Im requesting the invitation to TDRT be revoked before the 24hr race, and perhaps a little more effort be put into who's accepted into this series TWICE rather than just letting any tom dick n harry with a license take part, especially when its the biggest race of the season they're been accepted into.
They raced under a different name (DITTO) in Round 2 at South City, their qualifying saw them 5 sec off the pace of the lead GT2 cars, they had a Keyboard using driver, broke simple rules upon joining the race, took out numerous cars out in the <2hr time they were in the race and were promptly kicked out.
Now they're hidding under a different name and apparently all is forgotten!?
For the love of god, can we please have some proper scrutiny of any team claiming to be worthy of taking part in this series? Letting them in once and having them make a joke of the application process is one thing, letting them in twice now is quite shocking.
They raced under a different name (DITTO) in Round 2 at South City, their qualifying saw them 5 sec off the pace of the lead GT2 cars, they had a Keyboard using driver, broke simple rules upon joining the race, took out numerous cars out in the <2hr time they were in the race and were promptly kicked out.
Now they're hidding under a different name and apparently all is forgotten!?
For the love of god, can we please have some proper scrutiny of any team claiming to be worthy of taking part in this series? Letting them in once and having them make a joke of the application process is one thing, letting them in twice now is quite shocking.
You found an open bar and you sneaked in??
Best of luck to you in the morning
Best of luck to you in the morning
While we were busy 'sandbagging' (as you imply) Chris was using a setup which by his own admittion was cold 2/3 into the stint, his 2nd attempt was still slightly quicker (5sec faster over 24 laps), but still had cold tyres on lap 24 when he finished, so he was certainly being helped by being faster in the bits he did do, but as he never finished a full stint you didnt get to see the drop-off.
Still, from what i gather (I helped Jonesy figure it out) if we can go say 0.2 faster but only manage 28 laps, we'd be slightly better off than going a little slower and going a few laps further, and with some help from Chris it seems judging by the laps bawbag did last night he's improved the average slightly so hopefully we can find a little more from the setup to narrow it down a bit more. But we dont really have anything to compare/balance it against because it seems some people dont want things balanced, seems a bizarre coincidence some teams have decided not to help get involved in balancing these cars, but if thats how they want to do things then fair enough, at least a fair few have some class in them.
Unless someone can say otherwise, im pretty sure the method im using is about as fair & accurate as possible. If you do your normal race stint, pit in, and do a lap or 2 more then stop. Get the laps done in the race, then ignore the first lap done from a standing start, and use the lap after you've pitted.
So thats lap 2-20, the pitstop lap (21) and the outlap (22) and then total that up and divide it by the number of laps you've done.
If you balance the cars so the times are identical (or as near as) then it means if you did 1000 laps, effectively if every stint was ran in the same way those cars would finish at the same time, how pits when and how often doesnt matter because its worked into the average.
If its claimed one car should be faster round a given track, then you just balance the average so they're say 0.4sec different, so after 30 laps in theory they'd be 12sec behind. If anyone that understands the above, can see a fault, then point it out, but pit-stops & their frequency are taken into account fairly, the rest would be down to the admins to decide how close to balance them.
eg
if car A did 6 laps of 1min, and a 1min stop, it totals 7 min to do 6 laps
if car B did 3 laps of 30sec, and a 2min stop, it totals 3min 30 to do 3 laps, 7min to do 6.
total stint time (inc pit) / laps done = racing average
6x 1min = 6min + 1min pit (=7m), divided by 6 = 1min 10sec average
3x 30sec = 1m30 + 2min pit (=3m30) divided by 3 = 1min 10sec average
So no matter how frequently you pit, or how much faster you are, its accurate. All it needs is a fair representation of what the car can do in the form of a full stint with pitstop, the highs and the lows the car goes through during that are then taken into account. Its not what each person can do with it, but what its capable of doing, if your not capable of matching that, thats something for the driver to sort out.
So, anyone see fault in that, or why it shouldnt be used to tell whether or not they're balanced all to the level the admins feel fit??
So thats lap 2-20, the pitstop lap (21) and the outlap (22) and then total that up and divide it by the number of laps you've done.
If you balance the cars so the times are identical (or as near as) then it means if you did 1000 laps, effectively if every stint was ran in the same way those cars would finish at the same time, how pits when and how often doesnt matter because its worked into the average.
If its claimed one car should be faster round a given track, then you just balance the average so they're say 0.4sec different, so after 30 laps in theory they'd be 12sec behind. If anyone that understands the above, can see a fault, then point it out, but pit-stops & their frequency are taken into account fairly, the rest would be down to the admins to decide how close to balance them.
eg
if car A did 6 laps of 1min, and a 1min stop, it totals 7 min to do 6 laps
if car B did 3 laps of 30sec, and a 2min stop, it totals 3min 30 to do 3 laps, 7min to do 6.
total stint time (inc pit) / laps done = racing average
6x 1min = 6min + 1min pit (=7m), divided by 6 = 1min 10sec average
3x 30sec = 1m30 + 2min pit (=3m30) divided by 3 = 1min 10sec average
So no matter how frequently you pit, or how much faster you are, its accurate. All it needs is a fair representation of what the car can do in the form of a full stint with pitstop, the highs and the lows the car goes through during that are then taken into account. Its not what each person can do with it, but what its capable of doing, if your not capable of matching that, thats something for the driver to sort out.
So, anyone see fault in that, or why it shouldnt be used to tell whether or not they're balanced all to the level the admins feel fit??
GT2:
Sidi did 23 laps, with his average lap (inc pit) being 2:51:796 (correction: he didnt re-fuel fully, only to the end, the n00b, +3sec for 60% rather than about 20% = 2:51.919)
Only problem is we havent seen a proper stint from the FXR to know what its average would be.
I suspect our other 2 drivers could get that down to 2:51.6 our intentionally faster drivers tend to wear the tyres pushing it harder, so get less laps out of it, then we have a couple who tend to drive more sensibly and get more laps from the tyres, Sidi seems to be able to do both, just without quite hitting the silly quick laps. So it could be that because they do 2 laps less we lose what they gain by going faster, dunno yet, and despite all the practicing we've done most nights it seems the T7R server has a lower rate of gravety as most of us managed a new PB at some point, i think that was down to a minor change in the set more than anything, still looking (and occasionally finding) the occasional gain from the setup. At least in this session we cant be accused of sandbagging with the number of PB improvements made out there.
3J, the reason i was saying your stint wasnt a fair representation is down to the fact that you didnt complete a full stint, you did 14 laps, spun out, pitting adding something like 70-75% fuel into a car currently holding about 25-35% of fuel and then did 18 laps in a far heavier car than it'd ever be, never driving the car when its at its optimal, so thats why im saying its a joke to just ignore than and add 5sec and it makes things all rosey. You'd be losing tons of time every single lap you did because it'd be far heavier, so how you could consider it fair ive no idea.
Doing that gives you an average lap only 0.15 slower than BBO, and we both know thats not accurate.
Sidi did 23 laps, with his average lap (inc pit) being 2:51:796 (correction: he didnt re-fuel fully, only to the end, the n00b, +3sec for 60% rather than about 20% = 2:51.919)
Only problem is we havent seen a proper stint from the FXR to know what its average would be.
I suspect our other 2 drivers could get that down to 2:51.6 our intentionally faster drivers tend to wear the tyres pushing it harder, so get less laps out of it, then we have a couple who tend to drive more sensibly and get more laps from the tyres, Sidi seems to be able to do both, just without quite hitting the silly quick laps. So it could be that because they do 2 laps less we lose what they gain by going faster, dunno yet, and despite all the practicing we've done most nights it seems the T7R server has a lower rate of gravety as most of us managed a new PB at some point, i think that was down to a minor change in the set more than anything, still looking (and occasionally finding) the occasional gain from the setup. At least in this session we cant be accused of sandbagging with the number of PB improvements made out there.
3J, the reason i was saying your stint wasnt a fair representation is down to the fact that you didnt complete a full stint, you did 14 laps, spun out, pitting adding something like 70-75% fuel into a car currently holding about 25-35% of fuel and then did 18 laps in a far heavier car than it'd ever be, never driving the car when its at its optimal, so thats why im saying its a joke to just ignore than and add 5sec and it makes things all rosey. You'd be losing tons of time every single lap you did because it'd be far heavier, so how you could consider it fair ive no idea.
Doing that gives you an average lap only 0.15 slower than BBO, and we both know thats not accurate.
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
Reason : sidi didnt do full refuel, despite reminder 2 laps before over TS, but he didnt understand why and his mic was fk'd
im currently trying to find your server :P
viper, pecker & myself be on our way, i'll see if the others are around too
viper, pecker & myself be on our way, i'll see if the others are around too
If anyone is interested in reading my calculations for the FZR vs XRR, go ahead, everyone else might as well skip to the next post
I ran some calculations for 24hrs, i certainly wont claim they're perfect, i cant vouch for their accuracy in terms of exact laptimes, but the calculation itself is correct at least and im using what we currently think is what the XRR & FZR would run with.
Assuming:
FZR average = 02:39.3, pitting on L25 for 45sec
That sees the FZR finish at 24h 01.40 on lap 537.
For the XRR to match that, pitting on L31 for 45sec, it needs to do an average lap of 2:39.6 which would see it cross the line at 24h 01.25 on lap 537.
The XRR would do 17 stops + 10 laps, the FZR would do 21 stops + 12 laps, the 0.3 average difference over 537 laps = 2:41.1 and 4x 45sec (pitstop) = 3m:00, giving you a 19sec difference (i guess all the milliseconds x 537 added the extra 4sec)
2:39.628 would give perfect results, so .6 is suitably accurate.
I never clarified with Jonesy if the 45sec included time lost over a flying lap or not, i suspect its entry to exit time, so there may be a little inaccuracy there which modifies things on the extra 4 stops the FZR does, but even if its 10sec its still fairly minor.
- edit - Jonesy says its correct, 2 lap race, one inc pitstop from 5% filling to 100%, the other a straight race, so replicating the in-out process fairly. - /edit -
By my calculations, on our current pace and with everything running faultlessly for everyone, we'd finish 5 laps behind a FZR, or it'd take us a further 15m04 to match the FZR. We're losing ground in the region of 35-40sec every hour that passes, something that certainly wouldnt have been the case a month ago.
We (Jonesy, Baggy & myself) know for a fact we cant even begin to hope for those sort of times, considering we currently suspect the XRR to be around a low-mid 2:41 average, thats one hell of a penalty that would need putting onto the FZR in order for them to run level.
Back in patch X, i think the cars would have been pretty even, lap for lap there was a gap but on strats they'd be pretty close, but certainly not 1.5-2.0 sec difference! Now it seems the FZR must be made slower so the XRR can keep up, and then you still have an unbalanced FXR to deal with, and all of this is still completely up in the air 2 weeks from the biggest race of the season, and 8 days before the first qualifying session.
Anyone notice my new tactic? split 1 post in 2 so it doesnt look like i write so much.
Maybe i should have made it 3-4 posts 
I ran some calculations for 24hrs, i certainly wont claim they're perfect, i cant vouch for their accuracy in terms of exact laptimes, but the calculation itself is correct at least and im using what we currently think is what the XRR & FZR would run with.
Assuming:
FZR average = 02:39.3, pitting on L25 for 45sec
That sees the FZR finish at 24h 01.40 on lap 537.
For the XRR to match that, pitting on L31 for 45sec, it needs to do an average lap of 2:39.6 which would see it cross the line at 24h 01.25 on lap 537.
The XRR would do 17 stops + 10 laps, the FZR would do 21 stops + 12 laps, the 0.3 average difference over 537 laps = 2:41.1 and 4x 45sec (pitstop) = 3m:00, giving you a 19sec difference (i guess all the milliseconds x 537 added the extra 4sec)
2:39.628 would give perfect results, so .6 is suitably accurate.
I never clarified with Jonesy if the 45sec included time lost over a flying lap or not, i suspect its entry to exit time, so there may be a little inaccuracy there which modifies things on the extra 4 stops the FZR does, but even if its 10sec its still fairly minor.
- edit - Jonesy says its correct, 2 lap race, one inc pitstop from 5% filling to 100%, the other a straight race, so replicating the in-out process fairly. - /edit -
By my calculations, on our current pace and with everything running faultlessly for everyone, we'd finish 5 laps behind a FZR, or it'd take us a further 15m04 to match the FZR. We're losing ground in the region of 35-40sec every hour that passes, something that certainly wouldnt have been the case a month ago.
We (Jonesy, Baggy & myself) know for a fact we cant even begin to hope for those sort of times, considering we currently suspect the XRR to be around a low-mid 2:41 average, thats one hell of a penalty that would need putting onto the FZR in order for them to run level.
Back in patch X, i think the cars would have been pretty even, lap for lap there was a gap but on strats they'd be pretty close, but certainly not 1.5-2.0 sec difference! Now it seems the FZR must be made slower so the XRR can keep up, and then you still have an unbalanced FXR to deal with, and all of this is still completely up in the air 2 weeks from the biggest race of the season, and 8 days before the first qualifying session.
Anyone notice my new tactic? split 1 post in 2 so it doesnt look like i write so much.
Maybe i should have made it 3-4 posts
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
Reason : Added update from Mista Jones
Tweak, we've still not received any indication as to whether this Jan 5th (Today) session is still going ahead, and if so, at what time etc
Im hoping to make it, and im sure i can drag a couple others along too (GT1 & GT2), just to make up some of the GT2 'backmarker' crowd for the GT1 aspect too. Start time could end up being a problem if its 17-19UTC (just an early excuse) for 3 of us (all GT2), but hopefully if its before/after we should be there with a decent turnout.
Chris:
I've spent a couple of hours with Jonesy tonight going over roughly how our stints would compare to that of a FZR and the first thing that hits you is that on *current* speed, it seems that the FZR at a respectable pace can do a stint, pit and be right with the XRR car by the time it needs to pit in. If the XRR never needed to pit in, it looks pretty even, but obviously thats not the case and it basically puts it 45-50sec down. It wont have to do as many stops over 24hrs in comparison to the FZR but if they're on level pegging without having done a pitstop its pretty clear how big a gap they are. It is an advantage, but unfortunately almost a drop in the ocean on the scale of things.
IMO theres 2 ways of trying to check the cars are balanced evenly, finding points in the race where the 2 cars would cross paths despite being on different strategies, or the quickest way is finding the cars average laptime taking into account its pit-stop.
If the FZR goes 25 laps and the XRR goes 33 laps then almost perfectly they fall into a 4:3 ratio, every 100th lap the 2 cars would need to pit, getting them equal requires them pitting at near identical times and then once again going their own seperate ways till the next 100th lap when they cross paths again. Currently they're way out due to laptimes, and i think the XRR only manages 31 laps, but its very close.
The average lap method just needs a simple formula:
(Total stint time + pitstop*) / stint length
ie 59min + 1min pit / 20 laps = 3min average
I have FZR = 02:41.080, XRR = 02:42.652 on current guestimations.
(*incl all aspects of time lost due to pitting)
IMO if we can get the true average lap for the 2 cars over a stint pretty close then it should slot together nicely, this makes stint lengths irrelevent, whether you pit every 10 laps or 20, if the average including that stop is equal, they'll race as equals, the only thing you may want to factor in is ease to drive, possiblity of blowing up clutches and ability to go flying in and out of gravel traps without a care in the world, and similar adjustments
Also just want to say thanks to everyone putting in the time & effort to try and make these damn things balanced again since the (1 step forward, 3 steps back) Y patch came and 'balanced'
things.
Im hoping to make it, and im sure i can drag a couple others along too (GT1 & GT2), just to make up some of the GT2 'backmarker' crowd for the GT1 aspect too. Start time could end up being a problem if its 17-19UTC (just an early excuse) for 3 of us (all GT2), but hopefully if its before/after we should be there with a decent turnout.
Chris:
I've spent a couple of hours with Jonesy tonight going over roughly how our stints would compare to that of a FZR and the first thing that hits you is that on *current* speed, it seems that the FZR at a respectable pace can do a stint, pit and be right with the XRR car by the time it needs to pit in. If the XRR never needed to pit in, it looks pretty even, but obviously thats not the case and it basically puts it 45-50sec down. It wont have to do as many stops over 24hrs in comparison to the FZR but if they're on level pegging without having done a pitstop its pretty clear how big a gap they are. It is an advantage, but unfortunately almost a drop in the ocean on the scale of things.
IMO theres 2 ways of trying to check the cars are balanced evenly, finding points in the race where the 2 cars would cross paths despite being on different strategies, or the quickest way is finding the cars average laptime taking into account its pit-stop.
If the FZR goes 25 laps and the XRR goes 33 laps then almost perfectly they fall into a 4:3 ratio, every 100th lap the 2 cars would need to pit, getting them equal requires them pitting at near identical times and then once again going their own seperate ways till the next 100th lap when they cross paths again. Currently they're way out due to laptimes, and i think the XRR only manages 31 laps, but its very close.
The average lap method just needs a simple formula:
(Total stint time + pitstop*) / stint length
ie 59min + 1min pit / 20 laps = 3min average
I have FZR = 02:41.080, XRR = 02:42.652 on current guestimations.
(*incl all aspects of time lost due to pitting)
IMO if we can get the true average lap for the 2 cars over a stint pretty close then it should slot together nicely, this makes stint lengths irrelevent, whether you pit every 10 laps or 20, if the average including that stop is equal, they'll race as equals, the only thing you may want to factor in is ease to drive, possiblity of blowing up clutches and ability to go flying in and out of gravel traps without a care in the world, and similar adjustments
Also just want to say thanks to everyone putting in the time & effort to try and make these damn things balanced again since the (1 step forward, 3 steps back) Y patch came and 'balanced'
things.
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
Well, if we can do 40 laps on R3s but only 20 on R2s, who's to say what we'd do. Theres a far bigger picture to look at that what it can do at its emptiest point when the tyres are at their thinnest. So yes, after playing more with the setup we've got it going over a second faster when its on petrol fumes and tyres that only Mclaren would tell their driver they had plenty left on them, keep going.
It seems were left with 2 options, we run R3s, have slower laptimes but go further into the race, but run laptimes & stints comparable to the FXR (which is using R3s also) although the car handles like crap.
Or
We run R2's, run faster times but need to pit much more frequently, and because some people see nothing more than its fastest laptime people demand the XRR gets penalised with weight/restrictions because of it.
So, does that mean because of some peoples narrow-minded take on things we are forced to run an R3 setup just so that the times are comparable? to keep everyone happy? If you put R2's on im betting your laptimes would be considerably faster too, but then i know you cant do that, because you wont get a decent stint out of the tyres. But you dont hear us complaining that the only reason your slower is because you've got crap tyres on do you.
As Sidi says, theres more than just ONE fast lap at the end of a stint to take into consideration, and to add onto Sidi's list of variables, i'd like to a big one too, who's to say your drivers are equal to ours?? Maybe if we jumped into the FXR we'd hammer your times in that too? What about setups? Maybe we've spent more time finding a setup that works, maybe you havent hit upon a decent one yet, afterall last week we were struggling to do low 2:50's and now were well into the 2:49's, surely you cant be arrogant enough to know you've nailed the setup & track and you've reached your limit and couldnt possibly close the gap down further.
So, with different drivers in different cars, driving setups at an unknown stage of developement, using different tyre compounds, running different fuel/lap stints, and drivers who've put plenty of hours into practicing before & after Y, is it fair to base everything on who's doing what laptimes?
Maybe the other teams in the FXR are putting in considerably faster times than you guys are doing, i know CoRe were doing faster laps than we were when we did a session with them about a week ago, so maybe its not just the cars.
I'd say that every other night since patch Y came out, we've done 2hrs practice on the combo, we'd also done plenty before Y (I spent the time the others were doing Westhill practicing for Aston GP! time partly wasted) so i dont see why our dedication to do well and be the fastest means everyone else should be given an easy ride and have their cars made faster so they can keep up.
Im all for balancing things out, but knowing how much work we've put into preperation for this round (as with all others) and not knowing how much/little others have put into it, then i'll remain sceptical about how things look at face value, and if need be i'll grab one of our non-participating members and ask them to do a stint or 2 with your current setup and see how he gets on with it, should help ensure that the FXR receives a fair balancing against the XRR, afterall we certainly wouldnt ask him to sandbag so he should produce results we cant dispute and nor could you, right?
It seems were left with 2 options, we run R3s, have slower laptimes but go further into the race, but run laptimes & stints comparable to the FXR (which is using R3s also) although the car handles like crap.
Or
We run R2's, run faster times but need to pit much more frequently, and because some people see nothing more than its fastest laptime people demand the XRR gets penalised with weight/restrictions because of it.
So, does that mean because of some peoples narrow-minded take on things we are forced to run an R3 setup just so that the times are comparable? to keep everyone happy? If you put R2's on im betting your laptimes would be considerably faster too, but then i know you cant do that, because you wont get a decent stint out of the tyres. But you dont hear us complaining that the only reason your slower is because you've got crap tyres on do you.
As Sidi says, theres more than just ONE fast lap at the end of a stint to take into consideration, and to add onto Sidi's list of variables, i'd like to a big one too, who's to say your drivers are equal to ours?? Maybe if we jumped into the FXR we'd hammer your times in that too? What about setups? Maybe we've spent more time finding a setup that works, maybe you havent hit upon a decent one yet, afterall last week we were struggling to do low 2:50's and now were well into the 2:49's, surely you cant be arrogant enough to know you've nailed the setup & track and you've reached your limit and couldnt possibly close the gap down further.
So, with different drivers in different cars, driving setups at an unknown stage of developement, using different tyre compounds, running different fuel/lap stints, and drivers who've put plenty of hours into practicing before & after Y, is it fair to base everything on who's doing what laptimes?
Maybe the other teams in the FXR are putting in considerably faster times than you guys are doing, i know CoRe were doing faster laps than we were when we did a session with them about a week ago, so maybe its not just the cars.
I'd say that every other night since patch Y came out, we've done 2hrs practice on the combo, we'd also done plenty before Y (I spent the time the others were doing Westhill practicing for Aston GP! time partly wasted) so i dont see why our dedication to do well and be the fastest means everyone else should be given an easy ride and have their cars made faster so they can keep up.
Im all for balancing things out, but knowing how much work we've put into preperation for this round (as with all others) and not knowing how much/little others have put into it, then i'll remain sceptical about how things look at face value, and if need be i'll grab one of our non-participating members and ask them to do a stint or 2 with your current setup and see how he gets on with it, should help ensure that the FXR receives a fair balancing against the XRR, afterall we certainly wouldnt ask him to sandbag so he should produce results we cant dispute and nor could you, right?
yeah, GT2, the big daddy class 
The XRR has effectively gained 10kg from the patch update, if you consider that the XRR lost 30kg, and the FXR lost 20kg, they're now at the same weight but were originally balanced 10kg different for this class.
Still, with that said, im quite suprised its not over a second a lap slower than the FXR, especially considering its as good as a 3min lap on a track which really doesnt suit the FXR at all its quite suprising its able to do those times.
If theres any balancing being done, wouldnt it make sense to put +20kg and +30kg back onto the cars and that way they're mechanically identical as they were before and they weigh the exact same as before too.
The XRR has effectively gained 10kg from the patch update, if you consider that the XRR lost 30kg, and the FXR lost 20kg, they're now at the same weight but were originally balanced 10kg different for this class.
Still, with that said, im quite suprised its not over a second a lap slower than the FXR, especially considering its as good as a 3min lap on a track which really doesnt suit the FXR at all its quite suprising its able to do those times.
If theres any balancing being done, wouldnt it make sense to put +20kg and +30kg back onto the cars and that way they're mechanically identical as they were before and they weigh the exact same as before too.
If you guys are up for doing this again (and i remember), i'll drag a couple of the others along too, we've done a few 1hr stints before & after the patch and will undoubtably be doing plenty more leading upto the race.
Dunno if you guys have done much in the way of testing & setup building, i know we've done a bit but imo it definately needs more work, was quite happy with the X10 setup too. The FXR also prefers the smaller/slower tracks i guess, theres not many slow corners round AS5 where having the AWD becomes an advantage. Most of the track is done in 4th-6th gear and only 4 corners use 2nd or 3rd, so like SO4 was the worse track for the XRR because it needs a flowing track, i guess AS5 is a track the FXR doesnt like.
Dunno if you guys have done much in the way of testing & setup building, i know we've done a bit but imo it definately needs more work, was quite happy with the X10 setup too. The FXR also prefers the smaller/slower tracks i guess, theres not many slow corners round AS5 where having the AWD becomes an advantage. Most of the track is done in 4th-6th gear and only 4 corners use 2nd or 3rd, so like SO4 was the worse track for the XRR because it needs a flowing track, i guess AS5 is a track the FXR doesnt like.
its already up 
I had to check something with rooble which is why it wasnt done right away, but its been setup for a while now
oops, server details now added
Join2LFS link: LFSWS - England Practice
Theres no real schedule to know what to set the server to though, might be a little premature to set servers up but its there to practice in if people wish to and when more details are known about the race schedule we can organise practice sessions etc.
I had to check something with rooble which is why it wasnt done right away, but its been setup for a while now
oops, server details now added
Join2LFS link: LFSWS - England Practice
Theres no real schedule to know what to set the server to though, might be a little premature to set servers up but its there to practice in if people wish to and when more details are known about the race schedule we can organise practice sessions etc.
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
Reason : added server info
bugger, just realised today would be sunday, and 20:00 would be 93min ago 
It would have been about 90min ago but ended up getting something to eat while updating the initial post.
I should be able to sort out a practice server without too much trouble.
i'll post once its sorted out, i'll try and get it setup myself but might need to pester rooble as per usual.
i'll post once its sorted out, i'll try and get it setup myself but might need to pester rooble as per usual.
I cant say with any certainty whether or not the XRR needs R3s or if it can manage R2's for a worthwhile distance, so i dont know how it'd compare. The FXR its already been said that definately needs harder tyres on the front, whether thats R3/R2 or R4/R3 i dont know. But from the bit of testing ive done with the GT2 XRR the tyres dont go too far, they're staying much more consistant but the R2's seem to be more of a sprint distance tyre than endurance, so it could be that R3 will become the endurance drivers choice of tyre, which IMO it always should have been, the R2s should be designed for short races, R3s for medium length, and R4s for extreme distances.
Dark Elite:
Im not sure those comments come from any official statement, personally they sound like an opinion, just like me saying R2s are for sprint races, R3s for endurance & R4's if your stupid, it sounds like their take on the situation rather than intentionally making the car so slow its uncompetitive beyond a doubt.
Whether the WIKI info is accurate (to the dev's opinion) or someones personal opinion (pretty much the whole communities opinion probably), IMO there shouldnt be a 'learner' car in any class, if people havent learnt to cope with the bigger cars, then they have the baby GTRs till then, theres no logic in intentionally making a crap car so people can learn to drive the other 2 properly, so for that reason i dont really buy into it being intentionally uncompetitive.
Creating the FOX as a simplified & tamed FO8 i can understand as they're considerably different to what was offered before S2, just as the XFR & UFR or TBOs ease people into FZ5/RAC or GTR cars, but making a signficiantly slower car within a class is backwards, a class should be designed to be different but reasonably equal.
The RB4 isnt the sacrificial car for the TBO class, why would the FXR be?
Also, considering the GTR cars are what the top level series are using to showcase talent, and i suspect thats the developers intentions for it too, it seems bizarre to have such a weak link in there, granted they're the ones who've made it so weak and dont seem to care about fixing that aspect, but i think everyone would rather have 3 closely matched cars (taking everything into account in the process) than what we have now, which is 2 reasonably matched cars and a n00b car. I dont expect it to be a race winner, but it should at least be competitive rather than it pootling around. Drivers should be required to ask themself a question before picking which car to use, do you play it safe and see if it pays off, or go for broke and run the risk of making that small mistake and losing. Thats not what goes through any drivers mind right now, currently its a case of do you want to come last or race with people.
As i say, i dont know what there is to back up those WIKI comments, if they're fact or just common opinion, but it sounds bonkers and nothing like what *i'd* have thought the developers would have intended, like they've over-compensated for it being easy to drive. If it is their opinion, its laughable, and disregards everything ive seen them do in almost 5 years of playing LFS. Its an unloved, unwanted & unbalanced car and its sitting in the main class pretty much going to waste.
Is that as well as the 30th, or instead of? cant tell by 'a test race' rather than 'the test race' but im guessing its instead of
The FZR is about 1.5sec a lap faster round AS6, roughly, and being generous too i think.
If the extra pit-stop time is +60sec (fairly reasonable for 4 tyres & full juice-up at most tracks) then the FZR can make that up entirely within 40 laps. So unless the race is between 37 & 40 laps, the FXR must pit, and its pretty much undebatable from that point onwards.
Lap 27 - FZR has a 40sec lead, just before pit #1 (+60)
Lap 28 - FXR is now 18.5 sec ahead
Lap 37 - FXR has a 5sec lead, just before pit #1 (+50, less fuel)
Lap 38 - FZR now leads by 46.5sec
Lap 54 - FZR now leads by 1:10.5 before pit #2 (+60)
Lap 55 - FZR still leads, despite extra pitstop, by 12 sec.
So, if thats correct (it's certainly going to be pretty close), it suggests the FXR doesnt have a hope in hell of beating a FZR unless the race ends moments after the FZR needs to pit. So if it cant beat it over 40 laps, how the hell can anyone expect it to provide competitive racing in shorted length races?? Its just crazy.
Infact, im comparing qualifing type laps, what the FZR & FXR *can* do, ignoring the fact that to get to 37 laps the FXR needs to bolt on harder tyres making it only slower. I've also be generous with the 10sec difference for the comparatively insignificant difference in fuel loading times (2-3sec max), but still the is shown to be a useless option for people wanting to be competitive. If you dont care about being competitive, fair enough, but it seems most people do care but cos they're not bothered about driving it they're not fussed, 'sod em'.
Repeating my previous comments on Fuel economy and its worth as a negative point for the FZR....
Fuel consumption is pretty much an false & misleading statistic, the cars kill they're tyres sooner than they burn through a tank of fuel, so while its more thirsty it currently isnt a limiting factor. So fuel doesnt play a role in strategy, the only thing it effects is car weight and refueling time.
The capacity of all the GTRs is 100 Litres so the weight is the same no mater what car they're in, 1% is an identical measure in the class.
In Patch X:
The FXR/XRR needed about 55-60% to go the distance the R2's allow, thats 57.5 litres.
The FZR needs 70% for the same distance, ignoring whether the tyres can take it that far (probably close, but just short). The weight of 10-15% extra fuel might help the XRR keep up, but the FXR might as well not bother, its a tiny drop in the ocean.
If the R3's werent so slow then maybe they'd be an option, but you lose far more time wearing them than you actually gain by carrying a full tank (also slowing you down slightly)
Unless Y has serious changes where the R3s make a frequent appearance for endurance racing, and the FXR & FZR can utilise the empty 40-45% space in the tank, while the FZR only has 30% in there, then things wont have changed all that much.
I think it'll take a while before things truely settle down after the updates, but you can bet you backside its as unbalanced as ever.
If the extra pit-stop time is +60sec (fairly reasonable for 4 tyres & full juice-up at most tracks) then the FZR can make that up entirely within 40 laps. So unless the race is between 37 & 40 laps, the FXR must pit, and its pretty much undebatable from that point onwards.
Lap 27 - FZR has a 40sec lead, just before pit #1 (+60)
Lap 28 - FXR is now 18.5 sec ahead
Lap 37 - FXR has a 5sec lead, just before pit #1 (+50, less fuel)
Lap 38 - FZR now leads by 46.5sec
Lap 54 - FZR now leads by 1:10.5 before pit #2 (+60)
Lap 55 - FZR still leads, despite extra pitstop, by 12 sec.
So, if thats correct (it's certainly going to be pretty close), it suggests the FXR doesnt have a hope in hell of beating a FZR unless the race ends moments after the FZR needs to pit. So if it cant beat it over 40 laps, how the hell can anyone expect it to provide competitive racing in shorted length races?? Its just crazy.
Infact, im comparing qualifing type laps, what the FZR & FXR *can* do, ignoring the fact that to get to 37 laps the FXR needs to bolt on harder tyres making it only slower. I've also be generous with the 10sec difference for the comparatively insignificant difference in fuel loading times (2-3sec max), but still the is shown to be a useless option for people wanting to be competitive. If you dont care about being competitive, fair enough, but it seems most people do care but cos they're not bothered about driving it they're not fussed, 'sod em'.
Repeating my previous comments on Fuel economy and its worth as a negative point for the FZR....
Fuel consumption is pretty much an false & misleading statistic, the cars kill they're tyres sooner than they burn through a tank of fuel, so while its more thirsty it currently isnt a limiting factor. So fuel doesnt play a role in strategy, the only thing it effects is car weight and refueling time.
The capacity of all the GTRs is 100 Litres so the weight is the same no mater what car they're in, 1% is an identical measure in the class.
In Patch X:
The FXR/XRR needed about 55-60% to go the distance the R2's allow, thats 57.5 litres.
The FZR needs 70% for the same distance, ignoring whether the tyres can take it that far (probably close, but just short). The weight of 10-15% extra fuel might help the XRR keep up, but the FXR might as well not bother, its a tiny drop in the ocean.
If the R3's werent so slow then maybe they'd be an option, but you lose far more time wearing them than you actually gain by carrying a full tank (also slowing you down slightly)
Unless Y has serious changes where the R3s make a frequent appearance for endurance racing, and the FXR & FZR can utilise the empty 40-45% space in the tank, while the FZR only has 30% in there, then things wont have changed all that much.
I think it'll take a while before things truely settle down after the updates, but you can bet you backside its as unbalanced as ever.
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
Certainly makes more sense for the test race to be held on AS5, it should help a little with the numbers, at least those who show up get a bit of benefit from it by coming away with a little extra knowledge of the car round there after (at least) a full stint, rather than going somewhere random. Its also a nice length track with a good mixture of corners out there, so i dont see why it wouldnt be a strong candidate for any testing, whether its the next round or not.
Part of the reason they're 'identical' in their stats is probably down to the fact that the class would be based on a series set of rules, they'd have tight restrictions on every important aspect of the cars design. The other classes of cars are meant to be say a collection of road car which happen to be evenly matched but arent intended to be closely matched in construction. The race cars are basically designed around the rules of a ficticious series, they'll have a limits they'd have to fit into, and thats done to keep the cars evenly matched while the build & spec of the car is done by the individual teams rather than a fixed car (F1 compared to A1GP, or WTCC to Clio cup).
Thats my take on it at least, its obviously not pure co-incidence they're near identical on power/weight stats, so it makes sense to assume they'd be ficticious regulations placed on their class.
Has anyone done a reasonable number of laps in the FZR yet, say 30min straight run or longer? I'll admit i havent, however the car makes a horrendous noise now, maybe its purely the gearbox, but it instantly reminded me of the popcorn days when the engine is on its way out, a noise ive not heard (or dont recall hearing) since S1 came along.
Now, with an important 24hr race coming up in... 3wks, the last thing i wanna see is half the field drop out, and i say that as someone driving an XRR, so im hoping thats just the crappy noise everyone has to put up with, i think that alone should help an XRR win personally, wouldnt wanna listern to that for ~6hrs thats for sure! Its definately not n00bish gearshifting, but i can definately hear it popping away like a mofo.
R.Kolz:
Couldnt agree more on the fact that the cars should be balanced for sprint racing, i remember hearing all the chatter YEARS back about how the various cars were being balanced, how big testing sessions between the devs & testers were being held in endurance races, and wondering WTF they're doing that for. I *love* endurance racing, but i'd wager that maybe 1 in 10,000 races last longer than 60min, and thats how these cars are supposedly being balanced. We're on attempt #3 with the GTR's, still looking completely hopeless, the TBO's a bit better, and i really wonder what goes on in these tests.
For my estimated 1:10,000th race, let the organisers balance the cars as they see fit, in MoE they've been self-balancing for years, awarding different cars a different set of points to try and even things out. So clearly it doesnt work for Endurance racing all that great to begin with. Now their characteristics can be modified manually it should be left to the organisers to enforce their own rules on what is fair, while the other 9,999:10,000 races are ran over 5 laps where the cars are equally quick round a track straight out of the box, sod the fact that one car sucks a tiny bit more fuel over an hour, it makes no difference when the typical race is over within 15min, so 'balanced' it isnt, and thats why nobody in their right mind drives the FXR or XRR in a random server if they actually care about where they finish.
Personally, i couldnt care less about public racing, havent joined a random server for months, possibly over a year (certainly feels like it), they dont interest me a jot, but im not ignorant enough to think they're not where a considerable majority of people spend their time and blissfully ignore it. I'd prefer they were perfectly equal over a few hours, but just like i'd suggest its tough for drifters wanting things perfect for them, they're in the minority and just a small aspect of LFS's community and why its popular. Still, i'd settle for them being balanced any way possible, it'd make a nice change.
Thats my take on it at least, its obviously not pure co-incidence they're near identical on power/weight stats, so it makes sense to assume they'd be ficticious regulations placed on their class.
Has anyone done a reasonable number of laps in the FZR yet, say 30min straight run or longer? I'll admit i havent, however the car makes a horrendous noise now, maybe its purely the gearbox, but it instantly reminded me of the popcorn days when the engine is on its way out, a noise ive not heard (or dont recall hearing) since S1 came along.
Now, with an important 24hr race coming up in... 3wks, the last thing i wanna see is half the field drop out, and i say that as someone driving an XRR, so im hoping thats just the crappy noise everyone has to put up with, i think that alone should help an XRR win personally, wouldnt wanna listern to that for ~6hrs thats for sure! Its definately not n00bish gearshifting, but i can definately hear it popping away like a mofo.
R.Kolz:
Couldnt agree more on the fact that the cars should be balanced for sprint racing, i remember hearing all the chatter YEARS back about how the various cars were being balanced, how big testing sessions between the devs & testers were being held in endurance races, and wondering WTF they're doing that for. I *love* endurance racing, but i'd wager that maybe 1 in 10,000 races last longer than 60min, and thats how these cars are supposedly being balanced. We're on attempt #3 with the GTR's, still looking completely hopeless, the TBO's a bit better, and i really wonder what goes on in these tests.
For my estimated 1:10,000th race, let the organisers balance the cars as they see fit, in MoE they've been self-balancing for years, awarding different cars a different set of points to try and even things out. So clearly it doesnt work for Endurance racing all that great to begin with. Now their characteristics can be modified manually it should be left to the organisers to enforce their own rules on what is fair, while the other 9,999:10,000 races are ran over 5 laps where the cars are equally quick round a track straight out of the box, sod the fact that one car sucks a tiny bit more fuel over an hour, it makes no difference when the typical race is over within 15min, so 'balanced' it isnt, and thats why nobody in their right mind drives the FXR or XRR in a random server if they actually care about where they finish.
Personally, i couldnt care less about public racing, havent joined a random server for months, possibly over a year (certainly feels like it), they dont interest me a jot, but im not ignorant enough to think they're not where a considerable majority of people spend their time and blissfully ignore it. I'd prefer they were perfectly equal over a few hours, but just like i'd suggest its tough for drifters wanting things perfect for them, they're in the minority and just a small aspect of LFS's community and why its popular. Still, i'd settle for them being balanced any way possible, it'd make a nice change.
LFSWorld Username: PaulC2K
would like to run for the position of nation's manager: can admins/moderators even compete?
Skills: Other
Talents:
Running a team full of moronic loonatics, pretty quick moronic loonatics to be fair.
Being an even bigger moronic loonatic, but a pretty slow moronic loonatic, sadly ive only picked up their bad habbits.
The ability to nick Bagbags & Jonesy's setups.
I do a mean rendition of 'I will survive'. :leb:
I'll drive if things get desperate, its FWD, and its slow
would like to run for the position of nation's manager: can admins/moderators even compete?
Skills: Other
Talents:
Running a team full of moronic loonatics, pretty quick moronic loonatics to be fair.
Being an even bigger moronic loonatic, but a pretty slow moronic loonatic, sadly ive only picked up their bad habbits.
The ability to nick Bagbags & Jonesy's setups.
I do a mean rendition of 'I will survive'. :leb:
I'll drive if things get desperate, its FWD, and its slow
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
Theres roughly a 20hr time difference between Europe, Australia & the Americas, which means it'll have to start at a very early AM for one region, and very late PM for another.
Going from left to right, AM to PM, and including international date/time lines too, these are the 3 options:
Americas -> Europe -> Australia (-8hr to +12 = 20hr spread)
Europe -> Australia - Americas (0 to +12 & -12 to -4 = 20hr spread)
Australia -> Americas -> Europe (+8 to +12 & -12 to +3 = 19hr spread)
Also taking into account that the average event will be ~2hrs long, the window is down to a maximum of 3hrs over 24hrs, so going by the Australia -> Europe method, if Western Australians start racing at 5am then Eastern Europe would be finishing at 2am. Thats the gap were working with.
Incidently, the 1hr time difference between the spread on those 3 timelines comes down to which has the biggest 'empty zone' where nobody in those timezones would be interested, The 3 being the Atlantic ocean, Middle east & Asia, and the Pacific ocean, and thats basically where your 'sleep zone' or 'extreme inconvenience zone' would be, either side of that would be your extremely late or extremely early in the day for those areas, inside them is pretty much unthinkable, but luckily those 3 have zero interest (or near enough).
By my calculations ignoring the middle east/asia region and having Eastern Europe up late and Australia up early, you have the largest 'sleep zone' (smaller means someone goes to bed 1hr later or gets up 1hr earlier).
To be honest theres absolutely no point in people discussing what's good for them, personal opinion wont solve this, it needs to be looked at on a wider angle, and the odd person chipping in with 'XXutc is good' doesnt do that. Even public voting wouldnt work, a time needs to be found which basically takes into account of the various nations, and it suits the largest number of people while not harming a considerable number of people too. Basically, a time thats in the best interest of the competition.
Its going to be impossible to please everyone, it simply cant be done, its the biggest issue in trying to organise an event where people are spread evenly around the world, and the event actively seeks that as its aim.
I've tried keeping it short, but to keep an already long post from being an extremely long post, i failed
The above is the scenario, and im not convinced continued discussion will really create a miricle solution, there surely cant be one for a 'world' series. Hopefully that outlines the problems with the timezones, if people can see a solution then we're all happy to listern, but i think a tough decision needs to be made.
Tweakypie:
6hrs? Its ~2hrs all in all. 20min qual, 50 lap race.
Dukey:
I *think* with the current dates summer time wont come into effect on the earlier rounds, meaning it'd take place between 4-6am in Aus, or 3:30am to get up & ready to go etc. Not exactly sociable hours for them im sure you'll agree. Also, not sure anyone has suggested '11PM UTC' just 11utc, that being am as its a 24hr clock used for UTC, but i dont think many in Europe would find 23UTC suitable thats for sure, certainly not the +3hr Eastern European lot.
Chano:
Groups would work, up until they all met in a 'grand final' type event, and then the same issues come back around again.
3 issues:
Getting those seperated zones back together for a final at a suitable time (hardly any different to the current situation)
Organising each zone, and having an official available to do multiple regions (pretty much double or more of the number of races).
Nations making the final having drivers who were okay with 7pm races but dont want to drive at 3am when all teams race for in a final.
The problem is that its spread over an approx 20hr time difference, whether you deal with it from the offset or at a later stage, the problem is always there, it has to be dealt with somehow.
Going from left to right, AM to PM, and including international date/time lines too, these are the 3 options:
Americas -> Europe -> Australia (-8hr to +12 = 20hr spread)
Europe -> Australia - Americas (0 to +12 & -12 to -4 = 20hr spread)
Australia -> Americas -> Europe (+8 to +12 & -12 to +3 = 19hr spread)
Also taking into account that the average event will be ~2hrs long, the window is down to a maximum of 3hrs over 24hrs, so going by the Australia -> Europe method, if Western Australians start racing at 5am then Eastern Europe would be finishing at 2am. Thats the gap were working with.
Incidently, the 1hr time difference between the spread on those 3 timelines comes down to which has the biggest 'empty zone' where nobody in those timezones would be interested, The 3 being the Atlantic ocean, Middle east & Asia, and the Pacific ocean, and thats basically where your 'sleep zone' or 'extreme inconvenience zone' would be, either side of that would be your extremely late or extremely early in the day for those areas, inside them is pretty much unthinkable, but luckily those 3 have zero interest (or near enough).
By my calculations ignoring the middle east/asia region and having Eastern Europe up late and Australia up early, you have the largest 'sleep zone' (smaller means someone goes to bed 1hr later or gets up 1hr earlier).
To be honest theres absolutely no point in people discussing what's good for them, personal opinion wont solve this, it needs to be looked at on a wider angle, and the odd person chipping in with 'XXutc is good' doesnt do that. Even public voting wouldnt work, a time needs to be found which basically takes into account of the various nations, and it suits the largest number of people while not harming a considerable number of people too. Basically, a time thats in the best interest of the competition.
Its going to be impossible to please everyone, it simply cant be done, its the biggest issue in trying to organise an event where people are spread evenly around the world, and the event actively seeks that as its aim.
I've tried keeping it short, but to keep an already long post from being an extremely long post, i failed
The above is the scenario, and im not convinced continued discussion will really create a miricle solution, there surely cant be one for a 'world' series. Hopefully that outlines the problems with the timezones, if people can see a solution then we're all happy to listern, but i think a tough decision needs to be made.
Tweakypie:
6hrs? Its ~2hrs all in all. 20min qual, 50 lap race.
Dukey:
I *think* with the current dates summer time wont come into effect on the earlier rounds, meaning it'd take place between 4-6am in Aus, or 3:30am to get up & ready to go etc. Not exactly sociable hours for them im sure you'll agree. Also, not sure anyone has suggested '11PM UTC' just 11utc, that being am as its a 24hr clock used for UTC, but i dont think many in Europe would find 23UTC suitable thats for sure, certainly not the +3hr Eastern European lot.
Chano:
Groups would work, up until they all met in a 'grand final' type event, and then the same issues come back around again.
3 issues:
Getting those seperated zones back together for a final at a suitable time (hardly any different to the current situation)
Organising each zone, and having an official available to do multiple regions (pretty much double or more of the number of races).
Nations making the final having drivers who were okay with 7pm races but dont want to drive at 3am when all teams race for in a final.
The problem is that its spread over an approx 20hr time difference, whether you deal with it from the offset or at a later stage, the problem is always there, it has to be dealt with somehow.
Last edited by PaulC2K, .
not sure what im doing, but im a boring f*cker this time of year so i'll probably be indoors being billy no-mates, so chances are i'll be around.
For GT2, seeing as we have no FZR, why cant we just insist on sticking the +30 on the XRR and +10 on the FXR, the cars havent changed otherwise, they just had their respective weights modified (in a bizarre way!).
GT1 i can understand, thanks to the changed gearboxes, but that doesnt screw the GT2 cars over.
Still, i dont think the series should be jumping to patches that change (rebalance) anything from how it was when everyone signed up for the season, but whatever, better its balanced to keep it fair than going with Y and ignoring how it f*cks things up. Its all a bit bizarre though isnt it, the GTR class gets rebalanced for Y, and yet for X it was considered fine, now they've 'improved' things and we have to start ignoring the global values and find something that works... kinda like it used to?
For GT2, seeing as we have no FZR, why cant we just insist on sticking the +30 on the XRR and +10 on the FXR, the cars havent changed otherwise, they just had their respective weights modified (in a bizarre way!).
GT1 i can understand, thanks to the changed gearboxes, but that doesnt screw the GT2 cars over.
Still, i dont think the series should be jumping to patches that change (rebalance) anything from how it was when everyone signed up for the season, but whatever, better its balanced to keep it fair than going with Y and ignoring how it f*cks things up. Its all a bit bizarre though isnt it, the GTR class gets rebalanced for Y, and yet for X it was considered fine, now they've 'improved' things and we have to start ignoring the global values and find something that works... kinda like it used to?
I think for EU it might work, its not a great time but i dont there are any decent times for it.
1pm (12pm a few races in thanks to summertime ) on a Sat wont go down well with the drivers missus, not sure how people would feel about that, but might go down better than 10pm-midnight to a few. If push comes to shove though, i'll be at the match, dunno bout everyone else.
United > Everything else
1pm (12pm a few races in thanks to summertime ) on a Sat wont go down well with the drivers missus, not sure how people would feel about that, but might go down better than 10pm-midnight to a few. If push comes to shove though, i'll be at the match, dunno bout everyone else.
United > Everything else
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG