F1 Japanese GP of 1994?

Quote from Dragonmen :

Did I say something different to this? I just added that the results should be aggregate, both parts added together with gaps of the first part.

I know my english is not excellent but I do not think it is that bad to understand me...

I remember seeing this in openwheel c'ships which I like the most of the all racing series... I believe I saw it in F1 in some very old races, also in some lower openwheel series... very clearly I remember seeing it in motoGP and bike races...

If my memory serves, F1 no longer does this aggregation.

Imagine how confusing it would be for everyone, especially me in the booth having to say something like, "And here we see F1RST racing in the lead on-track by 9 seconds over spdoRacing, but spdoRacing is in front by 21 seconds." That would get a lot of o_O reactions.

Erasing gaps is easiest for admins, easiest for spectators, and easiest for competitors, on my view. You simply have to worry about finishing ahead. Laps are the only gaps that easily can be saved. Doing gaps of partial laps can lead to epic confusion.

Admins did a great job yesterday. Also great compliments to the drivers for their patience (I didn't see any impatience) and compliance in the issue.

Great racing all other times.

d

Quote from dekojester :

If my memory serves, F1 no longer does this aggregation.

Yeah F1 seems to have removed the two part race from their regs, so like the 07 Nurburgring red flag, where a complete restart isn't available (after 2 laps) cars stop at the s/f line and the SC then restarts the race.

In case of series where you have SC like in IGTC we can say that a red flag situation came up after SC period and that way the gaps are erased, that's fine... and because this is IGTC part of forum I will not mention MoE although they share some admin personnel.

I did not say it is practical, I just think and I will always think of that as only fair... nothing can be totally fair in this situations.
Yes, it can make confusion, but it is better to have something that will determine the result during the race than nothing which we had in some races (well it seems I have to mention MoE over here :shrug...

Any way, what ever is decision on the ruling on this, I just hope it is well written in rule book... and then it is fair enough for everybody...


@huntty> yeah, that was the last one I think in F1. Good memory!

Just put it in the rule book so teams don't find out with 30 minutes to go in the race that the gaps will be erased.

Quote from PMD9409 :

Just put it in the rule book so teams don't find out with 30 minutes to go in the race that the gaps will be erased.

Teams should never have assumed something that wasn't in the rulebook, anyway.

The rules of section N, Force Majeure, state:

Quote :

2) In cases of force majeure, the race will move to the designated backup server and be restarted.

2.1) An interrupted race will be restarted with the time remaining rounded to the nearest hour. If 15 minutes of a race are completed before the server crash, the race will be restarted with 4 hours remaining. If 30 minutes or more of a given race hour are completed, that hour will be counted as completed--i.e., a race in which the server crashes at 1:30 or 1:31 will be restarted with 2 hours to go, whereas 1:29 would mean 3 hours to go.

2.2) The grid for a restarted race will be set using tracker data. Furthermore, all IGTC admins and marshals will have auto-save enabled as a backup.

2.3) Restarts following a server crash will be handled in the same manner as a normal race start. See rules G1 to G4.

Nowhere in this section does it indicate that gaps would be preserved.

Nevertheless, we'll be glad to put it in the rules if the teams feel it is necessary.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Teams should never have assumed something that wasn't in the rulebook, anyway.

The rules of section N, Force Majeure, state:



Nowhere in this section does it indicate that gaps would be preserved.

Nevertheless, we'll be glad to put it in the rules if the teams feel it is necessary.

Read rule 2.3, it states it would resume as a "normal race start". This should mean that lappers will not be mixed in with lead lap cars (as on a normal race start there is no such thing as a lapped car). We started 2nd (on tracker), but 8th on track. After seeing this not go as stated in the rules I thought I could assume anything else had the possibility of changing, guess not.

Also, I'm guessing since we didn't do the full 4 hours that the 80% rule doesn't apply?

Quote from PMD9409 :

Read rule 2.3, it states it would resume as a "normal race start". This should mean that lappers will not be mixed in with lead lap cars (as on a normal race start there is no such thing as a lapped car). We started 2nd (on tracker), but 8th on track. After seeing this not go as stated in the rules I thought I could assume anything else had the possibility of changing, guess not.

As already explained above, the lappers were mixed in with the lead-lap cars because I (incorrectly) believed that the tracker needed them to be that way for continuity reasons. In the future the grid for a restart will be sorted according to the tracker rundown, not the on-track rundown.

Quote :

Also, I'm guessing since we didn't do the full 4 hours that the 80% rule doesn't apply?

In this case, it doesn't matter, since no one went over 80% (Jonathan Hopwood had 79.9%). If they had it would have been something for the admins to consider--and yes, this is probably something we should decide anyway and put in the rules.

I think this should be taken like normal SC situation and then restart should be in position taken from tracker rather then on-track so this was only one mistake from admins I think.I hope there will be no next time.After red flag we were last on track (on tracker we were on lead lap)so we had to overtake all slower cars (no blue flag) some of them were blocking our drivers massively for 1-2 laps so it was even harder race

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

As already explained above, the lappers were mixed in with the lead-lap cars because I (incorrectly) believed that the tracker needed them to be that way for continuity reasons. In the future the grid for a restart will be sorted according to the tracker rundown, not the on-track rundown.

Salt in wound.
No problem, just lost us a lot of track position, and made things a little annoying as Myros stated.

Quote :

In this case, it doesn't matter, since no one went over 80% (Jonathan Hopwood had 79.9%). If they had it would have been something for the admins to consider--and yes, this is probably something we should decide anyway and put in the rules.

I knew no one went over, I was just wondering if something about it could be put in the rules.

Quote from Myros :

I think this should be taken like normal SC situation and then restart should be in position taken from tracker rather then on-track so this was only one mistake from admins I think.I hope there will be no next time.After red flag we were last on track (on tracker we were on lead lap)so we had to overtake all slower cars (no blue flag) some of them were blocking our drivers massively for 1-2 laps so it was even harder race

Yeah, I'm sorry about this. It was my mistake (playing it conservative, not sure what the tracker was capable of) and it hurt some teams and really helped some others. I'm sorry it affected the race like that.

Anyway, congrats on a great finish (I think your best in IGTC?).