitable racing ability, and are committed to taking part. So countries with very little interest are considered a higher risk, if they're not invited this time round, there will be future seasons and hopefully word will get around and interest from those nations will increase.
Personally, i'd love to see more non-European entries, but the sheer numbers make it hard to give a team with double the signups the boot purely because it'd be nice to have a mixture of teams from around the world and non-European signups are particularly low at this moment in time, hopefully this will change.
haha, im (effectively) in those pictures, though no more than a spec in the crowd.
http://picasaweb.google.com/ni ... photo#5155395817789028338
(just above the 2 stewards who are stood above the 'ManUtd.com' advert, first row after the 'prawn sarnie brigade')
I've had a ST in the North Stand since the first season it opened. I'll admit i had to check the photo dates & fixture list to figure out who it was, but looks like you got stuck in the wrong end for that game
Im about 1/3 over to the Stretford end and got a lovely view of them being knocked in Makes perfect sense that a school trip full of Irish folk could get tickets though
, takes the p*ss really, less local lads are going cos they're priced out because the yanks are happy to sell to the once a year daytripper as long as the seat sells what do they care, and the daytrippers arent that fussed, they only do it occasionally not 19 times + cup ties.Anyway, as you were
Nah, more a case of just badly put, i kinda thought it didnt read too well compared to the others just before posting, but figured fcuk it
The more laps you've done, the larger the need for a scheduled stop, and the bigger the gain from coming out of the pitbox with a 'full' tank of fuel & fresh tyres, so you should pick up slightly more of a penalty to counter & remove that gain. If your only 5 laps in, the last thing you need is a pitstop for fuel & tyres, so there shouldnt be punishment as if they do need it.
Everyone case should be looked at individually, gathering the gains and losses which occured by those circumstances. Disconnections and Shift+P's
To add to the above post's list of penalties:
+X sec if your re-appearance into the pit box is due to getting stuck in gravel or your upside-down.
Find what was gained, what was lost, and give a punishment which fits the occasion, throwing penalties which some gain heavily for while others suffer significantly for isnt in the interest of fair racing for all.
The more laps you've done, the larger the need for a scheduled stop, and the bigger the gain from coming out of the pitbox with a 'full' tank of fuel & fresh tyres, so you should pick up slightly more of a penalty to counter & remove that gain. If your only 5 laps in, the last thing you need is a pitstop for fuel & tyres, so there shouldnt be punishment as if they do need it.
Everyone case should be looked at individually, gathering the gains and losses which occured by those circumstances. Disconnections and Shift+P's
To add to the above post's list of penalties:
+X sec if your re-appearance into the pit box is due to getting stuck in gravel or your upside-down.
Find what was gained, what was lost, and give a punishment which fits the occasion, throwing penalties which some gain heavily for while others suffer significantly for isnt in the interest of fair racing for all.
nRcToretto & BurnOut69:
You cant fairly blanket punish people for completely different circumstances, thats just unbelievably stupid and naive!
Case 1:
Car has done 200 laps, its got 2 to go till its due another pitstop, it has engine damage and is 2sec a lap slower, small amount of car damage, and is about 20sec into the lap.
Case 2:
Car has done 5 laps total, brand spanking new car, 20+ laps till it needs to pit, no engine damage, no car damage, 2min into the lap and coming up to the last corner.
Those are 2 completely different circumstances. If both of those disconnect there and then, you both feel its only fair both get the exact same punishment because *apparently* they both benefit equally!?
Case 1:
Old car = New car
2 laps from pitting = due a stop anyway
Engine damage = No damage, now 2sec pl faster
20sec into lap = 20sec of the lap lost.
Case 2:
Already a new car = getting an equally new car in return
20 laps from pitting = an unnecissary pit that wasnt needed
Fresh engine = Nothing new
120sec into lap = 120 sec of the lap lost.
So you feel both cases should be treated with the exact same penalty, because they both gained?!? Absolute nonsense!
If the incident caused you to gain something, then and only then should you be punished based on how much you gained. If you had nothing to gain, then why should you be heavily punished for it??
If your due a pitstop in 2/20 laps, there should be a large/small penalty added.
If you have light/heavy engine damage, you should get a small/large penalty added.
If you have light/heavy car damage, you should get a penalty relative to that damage added.
If you disco 10/100sec into the lap, it should be taken into consideration that time was lost, and possibly some taken OFF the penalty, as 10/100sec has been lost already due to this issue.
Thats the only fair way to do things, claiming everyone benefits equally just because its POSSIBLE you can, is stupid and unfair on those it doesnt benefit in the slightest. Giving unfair penalties just means you get unfair races, and whats the point in that?
You cant fairly blanket punish people for completely different circumstances, thats just unbelievably stupid and naive!
Case 1:
Car has done 200 laps, its got 2 to go till its due another pitstop, it has engine damage and is 2sec a lap slower, small amount of car damage, and is about 20sec into the lap.
Case 2:
Car has done 5 laps total, brand spanking new car, 20+ laps till it needs to pit, no engine damage, no car damage, 2min into the lap and coming up to the last corner.
Those are 2 completely different circumstances. If both of those disconnect there and then, you both feel its only fair both get the exact same punishment because *apparently* they both benefit equally!?
Case 1:
Old car = New car
2 laps from pitting = due a stop anyway
Engine damage = No damage, now 2sec pl faster
20sec into lap = 20sec of the lap lost.
Case 2:
Already a new car = getting an equally new car in return
20 laps from pitting = an unnecissary pit that wasnt needed
Fresh engine = Nothing new
120sec into lap = 120 sec of the lap lost.
So you feel both cases should be treated with the exact same penalty, because they both gained?!? Absolute nonsense!
If the incident caused you to gain something, then and only then should you be punished based on how much you gained. If you had nothing to gain, then why should you be heavily punished for it??
If your due a pitstop in 2/20 laps, there should be a large/small penalty added.
If you have light/heavy engine damage, you should get a small/large penalty added.
If you have light/heavy car damage, you should get a penalty relative to that damage added.
If you disco 10/100sec into the lap, it should be taken into consideration that time was lost, and possibly some taken OFF the penalty, as 10/100sec has been lost already due to this issue.
Thats the only fair way to do things, claiming everyone benefits equally just because its POSSIBLE you can, is stupid and unfair on those it doesnt benefit in the slightest. Giving unfair penalties just means you get unfair races, and whats the point in that?
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
Reason : clear up confusion as listed in Josh's post below
but according to the MoE website we had a server with a dedicated 1000mbit line, there isnt much more that sensible money can buy you, so what is there to gain? Had it been say 10 accounts on 1 server, and problems were arrising due to activity on the others, i'd say go for it, but im not sure what throwing money at the exact same thing would give us.
"For the 24hr we basically have a full 1000mbit connection for MoE only to ensure the best connection possible, including enough storage for the server replay."
Also, the 'no shift+p/s in qual' was discussed a while back, and nothing came of it, im not sure why but i'd imagine it probably comes down to the fact that you'd have the issue of crashed/stuck cars out there which would need to shift+p/s, and if they can do that some will say at least it lessens the problem, but then if you screw up your first sector isnt it easier on a track like AS5 to just 'accidently' crash and shift p than waste 2min driving round and pit-stopping for the next run. call me cynical, but i dont think it'll help matters much.
"For the 24hr we basically have a full 1000mbit connection for MoE only to ensure the best connection possible, including enough storage for the server replay."
Also, the 'no shift+p/s in qual' was discussed a while back, and nothing came of it, im not sure why but i'd imagine it probably comes down to the fact that you'd have the issue of crashed/stuck cars out there which would need to shift+p/s, and if they can do that some will say at least it lessens the problem, but then if you screw up your first sector isnt it easier on a track like AS5 to just 'accidently' crash and shift p than waste 2min driving round and pit-stopping for the next run. call me cynical, but i dont think it'll help matters much.
When i had a disconnect while driving we didnt lose out, and possibly slightly gained from it as it happened 2 laps before i'd have pitted in anyway. With the updated engine damage from patch Y it was pretty clear some teams were suffering and that yanking the network cable out would probably solve all those problems with minimal damage done. Personally i think that the engine damage really spoils things, you can have a completely geniune disconnect and you lose on average 90sec, you get back in and have a brand spanking new car. If you shift+P you get the same deal, but lose ~3+ minutes. Neither have done anything different to their cars, but one is a get out of jail free card, the other is go to jail and dont pick up £200.
It doesnt feel fair that someone elses 'misfortune' is rewarded, while your driving a bag of cr*p pretty much pleading with your ISP for the same thing to happen to you! Wheres the realism there?
IMO the 2 need to be treated the same, then review the incidents afterwards and give a penalty based on what you effectively gained from what happened, intentional or accidental. The disconnections might not be intentional, but if you had a damaged car and needed to pit, then theres clearly something to gain, especially if its unrepairable damage like with the engine, the other aspects just delay you maybe 10 seconds and its like new again, the engines are unrepairable and will cost you about 20-30sec every single stint.
As i argued last week, the xrr cant get out of gravel, we had baggy come out of the pit-box after a disco to rooble on lap 8, he got a pop-up and ended up stuck in gravel before he'd got back into LFS again, any other car could have drove out. We went from what was a 20 second old car, to another new car, losing a lap in the process. That was punished, but a disconnection where a fresh car is awarded too, nobody bats an eyelid. It just seems a little unjust. Both gained, one benefiting (new car) from inconvenience, one by being allowed out of gravel (ffs!), but one is just fine, the other is heavily punished.
I understand one was a driver error (of sorts) but considering it wouldnt have been a problem in the slightest if it was any other car, it just doesnt seem fair, like its not a level playing field.
If these incidents were reviewed and penalised by what was gained, the there wouldnt be much of a penalty for bagbags incident, but an accidental (or intentional) disconnection where a significant gain was received should get a comparable penalty.
Likewise from Shift+P's, penalise based on what those actions have given you, like the ability to continue in the race, if you were a few laps into the stint so a 'full' tank is only +10% fuel, or if your on the last lap and a 'full' tank is +70%, likewise if you crash/disco 110sec into a lap, then that should be considered as collateral, and taken into account as a loss suffered already.
If you crash 100 meters from the pitlane and lose 2min because of it, you shouldnt lose the same amount as someone who crashed 100 meters from the line, purely because that teleport already costs them 2min to do exactly what someone else could do after 10sec into a lap, but one loses 110sec more than the other for the exact same deal.
The penalty for using the shift+P and getting a brand new car should reflect exactly what was gained & lost from it, consider all angles rather than turning a blind eye because it was 'accidental'.
Thats my honest opinion, blanket punishments arent fair, it wouldnt be for major/minor incidents (DT/SG or more), so why should it for other penalties, the punishment should fit the crime, no more, no less.
Incidently, my disco was due to a lovely BSoD, i'd spent half of Friday installing a watercooled 8800gtx into my loop and redoing all the tubing and tiding up all my messy wiring, when i came to power it all up and install drivers i had 3+ BSoD's in about an hour (1 desktop, 2+ in LFS), i then spent the rest of the day removing the card to go back to my trusty ATi 1900xtx which now refused to load the Catalyst software (gfx worked, but no aa/af and i cant drive without it) i wiped all drivers (again) and tried the drivers again but no change, did the same thing a few times over with registry & driver clean-ups and couldnt get it working, went back to the nTardia 8800 and it was running crysis cpu/gfx demo's fine for about an hour, passed 4hrs of system burn-in tests to check all hardware, and ran LFS replays fine and seemed ok for the LFS practice stints i did beforehand, but alas i got a BSoD and instant reboot where the bios *claimed* the (non-existant) overclock had failed. As easily the slowest driver had i thought it was a problem i wouldnt have driven, and would have just got some much needed sleep as i'd spent 46hrs awake with 3hrs of frustraitingly light sleep, spent the 4 days beforehand going from 5pm-9am days to 10am-2am (shorter days) so i could do the 6am shifts (also cos i had a 9am hosp appointment this morning so needed to adjust for that), and then had hardware trouble the day before. I cant say i was too impressed with how the weekend unfolded on the whole
I also dont think we can rely on the dev's to implement something that works, let alone in time for any of the remaining races. They've already 'fixed' the balance issues, lets not encourage anything else ey 
anyway, some of that is on-topic...
It doesnt feel fair that someone elses 'misfortune' is rewarded, while your driving a bag of cr*p pretty much pleading with your ISP for the same thing to happen to you! Wheres the realism there?
IMO the 2 need to be treated the same, then review the incidents afterwards and give a penalty based on what you effectively gained from what happened, intentional or accidental. The disconnections might not be intentional, but if you had a damaged car and needed to pit, then theres clearly something to gain, especially if its unrepairable damage like with the engine, the other aspects just delay you maybe 10 seconds and its like new again, the engines are unrepairable and will cost you about 20-30sec every single stint.
As i argued last week, the xrr cant get out of gravel, we had baggy come out of the pit-box after a disco to rooble on lap 8, he got a pop-up and ended up stuck in gravel before he'd got back into LFS again, any other car could have drove out. We went from what was a 20 second old car, to another new car, losing a lap in the process. That was punished, but a disconnection where a fresh car is awarded too, nobody bats an eyelid. It just seems a little unjust. Both gained, one benefiting (new car) from inconvenience, one by being allowed out of gravel (ffs!), but one is just fine, the other is heavily punished.
I understand one was a driver error (of sorts) but considering it wouldnt have been a problem in the slightest if it was any other car, it just doesnt seem fair, like its not a level playing field.
If these incidents were reviewed and penalised by what was gained, the there wouldnt be much of a penalty for bagbags incident, but an accidental (or intentional) disconnection where a significant gain was received should get a comparable penalty.
Likewise from Shift+P's, penalise based on what those actions have given you, like the ability to continue in the race, if you were a few laps into the stint so a 'full' tank is only +10% fuel, or if your on the last lap and a 'full' tank is +70%, likewise if you crash/disco 110sec into a lap, then that should be considered as collateral, and taken into account as a loss suffered already.
If you crash 100 meters from the pitlane and lose 2min because of it, you shouldnt lose the same amount as someone who crashed 100 meters from the line, purely because that teleport already costs them 2min to do exactly what someone else could do after 10sec into a lap, but one loses 110sec more than the other for the exact same deal.
The penalty for using the shift+P and getting a brand new car should reflect exactly what was gained & lost from it, consider all angles rather than turning a blind eye because it was 'accidental'.
Thats my honest opinion, blanket punishments arent fair, it wouldnt be for major/minor incidents (DT/SG or more), so why should it for other penalties, the punishment should fit the crime, no more, no less.
Incidently, my disco was due to a lovely BSoD, i'd spent half of Friday installing a watercooled 8800gtx into my loop and redoing all the tubing and tiding up all my messy wiring, when i came to power it all up and install drivers i had 3+ BSoD's in about an hour (1 desktop, 2+ in LFS), i then spent the rest of the day removing the card to go back to my trusty ATi 1900xtx which now refused to load the Catalyst software (gfx worked, but no aa/af and i cant drive without it) i wiped all drivers (again) and tried the drivers again but no change, did the same thing a few times over with registry & driver clean-ups and couldnt get it working, went back to the nTardia 8800 and it was running crysis cpu/gfx demo's fine for about an hour, passed 4hrs of system burn-in tests to check all hardware, and ran LFS replays fine and seemed ok for the LFS practice stints i did beforehand, but alas i got a BSoD and instant reboot where the bios *claimed* the (non-existant) overclock had failed. As easily the slowest driver had i thought it was a problem i wouldnt have driven, and would have just got some much needed sleep as i'd spent 46hrs awake with 3hrs of frustraitingly light sleep, spent the 4 days beforehand going from 5pm-9am days to 10am-2am (shorter days) so i could do the 6am shifts (also cos i had a 9am hosp appointment this morning so needed to adjust for that), and then had hardware trouble the day before. I cant say i was too impressed with how the weekend unfolded on the whole
I also dont think we can rely on the dev's to implement something that works, let alone in time for any of the remaining races. They've already 'fixed' the balance issues, lets not encourage anything else ey
anyway, some of that is on-topic...
Baggy, as far as i know, and as stupid as it sounds, the 'estimate' is the only concrete value, the only fixed value they give (45%) is really the estimate, its particularly stupidly put but thats how it works. The estimate is fixed, the fixed is an estimate.
The rule is 45%, but to clarify that so you can have a black & white line as to when you must stop driving, they give you a lap total, the drivers percentage changes each lap so you cant know for sure by percentage alone, but the laps is a certainty.
The rule is 45%, but to clarify that so you can have a black & white line as to when you must stop driving, they give you a lap total, the drivers percentage changes each lap so you cant know for sure by percentage alone, but the laps is a certainty.
Day change for UK/EU folk, i'd say a fairly confident nil.
If you move it forward a day then in Aus they'd be racing early hours on a Monday morning, and obviously going back a day puts the America's & Europe in Friday which isnt going to work either.
I dont think it'd be possible to move the race day for a series such as this to any other day because of the timezone issues, and the proposed start times are pretty much the times you start & finish work.
If you move it forward a day then in Aus they'd be racing early hours on a Monday morning, and obviously going back a day puts the America's & Europe in Friday which isnt going to work either.
I dont think it'd be possible to move the race day for a series such as this to any other day because of the timezone issues, and the proposed start times are pretty much the times you start & finish work.
Tweak, Arrow has been on holiday since New Year, was either the a couple of days before or after, so while there has been a little bit of discussion, we cant come to any form of conclusion without Arrow being a part of things.
As for the MoE clash, its been pointed out and is only a proposed calander, ive said somewhere in here it'll almost certainly be moved forward/backward a week to get the best result for everyone concerned. Theres still 6 weeks till the first proposed date, there isnt any real deadline that its being rushed to meet and so far all thats been asked is for confirmation of interest in taking part in the series with the rough structure thats been given for it, finalising all the details will come soon enough.
As for the MoE clash, its been pointed out and is only a proposed calander, ive said somewhere in here it'll almost certainly be moved forward/backward a week to get the best result for everyone concerned. Theres still 6 weeks till the first proposed date, there isnt any real deadline that its being rushed to meet and so far all thats been asked is for confirmation of interest in taking part in the series with the rough structure thats been given for it, finalising all the details will come soon enough.
Im just saying what im seeing.
If it wasnt intentional, then fair enough, but the excuse Appie gave for my question, was simply that other cars were around. When i suggested maybe he could have braked for the corner or not been so quick, Appies reply was simply that he had the throttle down, so that invalidated my suggestion of braking!?
I said what i posted to Appie, he didnt suggest anything like the above, he simply used other cars on the track as justification for it.
As i say, if its not intentional, then fair enough, leave it, but it certainly didnt look quite so innocent from what i saw, and the replay kinda shows there wasnt much attempt to slow for the corner either really, but w/e.
If it wasnt intentional, then fair enough, but the excuse Appie gave for my question, was simply that other cars were around. When i suggested maybe he could have braked for the corner or not been so quick, Appies reply was simply that he had the throttle down, so that invalidated my suggestion of braking!?
I said what i posted to Appie, he didnt suggest anything like the above, he simply used other cars on the track as justification for it.
As i say, if its not intentional, then fair enough, leave it, but it certainly didnt look quite so innocent from what i saw, and the replay kinda shows there wasnt much attempt to slow for the corner either really, but w/e.
#04 Intentionally cutting chicane & not controlling a damaged car, lap 173
Flat tyre and no fuel, rather than slow down for the chicane and not be able to reach the pitlane, decided it best to disregard other peoples safety and plough straight through the chicane graveltrap at the end of the lap. Not having the fuel to make it to the pitlane shouldnt be an acceptable reason to drive straight through a chicane, nor is using surrounding cars as an excuse, If you cant slow down safely enough, maybe you shouldnt be going so fast in the first place?? If your not in control of your car, damaged or otherwise, and you brake a rule, why isnt that your own fault?
Should have been dealt with automatically IMO, but Appie said bring it up here.
Replay being uploaded atm
http://w14.easy-share.com/15454531.html
Flat tyre and no fuel, rather than slow down for the chicane and not be able to reach the pitlane, decided it best to disregard other peoples safety and plough straight through the chicane graveltrap at the end of the lap. Not having the fuel to make it to the pitlane shouldnt be an acceptable reason to drive straight through a chicane, nor is using surrounding cars as an excuse, If you cant slow down safely enough, maybe you shouldnt be going so fast in the first place?? If your not in control of your car, damaged or otherwise, and you brake a rule, why isnt that your own fault?
Should have been dealt with automatically IMO, but Appie said bring it up here.
Replay being uploaded atm
http://w14.easy-share.com/15454531.html
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
Reason : replay added
nowt special, but the hi-res skins eitherway, GT1 & GT2
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
Haven't i just pointed out that the series format is still very much in discussion?
The whole thing (short of it being nations vs nations) is still not set in stone, its a big soft ball of putty and once Arrow is back things will become a little clearer shortly after.
I doubt there will be 2 start times, mainly because it'd be confusing having it change every other race and also because the 'piggy in the middle' continent will get shafted with something along the lines of 3am & 3pm so the continents eitherside can have 10am & 10pm each, and if its 10&20 UTC then piggy is North America, and typically they always will be as the shortest timeline is AUS -> NA -> EU, so for the time being at least, i dont think anyone should worry too much about whats said, think of it as the series concept, the final version might be altered in a few places.
The whole thing (short of it being nations vs nations) is still not set in stone, its a big soft ball of putty and once Arrow is back things will become a little clearer shortly after.
I doubt there will be 2 start times, mainly because it'd be confusing having it change every other race and also because the 'piggy in the middle' continent will get shafted with something along the lines of 3am & 3pm so the continents eitherside can have 10am & 10pm each, and if its 10&20 UTC then piggy is North America, and typically they always will be as the shortest timeline is AUS -> NA -> EU, so for the time being at least, i dont think anyone should worry too much about whats said, think of it as the series concept, the final version might be altered in a few places.
3J:
Ive never said it should be exclusive to any car, i think the punishment is far to harsh for everyone really. If nobody could get out of gravel, or everyone could, then i'd have no problem with it, however the fact that we've spent 2 weeks talking about making the cars equal, yet now they're capable of similar laptimes the XRR stands to lose an unrecoverable amount of time because of something that cannot be balanced, its a series rule that takes it from being bad luck (losing whatever you've done that lap upto getting stuck) and makes it a real kick in the teeth, but its only a kick in the teeth really to the XRR because its the only one likely to have this issue.
The number of times it happens, whether its 0 or 10 isnt that relevent, if it never happens then thats perfect, but if it happens once you stand to lose about 4min on every other team in the class. But as i say, thats limited to one car, and whether its the drivers fault or not, the cars are equal on performance, but the FXR can screw up every lap and not worry, the XRR only needs to do it once and it could lose 3-5min. You'll see it in the end results, and i'll guarantee there will be 'inferior' teams who gain a couple of places purely off the back of this.
Not because they've made less mistakes, not because they're faster, but because they dont have this issue to worry about.
It may be just 1 race, however its worth twice as much as all the others, and at 24hrs in length the odds are people are going to end up in those gravel traps and FXR's like yours are going to start being given free laps over rival teams.
I can just see it ruining many teams races because of a problem that affects 1 car, and whereas before we'd get it back because its the faster car, now its pretty much impossible, Considering were talking about the XRR being 0.2-0.5sec faster per lap, thats going to take about 400 laps, in a race which will be 490-500 laps in total.
1 mistake, over 18hrs to recover from it. Is that fair, when the FXR doesnt have this issue.
Ive never said it should be exclusive to any car, i think the punishment is far to harsh for everyone really. If nobody could get out of gravel, or everyone could, then i'd have no problem with it, however the fact that we've spent 2 weeks talking about making the cars equal, yet now they're capable of similar laptimes the XRR stands to lose an unrecoverable amount of time because of something that cannot be balanced, its a series rule that takes it from being bad luck (losing whatever you've done that lap upto getting stuck) and makes it a real kick in the teeth, but its only a kick in the teeth really to the XRR because its the only one likely to have this issue.
The number of times it happens, whether its 0 or 10 isnt that relevent, if it never happens then thats perfect, but if it happens once you stand to lose about 4min on every other team in the class. But as i say, thats limited to one car, and whether its the drivers fault or not, the cars are equal on performance, but the FXR can screw up every lap and not worry, the XRR only needs to do it once and it could lose 3-5min. You'll see it in the end results, and i'll guarantee there will be 'inferior' teams who gain a couple of places purely off the back of this.
Not because they've made less mistakes, not because they're faster, but because they dont have this issue to worry about.
It may be just 1 race, however its worth twice as much as all the others, and at 24hrs in length the odds are people are going to end up in those gravel traps and FXR's like yours are going to start being given free laps over rival teams.
I can just see it ruining many teams races because of a problem that affects 1 car, and whereas before we'd get it back because its the faster car, now its pretty much impossible, Considering were talking about the XRR being 0.2-0.5sec faster per lap, thats going to take about 400 laps, in a race which will be 490-500 laps in total.
1 mistake, over 18hrs to recover from it. Is that fair, when the FXR doesnt have this issue.
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
For those that cant be bothered reading, dont, and i dont care to know, nor does anyone else. Those that do read, have a stiff drink handy
To quickly answer your point...
Dave has gone at least 0.5sec faster, and while carrying race fuel. While you've gone 0.5s slower on qualifying fuel and qual setup.
Those are FACTS. You appear to be talking about 1-2 lap qualifying runs and suggesting theres an injustice going on with something, i havent quite seen a point to what your highlighting, im pretty sure your not bragging. Its a 24 hour race and will be based on 490-500 laps, and in that time i give you my assurances, we wont be doing 1-2 flying laps and then pitting and going at it all over again. So as usual, i dont see what the point is of highlighting 1 lap qual times brings to a discussion about Shift+P penalties. Qualifying means jack, at South City we started 4th i think, the lights went green at the pit entrance and we were leading by a good car length before we'd even got to the start finish line. It means very very little in terms of race pace, or in terms of its importance in a 1hr race let alone 24hrs.
Also, i never said or implied my opinion is worth more than anyone elses, however its my opinion, and im entitled to my own, and my opinion partly differed from DWB's, no more, no less.
regarding the 'bullshit' unbalancing debate...
Im not saying the cars need the balancing re-assessing, heres an overview of the 2 cars as they are now, im pretty sure it includes most things.
The cars produce similar laptimes.
They use the same gearbox.
They use the same engine.
They have a similar fuel usage.
The FXR is easier to drive cleanly.
The XRR is harder to drive cleanly.
The top speeds are almost identical (FXR actually 1mph faster)
The FXR is slightly better on acceleration (AWD)
The FXR uses R3s and goes 4-5 laps further because of it.
The XRR uses R2s and does 4-5 less laps.
The FXR drives out if stuck in gravel, loses 10-15sec.
The XRR gets stuck in gravel, loses time spent on current lap, has to start at S/F pitlane, and gets -1 lap penalty.
Most things are balanced nicely, however you cannot deny that there is no other issue out there which you could use to say the XRR has an major or minor advantage because of X & Y. However the biggest disadvantage the XRR has is that if it gets stuck in gravel, it cant drive out, while the FXR can. Because of that, it means if you make a mistake it goes punished by about 10-15sec while you get back on track. The XRR loses a lap and whatever its done on that lap. How can the 2 cars be considered equal while thats considerable problem for 1/2 the GT2 cars.
All i've suggested is that rather than it being -1lap it should be changed to +30sec because even that will cost an XRR anywhere between 50sec and 3min, while the FXR has no issue at all. If nobody gets stuck, nobody 'wins' nobody 'loses', however if someone does get stuck while you could carry on, the rest are effectively out of the race. Is that 'in the best interest of close racing'??
+30sec would have served as a big penalty on top of losing time getting to wherever you crashed. -1lap is a race ruiner, and in a weeks time when you look at the results and see those -1lap's in there, remember they'll be there because because despite the cars being even on the track, off the track they're not even close.
How many places will be 'won' because of this disadvantage? places taken because your previous weakness (lack of speed) is now fixed, while ours is left in there (lose laps if stuck). We're balancing 1 way, not the other, and i feel they're now vulnerable to being 'unbalanced' in an entirely different way.
Its not an issue which applies to both teams like a disconnection, everyone runs that risk. Its an issue which affects 1 car, and its a MoE issued punishment that does the real damage. Its in the interest of fair & close racing, nobody gains anything from it, it stops them losing something, the right to a fair and even race.
If you look at it from a clear headed perspective, teams gaining/losing places because of something 1 car can do that the other car, while everything else is now pretty much equal, how is that fair and entertaining racing?? Its removing a disadvantage, and in no way creates an advantage, only a slightly more even playing field IF the worst comes to the worst. if it doesnt, play on, but if it does, should it be a race ruiner?
If they dont feel its an issue, then so be it, IMO it is an issue, and im entitled to that as much as anyone else is entitled to theres. However everything ive heard from yourself (some T7R members) convinces me either your well aware of this disadvantage and are quite happy to gain places 'undeservedly' (in my view), or hopefully that you dont see the full picture, and thats why its winding me up when im getting comparisons to disconnections and other odd things all drivers could suffer from equally. This isnt equal, if it was equal, you'd get stuck in gravel too, but its something inherent within the car that creates an 'unevenness'.
If you still disagree with it, so be it, thats as good as i can put it and if that doesnt work then you'll have noted from earlier tone im getting tired of feeling like it needs spelling out. But if you dont understand my view after that, or you understand and still disagree, then going on about it wont get anyone anywhere. Thats my view on the subject for entrants and organisers alike, i hope people understand and see my point, but i dont hold much hope as im well aware most just wont bother reading, but nor will i sumerise my opinions into 2 sentences.
To quickly answer your point...
Dave has gone at least 0.5sec faster, and while carrying race fuel. While you've gone 0.5s slower on qualifying fuel and qual setup.
Those are FACTS. You appear to be talking about 1-2 lap qualifying runs and suggesting theres an injustice going on with something, i havent quite seen a point to what your highlighting, im pretty sure your not bragging. Its a 24 hour race and will be based on 490-500 laps, and in that time i give you my assurances, we wont be doing 1-2 flying laps and then pitting and going at it all over again. So as usual, i dont see what the point is of highlighting 1 lap qual times brings to a discussion about Shift+P penalties. Qualifying means jack, at South City we started 4th i think, the lights went green at the pit entrance and we were leading by a good car length before we'd even got to the start finish line. It means very very little in terms of race pace, or in terms of its importance in a 1hr race let alone 24hrs.
Also, i never said or implied my opinion is worth more than anyone elses, however its my opinion, and im entitled to my own, and my opinion partly differed from DWB's, no more, no less.
regarding the 'bullshit' unbalancing debate...
Im not saying the cars need the balancing re-assessing, heres an overview of the 2 cars as they are now, im pretty sure it includes most things.
The cars produce similar laptimes.
They use the same gearbox.
They use the same engine.
They have a similar fuel usage.
The FXR is easier to drive cleanly.
The XRR is harder to drive cleanly.
The top speeds are almost identical (FXR actually 1mph faster)
The FXR is slightly better on acceleration (AWD)
The FXR uses R3s and goes 4-5 laps further because of it.
The XRR uses R2s and does 4-5 less laps.
The FXR drives out if stuck in gravel, loses 10-15sec.
The XRR gets stuck in gravel, loses time spent on current lap, has to start at S/F pitlane, and gets -1 lap penalty.
Most things are balanced nicely, however you cannot deny that there is no other issue out there which you could use to say the XRR has an major or minor advantage because of X & Y. However the biggest disadvantage the XRR has is that if it gets stuck in gravel, it cant drive out, while the FXR can. Because of that, it means if you make a mistake it goes punished by about 10-15sec while you get back on track. The XRR loses a lap and whatever its done on that lap. How can the 2 cars be considered equal while thats considerable problem for 1/2 the GT2 cars.
All i've suggested is that rather than it being -1lap it should be changed to +30sec because even that will cost an XRR anywhere between 50sec and 3min, while the FXR has no issue at all. If nobody gets stuck, nobody 'wins' nobody 'loses', however if someone does get stuck while you could carry on, the rest are effectively out of the race. Is that 'in the best interest of close racing'??
+30sec would have served as a big penalty on top of losing time getting to wherever you crashed. -1lap is a race ruiner, and in a weeks time when you look at the results and see those -1lap's in there, remember they'll be there because because despite the cars being even on the track, off the track they're not even close.
How many places will be 'won' because of this disadvantage? places taken because your previous weakness (lack of speed) is now fixed, while ours is left in there (lose laps if stuck). We're balancing 1 way, not the other, and i feel they're now vulnerable to being 'unbalanced' in an entirely different way.
Its not an issue which applies to both teams like a disconnection, everyone runs that risk. Its an issue which affects 1 car, and its a MoE issued punishment that does the real damage. Its in the interest of fair & close racing, nobody gains anything from it, it stops them losing something, the right to a fair and even race.
If you look at it from a clear headed perspective, teams gaining/losing places because of something 1 car can do that the other car, while everything else is now pretty much equal, how is that fair and entertaining racing?? Its removing a disadvantage, and in no way creates an advantage, only a slightly more even playing field IF the worst comes to the worst. if it doesnt, play on, but if it does, should it be a race ruiner?
If they dont feel its an issue, then so be it, IMO it is an issue, and im entitled to that as much as anyone else is entitled to theres. However everything ive heard from yourself (some T7R members) convinces me either your well aware of this disadvantage and are quite happy to gain places 'undeservedly' (in my view), or hopefully that you dont see the full picture, and thats why its winding me up when im getting comparisons to disconnections and other odd things all drivers could suffer from equally. This isnt equal, if it was equal, you'd get stuck in gravel too, but its something inherent within the car that creates an 'unevenness'.
If you still disagree with it, so be it, thats as good as i can put it and if that doesnt work then you'll have noted from earlier tone im getting tired of feeling like it needs spelling out. But if you dont understand my view after that, or you understand and still disagree, then going on about it wont get anyone anywhere. Thats my view on the subject for entrants and organisers alike, i hope people understand and see my point, but i dont hold much hope as im well aware most just wont bother reading, but nor will i sumerise my opinions into 2 sentences.
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG