IGTC rule:
http://www.lfsigtc.net/rules/rules.html#k

1.1) The SC will remain on track for a minimum of 2 laps.

The SC drove 1 lap only during the first SC period leaving our #4 car 1 minute behind the rest of the field.

Don't forget how long Aston Hist. is compared to other tracks like FE Gold, 2 laps behind the safety car there may create havoc with people trying to keep their tyres warm and also after the restart on very cold tyres, it was in everyones best intrests IMO to only have 1 lap behind the SC if there is no longer danger to the drivers, pointless driving another lap.

Quote from pearcy_2k7 :

Don't forget how long Aston Hist. is compared to other tracks like FE Gold, 2 laps behind the safety car there may create havoc with people trying to keep their tyres warm and also after the restart on very cold tyres, it was in everyones best intrests IMO to only have 1 lap behind the SC if there is no longer danger to the drivers, pointless driving another lap.

Can´t catch the sarcasm or irony in your statement.

Quote from R.Kolz :

Can´t catch the sarcasm or irony in your statement.

Ditto. A rule is a rule is a rule. If any are to be enforced, then all need to be enforced. Mistakes happen, but picking and choosing (without prior advances) is not really the way to do things.

Quote from srdsprinter :

Ditto. A rule is a rule is a rule. If any are to be enforced, then all need to be enforced. Mistakes happen, but picking and choosing (without prior advances) is not really the way to do things.

Yes, i understand, has nothing to do with me, just voicing my opinion, that maybe this rule should be looked at more closely in future rounds.

Pearcy's reasoning is why we chose to do what we did there. We were sort of caught between a rock and a hard place with that one--the entire field was caught up with 1 sector to go with the exception of one car. Our choices were to let everyone's already cold tires cool for another entire lap of Historic and cause further problems on the restart, or let them go. I was uncomfortable with altering the rule on the fly (as I always am) but the situation seemed pressing.

Lucky for TDRT that the second SC period came out, I guess.

The rule alteration will be made explicit in advance of the next round.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Pearcy's reasoning is why we chose to do what we did there. We were sort of caught between a rock and a hard place with that one--the entire field was caught up with 1 sector to go with the exception of one car. Our choices were to let everyone's already cold tires cool for another entire lap of Historic and cause further problems on the restart, or let them go. I was uncomfortable with altering the rule on the fly (as I always am) but the situation seemed pressing.

Lucky for TDRT that the second SC period came out, I guess.

The rule alteration will be made explicit in advance of the next round.

So you´re saying that in your oppinion the field wasn´t able to do another SC lap? Why not just say that you made a mistake.

I agree that this should have been mentioned at some point during the race for the teams to tell the drivers, the admins made the best decision at that time i think, at FE Gold i only did about 4laps behind the safety car and my tyres were stone cold, caused my problems for 2 laps, by the time i got them heated up again they had worn considerably.

Quote from R.Kolz :

So you´re saying that in your oppinion the field wasn´t able to do another SC lap? Why not just say that you made a mistake.

I'm saying that in my opinion, the benefits of going another lap under SC conditions (i.e., letting one car catch the field) were outweighed by the risks (i.e., sending 27 cars into T1 on ice cubes). I don't feel it was a mistake, though it was technically in breach of the rules. It was a decision we made for the safety of the teams involved.

edit: which, by the way, is the only reason I'd consciously consider going against the written rules.

DWB, you understand the problem with not calling it a mistake?

TDRT Likely chose their strategy based of the 2-lap minimum rule, and possibly would have approached it differently had they known otherwise. How was TDRT to know you would circumvent the rules to benefit the rest of the field at the detriment of their own?

You didn't abide by one of your own rules. In this instance, it undoubtedly hurt one team, while benefiting the team of your own affiliation in two instances. 1) It's tires were less cold, and 2) one opponent was left far far behind.

So it would be benificial to call it a simple mistake (of the rules more than anything), and make the neccesary changes to the rules.

EDIT -> IMO, the 2-lap rule is a good one to abide by for strategy and general spacing. IF you feel the need to make a short SC period, a general alert should be made as soon as possible.

But it was not a mistake. It was a conscious decision made by the group of admins for the benefit of the majority of drivers/teams.

The rules allow for the admins to make judgment calls in such situations, and that's what we did.

End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned.

I understand that, but can you see the trouble with this?

TDRT was unaware, and got screwed by it. While you have a provision for such events, you (as a group) broke a pretty clear rule, that people make important strategy decisions off of.

Lastly, because it was a "judgement call" and not a mistake, we all now have to wonder if you would have done the same exact thing if it was a CoRe car that was going to be screwed and not TDRT.

I personally believe you would, but can you see how this kind of behavior raises eyebrows of impartiality?

Quote from srdsprinter :

Lastly, because it was a "judgement call" and not a mistake, we all now have to wonder if you would have done the same exact thing if it was a CoRe car that was going to be screwed and not TDRT.

I personally believe you would, but can you see how this kind of behavior raises eyebrows of impartiality?

Well, it's certainly not surprising that you'd bring it up since you do so at every opportunity.

The only way for me to entirely erase the possibility for partiality is to resign from the IGTC or to leave CoRe. Aside from those two options I've done (and I hope my record here will back me up) everything possible to strengthen the image of my impartiality (its actuality has always been strong).

Our decision benefited 25 teams and disadvantaged 1. Furthermore, you probably won't believe me when I say so, but I for one was unaware as to who the straggler was when we reached the decision to go green after one SC lap.

If you want to drag up the specter of impartiality again, there's nothing I can do to stop you. But to me, I don't think it enters into the equation in the slightest.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Well, it's certainly not surprising that you'd bring it up since you do so at every opportunity.

The only way for me to entirely erase the possibility for partiality is to resign from the IGTC or to leave CoRe. Aside from those two options I've done (and I hope my record here will back me up) everything possible to strengthen the image of my impartiality (its actuality has always been strong).

I don't see it this way. By following rules as they are written, there's very little room to assume anything. In this instance, had we done the second lap of SC there might have been increased risk of colder tires, but there would be No question of second interests there or not. TDRT would have had an advantage, caught up to the field with properly warmed tires, but hell, the rules are written so a strategy like that can work.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Our decision benefited 25 teams and disadvantaged 1. Furthermore, you probably won't believe me when I say so, but I for one was unaware as to who the straggler was when we reached the decision to go green after one SC lap.

I do believe you. I believe you to be an honest And impartial person. That said, actions speak louder than words, and I'm of the belief that it behooves the IGTC staff to try and remove themselves from judgement calls whenever possible.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

The rule alteration will be made explicit in advance of the next round.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

..though it was technically in breach of the rules...

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

The rules allow for the admins to make judgment calls in such situations, and that's what we did.

For me you´re not very clear here. Good if you would mind to explain it a bit better to us.

And allow me to give you a picture of the TDRT camps atmosphere:

Very frustated.

Here:

http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?t=42456

you gave both TDRT cars a very hard -10 points penalty but explained yourself in red letters.
Your admin stuff didn´t feel the urge to change the rules at this time.

This round you just change an existing rule during the race once more punishing team TDRT.

I hope you understand our (TDRT) personal feelings about it a bit better now.

Quote from srdsprinter :

I do believe you. I believe you to be an honest And impartial person. That said, actions speak louder than words, and I'm of the belief that it behooves the IGTC staff to try and remove themselves from judgement calls whenever possible.

+1

But what good do you want to come of this? Do you want the 1 minute back? When the disadvanatge you got equalled itself in the second SC period, if it didn't it might be a different story.

The admin team DID make a mistake on the rules and DIDN'T obide by them, this hopfully will make them scan through the rules again and check for any mistakes like this, so in future they won't have to make any judgement calls and therefore not up to any speculation of foul play. But if they do this, i don't suppose anyone won't start moaning when they didn't make an obvious judgement call.

Quote from pearcy_2k7 :

But what good do you want to come of this? Do you want the 1 minute back? When the disadvanatge you got equalled itself in the second SC period, if it didn't it might be a different story.

No. It´s not about a minute or something.Read my posts once more.
And a received disadvantage of a first SC period can´t never equal itself by a second SC period. Think about it.

Quote from pearcy_2k7 :

The admin team DID make a mistake on the rules and DIDN'T obide by them, this hopfully will make them scan through the rules again and check for any mistakes like this, so in future they won't have to make any judgement calls and therefore not up to any speculation of foul play. But if they do this, i don't suppose anyone won't start moaning when they didn't make an obvious judgement call.

+1

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Well, it's certainly not surprising that you'd bring it up since you do so at every opportunity.

The only way for me to entirely erase the possibility for partiality is to resign from the IGTC or to leave CoRe. Aside from those two options I've done (and I hope my record here will back me up) everything possible to strengthen the image of my impartiality (its actuality has always been strong).

Our decision benefited 25 teams and disadvantaged 1. Furthermore, you probably won't believe me when I say so, but I for one was unaware as to who the straggler was when we reached the decision to go green after one SC lap.

If you want to drag up the specter of impartiality again, there's nothing I can do to stop you. But to me, I don't think it enters into the equation in the slightest.

OH HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!

It's been obvious either YOU or the ADMINS has shown consistent decision making that it's OK if it only screws one or two teams but never certain top running teams. Just the way the history of race decisions has shown to be.
Granted that early on it was a learning process and that may never stop as situations arise.

The problem NOW is admins had not made any "On the fly Change" to the rules till now and it hung a team out to dry. COLD tires are the same for EVERYBODY. I know the top teams and anyone with any sense will base pit stop on Safety Car periods and if that is changed on the fly it throws that out the window. The decision made, made it NOT the SAME for ALL. Either get that through your heads or get out.

If you want to have a real racing series where the mistake of others , as in one car crashing another car out of the race, cannot be corrected by ADMINISTRATORS then get the heck off your computers and go work for IMSA or Petite Le Mans or something! THIS IS SUPPOSE TO BE FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You can't go changing the rules on the fly just because you have no faith in the ability or patience of your drivers, especially if it hangs another team out to dry.

Quote from nmanley :

OH HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!

It's been obvious either YOU or the ADMINS has shown consistent decision making that it's OK if it only screws one or two teams but never certain top running teams.

Thats quite untrue. think about for example the CoRe incident at FE gold or the multiple penalties for 3id in this round. or even round 1 were 3id had to start at the back because of an LFS glitch ruining qually?

Quote :

Just the way the history of race decisions has shown to be.
Granted that early on it was a learning process and that may never stop as situations arise.

The problem NOW is admins had not made any "On the fly Change" to the rules till now and it hung a team out to dry. COLD tires are the same for EVERYBODY. I know the top teams and anyone with any sense will base pit stop on Safety Car periods and if that is changed on the fly it throws that out the window.

This safety car period was early in the race i understand, so the chances of anybody making a pit stop here are slim.

Quote :

The decision made, made it NOT the SAME for ALL. Either get that through your heads or get out.

Whilst i agree it was a bad call on the part of being an on the fly rule change it was for the benefit of the majority of the field and to prevent the possibility of a crash on the restart with cold tyres. For future adjustments the rate of cooling can be assessed by us and we can give a time limit rather than laps since the time is relative to track size.

Quote :

If you want to have a real racing series where the mistake of others , as in one car crashing another car out of the race, cannot be corrected by ADMINISTRATORS then get the heck off your computers and go work for IMSA or Petite Le Mans or something! THIS IS SUPPOSE TO BE FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Precisely. The fun is in the racing not the crashing nor the conspiracy accusations by yourself. "Participants in the series are expected to respect the marshals’ decisions and accept their rulings." i dont see it necessary for you to respond like you did so please assess your reply before posting it.

Quote from BenjiMC :

Whilst i agree it was a bad call on the part of being an on the fly rule change it was for the benefit of the majority of the field and to prevent the possibility of a crash on the restart with cold tyres. For future adjustments the rate of cooling can be assessed by us and we can give a time limit rather than laps since the time is relative to track size.

Thank you !

I can't see any meaning in changing the rules during a race, and defintly not when a team gets punished by it !

If you finally decide to break the rules, you could atleast let the SC drive a bit slower (There isn't a rule for how fast the SC drives, right ?) , so it would be possible, for us to get back to the field.

Quote :

"Participants in the series are expected to respect the marshals' decisions and accept their rulings."

Yes, but try see it from our side! It's pretty difficult to accept that because of the marshalls, for some reason, decide too change the rules in the middle of a race, we get punished!

Quote :

or the multiple penalties for 3id in this round

Another little thing I have been woundering about. When My3id gets a SG penalti in the middle of lap 88, they have 3½ (?) laps to serve it! That means lap 89, 90 and 91. But at lap 91 K.Burns write to D.Lind: "You now have 2 laps left to serve you penalty". In my eyes did he only have 1 chance to serve, at that moment ? Am I wrong ? At lap 92 he serves it.
I'm just wondering, if there is an explanation for that ?

Quote :

Another little thing I have been woundering about. When My3id gets a SG penalti in the middle of lap 88, they have 3½ (?) laps to serve it! That means lap 89, 90 and 91. But at lap 91 K.Burns write to D.Lind: "You now have 2 laps left to serve you penalty". In my eyes did he only have 1 chance to serve, at that moment ? Am I wrong ? At lap 92 he serves it.
I'm just wondering, if there is an explanation for that ?

There was some confusion amongst the admins at the time (resulting in Burnsy writing that message). Since it was our mistake, we didn't penalize him further (though theoretically his team should have been keeping track for him).

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

There was some confusion amongst the admins at the time (resulting in Burnsy writing that message). Since it was our mistake, we didn't penalize him further (though theoretically his team should have been keeping track for him).

I actually thought it was something like that, which was the problem .

Lol. While Nolan (and I, and a few others can get excited), I am truely appreciative to see that both you and others can understand how this is a cause for concern. I believe good is coming from this discussion, I really do.

No-one deserves to be caught out by administrative decisions.

Having strong admins and well-writen rules are part of what makes this series Great.

I certainly am NOT accusing you (admins plural) of favoring your respective teams, but merely pointing out how you need to be very careful to Not take actions that can question your impartiality.

It is plainly obvious when it comes to black-and-white rules, you hold your teams to the strictest standards. The "grey areas" are what can lead to trouble.

When your team looses a connection or sets fastest lap, a or from the admins does not show true impartiality. It's nothing more than a simple finger slip, but Please try and see how it looks through the eyes of the other competitors. When you add things like that to judgement calls that really screw up a certain team, it can be hugely disheartening.

My final thoughts are that you all have a tough job. You obviously want your teams to have sucess, who doesn't? The admins of this series are top notch, and work their asses off for this series. My only hope is to be a little more aware of all teams, and how their (admins) actions can be perceived.

Thanks,
|||Stu
S3Racing

Quote from srdsprinter :

When your team looses a connection or sets fastest lap, a or from the admins does not show true impartiality. It's nothing more than a simple finger slip, but Please try and see how it looks through the eyes of the other competitors.

When did that ever happen?