◆ SNAIL [Spec] Racing - Currently Recruiting for GT7 - JOIN TODAY!!Open
- Thread starter zer05ive
- 150,109 comments
- 8,708,175 views
- 549
- louisiana
- the2armedmen
Yes, just yes
- 2,012
- Cranbrook, BC
- tezgm99
You could have pulled a Wolf and spun in a couple of them to make it more interesting for yourself
Oshawa-Joe
Premium
- 5,079
- Hillsdale
- Oshawa-Joe
Apmaddock
Easy. We start with a 10 minute Qualifying race and everything else is reverse grid.
- 1,573
- Rural Nebraska
- Apmaddock
I was just joking, as you had said "all six should be reverse…" which would, of course, have everyone vying for the slowest qualifying time.
- 760
- DrKronin
Or, better yet: Everyone races backwards as fast as possible during the entire qualifying period, trying to be last.
Last edited:
Oshawa-Joe
Premium
- 5,079
- Hillsdale
- Oshawa-Joe
Apmaddock
As was I. The reverse grid does add some much needed excitement. However, we need a way to curb some of the excessively aggressive / marginal racecraft.
I feel compelled to say that hillracing usually passes me after the apex not at it. You are a very good driver dude.
- 5,912
- Texas
- zer05ive
Thanks to everyone for giving the proposed format a shot. I was initially against the idea as well, but it grew on me enough to think that we should at least test it out. Now that we've done that, it's pretty clear that it was a flop. 👎
That being said, I still think we need to find a way to tame the overly-aggressive driving that some drivers are able to get away with simply because others don't take the time to file complaints. With that in mind, I'd like to revisit Skills' idea last month of a rating system based on racecraft.
Here's what I propose.. At the end of each month, every driver in the league would be asked to fill out a quick survey in which they rate every other driver in their division. It was would be a 5-star ranking system in which 5 stars is the best and 1 star is the worst. Of course, if a driver hasn't raced with someone enough to form an opinion, then they would simply not rate that driver.
We would then take an average of how each driver was rated and that would be their "Racecraft Rating" for the month. We could even do something (very loosely based on what they do in the Olympics) by canceling out the ratings given by person in each division who handed out the highest scores and also cancel out the ratings given by the person in each division who dished out the most critical scores (basically like throwing out the Russian judge's score).
Once the final calculations are made, we'd make a post in which everyone in the league is stack-ranked based on their "Racecraft Rating". We could either post all the names, or perhaps just post the names with a rating of 3.0 or higher (in case posting the names with low scores would cause too much drama on the thread). Or we could just put their Racecraft Rating next to their name in the final season standings.
However we decide to do it, it would at the very least acknowledge those with the best ratings in the league. More importantly, it would put something in the back of the mind of anyone thinking about attempting a divebomb or perhaps someone who caused contact with another driver, but is thinking about not lifting off the throttle and trying to complete the pass anyways.. The hope is that this list (and the desire to protect their reputation) would give them pause and help them make the right choice. Thoughts?
That being said, I still think we need to find a way to tame the overly-aggressive driving that some drivers are able to get away with simply because others don't take the time to file complaints. With that in mind, I'd like to revisit Skills' idea last month of a rating system based on racecraft.
Here's what I propose.. At the end of each month, every driver in the league would be asked to fill out a quick survey in which they rate every other driver in their division. It was would be a 5-star ranking system in which 5 stars is the best and 1 star is the worst. Of course, if a driver hasn't raced with someone enough to form an opinion, then they would simply not rate that driver.
We would then take an average of how each driver was rated and that would be their "Racecraft Rating" for the month. We could even do something (very loosely based on what they do in the Olympics) by canceling out the ratings given by person in each division who handed out the highest scores and also cancel out the ratings given by the person in each division who dished out the most critical scores (basically like throwing out the Russian judge's score
).Once the final calculations are made, we'd make a post in which everyone in the league is stack-ranked based on their "Racecraft Rating". We could either post all the names, or perhaps just post the names with a rating of 3.0 or higher (in case posting the names with low scores would cause too much drama on the thread). Or we could just put their Racecraft Rating next to their name in the final season standings.
However we decide to do it, it would at the very least acknowledge those with the best ratings in the league. More importantly, it would put something in the back of the mind of anyone thinking about attempting a divebomb or perhaps someone who caused contact with another driver, but is thinking about not lifting off the throttle and trying to complete the pass anyways.. The hope is that this list (and the desire to protect their reputation) would give them pause and help them make the right choice. Thoughts?
Last edited:
Oshawa-Joe
Premium
- 5,079
- Hillsdale
- Oshawa-Joe
I like it. I would like to know how I stack up and if / where I need to improve. I would value my reputation and ranking and do my best to maintain a high average.
- 760
- DrKronin
I agree. I almost like the idea of seeing how others rate me as much as its value as a deterrent. Or maybe that's the same thing.
It would be anonymous, right? I hope so.
- 5,912
- Texas
- zer05ive
Exactly. I made some edits to my post and the changes I made almost make it look like I plagiarized you.
Yes, it would have to be anonymous to encourage the most honest responses (and also to avoid "revenge ratings" of rating simply made out of spite). The only two people to see the individual submissions would likely only be me and kcheeb (since we'd be developing the google doc surveys). Even the stewards would not have access.
You mean you don't want anyone to see if "DrKronin votes 1 for zer05ive"?
As my name implies, give me a zer0 or give me a 5ive!!
- 814
- California
- hillracing
Thanks for the compliment. I always enjoy racing you. You're a very clean driver.
- 1,106
- Georgia
- Kendawg198
This coming from a past champion in Superbike, Supersport racing in motorcycles. When I raced in sprint races (6 to 8 laps per race) it was all or nothing. Bumping, banging and fighting for every position that you can get because there aren't many laps.
Then I did my first endurance and was amazed at the give and take. No beating and banging for the whole race because the race was 2 to 4 hrs long.
This brings me to your point Zero. If you want cleaner racing then there has to be more laps. If there is only a hand full of laps then everyone will fight for every position. There is no time for give a take. This is why I enjoy the Saturday night racing. Bringing pit stratagy into a race that is 1 to 2 hrs long promotes the give and take.
Shorter races = more complants
Longer races = less complants
So, either have 3 longer races (30 minute races) or
6 10 minute races, balls to the wall.
I know we run with tire wear on but this has nothing to do with the races. If the races were longer then you would think different about running hard every lap. If you ran hard every lap you may have to pit.
Just my experence and thoughts. I am happy with what ever Snail deciedes.
Then I did my first endurance and was amazed at the give and take. No beating and banging for the whole race because the race was 2 to 4 hrs long.
This brings me to your point Zero. If you want cleaner racing then there has to be more laps. If there is only a hand full of laps then everyone will fight for every position. There is no time for give a take. This is why I enjoy the Saturday night racing. Bringing pit stratagy into a race that is 1 to 2 hrs long promotes the give and take.
Shorter races = more complants
Longer races = less complants
So, either have 3 longer races (30 minute races) or
6 10 minute races, balls to the wall.
I know we run with tire wear on but this has nothing to do with the races. If the races were longer then you would think different about running hard every lap. If you ran hard every lap you may have to pit.
Just my experence and thoughts. I am happy with what ever Snail deciedes.
- 153
- SoCalRacer310
just a suggestion...
5 min qualifying
race1 fastest time on pole
race2 invert race 1 results
race3 "main" aggregate of race 1 and 2 results
obviously race laps would need to be adjusted but 5,5 and 10 might work. to me this promotes speed, racecraft and consistency
5 min qualifying
race1 fastest time on pole
race2 invert race 1 results
race3 "main" aggregate of race 1 and 2 results
obviously race laps would need to be adjusted but 5,5 and 10 might work. to me this promotes speed, racecraft and consistency
- 56
- HB CA
- GranStand_Bill
Hey guys, I think I might actually be able to race this Sunday but I missed the boat for getting the caterham. Could someone please send it to me? Many Thanks.
- 7,689
- Michigan
- Rallywgn81
The issue with longer races is that if you fall out of the pack and are way back, you are going to have to shut back there bored and lonely for however much longer then the current setup. I think we have the right amount of laps. Thus isn't an endurance league. And i think many racers would stop racing if we did that.
Personally, i think we are over complicating the whole complaint system. If we have at least one steward I'm every room, they can be the eyes and ears. Lots of people get vocal when something happens. The steward can keep tabs on that, then make a stewards report at the end of the night, our early the next morning, and complaints can be filed from there. The issue now is that no one wants to be a tattle tale. So not many people will file a complaint. So take out the middle man.
Personally, i think we are over complicating the whole complaint system. If we have at least one steward I'm every room, they can be the eyes and ears. Lots of people get vocal when something happens. The steward can keep tabs on that, then make a stewards report at the end of the night, our early the next morning, and complaints can be filed from there. The issue now is that no one wants to be a tattle tale. So not many people will file a complaint. So take out the middle man.
Handlebar
Premium
- 3,969
- Herndon, VA
- HandlebarMustash
I like this idea conceptually, but only if we were running the same car on three different tracks.
Even then, I could only just work with it, as it would save 20+ minutes on the other two combos, no qualifying needed. I guess you could throw another track in then...
But normally, there are combos that favor some drivers over others, and the requalifying allows for those strengths to be played out for points in the 'perfect 100' system.
- 4,499
- Tampa, Fl
- Ice_Warden
When I was trying to come up with a series idea for Monday (before realizing there would actually be work involved), I thought of a decent way to get away from the "do or die" sprint races.
Every Sunday we allot 2hrs for the evening.
Currently we qualify for a total of 30mins and race for 60-70min (races are designed to be at least 10mins in length).
I was thinking we only have two combos (instead of the current three). Still qualify for the first race in a combo and reverse grid the second.
Under this proposal the total qualifying time for the evening would be 20mins. We could then make minimum race lengths approach 20mins and still finish on time. This basically doubles the lengths of the races, eliminates the "do or die" feel and actually gives us more time racing on the track. You still have two different combos and all is right in the universe.
Every Sunday we allot 2hrs for the evening.
Currently we qualify for a total of 30mins and race for 60-70min (races are designed to be at least 10mins in length).
I was thinking we only have two combos (instead of the current three). Still qualify for the first race in a combo and reverse grid the second.
Under this proposal the total qualifying time for the evening would be 20mins. We could then make minimum race lengths approach 20mins and still finish on time. This basically doubles the lengths of the races, eliminates the "do or die" feel and actually gives us more time racing on the track. You still have two different combos and all is right in the universe.
- 4,157
- Virginia
- Wolfsatz
From my own 2c opinion, the concept of the 2nd race Reverse Grid set up is what has kept many of the weekends close and interesting.
If we go with this proposed change, the not so fast Snails on whatever division will never get a chance to get on top of their division. In other words, the reverse grid set up is the 'equalizer' :tup:and also gives the faster racers a extra challenge to pass through the slower field.
Why brake what it is not broken?
So, my synopsis form last night races. I still do not like the idea. Quoting Handlebar on race 1 & 2, both races were almost identical; top 3 finished within seconds and 3rd to 4th was over a 10 second spread.
Second round could of been almost identical, but I did the 'Wolf' on the second race and basically 'reserve grid' my self due to butter cold tires on 1st corner; NOTE the 2nd race at Monza was a lot more FUN because I actually get to chase and pass others around. Made it from last to 4th and it was actually more rewarding even though I did not win.
So, in a nutshell, if all I was racing for was for points, then yes I would like this test, but I race for the fun factor and racing in close quarters; that is unique to SNAIL and it would take very much from the experience.
I know that some get very aggressive, but I also know from previous practice sessions with the D2 and D3 guys, you can run side by side and still be incident free; Kudos to Kcheeb, Luv2Coach, Dabney, Racefan, Oshawa-Joe, Goat and many others that always respect the other racers position! 👍
You could have pulled a Wolf and spun in a couple of them to make it more interesting for yourself
Should I trademark this move?
- 1,573
- Rural Nebraska
- Apmaddock
Ideas for changes in the format much like those mentioned have come up before and died quickly. I don't think there is anything wrong with the format, per se. People just need a little more patience when encountering another car. It takes a long time to learn that (I don't think I became even a decent passer until very recently…and I've still got a long way to go).
I agree that the quick races cause more aggressive driving. Of all of the ideas I think that Skills' suggestion of an extra lap (or two) on the reverse grid races would help the most and be the least invasive. Overall, though, I probably wouldn't change anything.
I agree that the quick races cause more aggressive driving. Of all of the ideas I think that Skills' suggestion of an extra lap (or two) on the reverse grid races would help the most and be the least invasive. Overall, though, I probably wouldn't change anything.
- 3,073
- Charlottesville
- dabneyd
- deadguy79
I know that we should all be using best racecraft at all times, but Wednesdays are often a little messier that Sundays. Whether that's because there are drivers from multiple divisions in one room or other factors, we should take any bad behavior with a grain of salt. It's just practice. That being said, you should know when you're being a danger and remove yourself from the room. I had to do that before the last two races. I went from slightly buzzed to completely unable to focus during qualifying.
