My reply to your very last words, which still dont answer any of the points made as per usual.
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=26956
MoE round 4: 24h of Aston
I've seen SparkyDave do faster than that about 5 days ago on full race fuel on lap 13, and about .21 on lap 19, your not even the fastest driver in your team, so why is your lap worthy as a comparison of what its capable of doing??
Bawbag has done a 2:47.9, why dont you compare yourself to him while your at it, afterall thats yet another perfectly fair comparison isnt it?
As i keep saying, you bring up something that isnt even accurate or relevent and ignore the point im making, isnt the first time, and surely wont be the last. At least i have the decency to answer points you make rather than pretend they dont exist and make some bizarre comparison to distract from the original point.
http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=26956
MoE round 4: 24h of Aston
I've seen SparkyDave do faster than that about 5 days ago on full race fuel on lap 13, and about .21 on lap 19, your not even the fastest driver in your team, so why is your lap worthy as a comparison of what its capable of doing??
Bawbag has done a 2:47.9, why dont you compare yourself to him while your at it, afterall thats yet another perfectly fair comparison isnt it?
As i keep saying, you bring up something that isnt even accurate or relevent and ignore the point im making, isnt the first time, and surely wont be the last. At least i have the decency to answer points you make rather than pretend they dont exist and make some bizarre comparison to distract from the original point.
What attitude is that? intentionally denying you've got a huge advantage and always ignoring the questions put to you on your claims because that way you know you've got an unfair advantage?
Fine, 'insults' removed, but its typical that you intentionally deny and come up with BS analogies to ignore the fact that the cars arent equally balanced anymore, they're as unbalanced as they were beforehand except now they're in your favour you've decided to play the ignorance card and pretend its not.
The fact that DWB acknowledges its wrong only confirms *again* what im saying. If they're saying it cant be fixed fairly, then thats their decision to make although i'd completely disagree with it as the 3 examples given yesterday show even with a 30sec penalty instead of -1 lap its still a harsh penalty for something fundamentally wrong with the car, which your car doesnt suffer from.
The 'its the car you picked, deal with it' analogy isnt fair either, all the teams picked the cars they picked based on + and - points, the FXR was considerably slower, but easier to drive, now its just as quick, and considerably easier to drive. The XRR is... unchanged. Their weakness is gone, ours is still there, and all in the name of balancing
Are you serious, you still dont get it??
1) HOW is it an advantage??
*IF* we stuck in gravel, its *DISADVANTAGE* is minimised.
*IF* we dont get stuck, then its equal thanks to the balancing.
This 'advantage' still means we significantly loses out, so how the hell is it gaining something??
If nobody gets stuck, then theres no advantage, all that im suggesting (and DWB has agreed on) is that both cars are near identical, however *IF* someone does get stuck, then its *NOT* identical, and something needs to be done to fix that so that car isnt penalised as heavily.
2) Yes, we knew this when we picked that car, and you knew your car was sh*t slow, so maybe we should all go back to 25% and you should deal with it!?? How about that, you wanted the FXR which was clearly slower, we wanted the harder to drive, but faster XRR, now its the harder to drive, just as quick XRR. When they werent even in speed, the fact that you could fly through gravel just seemed insignificant, but now the 2 cars are near identical, yours is a peice of p*ss to drive, AND cant get stuck in gravel no matter how hard you try, you have a clear advantage IF you get stuck in gravel.
3) 'What more do you want'
I'll tell you what i want, equality!! Correct me if im wrong:
XRR v FXR
Speed - near identical
Ease to drive - Easily favours FXR
Fuel consumption - near identical, minor adv to XRR (0.2%)
Stint length - slightly favours FXR (4-5 laps)
Ability to drive through gravel and not get stuck - Huge advantage to FXR
Are there any other differences between the 2 cars?
So lets asses that, the FXR is just as quick, real easy to drive, doesnt get stuck, goes a notable distrance further in stints, but consumes maybe 0.2% more fuel requiring < 8% more fuel putting in.
Yet again a T7R member nails the debate, what more do XRR drivers want
Someone from T7R, rather than making up crap, tell me how that is now balanced?? We've fixed issues that they've had since the beginning in the interest of closer results & closer racing, why cant it be done for us?? If we get taken out at T1 in the opening lap or any lap for that matter, were -1 lap, is that in the interest of close racing?? About as much as the FXR being >1sec slower!
4) Its an unfair advantage one car has over the other, just like one car being stupidly slow, the other being unfairly quick. If you dont want fair balancing, stick that 2% back on and we'll call it even. Otherwise, you've got the same speed as us, but no downside to driving that car, only positives, whereas ours is harder to drive, could get stuck (costing 3-5min a time) and goes the same speed.
If you cant comment or think without bias, then dont bother commenting at all. I pushed for equal speeds, and you've got that now, you guys now decide you've got an advantage and would rather play thicko's than acknowledge its unfair now.
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
Currently it heavily favours the FXR drivers, they now have a car with near identical performance but cannot get stuck, whereas the XRR drivers are marginally quicker (0.2s pl) and can get stuck.
As for your editted comments, pretty much correct, a whole pit stop is about 45 sec in total depending on the class, however theres 3 faults with your arguement.
1) Theres no gravel at the S/F line, the first location is about 10sec into the lap, you'd be at about 15sec before you'd consider a shift+s, which is 15+30sec, making it longer than a scheduled stop.
2) You dont shift+p to the garage at the S/F line doing 135mph as you go, 35/45sec includes time in, stop, out, and whats lost over a normal flying lap, a +30sec penalty doesnt include getting up to speed.
3) Not only do you lose what you've done, you've got to get back there again. If your 30sec into the track and crash, then you've lost 30sec getting there, then about 40sec getting back to the exact same location.
Best case scenario (the one you list as a 'possible situation')
an XRR gets stuck at T1, shift+p's and loses 15sec messing the lap up, 30sec in penalty, and then about 25sec getting upto speed and back to T1 where you were at the time.
Total time lost, 55sec, BEST case scenario.
Average scenario
an XRR gets stuck at the fast left,right after the long 2nd sector backstraight, it took 1m20 to get there, meaning 1m30 to get back there, and 30sec penalty on top.
Total time lost, 2min.
Worst case scenario
get stuck at the 2nd split, took 2min getting there, so it takes 2:10 getting back there, +30sec penalty.
Total time lost, 2min 40sec.
And your saying +30sec isnt fair?? Saying +1lap (+2m20 more), thats what isnt fair!
GT2 #22 Mercury Racing
rc10racer, Jonathon Pickard, England
norwegianviper, Eivind Larssen, Norway
sidi, Graham Swan, Scotland
biohazard, Sebastian Möckel, Germany
[duck], Scott Andrews, Australia
paulc2k, Paul Chapman, England
rc10racer, Jonathon Pickard, England
norwegianviper, Eivind Larssen, Norway
sidi, Graham Swan, Scotland
biohazard, Sebastian Möckel, Germany
[duck], Scott Andrews, Australia
paulc2k, Paul Chapman, England
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
Reason : its gotta be a clean list, its just copied/pasted - Tweak ;)
And shows your opinions is worthless if you think its fine for 1 car to get a minor 10-15sec penalty while the other gets 3+ minutes.
Keep ya knickers on Niki 
i'll get it added in a minute, though im sure i added it because i've mentioned it elsewhere.
Infact, it has, so has Sweden, except its done in the correct location (Entries thread).
Regarding the format, its still being discussed, not much has been said partly because Arrow is away at the moment, but we are definately going to look into ways to ensure the title isnt decided by 1 driver. The idea is to find the fastest racing nation, and with that we want the nation to be involved, not 1 or 2 people from it, so whether there is a limit on the number of times anyone 1 driver can take part, or saying at least X different drivers must be used, or something completely different, we dont know yet, but suffice to say we'll be trying to ensure as many people get to compete as possible because its no fun turning up every week to try and win a spot in the actual race if you know you have no chance of beating a driver, so the strength, depth & commitment of each nation will be important as to whether they're accepted in.
i'll get it added in a minute, though im sure i added it because i've mentioned it elsewhere.
Infact, it has, so has Sweden, except its done in the correct location (Entries thread).
Regarding the format, its still being discussed, not much has been said partly because Arrow is away at the moment, but we are definately going to look into ways to ensure the title isnt decided by 1 driver. The idea is to find the fastest racing nation, and with that we want the nation to be involved, not 1 or 2 people from it, so whether there is a limit on the number of times anyone 1 driver can take part, or saying at least X different drivers must be used, or something completely different, we dont know yet, but suffice to say we'll be trying to ensure as many people get to compete as possible because its no fun turning up every week to try and win a spot in the actual race if you know you have no chance of beating a driver, so the strength, depth & commitment of each nation will be important as to whether they're accepted in.
Yes Appie, i gathered that
and my question was who are the drivers responsible for those ammusing stats? the chuckle brothers?The 2nd paragraph was indeed refering to GT2. They're actually 0.2sec ave-lap slower (spotted a 2:52.16 amongst 2:50.3/4's) which IMO and the most vocal member of T7R's opinion is a little closer than it should be.
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
Provisional, and almost certain to be moved forwards/backwards by at least a week. 
Im sure once an official race calander is announced along with some more information about the structure of the series we'll start doing some group practice sessions. Arrow is currently on holiday, and im guessing he'll be back within the next few days, i didnt get a date he'd be back (sure i asked, but its not there in my msn chatlog).
Things wont kick off until April, best guess being the 8th, so theres a lot of time between now and the start date so i wouldnt worry too much about practicing, we dont have any fixed combos yet so we'd be practicing for the sake of it really, but closer to the start we'll all sort something out.
Things wont kick off until April, best guess being the 8th, so theres a lot of time between now and the start date so i wouldnt worry too much about practicing, we dont have any fixed combos yet so we'd be practicing for the sake of it really, but closer to the start we'll all sort something out.
Who's laps are being used to create the averages and the fastest??
At least with the XRR its coming from the fastest team using it (they better be! :razz
but the FZR only a fraction of the drivers have given results.
Also, on the last line, as i highlighted in post #61, the difference between laps is half what both Mercury & T7R have said seems a reasonable difference to balance them by (0.25 compared to 0.5, see posts #38 & #44).
23.5% would be fine but doesnt exist, which was why i suggested a minor weight change, either on their car or on ours if they used 24%
At least with the XRR its coming from the fastest team using it (they better be! :razz
but the FZR only a fraction of the drivers have given results.Also, on the last line, as i highlighted in post #61, the difference between laps is half what both Mercury & T7R have said seems a reasonable difference to balance them by (0.25 compared to 0.5, see posts #38 & #44).
23.5% would be fine but doesnt exist, which was why i suggested a minor weight change, either on their car or on ours if they used 24%
GT2
Taking sidi's 2nd lap to lap 24 (pit = 23), combining the total and dividing by the number of laps done (23) the average lap was 2:52.113
Doing the same for ThreeJump, 2nd lap to L29 (pit 28), divided by 28 laps gave an average lap of 2:52.364
I know Duck/Bio can go faster, and ive seen Spanky go quicker too, so i think those will be fairly accurate, 1/4sec advantage per lap isnt quite what i was expecting though, and with only 3 (?) days with the new balancing it wouldnt suprise me if they went faster (i suspect we will too, but minimally), infact the same can be said for the FZR cars in GT1 too, they're doing those results with about 3 days of work on the sets and in 7-10 days time they'll almost certainly pull back some time with more suitable setups which should be considered also. Maybe just a tiny amount of weight would get them more inline with what i think both groups would find amicable (0.5s), say 3-6kg?
I thought the turn-out for the test was pretty good, but there were too many retirements and still no true reflection of what the FZR class can do, we've held our own GT2 (4 in total now i think!) and while there hasnt been much in the way of a mixture of teams, IMO we've given a pretty good account of the XRR and T7R are the leading FXR team, and i think things are looking like needing minimal changes.
Taking sidi's 2nd lap to lap 24 (pit = 23), combining the total and dividing by the number of laps done (23) the average lap was 2:52.113
Doing the same for ThreeJump, 2nd lap to L29 (pit 28), divided by 28 laps gave an average lap of 2:52.364
I know Duck/Bio can go faster, and ive seen Spanky go quicker too, so i think those will be fairly accurate, 1/4sec advantage per lap isnt quite what i was expecting though, and with only 3 (?) days with the new balancing it wouldnt suprise me if they went faster (i suspect we will too, but minimally), infact the same can be said for the FZR cars in GT1 too, they're doing those results with about 3 days of work on the sets and in 7-10 days time they'll almost certainly pull back some time with more suitable setups which should be considered also. Maybe just a tiny amount of weight would get them more inline with what i think both groups would find amicable (0.5s), say 3-6kg?
I thought the turn-out for the test was pretty good, but there were too many retirements and still no true reflection of what the FZR class can do, we've held our own GT2 (4 in total now i think!) and while there hasnt been much in the way of a mixture of teams, IMO we've given a pretty good account of the XRR and T7R are the leading FXR team, and i think things are looking like needing minimal changes.
Same here, it gets all the way to the end and then something causes the app to crash before its actually constructed the stat files. I ran it a 2nd time to see if it was a mistake and as a couple of cars had finished i clicked esc wanting the menu and it terminated the replay, however it still wrote the stats for all but the last minute or so, so 3rd time round i just made sure everyone had finished and then quickly quit, and it worked fine.
Of the 2 proper tracks, three times. All at KY3, one in the last corner, one midway round, one at the first corner. Had we had the magic FZR/FXR chassis (they dont both have AWD!) we wouldnt have lost over 4 laps, instead about 20-40sec tops.
We were about 4 laps down on the lead at the end, and it wouldnt suprise me that not only would we have finished on the podium, but i'd bet a couple of FXR's had a play in the sandpits and carried on regardless while finishing ahead of us.
I dont think there was an incident at WE1 though.
As for 'disconnections' wtf has that got to do with anything?? We're talking about advantages and disadvantages with the cars, Yours is damn slow, so we fixed that, but you wont acknowledge the amazing ability for all other GTRs to drive in and out of gravel as being an advantage, while the XRR cant.
'nobody forces you...' true, but then you can push knowing full well you have nothing to worry about you'll just drive out without a problem, and who's to say we'd be responsible for ending up in the gravel, whats to stop another team driving aggressive and nudging us in T1 etc, getting a drive-thru while we end up with -1lap? It could be one of the many impatient GT1 cars, even today i saw a couple of dodgy dives and only 1 of those needs to take us off, as it did at Westhill, and we receive a far bigger penalty than the culpret.
Eitherway, you'll have noted i havent asked for you to be given 30% restriction or anything like that, all i've said is maybe a more forgiving penalty for shift+p because really its excessive and unfair that we dont have this magic ability to ignore whats infront of us and drive through it like its grass while your cars clearly do. It'd only marginally help us, and only do that if/when an XRR landed in gravel, and if it isnt next to nothing then it wont be abused to get a free pitstop.
What happened to equality?? You've got yours, thats it now?
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
I didnt think i agreed/disagreed (or mentioned it really) with that point at any stage
What we are agreeing on is that the speed difference/advantage should be there because its easier to make a mistake in the XRR than the FXR.
However, as i see it:
If a very small mistake is made in the XRR then it could cost 0.3-0.5, just like the FXR, however the likelyhood is far greater, which is why its slightly rewarded for that.
If an medium mistake is made, it could lose 1-5sec, just like the FXR, but again it has a higher likelyhood of happening to the harder to drive /'easier to make a mistake in' car.
But if the XRR comes off the track and gets bogged in gravel, its cost is anywhere between 3min and 5m30 (current lap +2:50ish) but if the FXR comes off it can stop for a cuppa and a ciggy break and get back on with things with no more than half the time lost.
The advantages dont cover the disadvantages equally do they, not at 3 - 5.5 min a graveltrap.
True, nobody intends to do anything but consistant perfect laps, but unfortunately theres about 5 people capable of doing that, for us mere mortals its a little different. If your involved in an accident which sticks you in there, one that isnt your own fault, wave bye-bye to 3min? nice.
I think maybe the +1 lap penalty should at least be wavered to something more suitable (+ 1-2min max) just so it cant be abused, but still applies the typical penalty (ave lap is 90-140sec in MoE) purely because if the cars are identical (or as good as) on speed alone, it doesnt consider this which plays a far bigger role than which is easier to drive.
At least in the GT1 class the FZR has a screwed clutch now, which in a fairly backwards logic counters the XRRs ability to get stuck in gravel, theres nothing like that in GT2 though.
I know what your saying, and in general i agree, i'd mentioned to tweak the other day its a bit f**ked up with the FZR and clutch damage, and the fact that its not really fair to make it x% faster than is fair on the *possibility* of it being a problem.
But as i say, thats my biggest concern at the moment, i'd have to tell my drivers not to be fully committed into some corners incase they make a mistake, while the FXR cars only need to worry about hitting something solid, we cant afford to run off at a good 3-4 locations, round Blackwood or Westhill a 2min loss is pretty devastating but maybe recoverable, 3min isnt, you'd struggle to get that back over 12hrs of clean stints assuming you were faster than the FXR too.
As for fuel usage, why shouldnt it be considered? It should as far as im concerned, if it costs you an extra 2sec to add an extra 20% each stint, its not your doing, its an attribute of the car. It should be considered when comparing what it needs to do a stint, although 2sec in a 1h12min stint isnt much, its still an additional cost thrown in there.
Niki, you do realise that races are more than 1 lap with a setup aimed to get as much out of the car in that 1 lap and go no further, right??
haha, i take it back now,
XRR Bawbag 2:38.080
FZR Bawbag 2:37.580
on that basis i agree with what NIKI is implying, 100kg all round
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
Reason : nice one baggy
Its only just finished, and they've been every 6 months pretty much, so i'd say theres quite a while to go before any dates or such appear.
Season #1 was Jan-Apr, season #2 was Sept-Dec, so it probably wont return till around Sept especially when you consider LFS - World Series will be underway in about 2 months time, so that will occupy the time BOTT would run in so they wont overlap (too much to manage).
Season #1 was Jan-Apr, season #2 was Sept-Dec, so it probably wont return till around Sept especially when you consider LFS - World Series will be underway in about 2 months time, so that will occupy the time BOTT would run in so they wont overlap (too much to manage).
GT2 feedback:
We did some GT1 & GT2 runs earlier tonight, and at the end just went into qual to do a few qual laps. Duck managed to do a 48.7 (maybe 2 other high 48s/v.low 49s) in the race around the 20th lap but that was pretty much the peak of the setup (tyre heat mainly i think), but with a qual setup he hit 2:48.3 and tried for 2:47's but failed, however bawbag didnt. The smug git did 2:47.9x with a low psi run, certainly not race pace lap/setup and he'd also done low 2:48s in the FXR earlier on too, i suspect in a similar manner. I know its fastest lap isnt an important aspect, but thought i'd point out the car is certainly capable of laps i wouldnt have expected (same for XRR) and wouldnt have been further than 0.4 appart.
I've still not seen a full FXR stint to know exactly how far they go before pitting, but suspect its still around L27 (26-27), compared to the 23 laps i suspect we'll be aiming to do. 24 laps is too hit 'n' miss, and our faster drivers (Bio & Duck) have fallen at 20-21 a couple of times because they're being overly aggressive, which they cant afford to be on the day.
I think lap for lap, they're now very close, the XRR does start to pull away about 13 laps in once the tyre heat is sensible, from what ive seen of the FXR its almost irrelevently quicker in those opening 13, and it also starts to picks up more pace around the same lap, but definately isnt as quick then. With the extra 3-4 laps to their stints (maybe 2-3 stops less? in 24h) they're probably a little too close considering how easy they are to drive, but a bigger concern to me is the fact that they can hop in & out of gravel without a problem, and losing >3min from shift+p when theres next to no speed advantage on a track certainly not suited to the FXR (1 slow stop-start section vs plenty of sweeping/flowing corners) they're instantly at an advantage the moment they or an XRR goes into the gravel, because they're untroubled by it while were heavily punished. If it wasnt for the gravel trap issue, i'd say they're good to go, but thats a big concern for me as 1 mistake for us (XRR) costs you a lot (pretty much an unrecoverable amount), 1-10 mistakes for them (FXR) costs them relatively nothing in comparison.
I suspect making it 24% will just make them uncompetitive to *race* with (they were almost moving roadblocks at 25%) but im not overly convinced its fair at 23% on the complete scale of things.
I'd be interested to hear T7R's (and other teams) thoughts on this, i know they're quite happy with the new found equality at 23%, but are they level considering all aspects?
We did some GT1 & GT2 runs earlier tonight, and at the end just went into qual to do a few qual laps. Duck managed to do a 48.7 (maybe 2 other high 48s/v.low 49s) in the race around the 20th lap but that was pretty much the peak of the setup (tyre heat mainly i think), but with a qual setup he hit 2:48.3 and tried for 2:47's but failed, however bawbag didnt. The smug git did 2:47.9x with a low psi run, certainly not race pace lap/setup and he'd also done low 2:48s in the FXR earlier on too, i suspect in a similar manner. I know its fastest lap isnt an important aspect, but thought i'd point out the car is certainly capable of laps i wouldnt have expected (same for XRR) and wouldnt have been further than 0.4 appart.
I've still not seen a full FXR stint to know exactly how far they go before pitting, but suspect its still around L27 (26-27), compared to the 23 laps i suspect we'll be aiming to do. 24 laps is too hit 'n' miss, and our faster drivers (Bio & Duck) have fallen at 20-21 a couple of times because they're being overly aggressive, which they cant afford to be on the day.
I think lap for lap, they're now very close, the XRR does start to pull away about 13 laps in once the tyre heat is sensible, from what ive seen of the FXR its almost irrelevently quicker in those opening 13, and it also starts to picks up more pace around the same lap, but definately isnt as quick then. With the extra 3-4 laps to their stints (maybe 2-3 stops less? in 24h) they're probably a little too close considering how easy they are to drive, but a bigger concern to me is the fact that they can hop in & out of gravel without a problem, and losing >3min from shift+p when theres next to no speed advantage on a track certainly not suited to the FXR (1 slow stop-start section vs plenty of sweeping/flowing corners) they're instantly at an advantage the moment they or an XRR goes into the gravel, because they're untroubled by it while were heavily punished. If it wasnt for the gravel trap issue, i'd say they're good to go, but thats a big concern for me as 1 mistake for us (XRR) costs you a lot (pretty much an unrecoverable amount), 1-10 mistakes for them (FXR) costs them relatively nothing in comparison.
I suspect making it 24% will just make them uncompetitive to *race* with (they were almost moving roadblocks at 25%) but im not overly convinced its fair at 23% on the complete scale of things.
I'd be interested to hear T7R's (and other teams) thoughts on this, i know they're quite happy with the new found equality at 23%, but are they level considering all aspects?
n/m
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
Reason : issue resolved.
And equally should be able to come forward with what information you've gained in the interest of keeping things fair and equal.
Was only going to quote the first part, but then caught the last line, can we hold you to that??
I havent seen a post suggesting anything like that till now, but ive not seen anything suggesting the aim through-out testing was to ensure the *cars* were to be balanced as equals, its all been 'MUST be' this and 'has to be' that, listing daily changing distances which the FZR couldnt possibly be any slower than over the XRR.
If rather conveniently the 24hr race is to be the venue where the FZR is unreasonably quicker than the XRR, the Anti-Westhill if you want, whats the Anti-South City & Anti-Double points handout for the XRR? I know theres little point arguing the 2x points on whats become an FZR bias venue, but its something that should be considered in future IMO, i just hope the XRR is at least allowed to capable of competing for a podium place.
Talking of daily changes to what it must be...
NIKI:
Want a 20 lap headstart too? Maybe if you guys dont help even more you could ask for 50 instead.
CP & Vykos: Its not like it wasnt blatently obvious that something was needed, it was anounced about 10 days ago there would be testing for re-balancing, and theres been pretty much sod all information from the FZR drivers as to what its actually capable of acheiving, very few people capable of putting in very good laps have come forward and helped out, i'd assume it isnt because they've all been busy, otherwise what difference does it make when the changes are made to those people if they havent been testing? Instead it seems they figured if they ignored the matter then it'll get forgotten about. Maybe if there was more help getting it balanced when the original discussion came along you'd have been given more notice.
If you want to vent about all this, consider who it was that made the cars like this, it sure as hell wasnt the series organisers, they didnt screw things up. The dev's were the ones that made changes 4 weeks before the race, and around that time everyone was warned we needed to assess the situation before this race. I think if anyones to blame its the people unbalancing it and those refusing to help get it re-balanced so they know what they're driving.
The sooner a suitable balance is found, the better, the XRR guys have certainly been out there helping, but most of the FZR guys have held back, plenty of people could have steped forward and helped speed this process up but that hasnt happened.
For what little its worth, ive said to Jonesy IMO this race shouldnt be going ahead, not with so many unknown factors and so little time before the race, we've reluctantly requested the original rule stating that if a physics altering patch is released teams are allowed to change cars, that would have lost us 3+ weeks of practicing for this race and what we've picked up from 3-4 months of driving the XRR and the FZR teams wouldnt have to change a thing (except what Y has done) but it was rejected because the organisers want to apply restrictions to your cars.
As for Westhill this, Westhill that, have we completely forgotten South City?? Not quite as bad as WE1, but far from level, the FZR did as many stops as the XRR meaning it gains nothing there, but if you look at the season as a whole i find it rather bizarre the FZR folk have the nerve to complaining about ONE track yet stay oddly quiet about the rest.
AS5 wouldnt have been anything like as bias as it currently is in patch X, there would have been an advantage but with the shorter stints it would have been reasonably close, now the FZR unreasonably quick, and unsuprisingly your all very reluctant for it to be corrected. Had the likes of SK had their usual drivers at WE1 they'd have been much closer than they were, their times in eTM end any claims that the XRR was unfairly quick, they're not that different on the track, the FZR had a faster HLVC (i'd bet good money it is now too!), but the pitting differences just edged it.
SO4 the FZR was putting in fastest laps considerably faster than the XRR, but this gets ignored? Did we whine, no.
Personally, disregarding whether they were balanced before the current patch or not, i think that with the 24hr race the cars should be pretty much perfectly balanced for this race, whatever the track it is that gets used, for the simple reason that if the results are worth double then it seems rather unfair that you pretty much screwed in 2 of the 3 cars. Theres always going to be tracks where one car has the advantage over another, but it seems rather unfair to reward them even further with double points, it should be a level playing ground. Im not saying THIS 24hr race should be perfectly balanced but IMO all future ones shouldn't have such a bias towards 1 car, the XRR has ONE track is definately fastest round, the FZR has a couple, and now one which receives double points, its not much of a level playing field is it. You'd all be complaining if it was WE1 getting 2x, but on the other foot its all well and good.
If you want to vent about all this, consider who it was that made the cars like this, it sure as hell wasnt the series organisers, they didnt screw things up. The dev's were the ones that made changes 4 weeks before the race, and around that time everyone was warned we needed to assess the situation before this race. I think if anyones to blame its the people unbalancing it and those refusing to help get it re-balanced so they know what they're driving.
The sooner a suitable balance is found, the better, the XRR guys have certainly been out there helping, but most of the FZR guys have held back, plenty of people could have steped forward and helped speed this process up but that hasnt happened.
For what little its worth, ive said to Jonesy IMO this race shouldnt be going ahead, not with so many unknown factors and so little time before the race, we've reluctantly requested the original rule stating that if a physics altering patch is released teams are allowed to change cars, that would have lost us 3+ weeks of practicing for this race and what we've picked up from 3-4 months of driving the XRR and the FZR teams wouldnt have to change a thing (except what Y has done) but it was rejected because the organisers want to apply restrictions to your cars.
As for Westhill this, Westhill that, have we completely forgotten South City?? Not quite as bad as WE1, but far from level, the FZR did as many stops as the XRR meaning it gains nothing there, but if you look at the season as a whole i find it rather bizarre the FZR folk have the nerve to complaining about ONE track yet stay oddly quiet about the rest.
AS5 wouldnt have been anything like as bias as it currently is in patch X, there would have been an advantage but with the shorter stints it would have been reasonably close, now the FZR unreasonably quick, and unsuprisingly your all very reluctant for it to be corrected. Had the likes of SK had their usual drivers at WE1 they'd have been much closer than they were, their times in eTM end any claims that the XRR was unfairly quick, they're not that different on the track, the FZR had a faster HLVC (i'd bet good money it is now too!), but the pitting differences just edged it.
SO4 the FZR was putting in fastest laps considerably faster than the XRR, but this gets ignored? Did we whine, no.
Personally, disregarding whether they were balanced before the current patch or not, i think that with the 24hr race the cars should be pretty much perfectly balanced for this race, whatever the track it is that gets used, for the simple reason that if the results are worth double then it seems rather unfair that you pretty much screwed in 2 of the 3 cars. Theres always going to be tracks where one car has the advantage over another, but it seems rather unfair to reward them even further with double points, it should be a level playing ground. Im not saying THIS 24hr race should be perfectly balanced but IMO all future ones shouldn't have such a bias towards 1 car, the XRR has ONE track is definately fastest round, the FZR has a couple, and now one which receives double points, its not much of a level playing field is it. You'd all be complaining if it was WE1 getting 2x, but on the other foot its all well and good.
Fair enough, and thank you for replying in a pleasant manner, the earlier post felt like you were just gunning for an arguement.
1) Im more refering to the fact that as with quite a few punishments handed out this season, some get punished for doing exactly the same thing others dont get punished for. If the racing rules are flexable depending on someones mood during the events, now its flexable based on what someone says. I admit i misunderstood their misleading comments, everything seemed to imply they were taking part in this race and as i've said you have to take the information in MoE with a pinch of salt, it cant be said to be trustworthy (not while 'Fushion' have been entered and Fusion have been kicked out :razz. However, based on what your now saying, your telling me my team would receive one of those 3 penalties in future?!?
3III) How can it be a false assumption? A false assumption is assuming TDRT were allowed in the series, right?
Identifying someone that shouldnt have been allowed in, but made it in, isnt a false assumption, not when they were kicked out 1/3 into the race. Unless your saying the checks spotted they werent suitable and were allowed in, then my assumption that they were not identified as being an unsuitable team is 100% spot on. I knew before they raced they were pretty much incompetent, whoever let them in apparently didnt, and their checks didnt find this to be the case either. Therefor i think its only fair to say the checks didnt do their job, 3 unsuitable drivers were on the track during a race, the system at the time allowed those people in, they didnt sneak in through the back door, they were given permission.
4III) As ive said, whatever is used to judge a teams suitability allowed them onto the race track, it ignored that their fastest driver was 5sec slower in qualifying which was an early warning sign, and took 4 incidents (1 clear one which went unpunished) over 115min, thats 30min between each incident, before they were told to withdraw their car.
The invite system is there to allow suitable teams into the series, an unsuitable one made it through, and that to me at least says either the checks werent carried out properly or the checks arent stringent enough to find unsuitable candidates, if it was neither they wouldnt have been there.
4II) Not criticised full stop, but the aspect of you being critical of the fact that i havent checked my facts when i had, but on past experience you just cant trust whats supposed to be accurate, typically it seems ive found one of the few things that might be accurate and decided not to put any trust into its accuracy.
Is insulting your teammates punishable? Just so i know first, it would be worth it though Infact, can i also specify it goes on their car too, not my sexeh orange XRR 
1) Im more refering to the fact that as with quite a few punishments handed out this season, some get punished for doing exactly the same thing others dont get punished for. If the racing rules are flexable depending on someones mood during the events, now its flexable based on what someone says. I admit i misunderstood their misleading comments, everything seemed to imply they were taking part in this race and as i've said you have to take the information in MoE with a pinch of salt, it cant be said to be trustworthy (not while 'Fushion' have been entered and Fusion have been kicked out :razz
. However, based on what your now saying, your telling me my team would receive one of those 3 penalties in future?!? 3III) How can it be a false assumption? A false assumption is assuming TDRT were allowed in the series, right?
Identifying someone that shouldnt have been allowed in, but made it in, isnt a false assumption, not when they were kicked out 1/3 into the race. Unless your saying the checks spotted they werent suitable and were allowed in, then my assumption that they were not identified as being an unsuitable team is 100% spot on. I knew before they raced they were pretty much incompetent, whoever let them in apparently didnt, and their checks didnt find this to be the case either. Therefor i think its only fair to say the checks didnt do their job, 3 unsuitable drivers were on the track during a race, the system at the time allowed those people in, they didnt sneak in through the back door, they were given permission. 4III) As ive said, whatever is used to judge a teams suitability allowed them onto the race track, it ignored that their fastest driver was 5sec slower in qualifying which was an early warning sign, and took 4 incidents (1 clear one which went unpunished) over 115min, thats 30min between each incident, before they were told to withdraw their car.
The invite system is there to allow suitable teams into the series, an unsuitable one made it through, and that to me at least says either the checks werent carried out properly or the checks arent stringent enough to find unsuitable candidates, if it was neither they wouldnt have been there.
4II) Not criticised full stop, but the aspect of you being critical of the fact that i havent checked my facts when i had, but on past experience you just cant trust whats supposed to be accurate, typically it seems ive found one of the few things that might be accurate and decided not to put any trust into its accuracy.
Is insulting your teammates punishable? Just so i know first, it would be worth it though
Infact, can i also specify it goes on their car too, not my sexeh orange XRR I've already had a chat with Tweak, he sneaked onto our TS to discuss the GT2 cars, and I confirmed its without a doubt completely unbalanced (doesnt take a genious to figure that out) and he suggested the FXR might be made a bit quicker (ie 22-24% restriction) which IMO is a good idea, it makes your car much faster because the straight line speed difference really is a joke, that straight in the last sector you can be quite a bit behind and suddenly your into the slipstream and flying past the FXR car which doesnt provide good racing for anyone. At the same time it has a slightly negative effect on the tyres, and hopefully brings it closer to the XRR, meaning the strategies arent all that different, speeds arent that different, and we get entertaining racing from it.
I'd be more than happy if the cars were rebalanced each round to ensure it was always close and entertaining, the one thing i hate is uncompetitive races, you dont want fights with one class and seperate fights within the other, you want everyone in there together, the characteristics of the cars should just be down to personal preference and marginally bias to the hardest to drive or one mostly likely to have problems, not what it currently is so the FXR isnt competitive simply because its easier.
My only concern is i dont feel we have a true representation of what the FXR can do, and without any intended offense, i dont think its fair to make an equally quick car faster because the people driving it arent able to drive it to its limit. I say the exact same thing regarding the GT1 balancing, at the moment its quite disappointing the truely quick GT1 drivers seem reluctant to show what their car can do, making it much harder for anyone to know if its geniunely balanced to the level it was before the patch (or better in the GT1 FXR's case!) and im pretty sure thats what most people want, but its becoming apparent some dont.
As i said to Tweak, the only true way of knowing what the cars are capable of doing, each driving the alternative car, the XRR guys push the FZR as far as they can, fastest stint is considered the benchmark, the FZR guys push the XRR, and thats the 2nd benchmark, neither will sandbag to have a little extra hidden in reserve, and the balance should be far more reliable than going off what people say is 100% when its really 95%.
I'd be willing to give our current setup to an FXR team for them to validate its at its limits if anyone wishes, likewise if anyone wishes to volunteer theres, and anything we find works better we'll hand over, Chris has definately helped us realise we could go quicker by running less laps and a slighly more aggressive setup (ie shorter life), and its meant less of a restriction needed and we're going quicker under our own efforts (own + chris's at least).
Eitherway, provided it turns out equal when we get to the race, thats all that matters. Im all behind making the FXR quicker rather than making the XRR heavier or slower, its already annoying being lapped every 5 sec as it is so hopefully Tweak will give the thumbs up to test with a new restriction so we can find a solution asap and know where we all stand.
I'd be more than happy if the cars were rebalanced each round to ensure it was always close and entertaining, the one thing i hate is uncompetitive races, you dont want fights with one class and seperate fights within the other, you want everyone in there together, the characteristics of the cars should just be down to personal preference and marginally bias to the hardest to drive or one mostly likely to have problems, not what it currently is so the FXR isnt competitive simply because its easier.
My only concern is i dont feel we have a true representation of what the FXR can do, and without any intended offense, i dont think its fair to make an equally quick car faster because the people driving it arent able to drive it to its limit. I say the exact same thing regarding the GT1 balancing, at the moment its quite disappointing the truely quick GT1 drivers seem reluctant to show what their car can do, making it much harder for anyone to know if its geniunely balanced to the level it was before the patch (or better in the GT1 FXR's case!) and im pretty sure thats what most people want, but its becoming apparent some dont.
As i said to Tweak, the only true way of knowing what the cars are capable of doing, each driving the alternative car, the XRR guys push the FZR as far as they can, fastest stint is considered the benchmark, the FZR guys push the XRR, and thats the 2nd benchmark, neither will sandbag to have a little extra hidden in reserve, and the balance should be far more reliable than going off what people say is 100% when its really 95%.
I'd be willing to give our current setup to an FXR team for them to validate its at its limits if anyone wishes, likewise if anyone wishes to volunteer theres, and anything we find works better we'll hand over, Chris has definately helped us realise we could go quicker by running less laps and a slighly more aggressive setup (ie shorter life), and its meant less of a restriction needed and we're going quicker under our own efforts (own + chris's at least).
Eitherway, provided it turns out equal when we get to the race, thats all that matters. Im all behind making the FXR quicker rather than making the XRR heavier or slower, its already annoying being lapped every 5 sec as it is
so hopefully Tweak will give the thumbs up to test with a new restriction so we can find a solution asap and know where we all stand.Holy smokes, DWB tells me to calm down the hysteria, yet it seems to be infectious! Get it all of your chest if you must Appie By 'not the first time you've made an unnecessary fuss' asside from being entirely innacurate in this instance, you forget the times ive made a fuss because of the number of times things have been done wrong but whatever, continue with your hypacriticly punishable rantings, surely that post is worthy of one of those? and thus starts the debate on whats punishable and what isnt.
I'll say it again...
Their comments implied they were taking part by saying their team wanted to know what was going on with the FXR balancing, it never occured to me that their team wasnt an MoE team while posting in an MoE thread, afterall why would anyone make out they needed this information for their team, when it had absolutely nothing to do with them. A few weeks ago it was made very clear that multiple teams would be joining before the 24hr race, and that list contains only one name, which really means very little round here, so for a THIRD time, excuse me for taking their suggestive comments and the lack of information given for coming to that conclusion. Theres a reason my first assumption is that someones made a mistake when it comes to MoE, and thankfully DWB's post corrected my instintive thoughts.
If tweak was on MSN at the time, i'd have double checked with him, he wasnt and as everything seemed to suggest they'd be accepted, i went straight in to make sure they werent allowed in based on the incidents which happened the last time they were somehow accepted into this series, clearly the checks done werent good enough to stop them, and if a team that bad can slip through once, then sadly it doesnt suprise me if they'd be accepted simply under the disguise of another name.
IN THE INTEREST OF GIVING 'motivated feedback to improve MoE':
I had already looked at that thread, i saw 1 new team but was pretty sure i'd seen mention of 2 (SC +1) and 1 place left, but the biggest problem with MoE is that its terribly disorganised.
Seriously, half the stuff on here cant be taken at face value, things that apparently are being done dont get done, a 6 month old website, its the MoE way that everything is a little bit half-arsed, last minute and generally done with little or no organising. I find it unfair that im being criticised not because I didnt check it, but geniunely because i didnt trust it as im sure i'd read of a either 2 new teams or the 2nd being added shortly.
As i've said, theres a reason i automatically assume the worse case scenario in MoE, and that is down to history & dis-organisation. Hopefully with time spent improving this then i'll learn not to doubt the information out there, but with nearly everything there always seems to be something wrong, a simple test session announced 2 weeks in advance, and only 3hrs beforehand does anyone confirm its still on and what time, Round 2's results being given about a week after round 3 has taken place... its always one thing after another, and im pretty sure any other series starting up with this sort of organisation wouldnt stand a chance of getting established, let along getting the credability and acknowledgement MoE has.
Im not the only one to blame for not trusting anything in here as being accurate, its always one silly thing after another, and im not the one responsible for the organisation, so perhaps rather than needlessly criticise someone for acknowledging they got it wrong it could be spent making this series better, more reliable and more organised
I'm going to ignore the personal comments in there, if your genuinely trying to provoke a reaction which is what it looks like, then you'll have to get it over PM (link), especially if your going to start handing out penalties willy-nilly to anyone that has a differing opinion to yours.
I'd seen 2 of their 3 drivers before, and knew what they were like before they took part in MoE, and i didnt for one second see anything suggesting they were suitable, and considering it was driving the same car & class, that isnt really a good sign. I've also since seen them take out one of our cars, and numerous others on seperate incidents, and my post was made in the best intentions of the series and the people within it, but because i mis-understood the situation and had nobody available to confirm/deny my suspicions its basically considered a punishable offense in future.
Im sorry but if everything in MoE was run perfectly, the i could agree that casting doubt on something when there has never been reason to do so before would be one thing, but its kinda like the pot calling the kettle isnt it? A disorganised & frequently inaccurate series demanding everyone else be accurate and not put a foot wrong
You may not like it, but you cant deny the majority of that rant holds true though, considering the rules used to insist the team had LFS GT experience, now its apparent that the bar is so low that a team of DITTO's level can be approved into a series such as MoE, 1 guy was increadably slow and fortunately (imo) disco'd 2-3 times in the opening 5min, the 2nd guy broke a rule inside 10-15sec of joining, ran into a car, and took 2 out in seperate incidents, the 3rd guy rolled, took someone out, and was driving using a keyboard. I just cant understand how they were approved, 6 months ago you pretty much had to beg to get a look in, now its almost as if its all about the numbers. Its great we can have 32 people in there, but i still maintain the comment that there needs to be a far stricter assessment on a teams suitability to compete, i just assumed this was yet another case in example for it.
As for me not knowing how this series is run, well your right, i think we'd all like to know, but i suspect we wont find out till about 10min before we absolutely need to know
By 'not the first time you've made an unnecessary fuss' asside from being entirely innacurate in this instance, you forget the times ive made a fuss because of the number of times things have been done wrong but whatever, continue with your hypacriticly punishable rantings, surely that post is worthy of one of those? and thus starts the debate on whats punishable and what isnt.I'll say it again...
Their comments implied they were taking part by saying their team wanted to know what was going on with the FXR balancing, it never occured to me that their team wasnt an MoE team while posting in an MoE thread, afterall why would anyone make out they needed this information for their team, when it had absolutely nothing to do with them. A few weeks ago it was made very clear that multiple teams would be joining before the 24hr race, and that list contains only one name, which really means very little round here, so for a THIRD time, excuse me for taking their suggestive comments and the lack of information given for coming to that conclusion. Theres a reason my first assumption is that someones made a mistake when it comes to MoE, and thankfully DWB's post corrected my instintive thoughts.
If tweak was on MSN at the time, i'd have double checked with him, he wasnt and as everything seemed to suggest they'd be accepted, i went straight in to make sure they werent allowed in based on the incidents which happened the last time they were somehow accepted into this series, clearly the checks done werent good enough to stop them, and if a team that bad can slip through once, then sadly it doesnt suprise me if they'd be accepted simply under the disguise of another name.
IN THE INTEREST OF GIVING 'motivated feedback to improve MoE':
I had already looked at that thread, i saw 1 new team but was pretty sure i'd seen mention of 2 (SC +1) and 1 place left, but the biggest problem with MoE is that its terribly disorganised.
Seriously, half the stuff on here cant be taken at face value, things that apparently are being done dont get done, a 6 month old website, its the MoE way that everything is a little bit half-arsed, last minute and generally done with little or no organising. I find it unfair that im being criticised not because I didnt check it, but geniunely because i didnt trust it as im sure i'd read of a either 2 new teams or the 2nd being added shortly.
As i've said, theres a reason i automatically assume the worse case scenario in MoE, and that is down to history & dis-organisation. Hopefully with time spent improving this then i'll learn not to doubt the information out there, but with nearly everything there always seems to be something wrong, a simple test session announced 2 weeks in advance, and only 3hrs beforehand does anyone confirm its still on and what time, Round 2's results being given about a week after round 3 has taken place... its always one thing after another, and im pretty sure any other series starting up with this sort of organisation wouldnt stand a chance of getting established, let along getting the credability and acknowledgement MoE has.
Im not the only one to blame for not trusting anything in here as being accurate, its always one silly thing after another, and im not the one responsible for the organisation, so perhaps rather than needlessly criticise someone for acknowledging they got it wrong it could be spent making this series better, more reliable and more organised
I'm going to ignore the personal comments in there, if your genuinely trying to provoke a reaction which is what it looks like, then you'll have to get it over PM (link), especially if your going to start handing out penalties willy-nilly to anyone that has a differing opinion to yours.
I'd seen 2 of their 3 drivers before, and knew what they were like before they took part in MoE, and i didnt for one second see anything suggesting they were suitable, and considering it was driving the same car & class, that isnt really a good sign. I've also since seen them take out one of our cars, and numerous others on seperate incidents, and my post was made in the best intentions of the series and the people within it, but because i mis-understood the situation and had nobody available to confirm/deny my suspicions its basically considered a punishable offense in future.
Im sorry but if everything in MoE was run perfectly, the i could agree that casting doubt on something when there has never been reason to do so before would be one thing, but its kinda like the pot calling the kettle isnt it? A disorganised & frequently inaccurate series demanding everyone else be accurate and not put a foot wrong
You may not like it, but you cant deny the majority of that rant holds true though, considering the rules used to insist the team had LFS GT experience, now its apparent that the bar is so low that a team of DITTO's level can be approved into a series such as MoE, 1 guy was increadably slow and fortunately (imo) disco'd 2-3 times in the opening 5min, the 2nd guy broke a rule inside 10-15sec of joining, ran into a car, and took 2 out in seperate incidents, the 3rd guy rolled, took someone out, and was driving using a keyboard. I just cant understand how they were approved, 6 months ago you pretty much had to beg to get a look in, now its almost as if its all about the numbers. Its great we can have 32 people in there, but i still maintain the comment that there needs to be a far stricter assessment on a teams suitability to compete, i just assumed this was yet another case in example for it.
As for me not knowing how this series is run, well your right, i think we'd all like to know, but i suspect we wont find out till about 10min before we absolutely need to know
Wahhhaaaay
Its a nice change to have pointed out a moment of incompetence that turns out to be a mistake on my part, likewise to get a reply on the matter the same month
Had Tweak been on MSN, i'd have ranted at him about it first, but you only have yourselves to blame
Shame on you tweak 
RIP MoI
Its a nice change to have pointed out a moment of incompetence that turns out to be a mistake on my part, likewise to get a reply on the matter the same month
Had Tweak been on MSN, i'd have ranted at him about it first, but you only have yourselves to blame
Shame on you tweak RIP MoI
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG